Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

253 Excellent

About Softballguy

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/14/1978

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Fond du Lac, WI

Recent Profile Visitors

3,459 profile views
  1. Your logic isn't holding up imo... or maybe I'm just not understanding you. Any top two is susceptible to getting beat, and this example is nothing unique. It doesn't seem to be "dangerous" in any special way. What you're calling implied risk is just the determination of how you want to continue with the hand. Do you think you have a hand you can get three streets of value out of? Two streets? Should you pot control? Do you want a merged or polarized range? How deep is the effective stack and how does that affect how you want to play the hand? How many opponents are you facing? What is your range based on play during the previous streets? What about your opponent's? What cards do you block, what are the combos of potential holdings of villain? These are all things to consider. But saying "If I flop the nuts I'm gold, but if not I'm in a dangerous place" is really not the way you should be thinking about poker. You can't be afraid of monsters under the bed. If I flop top two I'm betting for value. If we're deepish stacked I'll be prepared to slow down, but I'm generally pretty happy with that flop. I'm also super +EV when that happens. You seem hung-up on Ace 8 being a problem. You mentioned AQ. Let's say gianmarco had AQ and decided to keep his BB range strong by just calling pre. Flop comes AQ3 rainbow. How is he in any less trouble in your scenario?
  2. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about risk. Any hand can by "risky" if you make mistakes or succumb to bad luck. Playing poker involves calculating equity, ranges... I suppose "risk"... lots of things on every hand. The reason hands like Axs are so popular as bluff hands (meaning you play them very similar to premiums preflop, unless you have half the table in for a small raise like gianmarco had) is that they realize their equity very well, and when they miss it's easy to get away. They also have the benefit of removal with the A. I'd argue that ace rag is less "risky" than other stronger hands that can be put in tougher spots. Still, flopping top two vs a set can happen with any non-paired hand. He could have had AKs, flopped top two, and been in just as much trouble. The fact that it is A8 is kind of irrelevant.
  3. Not sure I agree with this analysis. First off, Ace X suited when closing the action getting 8:1 is an instacall. This isn't Ax off... you have great implied odds to continue, and closing the action makes it a standard. Probably couldn't have gotten away losing less in this specific situation, but we really need to avoid being results oriented. It's why if you participate in 2+2 discussions, or in any other type of group discussion, people often wait to post the results (if they do at all). And with an effective stack of 240BB, we don't have an all in hand. We should be looking to pot control given this specific villain (tight, 240BB stack).
  4. I got too annoyed with him after about 25 minutes or so. I've got nothing against him, and I was excited about him being a guest, but man... I just couldn't take him. Then I switched to Edward Norton and it was much easier to listen to.
  5. Right. You don't want to overstate how valuable the button is, but the range you should play needs to be well constructed and able to be adapted based on things like the play of your opponents. Having said that, live poker players do many things poorly. Having a correct button strategy is often one of them. (Edited to add... live players aren't loose enough on the button in a limped pot... which brings up another common live player bad strategy... they limp WAY too much. Raise first in nearly every time... limping is almost always horrible)
  6. I was just explaining where he was coming from. I don't think it's egregious either, but that's the logic behind it.
  7. The idea is that you're giving up free cards by not leaving one before the big blind. You play the button because it's your favorite, but then you choose not to play for free in the cutoff, which I'm assuming is your second favorite.
  8. 2/3 pot Maybe I do a little pot control given how deep you both are, but still probably 2/3 pot.
  9. Well played on the flop. Down betting is all the rage these days, and standard strategy on a dry board is to put in a small bet, but I'm not sure what a 1/5ish pot sized bet does for you on the turn. I wouldn't be worried about AK... you block that and he didn't raise pf. His range has a lot of Ax in it, which is good for you, and some pocket pairs. By betting so small (and checking the river) you are inviting bluffs, which makes the river call pretty easy. I wouldn't be worried about that call... pretty standard as played.
  10. Wait, what? Never saw this. Looks amazing... recipe/directions?
  11. I'd hope so, but if talk radio is any indication (or even some comments on here), it's much higher. People get irrational when they're upset though, so let's hope the naysayers settle down moving forward.
  12. Is there any aspect in any sport that fans get more results oriented on than bullpen usage? Fans of all sports, in general, are embarrassingly results oriented about everything, but it almost never fails that a poor outcome with the bullpen is lambasted retrospectively en masse. WI sports talk radio has been flooded with fans calling for Counsell's head. Dude is a legit manager of the year candidate, and he decided to stick with one of the top closers in the league over a mediocre group of alternatives. It was an obvious call, except that it didn't work. So now it was obviously bad I guess.
  13. I think part of the process to decide who makes the show is based on how interesting, creative, and exciting your bot is. If you set out today with a goal of winning the giant nut, you'd most likely be following the Bite Force or Witch Doctor blueprint (compact, push driving bot with a small, heavy vertical spinner). But if everyone did that it wouldn't be as fun of a show. So they encourage diversity with an emphasis on creativity. Did anyone think Ribbot, Rainbow, or The Four Horsemen ever had a chance? I'm not saying you have to be cheesy, but when Mammoth comes out there with something totally different, even if it never had a chance, it makes for exciting TV. That's likely why you saw the utterly useless drones from years past, or the small sidekick bots. They added nothing, but damn if I didn't sit on the edge of my seat the first time I saw a team use a drone. Fire aint going nowhere.
  14. This thread sparked a conversation with a friend, and I thought a story he shared fit in well here. They're not all bad coaches... My friend coaches travel ball and whatnot, but also his sons' rec teams. His oldest is enormous and throws extremely hard. One game in a league of two age groups, his son -one of the best pitchers in the league and an "older" kid- was on the mound. The batter was small "younger" kid half his son's size. The batter was terrified. Despite the urging of the kid's coaches, he did not have the confidence to step into the batter's box. After ten seconds or so, as the kid was about to cry, no doubt extremely embarrassed, my buddy called time and took his son out early, putting in their slowest armed pitcher. Several parents seemed shocked, and questioned his decision. He told them that it's rec league and every kid deserves a chance to have fun. Dude gets it.
  15. I'm getting too old to even think about that, but I understand that sentiment. It just reinforcers my belief that it's not the kids, it's our generation that is letting them down. And as much as it goes against the trend these days, winning isn't the most important thing. It's obviously not what is wrong with sports. Especially with kids <12. But damn if they don't all love saying, "everyone gets a trophy" in that sarcastic tone like they're making an intelligent, thought out point.