![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
If you want to learn how to play the piano, drums, guitar, etc.............. all have to do is look in the classified section of a newspaper, why don't Poker Teachers advertise? My God, they don't even advertise in Card Player's classified section.
.
Poker teachers should make posts on this forum and at rgp and discreetly imply to the readers that they are available for lessons. Example: "I believe you should have raised on the flop. By the way, did you know that I give poker lessons? For more information, call me at 555-STUD between 9 to 5 eastern time. By posting here and at rgp, they have access to all that traffic at a cost of zero.
I teach in person or by phone. $500 per two hour lesson. Add $200 for each additional person. If you want Mike Caro it is $501 so you get an opportunity to save money with me.
I heard Mason charges $499. I guess you and Mike are gonna be out of business soon.
Actually, I usually ask how much you have, then I tell you whether it is enough. By the way, it shouldn't matter what I charge, because if you come to me for lessons, it usually means you are going to lose all your money anyway.
...a sense of humor, you crack me up more than any other poster at times.
Regards,
Rick
Yes, its a real funny line----but, you still "have to think about it".
Lou Diamond Phillips - Another Day In Paradise
Kevin Bacon - Planes, Trains & Automobiles
Jenna Elfmann - Whatever that stupid Jennifer Love Hewitt movie was called
In "Superman" the movie (the first one), the actress who played Lois Lane in the original (1960s) TV series appears to be a passenger on the train that young Clark jumps across the front of on his run home. The name eludes me.
Steve Wynn in "Maverick". I've seen the credits several times, and don't recall ever seeing his name, although he is one of the players in the championship event on the riverboat. (Still thinking of the Superman movie, also notice Margot Kidder as "Mary Margaret" in Maverick.)
Noel Neill
Jenna Elfman was in Can't Hardly Wait.
If you want to see cameos watch The Player By Robert Altman
Post deleted at author's request.
Christian Slater in Star Trek VI the Undiscoverd Country.
Hunter S Thompson in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
David Letterman in Cabin Boy.
Jack Nicholson - Broadcast News
Johnny Depp - Gladiator
Where was Depp?
I believe that he was Maximus' assistant.
Joanne Woodward (sort of) in Sleuth
George C. Scott in Hunt for Red October. Sean Connery in Robin Hood:Prince of Thieves. Patrick Stewart in Robin Hood:Men in Tights.
Magic Johnson, Ally Sheedy, Dan Akroyd, Bill Murray, John Candy, Whoopie Goldberg in She's Having a Baby. Alfred Hitchcock in all of his movies. Judge Vernon Jordan (Bill Clinton's golfing buddy) in Rounders. Johnny Chan in Rounders. Drew Barrymoore in Scream.
jay and silent bob in scream 3
maybe it is worth seeing
scott
How about Merv Griffin in one of those murder-parodies? I think it was 'fatal impact' or 'loaded weapon' or something. All through the movie, people would walk into an elevator or a room, look surprised, then say, "Oh, it's you!". Then they would be brutally murdered, but you didn't know who was doing it. It was just someone they all knew.
At the end of the movie, a guy walks into the elevator and goes, "Oh, it's you!" The camera pans over to Merv Griffin as himself. Pretty funny.
1) Bette Midler's "Friends" at the end of The Last of Sheila
2) Marlene Dietrich singing "See What the Boys in the Back Room Will Have" in Destry Rides Again
....
The last scene of "Smoke"
The Man Who Knew Too Much
Dan,
Remind me; I've seen Smoke but don't remember the song.
Thanks
The beginning of Saturday Night Fever.
Robbie Robertson's masterpiece "The Weight" as Fonda and Hopper cruise on their Harleys.
Another great one is Sinatra's "Summer Wind" playing in the background at the beginning of The Pope of Greenwich Village, as Mickey Rourke gets nattily dressed for battle.
How about "Stuck in the Middle Again" as Michael Madsen chops up that cop in Resevoir Dogs? In an age of overused, underwhelming irony, that WAS devastating.
One of the worst was "Bittersweet Symphony" at the end of Cruel Intentions. It worked much better as a Nike commercial.
.
Post deleted at author's request.
Elisha Cook Jr. WAS NOT a psycho when he defended Captain Kirk at his court martial.
John,
I loved the background theme to "Last of the Mohegan’s” and wonder if it was taken from a classical piece that any of you out there are aware of.
I don’t know if this fits the category, but I loved the rendition of “My Way”, done by Sid Vicious during the closing credits of “Sid and Nancy”. It fit the movie to a “T”.
Regards,
Rick
How about Dylan's "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" when Slim Pickens is shot in "Billy the Kid"?
That's a great one. The Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid soundtrack is awesome, even if about 90% of it is the same basic meloldy from Knockin' on Heaven's door.
How about Dylan's turn as an actor in same movie. Pretty wretched.
Despite all the wonderful things we have been reading, it appears that the important people associated with and highly supportive of The Tournament of Champions are now out of their positions. I can't prove this, but I can't help but suspect that the high juice, and poor turnout, which also carried over to the Orleans tournaments was responsible.
It seems to me that the players have spoken.
I hope your correct Mason. Tournaments should be promotional and not a big money maker for the House.
cv
Actually, I think it's just the opposite. My guess, and I need to emphsize that I'm only guessing, is that because of the poor financial showing of the tournament, and this can include things like less drop than expected in side games, less rooms booked, less advertising revenue, failure to lead to other profitable projects (such as the Challenge Cup), etc. all of these people went down.
Now I have no objection to a profit being made. It's just that to make a profit, the customer needs to perceive value. If that's not the case, there may be a shortage of customers.
The non smoking boycott appears to have made a dent.
People are finally starting to listen.
But that dent is still way too small.
Do not attend tournaments that support smoking.
Do not toke smoking poker dealers.
Do not play poker in any state where smoking is allowed.
Do not play on Paradise Poker because they have installed ashtrays therefore promoting smoking.
Do not read Cigar Aficionado.
Do not read Card Player Magazine because the publisher (Linda Johnson) tells people they must toke the dealers when they win a tournament and she also tells them exactly how much to toke. It is none of her business. If it was her business then she should publish the names of those people that do not leave a toke but she does not. Therefore she is a hypocrite and a coward.
Turn in all people that litter their cigarette butts.
Join the cause now.
I had heard that David Hricsina was no longer in charge of the Orleans Poker Room. So, you think that he was let go because attendance was down at the O Open? That may be correct, but if so, shows a pretty short-sighted attitude by upper management (gee, a casino with stupid upper management, now that would be a shocker). I don't know David, but I've only ever heard good things about him from customers. Surprising they'd let him go for one mistake (if it was a mistake).
I'd love to hear the inside story from someone with firsthand knowledge, but hey, this is the internet, where rumor is much more common. Not a slam on you Mason, just the net. You're just posting your opinion based upon the available facts.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg:
I agree with your statements completely. But I suspect that I am right. I've just been around too long and I have seen this exact same thing before. (Does any one remember the Tournament at The Tropicana many years ago. I think it was called The Knights of the Round Table or something like that. The poker room manager who had recently received a reward for out standing work got fired, the poker room was closed, and Gambling Times/Poker Player enthusuastically supported the tournament just as Card Player did.
Another thing that convinces me that I am correct are all the wonderful things being said about the people who are no longer in their positions. If those who counted really felt this way, why would they not want to keep them in their positions.
Of course, again, I could be completely wrong about all of this. I am not privy to any inside information.
I heard that the late Johnny Moss, back when he managed the Aladdin cardroom, fired a dealer for being unlucky. And I've heard some stories about blackjack dealers and pitbosses at the Dessert Inn and Imperial Palace getting fired for being unlucky. Is it possible that these people of high repute have been fired because the decision makers believe in luck and bad luck? I mean let's face it, we're in the gambling business where some people tend to believe in luck more than in other industries.
..........the Hall of Fame has been canceled........
.........the Carnivale is dead. and the TOC has a poor turnout. Perfect! ...
....now we can go back to what real poker is really all about:LIVE GAMES!!! ..
...tournaments are not real poker, anyway.
Actually, over the years many big time poker tournaments have been cancelled. I believe that tournaments have their place, and that some events, particularly the WSOP have been very good for poker. But when there are too many major tournaments someone inevitably pays the price, and the event goes down. Despite the wonderful publicity that we are currently reading, I believe that this is what happened.
I also want to make clear that these comments of mine are in no way meant to imply that these fallen people did not do their jobs properly, nor am I implying that their integrity should be questioned. Mistakes do happen, and in the world of big business/big poker, someone frequently has to pay for those mistakes.
I also believe that the poker industry will be better served with less emphasis on major tournaments, even though they do have their place, and more emphasis on well-run cardrooms on a day-to-day basis. In this way, more players will be developed for the future which means (among other thing) that the attendance at tournaments will be better as well as assuring that good poker games will be available for all players.
Mason'
I am a tournament fan. I like them because they put a lot of poker player in the same room at the same time. I ran into some good 2+2 folks at the Orleans, including MAH, Badger, Diane from Green Bay, Fossilman and David Sklansky. You should have joined us! Of course tournamnets are much better when you win. I didn't. God what a lousy tournament!
vince
Yeah Vince,
What a lousy tournament. I only made some money on satellites, but not enough to cover fees. But, how come I had such a great time? Well, I met Rounder, Fossilman, Vince Lepore, Dangerous Dan, and David Sklansky. Diane from Green Bay introduced to a lot of new folks. I think she knows everyone. Anyway, it was a lot of fun talking to all you folks, I did not make a dime, but I had a BLAST!!!
Post deleted at author's request.
The only point I will make is that I felt David Hrcisna did a great job building a team and managing the room, the daily tournaments, and the big annual event.
I always enjoyed coming to town for the Gold Coast/Orleans and will miss David's presence.
Diane from Green Bay
Mason is obviously trying to cause trouble with his wild assertions, which couldn't be further off the mark, and this is why he justly deserves the horrible reputation he has created for himself.
Other than the advertised poker cruises, do any cruise ships offer poker during "normal" cruises?
Also, are there any casinos with poker on any of the Caribbean islands?
Heading to LA in a few weeks, never been. Where are the poker clubs, what are the hours, and what's the scene like? Any reccomdendations or tips?
I'll be staying in Beverly Hills so if you could give locations in relation to there it would be helpful.
Thanks much.
Post deleted at author's request.
thanks much, like I said, I'm an LA Rookie, is South Central all right to visit? I prefer to lose my money at the table.
Also, pretty easy to get cabs from the casinos?
Post deleted at author's request.
Ok, actually I did.
I just wanted everyone to know that there's a bunch of lunatics on the Internet Poker forum. They have engaged small caps scott and I in a battle of wits, and we are the wittier.
They're super crazy, so if you want a piece while it lasts, come on over! No one out-crazies the Young Turks!
"Stupider like a fox!"
Made you look! Old trick though. Just like Niels's. Ciao, sayonara, gezzundheit....
I'm visiting the 'rents in Scottsdale during the week of August 14. I'd like to play in one of the casinos while I'm there so I'd like some advice.
1. Where is the best place to play HE limits of 10/20 and above? How would you describe the typical game style for these limits compared to those in Vegas?
2. I'd like to play a no limit HE tourney as well. What day(s) of the week are they typically offered? What is the buy-in structure?
3. Is there a chance I'll meet any of you regular esteemed posters? I'd love it!
4. Any other advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
They only spread 1-4-8-8 holdem and 1-5 stud at Arizona Charlie's. And they don't have any tournaments.
Hi, Magilla - The only place for 10-20 & up is Casino Arizona, just east of the intersection of the 101 freeway and Indian Bend (do not go to the other CA location on McKellips). I don't play that high yet, but I'm told that the 10-20 game is usually tight and tough, but the 20-40 game is usually active and loose. Go figure.
There is a real good no-limit hold-em tournament, $55 with unlimited $50 rebuys, at Gila River on Wednesday night at 7:00. Be warned, there are a significant number of guys who show up with a pocket full of $50 bills and then play really aggressively and just keep rebuying. If you can handle that, it is said to be a very lucrative tournament. Jim Geary and Rounder have been regulars there.
