over-it

Well it certainly is a debatable topic, and I'm sure neither you or I are going to come to any groundbreaking revelation. As my username suggests, I'm over it.

Just want to clear up a few misunderstandings about what I said: I wasn't saying that if your mom is gay then you will be gay, but rather that you are born gay. Not at all. I am saying that it is impossible for any situation to not have a psychological impact. So to say that gay people can't be parents because of the psychological factor is a BS excuse. I capitalized 2 sentences, and they were in the first paragraph, but okay. I don't think most people do realize that it doesn't matter that someone is gay, as evidenced by this thread's existence. But I do agree with the last two things you

All right, you guys are at least trying to dissect this with an open mind, and I respect that. That said, you're all missing the point (which was stated in my previous post, which everyone seemed to ignore). First off, it is almost universally believed within the scientific community that homosexuality is genetic. Anyone who thinks otherwise is trusting the wrong sources. (I say 'almost universally' because anyone in the psychology field knows that nothing can be proven as absolute fact. That's one of the first things you are taught) Literally all evidence we have points to it being genetic, m

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF SOMEONE IS GAY OR NOT, regardless of context or situation. If you think that it does matter, you are prejudice. I'm not saying that prejudice makes you a bad person. We all have traits that are good and traits that are unhealthy. Please just be honest with yourself, about yourself, before waging into debates regarding morality. Never let your ego get in the way of looking at something from another perspective.

Uh, if you want to get technical, MAYBE you never raised. But anytime you add chips to a pot, even if you are leading out, you are raising the pot. Even if it's not technically called that. You lead out on every street, did you not?

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be offended by any reply. Most replies here are critical of peoples' play, and none of us really know much about each others' track record or past results. Different people play different styles because no strategy will guarantee victory every time. I'm pretty sure a lot of people would disagree with my post, but my point is that if you don't gain any info on your opponent with a raise, which this guy didn't since he is posting about it, then you really didn't accomplish anything with it.

If you don't know whether or not you are ahead here, then you need to make larger bets on the flop. 3/4 pot is an awkward bet to try and read someone with. Bet 1.5 times the pot. That way if they call you can safely assume that they probably have something. Your raise on the turn is also small-ball style. This is the preferred technique of a lot of the pros, but that is because they are really good at reading the situation. People like myself, and most of the people on here I would assume, are a little over our heads sometimes when trying to emulate the techniques of the pros. I honestly don't

Either call hoping that he has A3 hearts or fold because you just sat down and want to get a better feel for the table before entering such a large pot so early.

To each their own. 89suited may be a popular hand, but it's not a strong one. Anytime you hold that hand you're likely behind going into the flop since most people won't call the blinds with 7 high.Besides, I'm not suggesting what the best play for me or you is, my advice was for what the poster should do. If you're going to enter a pot with a hand like that, you've got to know how to play it. He admittedly didn't know how to play it, therefore folding preflop was probably the best move for him.

Probably not a good idea to raise 89suited preflop. Everyone folded to you. This is a good hand to see a cheap flop with. Should just call; folding is not out of the question either.as for the river, it looks like your opponent has a busted straight draw, holding something like KQ or KJ. Or maybe a 10, guess you'll never know.

There are only two hands that have you beat, full house and quads. Button didn't raise preflop with 68. Button could have raised preflop with 66 or 88, but seeing as how both a 6 and an 8 came on later streets, I would doubt that's what they're holding. There's no flush, you've got the nut straight. You've got your opponent covered. Kind of a no-brainer call to me. I kind of have him on an over pair to the board, but could likely have A8. I just don't think you want to let yourself get pushed around while you have a straight and the chip advantage.

pocket 3's. I'm only half kidding.Honestly though, Kx (not even necessarily suited) is the only thing I can see your opponent calling and not raising you with on the river. Very likely has KQ.

Daniel mentions in his latest blog, a poker trend that disturbs him (read it to find out. I'm not going to recap). Well there is one that disturbs me as well. There seems to be a growing number of broadcasts about poker players doing other things besides playing poker. It seems that networks, mostly web-based ones, but also television, seem to think that we will watch poker pros do just about anything so long as they are gambling. The one exception is Phil Laak and Antonio Esfandiari's show. That is a pretty good watch. But there are other copycat shows popping up, like prop bets, and I'm sure