tskillz187, on Monday, November 30th, 2009, 1:42 PM, said:
On the Royal not thinking the hands are similar point, I didn't feel like arguing because the thread had run it's course and I felt like he was just arguing to nitpick. Even if I pointed that out RT was not likely to change his point of view and I had written a bunch of stuff, but then deleted it just to say "K" because his counter arguments were not disproven and it would just go back to him pointing out those arguments and neither of us changing our stance. The hands are clearly similar and if you can't tell why they are similar you are missing a concept somewhere in there.
I always mention when I think your advice is Top Notch, and I usually do this because my advice would be similar, sometimes not nearly as good as what you've already stated.For me to mention the two hands, and comment on your idea of them being similar was not to nitpick, but was because I see more discrepancies than i do similarities.Infact, I'll agree to the similarities you stated. But the dynamics of each hand as a whole in comparison to each other are very skewed.I see your hand and line as exactly how i'd play it. I even commented on it. saying. "This is how this hand plays." after debating how they arent similar.You mention "if you cant see the similarities you are missing a concept" But common, If you cant see how they differ more so, you're missing fundamentals. I'm not going to go over my points again, but its clear as day how these two hands are fundamentally different.P.S. Its strategy, nothing is personal, I dont know why everyone here seems to make it personal. Telling people they need to shut up and listen, without knowing why they are saying this.
JaoTi, on Monday, November 30th, 2009, 9:04 PM, said:
I think your hand is better in a vacuum Tim as an example. But the fact is that people are going to reply saying "LOL YOU HAS AN OVERPAIR STACKOFFFFFF" without considering that as far as one-pair hands go, this is a bluffcatcher. So I think it runs the risk of reinforcing incorrect ideas (which I think it did as shown by RT's reply). Mine, while containing marginal/wtf decisions I think still displays more of a necessity for a range analysis. Though I could be wrong and it'll reinforce "LOL TOPPEST PAIR STACKOFFF" thoughts.You have a remarkable ability to impart a lot of information in parenthesis Tim
lol, getting tired of this thread, but one last time to wrap it up.The hand Tskillz' posted plays out that way IMO. I wrote that at the bottom of my reply on his hand. If you read it properly, you would see. Reinforcing the idea that I understand a lot more than you. So no idea who the "LOL YOU HAS AN OVERPAIR STACKOFFFFF" comment was for.Your hand however was played poorly. simple.