Casino AZ - 480-850-7777 Indian Bend location
Gila River - 800-WIN-GILA Wild Horse Pass location
Dick
To add to what Dick said (I'm not sure if I know you, Dick. If you play the local tournament circuit, then I'm sure we've seen each other)the 20/40 at Casino Arizona is wild...but if it's loose depends on the lineup. Being new in town, you won't know until you get in the game. They have discontinued the 10/20, but spread a 9/18 on occasion instead, which is filled with the previous 10/20 players. Most of the time it's a tight game.
Sometimes you'll find a 30/60 stud game or a mix game. At Fort McDowell,sometimes on the weekend they will have larger mix games. I've seen as high as 75/150.
JohnnyD
Anybody going on the Sept. 10th cruise out of New Orleans?
Everybody must be. It is sold out with a long waiting list. Unfortunately, I waited too long to book.
Hope you all have fun. I hope to go on their cruise after Thanksgiving.
Diane
How can you copy posts from the archive into a text file. Before C.W. changed the archive format you could save each month as a text file to download to Word or Excel and read at your leasure. Can this still be done, If so How? Thanks.
David,
Maybe the best way to view the older archives is to download them once and use your browser to view them (since they are in HTML). A great benefit of this is that, once saved, you can view them offline, which is very fast.
Here is one way to do it. Under My Documents create a special folder for the archives. Next load an archive (thank God I have DSL) and then select Save As from the File Menu on top of MS IE5. Stick the archive in your special folder. It ends up creating a pointer file to a subfolder containing the actual information and seems to work well.
Ever since www.deja.com and its Power Search feature went to hell (used to be great for rgp archives) I decided I shouldn’t put off archiving the great old 2+2 stuff. Who knows, all could be lost with one hard disk crash (although I would guess Chuck is pretty careful with backups).
Anyway, hope this helps and I would appreciate if anyone could help us with better ways of doing this.
Regards,
Rick
1. Anything that "Forrest Gump" recvd, including Tom Hanks(FG shoulda been on my "Most Hated Movies" post in Mark Harris' thread below).
2. Reese Witherspoon not being nominated for "Election".
3. I can't remember who won that year or what year it was, but I sure seem to recall thinking that they didn't do near as good a job as Michael Keaton did in "Clean & Sober"(which should've been on my favorites list in my above mentioned other post).
Bill,
I wasn't a big fan of Gump either. I did like Hanks in Apollo 13 and believe the movie got the shaft because of the subject matter (Hollywood liberals just hated the space program).
BTW, you guys really impress me with your movie knowledge.
Regards,
Rick
#1 Hitchcock never winning Best Director Award
#2 Perhaps interchangeable with #1: 1956: Around the World in 80 Days named Best Picture. C'mon, The Searchers was made in 1956.
Wow there is so many bad decisions made by the Academy. The Academy is so bogus and so political. Of course you never see all of the performances and thus viewpoints are somewhat limited as a result. Here are two that come to my mind.
1989 – Best Picture - Driving Miss Daisy. I heard some comments by Spike Lee about this movie that pretty much sum up my feelings about it. The other nominees for best picture in 1989 were all better IMO. The other movies nominated dealt with subjects that were not necessarily “pretty” or “pleasing” though and the Academy voted for the most vanilla movie of the lot.
1963 – Hud not even being nominated for best picture. Paul Newman not winning best actor for his performance in Hud. Paul Newman was nominated for best actor, Patricia Neal was nominated for best actress and won, Melvyn Douglas was nominated for best supporting actor and won, arguably Brandon de Wilde gave an even better performance than Douglas IMO, Martin Ritt is nominated for best director, James Wong Howe was nominated and won the for his black-and-white cinematography, and this movie wasn’t even nominated for best picture! What was up with that? Again Hud is not a “pretty” or “pleasing” movie and has a very untypical Hollywood ending. The main character Hud is the ultimate anti-hero, who has a very realistic attitude about death, seems to get everything his own way by the end of the movie. I really liked the movie and consider it my all time favorite.
There are so many, many more. Steven Spielberg’s virtual shutout for The Color Purple comes to mind as well.
#1 and #2: Two years in a row they got Best Supporting Actor totally wrong. 1993, they gave it to Tommy Lee Jones for The Fugitive over Ralph Fiennes for Schindler's List. Horrible choice. Then the very next year they looked over Sam L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction (a landmark performance) for Martin Landau in Ed Wood. Just plain wrong.
#3: The career snubbing of Stanley Kubrick.
#4: Johnny Depp's performance in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas being ignored
#5: Hoop Dreams not being nominated for Best Documentary.
The list goes on and on, but I have to go make dinner. . .
Not only did they not give Samuel L. Jackson the best supporting award, they failed to nominate and award him for what he was: the leading man.
I think Martin Landau's Oscar was well deserved. But you're right, Samuel L. Jackson should be in the leading man category (I don't remember who won it that year).
I'm surprised no one brought up yet Orson Welles total snubbing by the "Academy". But I don't mind he never won anything...
Nor did he. 1941--How Green Was My Valley
Slight misprint: the actual title of the movie was "Andy Gump."
Another rotten AA selection: The Titanic over LA Confidential. Cameron is a superb bluecollar director (there's no hidden snub there): witness the portrayal of the marines in Aliens and the suburban foster parents in Terminator 2. With Titanic, he was out of his element and it showed.
Apparently T3 is in the works with Ahnold on board again. Hard to believe T2 could be surpassed, but we'll see....
Mark,
Even though I haven't seen Titanic, I believe that this picture probably is consistent with Cameron's earlier works. The sinking of the Titanic has become one of the great myths of the 20th century for several reasons, but most pointedly, I think, because it highlights humankind's love and fear of technology. We think technology will both save us and destroy us at the same time, and that theme, certainly present in the Titanic legend--if I'm right and it has become a legend by now--can also be seen at work in The Terminator. (Think of the toy being crushed.)
John
But Cameron deliberately shifted the emphasis from the "unsinkable" Titanic to the "tragically abbreviated" love story between the authentic passionate romantic heroic proletariat kid and the authentic passionate romantic heroic young woman. We are supposed to admire both these characters for disregarding the trappings of their incompatible standings in society and allowing the dictates of heart to reign supreme. So the technological breakdown serves mostly as a backdrop to mush. Cameron (inelegant upstart) identifies with the youth and basically spits in the face of the stuffy effete aristocrats (substitute those members of the Academy who prefer meaningful costume dramas to his cool Terminator flicks). His cad is almost indistinguishable from Snidely Whiplash. The governing principle here is artistic self-indulgence. Cameron the consummate action director decided he could beat Hollywood at its own game. He was even brazen enough to personally sketch his lead actress in the nude and shack up with the actress who portrayed this character's presentday granddaughter. Ironically, Hollywood rewarded Cameron with the plummest prize of all for this egomaniacal exercise because the movie became a box office monster not to be denied....
Mark,
I'm not disagreeing; remember I haven't seen it, nor do I intend to. I just think that the Titanic myth informs this movie, and all movies about the Titanic, nevertheless, because it's part of our collective mythos.
From what I can guess, though, Cameron is a real shit. He certainly looked like a smug one to me when he accepted his award. Who knows? Maybe I'm just envious.
John
Stage 1 air alert today, due to fires burning in The Bitterroot. Sky hazy(can't see the mountains) eyes burn and the air stinks.
went to stage 2 alert for missoula today. time to get away for a break as the air will hurt your lungs. air in the flathead valley was still good but we got our share of smoking fires going, so i dont know how long it will last. best time to go fishing in missoula though. one, the game wardens cant see you so you can do what you like, ha ha. also with the smoke so thick when the fish jump the air is so thick that it takes them a couple of minutes to fall back in the water. just go and wade out and stick your net under them and wait till they fall into it. i spent my day canoeing and swimming in lake mcdonald in g.n.p. nice and quiet expect for all those cutthroat trout jumping around and making noise.
GNP beautiful. Haven't spent much time there. It was much easier when I worked for FS, outdoors everyday.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/pgr/fireinfo/index.html
thats the federal site to see whats burning around you Ed. right now it looks like the west is in deep sheeet.
Hi folks: Having trouble with Greg's poker client. Getting a "24057 Socket is not connected" Message. Suggestions? I have tried changing the port from 6667 to 6666 to 7666 (on a friends computer and he uses AOL). Help appreciated. Thanks
If you are using AOL or AT&T as your ISP, you will be excluded from IRC poker. There were a couple of guys who were using those services and causing trouble, and the only way to keep them out was to kick out the entire ISP, so that's what they did. I don't agree with that decision, but I'm not in charge.
Download Juno or some other "free" ISP software, use that to connect to the net, and then start your GPkr software, and it should work. This is what I did, since I'm on AT&T regularly.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
My dad's from Missoula. Maybe I can convince him that it's time to take another trip back up there. The last time we went to visit a glacier was making its way down the river. Where in Missoula are you staying?
Is there poker in Montana?
at putting my posts where they're supposed to be. This was supposed to in repose to Ray's post in which he said, "I'm living in Missoula now." Or something like that.
By the way, Ray, if you stop at the Sons of Norway stall at the county fair, you can try and get my Uncle Vern to give you some free Vikings.
Missoula has 4 games. The best at this time is at Lucky Strike Casino. 4-8 dealers choice,1-2 blinds,10% rake $4 cap. Game not well run and players obnoxious but weak.
Here is a question that I'm very courious about. Do any educated Gamblers believe that some random events may happen for a reason?
I bring this up because I was having a religous dicussion with a close female friend of mine who believes that sometimes her prayers are answered with an event that should be random but was swayed by a "Higher Power".
I tried to explain that I didn't think these events were in anyway non-random, but that her act of persuing the situation, with the help that a prayer may make a positive situation, helped her to be in the right frame of mind to act on a positive random event. I then tried to explain that she should give herself the credit for the positive event and not the "Higher Power". Well, thats not what she really was interested in hearing, and maybe our relationship will faulter because of some of these differanced in core beliefs. This leads me to ask the first question again but with a heavier theme.
Can educated gamblers believe everything happens for a greater cause that many oganized religions would like us to believe?
CV
So your friend believes that as a result of her prayers, sometimes random events occur and sometimes they don't? Hmm...
one of the theives was saved and the other ... damned. one out of two, it's a reasonable percentage. but how is it only one of the four evangelists speaks of a thief being saved? they were all there, or thereabouts.
for my part, i hope they are right and i get to go to hell after i die. anything but nothing, that's what i always say.
but i am betting everything that there is no cause greater than man. damn, i am one serious gambler!
scott
A few casinos offer craps with 100 times odds. If there was any way to predict even the tiniest bit of non randomness, they woould be busted now.
I tried an arguement like that, but was stopped because this person probably realized where I was going with it. I admit she is intellegent, but was programmed early in her childhood about how all events are part of a divine plan.
I would assume by your statement, that you may or maynot believe in a Divine being, but you believe that this being has no control over worldly events.
I would also assume that to play their best, all gamblers would have to have this belief.
CV
God does not play dice.
David's response is funny and appropriate to the silliness of praying for Yo-leven on the craps table.
Interestingly, Einstein's famous quotation "God does not play dice with the universe" was actually in reference to (if I am not mistaken here) his rejection of his own General Theory of Relativity in the form he first developed it. Even he could not accept some of of the uncertainties it implied, and so he tried to resolve matters by inserting a "Cosmological Constant." He later felt that he had wasted years on this incorrect revision, calling it "the greatest blunder of my life."
So, while Einstein once said "God does not play dice with the universe", he may later have come to rather believe otherwise.
It was his unwillingness to accept that there were no hidden variables causing the apparant randomness in quantum theory.
but there are no hidden variables. at least, none that obey locality. and what is really the point of having a nonlocal hidden variable?
if there is a god he most certainly does play dice. and in any case, we are all playing dice.
scott
I stand corrected. I knew I might have been off on this. Over the years I have occasionally read some of the more basic summaries of Relativity. I did not understand it all, nor do I remember it all.
Perhaps you could clarify something that I have been wondering about for many years.
