Wednesday, October 14, 2009


Gregg asked me to start my reflections on today's game with the announcement that he will host again next Wednesday at the usual time. Regular players should pay attention, however, to where games will be in November as Bruce may host a couple when Gregg cannot.
Dates are to be worked out.
When Bruce hosts, the table is limited because of comfort to six players, so reservations are necessary to be certain to have a seat. Some last minute players may like to come even if they don't start with a seat because Bruce and perhaps others only play for about three or four hours and then would give up a seat to someone waiting for the other one or two hours of action.
Last time Bruce offered a one to six time window.
I'll try to get the details right when I post them on this Blog.

If I don't, Jerry will certainly correct me. I was mixed up on the dates on Blower's game.
Contact John if you want to play at that one. I think he has some room, but he does not have a complete list for sending invitations.
However, I don't speak for game hosts. You need to write to them or call them directly, so they can tell you if they have room. Phil will probably be the contact for Bruce's hosted games because Bruce does not have e-mail.

I expect plans will be firmed up by next week and then I can pass on details.

John usually offers two no limit games, a $100 game and a $20 "kiddie" game for low rollers.
John's game is.... well..... let me get it right this time by putting it in Jerry's words, along with Jerry's reflections on today's game:

Jerry writes:

The heading of John's e-mail says the event if Friday, October 23rd. The e-mail message, which was sent on Monday, October 12th, indicates that John will be returning from LA next week and he also indicates the game is next Friday. The top of the attachment also says Friday, October 23rd. In your feeble defense the attachment does ask for an RSVP by 6/15.
I guess you could be confused, but I would guess most people who actually read the e-mail and attachment carefully understood when the event was.
PS. Nice call today with top and bottom two pair. You were a little rough on Ed though when he was
handling his remaining 13 chips while I was deciding whether to call or fold on Bruce's all-in bet of 22 chips. Your reprimand was particularly harse since you handle your chips on many hands before it is your turn to act.

Now here are my own weak reflections of today's action:

I forget so many hands. I hope some of the other players can add more details.
I do remember the hand Jerry refers to. Peter was sure he was going to win. He held 9-4 and that made a full house. Jerry considered his options a while and then he folded. Ed called with 9-K and a bigger full house. It is rare in our little game that full houses beat full houses when two cards in the hand both play.
It is common when two pair are on the board, but this time both houses were better hidden. Peter was disappointed.

Pete was up and down, but in the end he had to head home broke. I suppose it was because he did not have Casey this week to tell him how to play. At that time both he and I were down quite a bit, but after he left, my luck improved.
My first loss of the night had been an all-in soon after the beginning of the game when I held A-K of diamonds and there were two diamonds on the flop and later a king. Jerry flopped a set of treys. He was ahead for the entire hand, played it well by not showing much strength. It was a huge pot, taking quite a few $20 initial buy ins and giving Jerry an early lead in chip accumulation, a lead he held for most of the afternoon.
He lost some back to Gregg and I when the game got down to three players. We got very lucky and drained him a bit until he decided to quit and protect some of his winnings by going home.

Gregg and I then continued as we usually do until one of us has all the chips. I pushed and pushed and kept grinding, but the old Pokermaster seemed to find ways to win back. We played an hour heads up.
Finally, Gregg held a seven which went to trips on the turn. I held a ten which made my full house on the river. Gregg thought the smaller full house enough and went all in so I took him completely down with a personal profit for the day of $84.

Earlier Phil left with a good bit of profit. He just hit good cards and bet them without giving them away, so that he won some really fine pots. This was perhaps his best day. For a while we thought he might break the record and leave with five racks, but he spread some of his winnings out before he cashed out and went home.

Bruce was there and did not do well. Gregg lost also, buying in quite often so that his final loss left him actually down some dollars.

Ed took me out with a nice high straight when I had the lower one. Good at that point he did not have more chips in front of him. I thought I was very strong and he had trips.

I thought it was a great day. I had come very tired. I almost stayed home. The coffee woke me up enough and it all worked out. The interaction of the players seemed to me good humored. Gregg hosts a fine time for all.

I had poor cards most of the afternoon and only started to get good ones later. I could have used some of the power hands earlier. Against Gregg I had pocket kings, pocket aces, and plenty of other good cards. Most did nothing but take a few chips when he folded. They would have been great earlier.

Not too many quads. I had quad tens, but only Gregg was there to see them, and he had not paid me much either, or I'd have been home a lot earlier.

Well, add in anything you remember that I can't either in the comment section below or in an email to me. See most of you next week.


Bad day at Blackrock -- for me anyway. I got spanked and spanked and then absolutely beaten up by two-tier Phil. Anyway, from 5 to 7pm I had my chance to breakeven, but turns out that turn about is fair play as Deweys 10's over 7's beat my 7's over 10's and cleaned me out.
Game next Wednesday begins at 1pm (and John -- is your game this Friday or next?)
Best to all, Gregg

No comments: