Whither grammar?

From a Superior Court of California ruling on July 19th, referring to a submission from the Department of Insurance.

The report "contains much surplusage and editorializings and fails to plead clearly and specifically any actionable misrepresentation or omission".

"Surplusage"? "Editorializings"?

I actually had to look these up. And, yes, surplusage is there, although I prefer the simpler "surfeit". But "editorializings" misses the cut. How about "opinion"? Or, if you insist, "editorialization"?

On Limit Hold 'em

After a not-very-good run this month, it was obviously a good idea not to blame bad cards and think no more about it. Even if bad cards were partly to blame, a little self-analysis wouldn't do any harm.

I'd fallen back into two bad habits -- one was limping after a couple of callers when I should really either fold or raise, while the other was failing to bet for value often enough on the river.

Richard Gryko made the remarkably perceptive point that limit play improves your ability in deep stack no limit (cash and tournaments) because it forces you to learn how to play better through the turn and river (unless you want to go broke).

Now, if you swivel this line of thought, it follows that a lot of the new limit players who have come up via ESPN and NL tournaments, are likely to be LESS experienced on the turn and river. I have noticed this. The average standard of play is improving pre-flop and on the flop, but on the turn and river the rule tends to be that they bet if they have it and they don't if they don't. The only players who try to check-raise me on the river are experienced players who have met me before (:-))


Anyway, I promised myself to push in bets more often on the river, even if by doing so I risked a check-raise. Within a couple of not-very long sessions this has already put me $30 to the better than I would have been if I had fallen back into the habit of checking the river when I wasn't to sure.

With hindsight, a bet in the following hand on the river is obvious, but you would be surprised at how many players fail to bet in such situations.


$5/$10 Texas Hold'em - Friday, July 22, 05:34:16 EDT 2005
Seat 8 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: dirtup2000 ( $298 )
Seat 2: Princess414 ( $129.50 )
Seat 3: Vrtnar111 ( $245.50 )
Seat 4: DJOHNT ( $192 )
Seat 5: ptpab ( $392.50 )
Seat 10: Birks ( $445 )
Seat 9: swept ( $245 )
Seat 8: DntUknoWhoIM ( $204 )
Seat 7: WalkamoHB ( $48 )
Seat 6: HSL74 ( $245 )
swept posts small blind [$2].
Birks posts big blind [$5].

Dealt to Birks 5d 6h
dirtup2000 folds.
Princess414 folds.
Vrtnar111 folds.
DJOHNT folds.
ptpab folds.
HSL74 raises [$10].
WalkamoHB calls [$10].
DntUknoWhoIM calls [$10].
swept folds.
Birks calls [$5].

pleasing play number 1. Instead of clicking the "check/fold" button, with this kind of hand (which is unlikely to be dominated) it's a good idea to see how many players come in for the raise. In this case, three opponents gives me odds of more than 7-to-1, implied odds of about 12-to-1 (VERY ROUGH ESTIMATE!) and little chance of me getting into deep trouble. One could take a deeper look here at the 750,000 possible flops and actually ask whether there are more than 70,000 flops that make it worthwhile me seeing a turn card, but I'll just stick with the principle that these odds are good enough for me.

** Dealing Flop ** [ 5s, Qc, 6c ]

Bottom two-pair. A difficult hand to play for the novice (and occasionally for the experienced player! But a check is the right play unless you are looking for deception.

Birks checks.
HSL74 bets [$5].
WalkamoHB calls [$5].
DntUknoWhoIM calls [$5].
Birks calls [$5].

One would normally be looking for a check-raise here, but the bet from the player on my immediate left means that if I do raise at this point, I'm not going to knock anyone out and I AM going to give drawing hands pot odds on the turn, even if they are facing a bet of $20 cold. Therefore I call.

** Dealing Turn ** [ 9h ]

this is actually a very nice card for me, for reasons that will soon become apparent.

Birks checks.
HSL74 checks.
WalkamoHB checks.
DntUknoWhoIM bets [$10].
Birks raises [$20].
HSL74 folds.
WalkamoHB folds.
DntUknoWhoIM calls [$10].

This time the bet is from the player on my right, so the check-raise is right, meaning that anyone calling with a gutshot (apart from the initial bettor) is doing so incorrectly.

** Dealing River ** [ 4s ]



Birks bets [$10].

Here the advantage of the 9 on the turn becomes obvious. Even if I am losing here to a very odd Q9, Q5, Q6 or some other such horrific combination (I knew nothing about this opponent), he can't raise me on the river with two-pair, because I have played the hand as if I have 87 and the straight. Contrarily, if he has the more likely holding of QK, QJ or QT, he is unlikely to lay the hand down.

DntUknoWhoIM calls [$10].

and, he doesn't.

Birks shows [ 5d, 6h ] two pairs, sixes and fives.
DntUknoWhoIM doesn't show [ Qs, Kd ] a pair of queens.
Birks wins $119 from the main pot with two pairs, sixes and fives.


As I wrote, in retrospect a bet on the river seems obvious, but it is very easy to check here when you are on auto-pilot.