I recall having a debate of sorts with a friend about the Twin Paradox. He said that if a twin left at near the speed of light and returned to Earth after a few years (his time) that he would not return younger than his earthbound twin. I said I thought Relativity says that he would. He said, "but the earthbound twin is also moving relative to the one who is in the spaceship." I said, "But he isn't going as fast." He said, "Compared to what or to whom? There is no absolute frame of reference. It is speed of the twins relative to each other that counts." I said, "What about the atomic clocks revolving on the phonograph? The outer one did age more slowly." He said, "That is different because one clock was orbiting the other. The twins are not; they are moving apart, then back together. Each has the same speed relative to the other. You could just as easily say that the earthbound twin will age more slowly. That's why it is called the Twin Paradox."
I was stumped at this point. The only difference I could see was the brief acceleration and deceleration of the departing/returning twin. I could not say for sure that one twin was moving faster relative to the other, nor could I say that one was moving faster relative to the universe because the universe was no longer viewed as a great big box with a fixed reference frame. I felt my friend was wrong but to this day I do not understand why.
If you could explain further I would appreciate it. Thanks.
[Below a relevant post from the Blackjack websites is reposted, in case it might help a bit:]
The physics, as I have understood the texts; someone more knowledgeable will correct the errors.
Weird ideas about Time-Space
There are two, opposite notions of time-space:
In our large world, Galilean Space-Time, the physical existence of an absolute time is assumed. Isaac Newton defined it by saying that
"Absolute time flows equally, without relation to any thing external. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable to no change."
Because of this absolute time, the notion of past, present and future is the same for every observer in the cosmos, or, as the physicists say, "in all reference frames". If two events are simultaneous in one particular reference frame (eg for a guy in the Luxor rooftop who sees two small stars explode in the distant sky), this means that the two events are also simultaneous in all reference frames (eg also for an observer in Alpha Centauri). Thus, there is a unique separation between past and future events; it's the sharp, vertical line of the present in a space-time diagram.
Within the framework of our "normal", Galilean Space-Time, faster-than-light speeds are possible, in principle.
The other notion of Space-Time (Minkowski Space-Time) does not know of any absolute time which is physically meaningful. That came about when Albert Einstein gave the notion of simultaneity a new definition: Since all experimental tests to determine the motion with respect to some absolute space-time frame had failed, he decided to abandon the notion of absolute time altogether.
Relativity
In his Theory of Relativity, he postulated two principles, which should hold for all physics:
1) All physical phenomena appear according to the same laws in all reference frames.2) The speed of light is constant in all reference frames.
While the first principle seems well established by observation and experiments, the second one is simply an assumption. It implies, in contrast to Galilean Space-Time, that simultaneity is not an absolute physical quality, but a relative one, depending on the motion of the observer.
The question whether the speed of light is a true physical limit has no definite answer yet. It depends on the real structure of the space-time continuum, which is presently unknown.
Whereas Galilean space-time allows the realization of faster-than-light speeds, at least in principle, Minkowski space-time does not. What is the reason for this difference? The key point is the conception of global time, ie. the physical significance of the term "simultaneity".
Measurement troubles
Consider an example: Imagine an object moving from position A to B. And imagine that A is "very far' from B. The object's speed v is equal to
Distance A to B [divided by] t(A,start) - t (B,finish)
Here, the start time t(A,start) and the finish time t(B,finish) are read off from two spatially separated clocks: one clock is located at point A and the other one at point B.
Now, the difference of the two times in the denominator t(B,finish) - t(A,start) is an indefinite expression, unless there exists a rule how to synchronize both clocks, because clock B "ignores" what the "current" time is at clock A. At least at first, because it should be possible to send a message from A to B to "synchronize watches", right? But, in fact, the decision in favor of any synchronization rule is pure convention, because it's impossible to send an "instantaneous" (ie infinitely fast) message from A to B, saying "Initialize the clocks NOW!".
Which, in turn, means that the actual quantity of speed is conventional too, depending on the particular choice of the simultaneity definition.
So, when you use formulas from Newton's and formulas from Einstein's physics to calculate a certain physical value, you won't get the same value. In 'normal' situations these differences are extremely small. But in 'extreme' situations these differences will become very big!
Example: someone who's in a train that moves with an incredible high speed (like 10,000 miles/second) measures the distance between two points on the train. Measuring in a train that moves at even 10,000 miles/hour would make the difference in distance immeasurably small. Newton's laws would certainly do in these situations. But when the speed of the train approaches the speed of light, the difference will become noticeable (='extreme' situations), and we would need Einstein's physics. According to the latest experiments, Einstein's formulas seem to be the right ones.
Time is on my side
According to Einsteinian conjecture, the speed of light is constantly independent of the reference system of the observer. It is a limit that can't be exceeded by any kind of matter without transforming to energy (we know the famous equation).
Each measurement of that speed c will have the same value, no matter how fast you move. Whether you stand still or move at 50% of light speed, the ray of light will always move at about 300,000,000 kilometers per second. A fast mother! (More precise figure: in a vacuum it's 299,792,458 kilometers/sec, and, yes, I looked it up).
That sounds strange; we would think when you move at 50% of light-speed along the ray of light, the measurement of that light-speed would be halved. But light-speed remains a universal constant, as shown in experiments.
That means that time passes slower when you move than when you stand still. If you move at a low speed, that difference is extremely small. But if you move at light-speed itself, precisely at speed c that is, then time stands still. If you move faster than light-speed, you could go back or forward in time because you can arrive somewhere before light does. That means you could travel to the future or the past...
If you travel to a star at 80% of light-speed during 10 'earth' years, only 6 years will pass for you. An observer on earth with a mighty telescope would see you acting in slow-motion. That's why they half-jokingly say that astronauts come back on earth younger, from lengthy missions...
Tachyons
Scientists give a name even to what they have not yet discovered; they named tachyons those particles that some day will be discovered and which can travel faster than light (from the Greek word tachys=fast).
Suppose there's a gun which fires tachyons at a target with a speed of 2c, i.e. twice the speed of light (slow for a tachyon!). Let's call the moment of firing G1 and the moment of hitting the target G2. Observer 1, who doesn't move, sees the gun firing and then the bullet hitting the target (G1 then G2). Observer 2, who travels at 50% of light speed in the same direction as the bullet, sees departure and arrival happen at the same moment (G1=G2). Observer 3, who travels at 80% of light speed in the same direction as the bullet notices that the bullet moves from the target to the gun (G2 then G1)!
This thought experiment leads us to the notion that, when a speed bigger than c is permitted, in certain reference systems these fast-moving particles or whatever can travel back in time, relative to normal physical processes.
When tachyons exist, we can send messages back in time!
Time travel: Delayed
So if tachyons existed and we could manipulate them, we could send messages to the past. However, even in those thought experiments, we're supposed to send back in time particles, like those damn tachyons, but not persons, because the matter we're made of cannot travel faster than light.
Ain't lab scientists totally without imagination or what?..
*
RE: "In Response To: Einstein's "God Does Not Play Dice With The U (M)" & "NEW: Educated Gamblers and Fate?"
A few points: (1) Einstein was/is one of the world's greatest mind -- no doubt. His "Einstein's" comment about dice and the universe even if understood in the most compleat way possible -- would still be a riddle in some respects.
(2) As history shows, normal scientific revolutions "SRs" continue on and on. For progress, SRs are a neccessity. Models or paradigms "things taken for granted in a given era" continue to evolve at a much faster rate as time passes -- we all can see this happening before our eyes. For example, small particle theory in physics is being challenged by "string" theories. There are a few different theories on optics which have all contributed to better eyesight and understanding the universe. Nautical navigation techniques have went through various paradigms -- all for the better. The same goes for poker....
(3) So "Educated Gamblers and Fate" will be studied and dicussed for years to come. I'm sure that the formative years of poker players has a great influence on how they feel on their "later in life" poker habits. For example, DS or some other author "I forget who" in one of their earlier gambling books mentioned that he had a friend who was an excellent poker player who could not become a full time professional because of "due to a somewhat guilt complex"" his early christian training. So at this time and due to my early formative years of religious training....
I feel "usually after a bad day at poker" that some of us who play lots of poker should "only if possible" devote some time "depending upon the individual" to helping those who need help. Without mentioning names, I have read about some of the world's best poker players who devote four or five days each month of time to helping others. They also mentioned that it clears their mind by forgetting about poker every now and then.
From the Foreword by Isaac Asimov to A History Of Mathematics by Carl B. Bover, revised by Uta C. Merzbach:
Mathematics is a unique aspect of human thought, and its history differs in essence from all other histories...
As time goes on, nearly every field of human endeavor is marked by changes which can be considered as correction and/or extension...
And yet, among most branches of science, the process of progress is one of both correction and extension. Aristotle...had to be corrected by Galileo...Galen, the greatest of ancient physicians...had to be corrected by Vesalius in 1543 and Harvey in 1628. Even Newton...had to be modified by Einstein in 1916.
Now we can see what makes mathematics unique. Only in mathematics is there no significant correction, only extension. Once the Greeks had developed the deductive method, they were correct in what they did, correct for all time. Euclid was incomplete and his work has been extended enormously, but it has not had to be corrected. His theorems are, every one of them, valid to this day.
Ptolemy may have developed an erroneous picture of the planetary system, but the system of trigonometry he worked out to help him with his calculations remains correct forever.
Each great mathematician adds to what came previously, but nothing needs to be uprooted...
God does not play dice!
Maybe he knows they're loaded!
Vince.
"Not everything that counts can be counted. Not everything that can be counted counts."
-Albert Einstein
I would tell her that you feel it is impossible for mere mortals to understand and comprehend "higher powers."
You underestimate people's tolerance of cognitive disonnance and situation-specific values/beliefs.
I've never understood people who pray for God to look out for them, especially in mundane matters. What kind of arrogant jerk to do you have to be to pray to God to help you make that free throw in Basketball or make a roll in craps, while at the same time he's letting a Concorde go down in flames with 109 people aboard?
I'll guarantee this: When the relatives of the people on the Concorde first heard about it, every single one of them who believed in God prayed with all their might that their loved one was spared. God never answered one of them. I guess he was busy helping Sammy Sosa go for the record.
Dan,
I find you to be one of the sharpest minds on the forum and love your stuff on the Exchange concerning matters other than poker (e.g., gun control, overpopulation myths). I’d vote for you for President except you are a Canadian but maybe the President can hire you on as an advisor. After all, he takes money from the Red Chinese so what could be wrong with hiring you?
But here we are a close but somehow a little out of synch. You wrote:
”I've never understood people who pray for God to look out for them, especially in mundane matters. What kind of arrogant jerk to do you have to be to pray to God to help you make that free throw in Basketball or make a roll in craps,”
Many people look to God as some sort of “Celestial Butler” (see note 1), and I agree this is wrong. Like many, I struggle with faith and am uncertain of my religious beliefs. But as I have grown, when I do pray, I pray for strength in dealing with the cards that are dealt me rather than favors from God. In other words, God created an imperfect universe for his own reasons, and if I become victim to one of his imperfections (let’s say I get cancer at an early age), I will try to look to him for dealing with it with courage and dignity rather than asking for a miracle cure (at least I hope I would anyway).
”...while at the same time he's letting a Concorde go down in flames with 109 people aboard?”
Humans make machines that do wonderful things but sometimes they tragically fail; God made nature, which is usually beautiful, but sometimes it wrecks havoc. I don’t think God let that plane go down, nor did he make it, nor would he try to prevent it. I think on these he does role the dice.
”I'll guarantee this: When the relatives of the people on the Concorde first heard about it, every single one of them who believed in God prayed with all their might that their loved one was spared.”
It is human nature to hope and pray for the best. I would too in this spot.
”God never answered one of them. I guess he was busy helping Sammy Sosa go for the record…”
If they believe, then they should pray for strength in dealing with their loss. And Sammy Sosa can get his records or Evander Hollyfield his victories on their own.
Regards,
Rick
Note 1: “Celestial Butler” is a term taken from the book “Happiness is a Serious Problem” by Dennis Prager. I highly recommend it.
Rick, I guess I should have been a little clearer. I thought we were specifically talking about God intervening in things like how the dice are going to fall at the table.
I grew up in a very devout Christian household. One of the many things that led me away from that faith when I was a small child was the daily prayers at supper, which would often be along the lines of, "God, please deliver a bountiful harvest this year.", "God, please look after our daughter as she leaves for school". In looking at the world, I could only assume that God will do no such thing.
