As is my custom in Omaha hi/lo, I'll play some marginal hands (like this one) in late position. Everybody in the hand checked the flop and turn. By the time the river came, I made the nut spade flush, so I bet. The only problem for my hand, was the board had a pair of 9's on it, thus making it possible for somebody else to have a full house. But since I was last to act, nobody else was interested in betting, and the action was checked to me, I bet anyways. Immediately, I'm raised by one of the guys in early position, and I have to call with my nut flush.

He shows AA2 for a pair of aces, and nut low (no full house). He wins the low of this very small pot, and I win the high with my nut flush. After the hand, I ask him why he raised if he had absolutly no chance of scooping the pot (board paired + flush drawn) -- and in such a small pot at low stakes, it actually increased the rake to the site, thus losing both of us $$$ in the process. (Some guys just aren't smart enough to even think about this stuff.) He responded that he had noticed that "70% of the time I was betting, I was doing so with the worst hand. He was playing the player, not his cards."

Am I really that loose? Apparently, this guy thought so, and he thought he was a good enough poker player (at such low stakes no less) to play the player instead of his cards -- the only problem: he was dead wrong! Of course, his statement was completely idiotic, as I had only been playing 20-30 minutes, and I was actually ahead on the table. So what the heck was he talking about? Over the course of the next hour, I won, scooped, and split many pots. In fact, I won so often at this table I more than doubled my initial buy-in. Every time I took down a pot, I took the opportunity ask this guy: "Was this part of the 70% you were talking about?" He eventually left the table with less than 1/2 of the money he started with -- while at the same time I left with more than double.