Of course, I accept your apology. I hope my post above, and the
related O'Malley articles, explain why I "super-mucked" my hand in that
unorthodox way. Anyway, my hand was KKQ9. I don't remember the exact
suits, but there was no flush draw anyway. I picked up a straight draw on
the turn, and thought that Ken might be playing and have no reasonable
high holding, which is why I called on the river.
I think your play was mostly tight-weak that particularly night; I
don't assume you are regularly a tight-weak player. It's not an insult;
just a characterization of your play, as viewed by other players, on that
particular night. Sometimes, we all play tight-weak.
Glad you ended the session even. I ended it up only a small amount
myself.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Sorry from the namecaller
Date: 2005-02-07 05:21 (UTC)Of course, I accept your apology. I hope my post above, and the related O'Malley articles, explain why I "super-mucked" my hand in that unorthodox way. Anyway, my hand was KKQ9. I don't remember the exact suits, but there was no flush draw anyway. I picked up a straight draw on the turn, and thought that Ken might be playing and have no reasonable high holding, which is why I called on the river.
I think your play was mostly tight-weak that particularly night; I don't assume you are regularly a tight-weak player. It's not an insult; just a characterization of your play, as viewed by other players, on that particular night. Sometimes, we all play tight-weak.
Glad you ended the session even. I ended it up only a small amount myself.