I saw an interview with Sammy Sosa where he stated that his success as a ball player was specifically due to God's intervention. He took no credit, because it was all God's doing. I didn't know God was such a big hitter.
Anyway, I understand the good intentions behind it all, but to me it seems like just another form of fuzzy thinking. Clearly, God isn't going to deliver a bountiful harvest. The weather and the random changes in the jet stream which moves air masses around will decide that. And if God DOES intervene in some cases, then you have to believe that he's a real SOB, because tens of millions die every year, and almost all of them wanted to stay alive, as did their families. We're clearly here on our own. If there is a God, he apparently wants it that way.
Dan,
We are not that far apart then. But I'm not sure God is a SOB. If only good things happened to the devout or good people, and bad things happened to the unfaithful or bad people, then people would be devout or good people for self-interest alone. That sort of world doesn't make sense to me and I wouldn't want to live in one where the motives for decency are so shallow. To me, it would be like living in a "Stepford World".
When I look at tragedy, I believe it is there to give us an appreciation of the preciousness of life. A world without tragedy would lose its edge, its meaning, and its vitality.
If there is any reward for the decent and good people on earth, it is that they tend to have better and more meaningful friendships. Assholes rarely have real friends.
I'm not much of a baseball fan anymore, so I don't know much about Sosa. But it aggravates me when some athletes say, "I won because Jesus (or God) was on my side" or something similar. For example, Evander Hollyfield is a courageous fighter I admire but he is big on wearing his faith on his sleeve and attributing his wins to God’s will. If he merely said "I thank God for giving me the strength and inspiration to perform my best", then I wouldn't have any problem with it. But I don't think God cares who wins the boxing title.
Regards,
Rick
If God helps those who pray for help in any way, then that should be testable in the real world. You should be able to collect statistics on accident rates, diseases, etc. and compare the devout and non-devout. I see absolutely no evidence of it. We have to look no further than the Holocaust.
Dan,
Actually, there have been some recent news stories about studies that indicate that those who pray do better when facing disease and so on. But a lot can be explained away by the other habits of the devout (e.g., they are more likely to follow doctor's orders and have a positive attitude which has to help).
I don't know if you saw my post regarding the smoking issue. Japan has the highest rate of smoking in the world along with the highest longevity. I don't think smoking is good for you, but in Japan, a smoker often maintains a healthy lifestyle. In Western societies, smokers tend to have a lot of other bad habits, which lead to early demise.
Anyway, I'm not sure we have any argument. But the Holocaust is another matter. The fact that man is capable of great evil does not disprove the existence of God (nor does it prove it). But it is too late for me to get into that one now.
BTW, thanks for the response. I have great admiration for your intellect and am looking forward to more articles from you in Poker Digest.
Regards,
Rick
actually i think the patients who give their doctors (and nurses) the most trouble tend to do best. (as far as asking questions and demanding explanations, taking an active role in their treatment,getting 2nd opinions, etc.) im pretty sure there have been studies on this.
brad
brad,
Good point. I probably used a bad example, especially regarding my own experience, regarding blindly following the word of those in the medical profession.
Regards,
Rick
while i agree there is an arrogance in asking god to care about your little problems, it is a hollow arrogance. the truly proud would never accept god's help, let alone beg for it.
scott
and what comes right after pride?
Dan,
To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, we live in an age in which we can readily accept the notion that sub-atomic particles must exist, even if they haven't been discovered yet, but we refuse to believe that 1000 angels can dance on the head of a pin. Sorry for another reference, but "The heart has it's reasons which reason knows nothing of."
And this is from a lapsed Catholic who believes that we have created God in our image, and I no longer have any doubts whatsoever. Your outrage is certainly evident, and extremely well put, but unnecessary when the whole category "God" disappears.
However, I know people who possess Faith, and it is, for them, a very strong force. Sometimes I regret not having it myself.
John
Note to myself: preview message first.
Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa.
Translation: dumb shit.
*
I fairly sure if you believe everything happens for a reason (and it is true) then you are living in a deterministic universe, and thus alot of notions of freewill and responsibility go out the window.
I don't believe organized religon would have its believers believe that everything happens for a reason.
your friend is absolutely right, with one caveat.
(gee i hope i spelt that right.)
the reason comes after the event.
(and with some people is even indepedent of the actual event!)
for example, last night i played too long ,got a little tired, got a little run of ice cold cards, got a little passive, and got bluffed out of a big pot. the reason i assigned to this event was that i had lost my 'killer instinct' attitude. i quickly did a mental adjustment and within a couple hours more than made up for that lost pot.( but more importantly i played better!)
this is in opposition to the losing attitude of thinking "gee, this is the 47th time my straight flush draw didnt get there, its just not in the cards for me tonight, nothing i can do about it ... "
brad
Only losers don't believe in God.
my post neither disavowed nor endorsed a belief in either a personal (God) or impersonal god.
i do however believe that only an idiot thinks he no longer has to learn anything because he knows it all.
by mightiest desire, brad
"random events may happen for a reason?"
There is no such thing as a purely random event occurring in this universe. Even if some physicists now believe that matter has been seen to be randomly appearing in parts of the universe, to my knowledge they have not been able to verify the random generation of matter. Consequently, all occurring events are thus deemed "pseudo random". Pseudo randomeness does indeed occur for a reason. David Sklansky incorrectly uses tossing dice as a random event. It is not. Science can determine the cause of the "seven" if given the proper information and can predict the result of the toss if allowed to control the physical factors.
Vince.
While I wouldn't argue with the dice-toss result as actually being controlled by a great many factors, it does not necessarily follow that all events in the universe are pseudo-random. And, just because physicists have not been able to verify the random generation of matter does not mean that they won't be able to do so in the future.
But the simplest proof that truly random events occur, in my opinion, is something I just now came up with! Here goes:
When I decide: A) I will have ice cream if the coin comes up heads, or B) I will not have ice cream if the coin comes up heads, that is necessarily going to produce a truly random result. It HAS to. Because we are no longer just flipping a coin. I could have said the OPPOSITE. What I SAID has no influence on whether the coin comes up heads or tails. So while the coin toss itself is pseudo-random, and what I said may or may not have been pseudo-random, whether I have ice cream IS random. This is because when the two events are combined, I could have either specified tails or a negative prior to the coin toss. There is no sphere of influence between what I (or you)specified before the coin flip and the coin flip itself. Therefore, truly random events can and do occur, even if they are caused by a combination of pseudo-random events.
"And, just because physicists have not been able to verify the random generation of matter does not mean that they won't be able to do so in the future. "
well, ive got you now:)
just because i cant refute your argument now doesnt mean i wont be able to do so in the future. obviously you cant argue with that.
brad
It sounded like Vince was saying, not that physicists had proved it one way or the other, but that since they hadn't, they were assuming one side as a basis to work from. On the other hand, I feel like my short proof actually proves something. While I'm not Euclid and my "proof" may not be airtight, you can't seriously say that just because you can't prove that 2+2 doesn't equal 4, that that doesn't mean you won't be able to do so in the future. Or then again, maybe you can.
I can prove that 2+2 ‡ 4, if to = 2 then
to + to = toto
Q.E.D.
i was just kidding around. thats the oldest sophist argument there is (... i may not be able to out debate you now, but that doesnt mean youre right because i may be able to refute you sometime in the future ...).
as far as seriously being able to implement true randomness, you make a good point. what youre doing i guess is removing the cause of the event from yourself (in other words whether you want ice cream or not will not have any effect on your action) and instead using a totally unrelated thing as a proxy cause.
so there is indeed a cause/effect relationship, but one that cannot be teased out using inductive/deductive reasoning.
so lets say you raise on the end heads up. you have a reason for doing so which is the cause. (either a bluff or strong hand.) note that you may give off a tell or something. also there is a logical coherency to your play that could conceivably be picked up on.
but if you decide before the last card to raise or not through a proxy cause ( eg., whether second hand of watch is up or down) then your action is truly random in the sense that theres no way for a third party to know the cause of your action. (and if you dont look at last card,(a bit easier in stud) then you cant give off tells.)
note however, that there is indeed a cause (for raising or whatever) , and i would guess for that reason that it is not really random.
note how ive sneakily changed random from "not being predictable" to "not having a cause from which to predict" :)
brad
Hi Brad, I thought you were joking but I wasn't sure.
If you were to introduce a third unrelated element as a preface to which way you phrase the next element, and the flip the coin or look at your watch, then you could certainly be sure it was random. Of course there is a cause but it too would be randomized.
1) flip a coin to determine if the second hand being up is raise or vice versa
2) look at the second hand
3) raise or not without looking at the last card. Now you are REALLY gambling.
as i see it , the only reason to chain proxy events together is the same as the original use of proxy cause. to hide the true cause of your behavior from an observer. so flipping the coin first will only provide more 'randomness' if your opponent can somehow deduce what youre doing with the watch (and is looking at same clock maybe).
but i still think it is only pseudo-random, to use vinces term, because someone (god?) with perfect information of the preconditions could still predict the outcome (postconditions).
of course theres always quantum theory ...
brad
Great bar. Bad movie.
Great movie, great acting, quintessential directing, a must see. 3 tumbs up (maybe up your A%S).
REALLY??? worst movie of the year so far, but great hype and marketing. All those bar scenes you see onthe TV commercial, that's all there is. And do you know why they call the babe "Law".....
Because after 1 scene, she leaves an goes to Law school....lame ain't the word. it SUCKS. It ain't even a good drive in movie. Fighting the the mosquitos is more interesting.
". it SUCKS"
Don't sugar coat it, Ratso baby. Tell us how you really feel!
Vince
Ratso,
If it's as bad as you say it is, you'll be seeing those "candid" interviews with filmgoers exiting the theater telling everyone how good it is, the surest way to tell via advertising how bad it really is.
John
Yea, they will be saying, "It was better than CATS"
I'm going to be in Vancouver, BC for a month (downtown) and I was wanting to tap the message board's wisdom on where to play in Vancouver. My preference is lower limit HE (15-30 and below). I would also like to know if there are also regular casinos with craps available in the area.
Thanks.
The best place to play HE is the Holiday Inn on Broadway. The corner of Broadway and Heather I believe. This is not downtown but it's only about a 5-10 minute cab ride. They are open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. daily. They basically only play 10-20, occassionally 5-10. The games are generally quite good. Fairly loose, a lot of people giving their money away.
There are a couple of casinos downtown, however, only the one in the Renaissance Hotel has poker and they only play 7 card stud.
There are a couple of others that play 4-8HE. One at the Quality Inn, in South Vancouver and one at the Great Canadian Casino in Richmond. Both are about a half an hour from downtown.
I would recommend the Holiday Inn. One bad thing about it is you can't phone ahead and put your name on the list. And just in case you didn't know, all of these casinos are non-smoking.
What's happening at the Orlean's with the firing/resignation of David H.?
Wanted to know if anyone knows the latest status on John and Billy's situation, and if I am going to have to head across town now. Is the DC going to reopen?
The DC has folded in light of an 8-month time frame for resolving their case. The Mayfair has also been shut down by "The Mayor's Task Force". They are fighting in court as they believe their operation is fundamentally different from the DC. It will take some time, and they are on the rail in the meantime.
Alex : Hello
Alex : who is this?
Alex : Geez.....answer me
computer : what?
Alex : hey are you batman?
computer batman : yeah I'm batman
Alex : hey, batman, what is your opinion about people like Rudy/Rounder/Michael7
Batman : Sorry, can't tell you, I am loyal to the Shredder
Alex : I mean, you've got to be a liberal don't you?
Batman : I'm liberal with the ladies. That, and I'm batman
Alex : You're an idiot.
Batman : I have a bong shaped like a bat. I keep it in the batmobile.
a.
nt
That post made no sense. Who posted that?
I think Michael7 posted it. What a comedian! Someone should give him a show. He could talk to fictional cartoon characters, and complain about things. Like liberals, and resident reds Ivan Putski, Berya, and Ching-Chang Chinaman (Niels Hoven).
a.
Hello friends- lengthy trip report to follow, no hand content, so if you don't like my style reports, stop reading now. ___________________________________________________ Well I have been back home a week and still feel like I haven't caught up on my sleep or projects at work and home. But it was a great trip and well worth the fatigue I feel now.
