frazwood

I would play this totally differently. I would raise pre-flop. You have a potential two-way hand plus you have 3 low cards -- a strong hand.On the flop and turn, I am raising, re-raising, and getting chips in the middle any way possible. The river, as played, is a call.My rationale for post-flop aggressive play on the flop and turn: You have the nut low and likely own half the pot already (I think someone would have raised with the nut low). You need to protect your low hand (i.e., avoid getting counterfeited) and you might possibly convince someone with a weak high high (that beats you) t

Comments:1. I didn't say that no one had commented on the post-flop play -- I said most were commenting on pre-flop (I prefer the limp myself) rather than post-flop (you were an exception to my generalization).2. There is usually more than one correct way to play a hand. There is nothing "wrong" with check-raising the flop.3. By check-raising the flop, you are likely to collect more small bets, which are half-as-valuable as big bets. Also, this essentially announces that you have at least trips. By betting into the raiser, you likely get the same number of bets placed in the middle while di

It seems that most people are commenting on your pre-flop play and few people are commenting on your post-flop play, which is your actual question. The idea here is to get as many bets in as possible, especially on the turn and river (where the bets double). I recommend betting into the pre-flop raiser, hoping that he will likely raise. I would then call his raise (don't put in a third bet). If you bet, the villain raises, and then someone re-raises... you are possibly in trouble. Assuming that the turn is something other than a nine or ten, I would then check-raise the turn... and lead ou

Fellatio and the Food Network should never be combined.

I'll add my two cents here. It's quite simple: the adjectives "intelligent" and "educated" are not the same, although they not mutually exclusive either.From what I've seen on television, DN is clearly VERY intelligent. From what I've read on this forum and in his blogs, DN is also rather well-educated, although not all of it is in a formal manner. He definitely reads more books and watches more educational television programming than the average bear.FWIW#1: The Canadian high school system is different than what we have here in the USA. DN was 6 credits short of graduating? Remember that

I personally watched Dags deny accusing TLK of cheating last night. Besides, how could TLK cheat on Dags' site?

Your a genius!sw

I read an interview with Raymer regarding the fact that he quit his job as a lawyer after he won WSOP.He said that he did not quit his job because he won the WSOP and could afford to do so. He quit is job because Poker Stars paid him more than his previous salary to endorse and represent Poker Stars.

Hellmuth is actually quite diplomatic in describing poker hands that he is not involved in.

I find this to be an incredibly ridiculous comment. Do you understand the way research works?Embryonic stem cell research is currently underfunded but has substantial potential for fantastic results. Your argument is that no results have yet to be produced so we should not fund it. We'd never accomplish anything with that attitude. You have to try thousands of different permutations before you invent the light bulb, the telephone, or a Dyson vaccuum for that matter.I will accept that you are morally or philosophically opposed to embryonic stem cell research. I truly respect that, but pleas

I seriously doubt Daniel regrets dressing like Scotty. More likely, Daniel wishes that he could have also been at the final table so that he could show off his spot-on impression of Scotty.

I am not a 1000+ poster, but I probably have some interesting insight nonetheless.I opened a Pokerroom account last week. I absolutely hated the site at first. I couldn't figure out all sorts of things, but once I figured out how to do everything, I like the site quite a bit. It really just takes some time to figure things out. The other issue is the "high rake". It's a little weird. The low end of the rake is high; that is, the small pots have a good chunk taken out of them. The good news, however, is that the maximum rake per hand is relatively low. This is a better fit for tight-aggr

I am not a 1000+ poster, but I probably have some interesting insight nonetheless.I opened a Pokerroom account last week. I absolutely hated the site at first. I couldn't figure out all sorts of things, but once I figured out how to do everything, I like the site quite a bit. It really just takes some time to figure things out. The other issue is the "high rake". It's a little weird. The low end of the rake is high; that is, the small pots have a good chunk taken out of them. The good news, however, is that the maximum rake per hand is relatively low. This is a better fit for tight-aggr

My 2 cents on Phil:1. He and Matusow are about the most entertaining poker players to watch. That said, poker is pretty boring to watch.2. Phil is ridiculously talented.3. Phil did not scream at the guy who busted him with 77. He shook his hand and said "nice hand". His criticisms of the guy were said to his wife. This happens a lot to Phil. On the rare circumstances when he behaves... he still gets lambasted for misbehaving.4. Phil is a crybaby. He lost AKo vs KJs. It happens. He should learn to suck it up and deal with it, but he never will. People have complained about Phil's att

Ok, I just watched Rounders today for like the 50th time too. Anyway, here are the flaws that I was wondering about (in addition to those posted):In the heads up match with KGB vs. Mike:1. First hand. The blinds are initially 25 and 50. Who the hell raises to 1000 with KK?2. Last hand. Mike doubles the blind (which was doubled from before, so 50 and 100). Teddy calls. This means that there is 400 in the pot. Teddy makes a huge bet ($1000) which Mike supposedly calls on a draw. Who the hell would make such an awful call with such horrible pot odds?3. Last hand. Teddy thinks Mike is on