On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 07:30:09 -0500 (EST), you wrote: >On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Jerry Friedman wrote: > >> >> --- David Silberstein <davids at Kithrup.COM> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >> > >> > >And there's a prime example. If you're actually holding the *best >> > >possible* hand -- that is, you know the odds of any other player >> > >having a better hand are *zero* -- then knowing the odds certainly >> > >will influence how you play your hand! >> >> Ike must have meant the best hand at the table (which of course you >> wouldn't know at the time). > >I did indeed. > >> > >I guess I can believe that people *have* been bluffed or bullied while >> > >holding the best possible hand -- but I have a hard time believing in >> > >such stupidity. > >If you get a chance, check out some of the various poker shows running. It >happens all the time. Part of knowing the odds brings you into >risk/reward analysis. In addition to odds, there's also a risk/reward >factor going on...there's nothing to stop me from betting like a madman >with crap, which is going to make you think hard before calling my bet. > >> They'd be the same people who sell books for a living but don't >> learn to pronounce titles that might give them trouble. >> >> Is "bullied" a technical term in poker like "bluff", by the way? > >I've seen it referred to in discussion of tournament play when the chip >leader starts making LARGE bets in an effort to scare everyone into >folding. I've seen it work rather well until you run into the player with >a strong starting hand. > That's a critical distinction in no-limit hold'em, as opposed to limit hold'em. If you've got a large stack, you're already in shape to bully players. I've made it to the finals of a tourney once, just limping in with a few chips, while my opponent had Smaug's own treasury. I was bullied out of there in no time, it wasn't even close. Of course, I have a hard time with one on one poker anyway; I do much better playing a full table for some reason.