Arrived late on Wednesday 7/21 and went straight to room and bed.
Played $20-40 and some $10-20 from Thursday - Sunday at Orleans. Room was still going strong with side action that whole weekend. I did well overall, with just one losing session and that was a small one.
I played in 3 tournaments, 2 Limit HE and 1 NL, but the best I could do was 34 out of 291 for the NL HE for $0. Played hard but no rewards. Good thing my live play covered all my tournament entries including the very expensive TOC.
My occasion traveling companion, Karen, was with me for 4 days, so that made it all that more enjoyable.
Sunday morning, Karen and I had breakfast with Jan Fisher (formerly of CP), Mark Tenor, Lee Jones, Greg Raymer (fossilman) and Jim Geary. It was the first time I had met either Mark or Jim, so it was enjoyable to meet two new poker friends.
I met many from here and rgp through the course of my trip. It was great to see so many old friends and to be able to introduce some strangers for the first time to fellow followers of this forum and rgp newsgroup.
The Sunday night reception for TOC was lots of fun. I had the pleasure of seeing Badger and Vince engaged in pleasant small talk. I had offered earlier to introduce Vince to Badger, but they apparently met up on their own and were very civil to each other. First time I had met VInce...so that was treat.
MOnday morning there was a large group of us that met for breakfast courtesy of David Hrcisna, the former manager of Orleans Poker room. David graciously bought for 12 of us who had met downstairs. We then had several others join us in the buffet.
HOpefully my notes are correct and I haven't left anyone out. I apologize if I leave someone off the list. Here's the group that got together for good food, pleasant conversation, and strategy:
John Harkness,Johnny D,Mark Heide,Gary Furness,Dave Roemer,Fossilman,JP Massar,TOC champ-Spencer Sun,Jack, Stephen Landrum,Bill Chen,Linda Johnson (formerly of CP,Tom Sexton (Poker Masterpieces)Jenny Kaye and Denny Williams from the Bicycle Casion, Tom Overton, Mark and Tina Napolitano (Pokerpages.com)and their family.
It was a big group and we had to spread out, but I did get to chat with everyone for at least a short period to thank them all for coming. What a great group! STrong players and some movers and shakers in this industry. I am proud to have met them and become good friends with some. And then to think that Spencer (Zorac) went on to win the TOC.....must have been my good breakfast and conversation with him.
Unfortunately despite my great breakfast kick off to the day, my TOC experience did not last long. I was eliminated about 11:30 pm the first night. No cards, and especially no hands during the STUD portion. It became very expensive to get good starting cards in stud and then have them fizzle out.
I was really bummed out and went straight to bed. $2,000 spent, a year of anticipation, and I am eliminated the first day!
Tuesday went to Bellagio to play $15-30. I really wanted to get away from the Orleans after 5 days in a row, and see some new faces. Typically I have a hard time beating the daily grinders at the Bellagio.....but not this day.
I had great cards and great reads on people in my game. I played from about 1 pm on Tuesday straight through until 9 am on Wednesday morning!! I don't do that often since I am old and out of shape, but I had a big win and rode it for awhile. Cashed out +$4,300 and went to bed. What a rush....I liked being able to cash in racks of red for those lavender/white $500 Bellagio chips.
Came back on Wednesday to Bellagio, but couldn't repeat. Ended up losing $370 and then headed back to watch the end of the TOC with Jan Fisher, Bonnie Damiano, Mike O'Malley, Jenny Kaye and other friends. It was great to see the Norther CA crowd cheering for Spencer with the rgp sign from TOC 99 and Patti Beadles hat. Had a late dinner (2 am late) with Bonnie and went to bed.
Was originally scheduled to head home, but decided to stay over two more days to attend the WPIC and the roast for Mike Sexton. It was great and I was so glad I did hang around.
Thursday played some at Mirage, but didn't do anything of note.
Friday I went back to Bellagio and played $15-30 for quite awhile getting stuck $900. I had been itching to try the $30-60 for quite awhile, so kept an eye on it. When they started up the 3rd table of $30-60 with what appeared to be a soft lineup, I jumped in.
I decided to tell myself that the chips were just betting units and bought in for a rack ($1,000). Won some lost some and had to buy in a second rack. Didn't like having $2,000 invested, but I was determined to get comfortable with that limit and eventually I did. At one point I was down to my last $350 (out of $2,000) but then I hit a nice rush of cards. I played straight through the night again for the second time on my trip and stayed right until the last minute before needing to pack and catch my flight. Cashed out a $1200 win at $30-60, and a net win for the day of $300. Felt really good!
Caught plane, got first class upgrade and slept all the way home. Even through meal they served on plane, which rarely happens. I don't miss many meals!
Great trip, lots of time with good friends, and now Diane knows she can at least hold her own for awhile in $30-60.
Diane from Green Bay
Oh sure Diane----cashing in 8 racks of red in winnings is nice, but meeting Vince was a "real treat"? Congrats on the plunge into 30-60. See you in Tunica.
I was very pleased to finally meet Vince. Now I still need to meet "Rounder". I heard rumors he was there and left before I arrived, but not sure.
Oh well, someday.
See you Labor Day weekend.
Diane
Diane I would have been there but had a "personal problem" Kept getting AA & KK cracked heads up.
:-)
Looking forward to meeting you some time.
Mike
Diane,
Nice report. Thanks for introducing me to everyone at the Orleans. I'm in the red from this trip, but nothing a paycheck couldn't cure.
I may have won this time.....but I am still not ready to quit my "day job".
Hope to see you again soon.
Diane
Diane,
At least when I make mistakes at work they usually don't cost me anything. But, your friend Karen got to see me do something really stupid at that NL Hold'em tournament that put me on major tilt that evening. I still don't believe I pushed my stack all in. Anyway, I've been real busy lately with my real job, but I will post a trip report soon. See ya!
>MOnday morning there was a large group of us that met >for breakfast courtesy of David Hrcisna, the former >manager of Orleans Poker room. David graciously bought for 12 of us who had met downstairs.
From what I hear, he can afford it.
Brett
Brett- You sure are cynical. Why can't your glass be half-FULL?
Be glad for the good things in life. Why always take pot shots? Regardless of anything else, it was nice of David to buy for our group. He came down to meet us and hung around long enough to take care of us.
Diane
"First time I had met VInce...so that was treat"
Diane from Green Bay,
Your'e making me blush! The "treasure" was all mine.
Vince
P.S. In the future, please refrain from using "Badger" and "Vince" in the same sentence. some consider that a double negative.
Vince
$4,300 in a 15-30 game. You should be barred from playing!
Vince- My record is $4,000 in a $10-20 playing on just my original $200 buy-in.
Hope to see you again soon sometime around the poker trail.
Diane
Is there such a thing, and if so, where is it?
http://www.summer.com.br/~pfilho/html/main_index/index.html
Lyrics World
Thanks for the site but theres only about 200 songs on it. am i missing something?
I just checked out the link and it contains most of the hits from 1930-1999
I know I'm a little behind the times with this one but I just saw this movie last night. I'm not a big Tom Cruise fan but the reviews were generally pretty good and my girlfriend is from Sydney where it was shot so we decided to give it a try.
What a pile of crap this movie was. With all that money it amazes me they can't make anything better than that. The story and acting was obviously brutal but even the action scenes were average. The slow motion action was just stupid. The only good part was the scenes of Sydney. Last Cruise film for me. What did everyone else think?
There was a thread on this a while back. I thought the movie was awful bad too.
I may be in Arizona for a family reunion around Thanksgiving. Are there any Indian casinos reasonably close to Phoenix with some good poker action?
I think I've heard Casino Arizona has the best games in town. Is that true? Are they an Indian casino?
Casino Arizona is an Indian Casino. What limits and games do you like. CA probably has the best lively games, but Gila River and Fort McDowell also has lower limit games.
JohnnyD
For any game 10-20 or higher, Casino Arizona is the only choice. For lower limits, both hold'em and Omaha8 are excellent loose lively games; I don't like the low limit stud because they have put too high an ante on it by Vegas standards (.50 for 3-6 and $1 for 6-12).
Gila River has some good lower limit games; their 6-12 stud game with a full kill is always a great action game (same relatively high ante of $1 as C.A.). And their Tuesday (limit HE) and Wednesday (NL HE) 7:00 tourneys are big money ($55, unlimited $50 rebuys until the break).
Call Me or check my Poker Page for News when you are coming and I will update you on the games. I play 3-6 and 4-8 hold'em and Omaha8 ; I recommend Jim Geary for information on the big games at Casino Arizona.
Dick
Last night I left Bellagio's abound 1 a.m. I stopped at Kinko's and checked my e-mail and fooled around on the forum. When I was done I had chalked up a bill of $14.20 and was kicking myself for not waiting until morning when I could have gotten away free at the Nellis AFB library.
I got in my car and took solace in the fact that I had had a winning session at 15 Holdem and things were not that bad. On the way back to my room I passed an all night bar. Gee, that's not something one would expect to find here in Vegas, now is it! A Ford E-150 Van was parked in front of the bar with the sliding side door open. Next to the open door there were two people, a male and female, that, at first, I thought were embracing. Viva, Las Vegas! As I got closer I could see that the female was struggling to break away from the guy's bear hug. When I passed them she looked like she was really struggling to break loose.
A little further down the road my conscience began to ring in my ear. "Go back and check that out, What if she were your daughter?". Well, even though I don't have a daughter I decided to turn around at the next intersecttion and go back. Sure enough when I got back the couple were still stuggling. I made another Uey and entered the bars parking log. The first thought that I had was: What if he has a gun? Yeah, Viva Las Vegas, this! I slowed down the car and approached with caution. And then from a good distance I rolled down the passenger window and yelled:"Hey is everthing o.k. over there?" Before I could utter another word the girl still obviously struggling to get away said in a drunken stooper: "F... you, you F...ing Motherf...er!" I immediately smiled and said :"O.K hon" and left.
As I drove down the highway I began to laugh. Not a hysterical laugh, more like a sarcastic laugh with a little grin on the end. A little further I began to laugh out loud and then suddenly stopped laughing. I realized I was laughing at myself because I felt foolish for getting involved. But as I kept thinking about it I had to ask myself: "If a similiar situation ever occurs again will you do the same thing? Even though I was feeling a little stupid I decided that I would definitely react the same way. After all, What if she were my daughter!
Vince.
s
Vince, next time call a cop or security. It's the right play!!!
I would have asked for directions and tested the waters. I figure if the dude was out to get her, it would allow her to say something, but I think you were OK doing what you did. Of course, you could have been killed. You gotta' death wish, Vince?
you did the right thing. period, no if's and's or butt's about it.
although I would suggest carring a pistol (and knowing how to use it in self defense) if you plan on doing this more often. The police and/or security are going to usually be way too slow in a situation like this.
disregard for one's personal safety is quite a virtue. you acted admirably.
scott
went up the river to watch some geese that swam by today. and on the way back this dumb black bear was near my cabin eating sarviceberries. i had to walk way around him so as not to chase him away. with lots of huckelberries around what was he thinking? those sarviceberries are dry and have little flavor even to a bear i think. maybe he came down from canada where they like those pithy things in their pancakes. oh, for those that want poker from every post in all the forums-- a flush dont beat no darn full boat and look to your left before you act.
He needed a human to show him the huckleberries. That's why god gave humans to bears, to show them the huckleberries.
But, talk about a rough way to make a living. Pulling berries from branches with your lips. And now, there's a human giving you looks that say you're stupid. "Frankly, I'd like to see him making a living pulling berries from branches with his lips.", thinks the bear.
Well, I do believe Ray has pulled a little out of some berry patches in his time.
Ray, that's cause you're not out there FFing. the bear is probably waiting for you to provide him with a nice rainbow that he can fry up and serve with a sarviceberry reduction. He's thinking "stupid hairless thing. the water's low, the fish are at their most vulnerable, and he's out there looking at some damn geese that he won't catch with that funny long stick of his. I know more fishing than I do poker, so I'll leave the card wisdom to you in this thread.
"those sarviceberries are dry and have little flavor even to a bear ""i think."" What the flock does he know I just ate a slimy oily fish and these berries are perfect to dry up my mouth.
Smart Black Bear
Ray, I think that bear must be not eating for a while, since this makes me remember those early days when I did not win a pot for a while, I would call a solid raise with KJo in a hurry.
regards,
jikun
A bear stood watching a man eating a baloney sandwich, wondering why he'd want to eat carrion when there were LIVE SQUIRRELS scampering around right at his feet! Everyone knows how yummy live squirrels taste! Stupid human!
years ago when i used to hunt the little buggers i made squirrel stew. they are tough and too stringy for me, about like the taste of opossum and muskrat combined.
Just an Idea, how about a link from each forum back to the home page.
thanks
there is right on the left down in directory under home if you leave the green side on your left. hows zad?
ray,
those of us who do not live in remote cabins in the woods, nor wrestle with bears, nor think about sheep in impure ways often open a frame in a new window (to do this in MS IE 5 use a right mouse click on the main message index). this eliminates the green frame of links on the left which most of us rarely need. then we generally bookmark (or make a favorite in MS IE 5) each forum and of course put it right on top of our favorite places to surf. believe it or not, i have one folder entirely devoted to 2+2, for it is such a neat place.
my suggestion to one and all is to also include one bookmark/favorite of the 2+2 home page which would enable us visit the links and to buy your books at full retail and to see your handsome face even though WE know you really look more like the unibomber these days. btw, no disrespect intended, as we have three copies of your book, all of which were purchased at retail.
that being said, maybe there should be a button that returns to the home page, but chuck looks like he does too much work for you guys already and I doubt mason pays him well.
regards,
rick
p.s. actually, you might be a little better looking than the unibomber, but not by much. it is a toss up as to who is smarter.
Rick, I grew up in LA now live in MT. I used to enjoy conversations with you 15 yrs ago at the Bike. Today I have no clue what your talking about, but then I'm computer illiterate.
Ed,
Fifteen years ago? I was still living in Rhode Island. Wow, time flies. I played at the Bike once in a while when on business travel but that was before holdem was legal. My main game back in 1985 was 5/10 draw then I got hooked on 3/6 lowball. I did OK but had my eye on holdem even then. I bought Sklansky’s books in 1981 at Gambler’s Book Club just in case (I was a mostly a backgammon player).
Anyway, I’d probably remember you but I already am getting into the fist stages of Alzheimer’s. I’m no computer geek but I’ll elaborate on what I think is the best way to view the forum.
Using Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5:
1) Go to the home page and select a forum. After the message index loads, point the mouse over it and right click. One of the selections should read “Open Frame In New Window”. Click on this and the frame should expand to the whole screen.
2) Now go to the top of the MS IE 5 Menu and select “Favorites”. Then select “Add to Favorites”.
3) Repeat this for all the forums you are interested in.
4) Once this is done, go to “Favorites” and select “Organize Favorites”. I made a Folder called “2+2 Links” and moved them all there. While you are at it you can organize all your porn links and so on ;-).
Anyway, once this is done you get each forum on a full screen and when you refresh it goes back to the top of the index rather than to the home page. Good luck and email me if you have questions or want me to figure out how to do it in Netscape Navigator.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks for your effort to educate the uneducated. I have to mull this over. Its probably me with the suspect memory. My father was ill at the time and i I came to LA in the winters to help my mom care for him. Every evening I headed to the Bike to play 5-10 or just relax. You were one of the few tough players at that limit and I remember vaguely remember some of your biography so I figure we must have talked at times. After my father passed on I spent 2 more winters in Cal but played at the High Desert Casino in Adalanto because of the intro of antes to the 5-10 games.
.
I am a frequent and well-known poster who has participated in this forum for a long time. Now I need some advice and need to post this anonymously.
Note that this is being written on behalf of a close friend (CF) who is extremely concerned about the following two episodes of harassment that occurred in a Los Angeles Area Card Club. I have provided my own advice but would appreciate some independent opinions from those on the forum who may have some expertise.
The first episode occurred a few weeks ago and seemed minor at the time. I was playing at the same table with CF at the club in question and was on the change to the other game. A long time card club denizen (LTCCD), who I know only in that I have played with her a several times over the years, was chatting with CF at the other end of the table. It seemed friendly and I took little notice. Later LTCCD busted out and hung around a bit. Later LTCCD came up to CF and whispered something into CF’s ear (CF was now on my left). I then found out that LTCCD claimed she remembered that she had loaned CF $500 or so nine years ago at the bar of another club and wanted it back now that CF is back in the clubs. Note that CF only started playing a few years ago and never saw LTCCD nor has CF ever been involved in money lending or borrowing at the clubs. LTCCD had moved off so we took little note of it at the time.
Recently CF went to this same club (I was not present) and was playing 15/30 holdem and on the list for the 20/40 holdem. LTCCD was playing the 15/30. This time LTCCD was much more aggressive and publicly mentioned the alleged debt. CF became a bit flustered and indicated that this was not true CF took the change to the 20/40 when in came up. LTCCD followed CF to the 20/40 holdem and repeated the accusation, and even had another person (who was hanging around) come up to CF and vaguely threaten CF.
CF did not call management and decided to leave earlier than planned. LTCCD made a big show of pointing at CF as CF left and whispered in whomever’s ear was handy. Naturally CF was very humiliated and upset. CF called me later and I gave my advice. I’ll keep my advice private so as not to prejudice those with perhaps better advice on the forum.
CF is now a winning player and does not want to be driven away from any club but is concerned about the way a reputation can be ruined by false accusation. I have found out the following about LTCCD:
1) LTCCD is a veteran but mediocre player who once played the biggest games (including Asian style games) and is somewhat popular with management since she drops quite a bit of money around the clubs. She may or may not have much money now.
2) LTCCD is much better known than CF around the clubs. Two members of management that I have talked to (not at the club in question) have indicated that they haven’t had problems with LTCCD over the years.
3) LTCCD does appear to drink quite a bit so LTCCD could be mistaking CF for someone else. On the other hand, CF is almost too nice for the clubs and LTCCD may think she found someone who she could intimidate into a payoff.
Note that CF is an excellent customer who never complains, never abuses the help, behaves graciously, and is quite popular considering the limited time CF has played. CF has become a winning player in large part to reading and participating in the forum. But CF is not as well known as LTCCD and keeps private life private.
How should CF handle this situation if LTCCD approaches CF again? Note that avoiding this particular club is not an option since LTCCD frequents most clubs in the area. All advice and comments are appreciated.
if someone were to similarly accuse me of absconding on a loan, i'd simply deny te accusations when they made publically and ignore it when they are made privately. it would not bother be to be thought a scoundrel by a gaggle of strangers. if i were threatened i'd repsond in kind.
but, from what i gather of your close friend's personality, this is not the optimum method.
if it can be argued (ie cf can prove cf was not involved in poker at the time of the alleged debt or better yet not in la) in court, then it may be possible to get an injuction or something. i think this is a bad idea.
if a hostile enviorment in unprofitable or upsetting less than giving away $500, it may be best to just pay her. i also think this is a bad idea.
here is an idea. typically people who loan also borrow. if it common knowledge that she drinks, perhaps cf can convince her and any surrounding audience that cf really lent her the money. whenever ltccd mentions the debt, cf could just say something like "i had long since resigned ever getting my money back, but you remember it all wrong. i lent you the $500." and then earnestly bager her for it as if cf actually had the intention of getting the money.
i think that is so crazy it just might work. if by some chance ltccd actually gives cf the money, clearly give it to charity to avoid a bad conscience.
of course, maybe just calmly explaining the situation to ltccd might work. no one really believes their memory to be infallible after 9 years. especially we drinkers.
i hope everything works out ok.
scott
scott wrote
here is an idea. typically people who loan also borrow. if it common knowledge that she drinks, perhaps cf can convince her and any surrounding audience that cf really lent her the money. whenever ltccd mentions the debt, cf could just say something like "i had long since resigned ever getting my money back, but you remember it all wrong. i lent you the $500." and then earnestly bager her for it as if cf actually had the intention of getting the money.
i think that is so crazy it just might work. if by some chance ltccd actually gives cf the money, clearly give it to charity to avoid a bad conscience.
I don't understand the give it to charity stuff.
When I successfully checkraise bluff on the river I make no such donations.
If it were me I'd make her an offer she can't refuse - but since it isn't.
I'd recommend ignoring her if she makes the charge openly at a table I'd just say "I just met you for the 1st time a few days ago and you are full of shit - so shut up and play cards."
nm
Rounder,
CF is very well mannered and has never used foul language. CF was quite flabbergasted during the episode. CF did deny the debt in front of the players at the table (not as strongly as you stated) but was so flustered that CF may have looked guilty in the eyes of the others present. CF had only played in this club a few times, was winning big that day, and wanted to stay longer since the game was good.
Because LTCCD was a local favorite and has a reputation as a "live one", CF probably sensed that he or she was at a disadvantage. What CF needs to know is what to do next time this happens, not what he or she should have done that time?
CF ought to say to the lying sack of manure - loud and clear that she doesn't owe her anyhing.
If she has a friend that is a lawyer she should have the lawyer call or better yet write the casino and tell them she is being badgered and defrauded in their club and they have a resposnibility to protect their players.
I hope she gets out of this mess soon.
Mike
Concerned,
I work as a Floorman at Hollywood Park Casino. Note that the card club will not be concerned whether or not the debt is valid. What they will or should be concerned with is that LTCCD chose a public place (their casino) to harass CF.
Since the first time was private, there was not much CF could do except to explain to LTCCD that she must be mistaken. Perhaps you should have advised CF to at least notify the Floorman then and there. But LTCCD was quiet about it and quickly left. That should have been the end of it.
During the second incident, LTCCD was also seated at the table with your friend, so the situation is a little dicey (BTW, I have never seen such an incident between two seated players). I can understand that CF may have been intimidated and decided to leave rather than confront and clear it up then. Unfortunately, a little damage may have already been done to CF’s reputation in that CF was not forceful enough in denying both the debt and knowing LTCCD then and there.
If LTCCD approaches CF again in any card club (except to apologize), CT should immediately ask the Floorman to get the Shift Manager. CF should not speak to LTCCD. If the Floorman hesitates, CF should tell the Floorman that it is urgent and that CF has been threatened and harassed and it is serious. When the Shift Manager arrives, CF should let him know in no uncertain terms that CF does not know LTCCD. CF should clearly state that this player is harassing CF for a debt that doesn’t exist. If it is the same card club, CF should make reference but not emphasize the preceding incident. CF should also emphasize that he or she was humiliated and embarrassed.
If the Shift Manager is following proper procedure, LTCCD will be asked to leave. If the Shift Manager is reluctant to act, CF should insist that security be called. If he doesn’t, CF needs advice from a lawyer rather than a mere Floorman. Where is Greg Raymer or skp when you need them ;-) ?.
Regards and Good Luck,
Rick
PS: With all these acronyms, I feel like I’m back working in aerospace.
probably better than mine. but following mine would be more fun.
scott
Rick wrote: >Where is Greg Raymer or skp when you need them ;-) ?.
I don't think that there is much here that is suitably dealt with by a lawyer or the law. Unless the LTCCD goes beyond saying "you owe me money", there is little of benefit to be achieved by involving us evil types (i.e., lawyers).
Theoretically, you could sue the LTCCD for slander. However, you wouldn't have any damages of consequence that can be proven, so you might win, and be awarded $0 by the judge. And, even if you won some piddly amount, it would never be enough to cover expenses (not even close). And, it would likely just infuriate LTCCD, maybe to take things further. Even though I'm a lawyer (maybe because), it is my frequent opinion that doing things without a lawyer is typically best.
I agree with CF either defending their cause more aggressively by stating the falsity of the accusations loudly and clearly, or involving the floorman.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
..to "Get the f*** out of my f***** face, you stinky c*** and never f**** talk to me again."
People are too nice and they put with this kinda crap, esp. if they're worried that the harasser is somehow "connected". He should complain to mgmnt immediately, he should tell everyone he plays with that LTCCD is a skanky ho and a lying sack of s***, and as for Vaguely Threatening Boy(VTB), CF should tell him, "Listen m******f****, if you even look at me wrong ever again, I'm calling the cops immediately".
The stuff people put with, ESPECIALLY in poker rooms, slays me, absolutely slays me. Stuff happens in them that would never be tolerated for a second in any other business, sport or recreational activity, but I guess it can only happen to you if you let it.
sounds like she believes it so either its a mistake or he does owe her. most likely a mistake. he needs to try to get her to realize that he is not the person whom she thinks he is. if she is not convinced and continues to harrss either ignore , complain, or take swift action.
I'm not inclined to give this SB (Skanky Bitch) the benefit of the doubt that she is simply mistaking CF for someone else. I think she has him pegged as a possible mark and has discerned that since he's a nice guy (and somewhat self-effacing--am I right?), he wouldn't raise much of a stink about this harrassment and might, just might, pay her off to make her go away.
The above advice to deal with this problem via cardroom management is on target. However, I feel it also wouldn't work as she is a regular and is worth thousands of $$$ to the card club(s); PROBABLY MORE THAN YOUR FRIEND IS. Furthermore, it would be his word against hers. The card casinos are so greedy that given a choice between alienating SB and your friend, they might very well choose your friend.
If it were ME getting bothered is such a fashion MY solution would be quick, brutal, simple, and involve bone breakage, lacerations, blood, gouging, kicking, etc. Or at least the sincere and meaningful threat thereof. However, I sense your friend is too mild-mannered to consider such a solution. So the best favor you can do him is to one day soon quietly take aside the SBLTCCD and calmly inform her that she will soon be DOA if she doesn't F.O. (you can figure that one out) and leave your friend CF alone. You can also complain to management, but I feel it's more effective to complain directly to SBLTCCD, using a baseball bat if necessary.
There's only one kind of language these semi-human scumwads understand.
isnt that a little harsh Kevin. what you are advocating is akin to sending in Rounder with Chris's new gun.
You may remember a Pulitzer-prize-winning photo, showing the Saigon chief of police dealing with a captured Viet Cong spy by shooting him in the head. I feel this is an excellent way to deal with those who make their way in the world by preying on others. Their net worth is profoundly negative, and their only value to society is in the profession of Organ Donor (thus the recommended head shot).
As I said, I don't believe any appeals to decency, reason, or compassion work with people like this. The only thing they respect or understand is force, and the assurance that it will be used against them if their predatory acts continue. This behavior can be exhibited by any individual or group of individuals all the way up to nation-states. Remember Soviet Russia? Remember what the only effective tool for dealing with them was?
Kevin,
Right now you're in the same boat as those who practice vigilante justice. It's not the penalty that's the problem, it's the lack of ability to ACCURATELY judge the alleged offenders.
I have no problem with taking a guy who just raped a little girl out to the oak tree and hanging him. The problem arises when the little girl SAYS she was raped, the guy gets killed, and no one ever reliably proved that she was telling the truth, and that she hadn't misidentified her attacker, etc.
In the present situation, we still don't know that LTCCD hasn't just made an honest (albeit stupid) mistake. You are assuming she's being predatory, but she might just have a faulty memory and an onerous personality. I don't like these faults, but I don't batter someone for them either.
Once you have proven that LTCCD is acting predatorily with knowledge that her accusation is false, then I'll help you bat her. Until then, other avenues of action will be preferable.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Jeez, some of the advice you're getting...
First, your friend needs to have a FRIENDLY talk with her. She may honestly believe this, so the time isn't right to tear a strip off of her. He should go up to her and ask her to talk privately, then say, "give me the details of this debt - where was it, why did you loan the money, and why do you think it was me?" Then your friend needs to calmly explain why it couldn't be him. During this process, if she gets hostile, he should simply stand his ground and say something like, "I have never failed to repay a loan in my life. It's a matter of honor with me. I have spent a lifetime building a reputation as someone with character. If you insist on continuing to harass me in public and damage that reputation, I'll be forced to take action first with the house, and then in the legal system if I have to."
If your friend starts calling her a Skanky B*tch like others would suggest, it's just going to further tar his reputation. The way to win arguments like this is to remain cool and rational, so that outside observers can judge just who is being unreasonable. If he engages in shouting matches with her, people will simply write BOTH of them off as a couple of bad risks. You never win arguments like this in the court of public opinion.
And as Rick said, the house should never allow personal arguments like this at the table. It's bad for the game. So find a floorman, take him aside privately, and explain the situation. Don't call him to the table and force him to a decision while everyone is yelling, or he may make a bad one. Give him the facts privately, ask him nicely to please police his game, and let him do his job. If he won't, go higher up the food chain and complain there.
I guess we're just too polite, Dan. The 'Mericans are ready to nuke the bitch, and we're advocating diplomacy. Kinda says it all,eh?
test
After I checked in on Tuesday evening, I decided to eat dinner at the Orleans buffet. I thought it was reasonably priced at $10 compared to the buffets on the strip. They had a wide variety of foods to choose from.
That evening, I went upstairs to the poker room and played a $40 Omaha 8B satellite and two $100 No-Limit Hold'em satellites. After playing the Omaha 8B satellite, I decided that I would never play one again. I do not see how any skilled player could make a profit playing these. Anyway, I got caught bluffing and exited 6th place in the first No-Limit Hold'em satellite, and I came kind of close, I guess that's called 2nd place in the other. Would you believe I played four-deuce offsuit and caught two fours on the flop? Well, I did, but now I had only 25% of the chips. Eventually, I lost. The chip leader kept on pushing his whole stack in on every hand. I only mucked my blind hands a few times, but I should have pushed it in on every hand just to give myself a chance. I had a deuce or trey on every hand I had. That was plenty of action for today.
On Wednesday I played the Omaha 8B noon tournament. I made it to the last four tables, was quartered twice, and lost the last two hands. The sad part about it was I lost with very good hands. The last hand I played was As Qd 3c 2d. I was in early position and came in for a raise, a guy with a mountain of chips called, and the blinds folded. The flop hit me with a queen, I put the rest of chips in the pot, but my opponent called and caught a king on the river for a pair. Although I lost, I felt that I had played the tournament well considering the size of the field and caliber of players. It was now 6:10 p.m. I decided to skip dinner and enter the 7:00 p.m. No-Limit Hold'em tournament.
While I was looking for my table, I spotted a guy that looked like Rounder from the 2+2 forum. I approached him and asked, Are you Mike? Sure enough, it was Rounder. We exchanged a few friendly words and then I sat down and played the tournament. An hour after the rebuy period I busted out with ace-queen against a pair of eights. My opponent caught another two eights, I got no help at all. Nice catch. Urrgh.
After the tournament, I decided to play a $40 No-Limit Hold'em satellite. I saw Rounder (Mike) again and we both signed up for the same satellite. I'll have to say that Rounder practices what he preaches on the forum. He plays a solid game. No visible tells either. Anyway, we were down to five players. I think the blinds were $25 and $50. I was short stacked, in early position; I had ace-queen, and limped in. Hoping someone would raise, so I could push the rest of my chips in preflop. Well, Rounder had the big blind and checked. The flop was ace-ten-trey rainbow. To my surprise, Rounder bet and I tossed in the rest of my chips. He showed me his ten-trey and took down the pot. It was my fault, I let him in for a free play and he got a lucky flop.
Since, I had not eaten dinner, I asked the poker room floor manager for a food comp, and ate the late night steak and eggs for 2.99. I thought it was a good deal for the price. The Orleans had some other specials. Now, this is like the way the old Vegas used to be. Free and decent food.
On Thursday afternoon I played the $160 No-Limit Hold'em tournament with unlimited rebuys. I started out with $600 in tournament chips, lost it with ace-king, and did a rebuy. I did another rebuy as soon as I lost a blind just so I would have enough chips to cripple one of the big stacks.
The tournament director announces that this is the last hand before the break. I'm in late position with pocket jacks, a few players come in before me for $100 each and the guy right behind me makes it $1000. Everyone folds to me. I've got $1125 left and now I must make a decision. If I fold and do an add-on I will have $1625, which would be ok, but not great, but if I move-in and lose I can still do a rebuy and add-on and have $1200, but if I win and do an add-on I will have $3325 in tournament chips. I decided to move-in for several reasons. My opponent could be just using his position to pick up the pot, he could have just ace-king, or I could be in real trouble if he has pocket aces, kings, or queens. But, I thought that it was more important to try and gain a substantial chip lead at this point. It looks like I got lucky, I caught a jack on the flop and my opponent had kings, which did not improve.
After the break, I played another interesting hand. Several players limp in for the blind. I've got pocket treys on the button and call. The flop comes ace-ace-ten rainbow. Under the gun bets $100 and everyone folds up to me. From observing his play he could be bluffing or he may have a real hand. I decide to call. If a trey comes on the turn I could possibly win a lot of chips. He had about $2400. On the turn a queen comes off. Now, I don't like the board at all, but surprisingly my opponent checks. My first thoughts at this point are he's got ace-queen and he's trying to trap me, so I check. On the river comes a trey giving me treys full of aces. But, I still don't like my hand. My opponent bets $300. I decide that there is a good possibility that he just has three aces, so I called. He turns over ace-king and I take down the pot.
It was now four hours into the tournament and I was seated at a new table. I had $3000 left, but all of my opponents had at least double that amount. The blinds were $100 and $200. I'm in middle position with pocket jacks and open for $500. A late position player makes it $1500. Everyone folds to me. I don't have a good read on this player, but I decide to move all-in. I did it for several reasons. According to the board there's still 208 players left. If I'm going to win, I have to gamble a bit to build my stack. He could have just a smaller pair and because of his tight image could be trying to intimidate me. Well, he thinks for a few seconds, I almost thought he was going to fold, but decides to call me. He turns over his cards immediately on the flop-pocket kings. The board didn't help me, so I mucked my hand without showing it.
After I busted out, I asked the poker room floor manager for a couple of food comps. I ate dinner at the buffet. I needed a good meal to make me feel better after blowing all that dough on that stupid tournament. After dinner, I decided to go back to the poker room to play some satellites.
I played a $40 No-Limit Hold'em Satellite and busted out quickly. Then I saw Rounder (Mike) getting ready to play a $40 Limit Hold'em satellite. So, I decided to sit down and play this one. Me, Rounder, and another player ended up doing a three way split. Then Rounder and I signed up for a $40 No-Limit satellite. I ended up beating Rounder on two hands. Both times I had the big blind. On the first hand he had ace-king and I had pocket sixes. The next time he had pocket kings and I had the ace-trey of hearts. Note that, when I played the ace-trey we were down to five players. Now, I was getting lucky. I flopped two pair. When there was just two of us left, we decided to split the win evenly. By the way, Rounder had played his hands correctly each time. After I won with the ace-trey, I did not see Rounder anymore. But, I enjoyed meeting and talking with him.
On Friday afternoon, I took the shuttle to the strip, played a little slots, and went shopping at Caesars. After walking all afternoon on the strip, I decided to go back to the Orleans and register for the evening No-Limit Hold'em tournament. While waiting in line, I met Diane from Green Bay and signed her up for the tournament, so she could go back to her ring game and rake in the dough.
Before the tournament, I decided to get a cheeseburger and fries at Terrible Mikes. They will grill your burger the way you want it and you can top it yourself.
Well, I didn't last too long in this evening's tournament. I really screwed up badly. All that walking in the sun must have tired me out. I fell for a trap that I could have easily avoided. Early in the tournament, blinds are $25 and $15, I limp in under the gun with pocket aces, late position player and small blind call, big blind checks. The flop comes Td-7c-4c. I bet $50, late position player calls, and the blinds fold. I immediately put him on a flush draw. On the turn is an eight of spades. I bet $100 and the other guy raises all-in. Without thinking clearly, I push in my last $300. Well, guess what he has? He flopped a set of sevens. I could not believe that I did that. What was I thinking? The next foolish thing I did was rebuy and lost that within fifteen minutes. Now, I know I was not thinking.
After the tournament I decided to go play a $40 No-Limit Satellite. I was the first one out. It was time to quit. I decided to get a cup of coffee and go to my room. After I rested for awhile, I decided to go back to the poker room and play some satellites. I played another satellite and busted out of that one too. There was a player at the table who gave me a hard sell on John Feeney's book. He finally talked me into buying it for $20. By the way, his name was Chico. Maybe, he works for Mason. Anyway, I played one more satellite and ended up coming in 2nd place for my $40 back. I decided to go eat breakfast. Steak and eggs again.
I slept in late on Saturday. Went to the poker room about noon and met Diane from Green Bay. She told me she had made it to the last four tables last night. I thought that was pretty good considering there were more than 250 players in the tournament. Well, it looks like I have another player to fear at the tables.
The noon Limit Hold'em Tournament was in progress. I asked Diane if she knew Greg Raymer (Fossilman). I wanted to know who he was, since I had bought 10% of him for tomorrow's tournament. We looked around the tables and found him with his fossils. It was 12:30 and he was already down some chips, but that's limit hold'em and I have my money on him for tomorrow in the no-limit tournament.
That evening, I played the Omaha 8B tournament. Guess who's sitting at my table? In seat number one was Fossilman. Anyway, I was off to a good start. I won a big giant pot that I thought was going to get split. Before the end of the first break, a guy comes over to our table and starts chatting with Fossil. Then, I find out its Vince Lepore. Anyway, the tournament was going well for me, until it was down to the last three tables. I ended up losing the last four hands I played and finished 27th. They only paid 20 places, but I was satisfied with how I had played the tournament. The only regret I have, is I should have asked Fossil if he was interested in a last longer bet.
Later that evening, I met Vince again and we talked for awhile about poker and the Two Plus Two Forum while we were watching the final table from the noon limit hold'em tournament.
On Sunday afternoon I played a little double deck blackjack. I cashed out $55 ahead and decided to go check on the tournament to see how Fossil was handling the opposition. Well, I found him playing in a live game. I guess he did not last too long, but I'm sure he tried his best to win. After all, it was mostly Ray Zee's money anyway. Maybe, I can get Ray to back me someday at the WSOP for an Omaha tournament.
In the evening, I decided to go to the Stratosphere and play the $35 No-Limit Hold'em tournament. There was a lot of loose action at my table. I recognized a few good players form the Orleans tournaments. Sitting on my right was a nice lady from Australia. She asked me if I was from Las Vegas. I replied, "No, I'm here on vacation." We both chatted throughout the tournament, and I carefully observed her play. She played fairly well, but was easy for me to read. As the tournament progressed, my opinion of her plays changed. She actually played better than I first thought. I watched her play against a loose aggressive player and she picked him off. Now, I was going to have to be careful, if I got involved in a hand with her.
Eventually, we both play a hand together. The blinds are $50 and $100 with a $25 ante. I've got the big blind with an unsuited five-six, then everyone folds up to her, and she calls. The flop comes Kd-Jd-9c and she checks. Against the typical average player I would bet after it was checked to me. She had $2400 in chips and I had only $700 left. I decided to check, because if she really had a hand I knew she would bet on the turn. Furthermore, I thought that if I made the typical bet on the flop she may call thinking I was bluffing, and I did not want to risk losing any more chips. On the turn came a seven of clubs, she checked again. Now, I was convinced that she just wanted to show the hand down, so it was time to make my move. I figured that she had some experience playing pot-limit hold'em. I waited to make my move on the turn, because I wanted her to think I was slowplaying a monster hand trying to trap her, so I decided to bet $400 which was slightly less than the pot. Well, it worked. She showed me one of her cards to get my reaction, the seven of spades, and mucked her hand. After, I raked in the pot she said, "You were bluffing, weren't you? " I decided to lie, of course, and said I had jack-deuce. Do you think she believed me?
The tournament was soon over for me. In late position, I moved all-in with an ace-jack and was called by a woman in the big blind. I caught a jack, but she had a pair of nines and made a set. After the tournament, I went back to the Orleans and watched the final table of the noon no limit hold'em tournament.
On Monday morning I ate breakfast with Diane and everyone she had invited. Fossilman was there, but Vince did not show up.
In the afternoon, I decided to watch some of the action at TOC. It looked like Fossilman had a rough line up at his table. John Bonetti, Ken Flaton, and Kathy Liebert just to drop a few names. During the 4:00 p.m. break I was waiting in line to get some coffee at Seattle Coffee and overheard Kathy Liebert trying to get a couple of players to make last longer bets with her for $500. I guess they weren't interested Kathy. If it was a smaller bet, I would have bet Fossil to outlast you.
The last tournament I was going to play was the evening Omaha 8B tournament, but I found out it was cancelled. I was disappointed that they cancelled it. So, I decided to go to the Mirage and play the $60 Limit Hold'em tournament.
Now, I remember why I don't like Limit Hold'em tournaments. Anyway, I had most of my good hands ruined, but pocket aces and ace-queen did hold up. After the rebuy period was over, I was moved to a new table. I was lucky enough to have opponents on each side of me that were easy to read. I stole quite often from the guy on my left. Here's one of my bolder plays. I'm in late position and limp in with ace-trey of hearts. The guy I've been stealing from on my right raises, the blinds fold, and I call. I know that this player will raise with a wide variety of hands, even if they are not that good. I figure if the flop scares him, I'll be able to steal the pot. The flop comes king-king-four rainbow. I decide that I'm going to play this hand just like S&M recommend in their shorthanded section in their hold'em book. I bet out on the flop, and my opponent hesitantly calls. Now, I know he does not like the flop. His hesitation told me I'd probably be able to steal it from him on the turn. On the turn another king falls off. I bet again. He thinks for about ten seconds and folds.
After the tournament, I went back to the Orleans to see how Fossil was doing in the tournament. When I was coming up the escalator I saw Vince. Then he introduced me to the poker guru himself-David Sklansky. I shook David's hand and exchanged a few words and he briskly walked back to the poker room to continue playing in the tournament. I decided to watch him for awhile, not to really learn anything, but to make sure that I would remember what he looks like. You'll never know who your opponents will be at the poker table. David kind of looks like his photographs on the Two Plus Two books, but I would have never recognized him on my own.
I walked out into the hallway outside the poker room and talked with Vince. He introduced me to another Two Plus Two poster named Dan-Dangerous Dan. Well, it was not much longer and David was out of the tournament. He lost with ace-king.
Nice report, I like reading this stuff. Better luck next time.
Enjoyed meeting you to Mark. I still can't get over the number of times I got AA (7) & KK (2) cracked heads up - well maybe we'll both get the run of the cards next time.
Mike
Mike,
One of these days I think we'll both get a run of good cards that will hold up and we'll win something big. That will make up for all the bad runs.
BillM,
Although, I only won a little bit with a few satellite splits, I enjoyed the trip very much. This trip was a little unusual, because I had met quite a few of the posters from this board.
Whenever I go on a trip to play tournaments, I strickly stay away from ring games, not that I don't like playing them, but I try to put my best effort into playing the tournaments. I can play ring game poker anytime on the boats here in the midwest.
Unlike others that get spoiled from winning, I expect a high variance. The average field for all the tournaments was more than 250 players. I don't care how skilled you are, you still have to get lucky to make it to the final table.
You should have told Kathy that you'd make the bet for whatever amount you wanted. As soon as you told her it was me, she's have taken the bet. I made a bad play against her during the World Poker Finals, and got lucky to cripple her during a 2-table Midnight Madness satellite. While she knows I'm not a total mook, I'm pretty sure she considers me just a slightly above average amateur.
As for other mentions of me in your report, they all appear accurate. My results for tournament play were poor, with no cash finishes in 6 events. The only one of the 6 that I did well in, so to speak, was the TOC, by outlasting some 85% or so of the field. In the NL event on Sunday, I had an early rush and got my stack from the starting T2K up to T6K. I then split 2 pots of 3K each, first with AA vs. AA (no bad beat there, just disappointing to get it all in preflop with AA and not win), then with my AQ vs. KQ where he caught running nines to put 3 nines on the board and negate my kicker advantage. I then lost some big pots on bad beats, and that was that.
Thank god for those juicy pot limit cash games. While some of them are very skillful, those European players do like to play, shall we say, a high variance style.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
That's the best image for you to have, let them think you're a wannabe shmuck. You'll catch them off guard and win a big prize someday. First impressions last, so let them think you are a bad player. I know you'll be working on your game and play even more skillful next year. Next time, I'll make the bet with her.
I thought you did pretty well for the TOC.
Mark- Great report. I am glad we got to spend some time together. And I did appreciate your buying in for me for the second chance tournment.
Thank goodness for friends
Diane
Diane,
Thanks for reading the report. I'm sure you'll do a favor for me in the future. See you next time.
mah
"After the tournament I decided to go play a $40 No-Limit Satellite. I was the first one out... I played another satellite and busted out of that one too... There was a player at the table who gave me a hard sell on John Feeney's book. He finally talked me into buying it for $20.... I played one more satellite and ended up coming in 2nd place for my $40 back."
You see, the book helped immediately.
That's what Chico said it would do too. He told me to read one page. Amazing! Anyway, I did start reading it on the plane ride home.
If you want to check out an awesome short film, follow the link below. This film was created by two guys with a camcorder, their home PC's, and some digital editing software.
The movie is fascinating and hilarious. And almost nothing you see is real.
Dan,
This was great. I also enjoyed the fact that you could easily chose between media players (e.g., Realplyer v Windows Media Player v Quicktime) and compare the results.
BTW, I've bookmarked "The Straight Dope" and almost caught up with most of Cecil's wisdom and wit after a lapse of many years. Thanks for that one too.
I would think you would find this week's column by Cecil on Recycling interesting. There was a great article several years ago in Atlantic Monthly called “Garbage” by a Professor Rathje of the University of Arizona. It became the following book that is unfortunately out of print according to Amazon:
Link to the Book “Rubbish! : The Archaeology of Garbage”
Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a link to the article in the Atlantic Monthly’s online archives. It was from 1989. Anyway, A month or two after I read the article, a national news anchor turned “end of newscast commentator” solemnly stated that the nation only has five years of landfill space left. That statement was true then, was true ten years before, is true now, and will be true several years from now. What this genius forgot to tell you is that the average landfill has a lifespan of ten years. Since we are always closing and opening new landfills, having “only” five years left should be the norm.
Regards,
Rick
Yeah, the landfill 'shortage' is really a matter of transportation and not environment. Some congested areas have used up immediately local landfill space,and now have to truck the stuff out farther. Thus costs go up. This is the way the market is supposed to work. Unfortunately, government gets in the way of this process and disconnects the price system, which screws everything up.
I was a big supporter of free-market reforms to help cure the landfill 'problem'. Unfortunately, most environmental groups were not. When they ran into a conflict between the environment and their generally leftist politics, politics usually won out.
As I saw it, the only 'problem' is that garbage is basically government subsidized, which causes an artificial glut of it. Just find a way to tie a person's garbage output to the cost of getting rid of it, and throw out all those other government mandates. If the price of hauling garbage goes up, not only will that spur innovation in product packaging (because now there's a competitive advantage in selling a product that doesn't incur after-use costs), but the increased profit in maintaining a landfill will open up new sites and make it financially feasible to reclaim older sites. The wonders of the free market.
I loved Cecil's column where he talks about the numerous Eskimo words for 'snow'. He decided to build an eskimo sentence for, "Look at all this f*cking snow!". He managed, "Observe the snow. It fornicates."
If you want to see how that '405' movie was made, check out their home page: www.405themovie.com
I knew the plane had to be CGI. It really surprised me that the Jeep was too. I never noticed it.
Dan,
A very nice little film; Ebert gave it a thumb up a few weeks ago. Probably better than most Hollywood trash.
By the way, as far as translations go, Perdue's slogan, "It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken" was transliterated into Spanish as "It takes a sexually aroused man to make a chicken amorous." No wonder Purdue's sales didn't take off as expected.
John
I hate when that happens.
Word on the street is that you guys changed your plans and are now going up to Turning Stone this weekend. Is this true?
Bah - I can't go this weekend, but if you guys are leaving later than 1:00 PM on Wednesday the 16th I can make it...
Ah well - make lots of money in either case ;)
~Krister
Krister -- Did you pay that pizza debt? I would not tarry too long on that. I believe Scott has a blade.
Krister! That Commie-Nazi! He's still holding out on his pizza debt. He even owes me $5 and the movie theater won't take Krister cash.
As for the cold steel of Scott's "blade", the number of eyes that I've almost lost to it is greater than one but less than three.
Niels! That lying scum thieving punk wussy rotbrain zombie mook! The pizza debt has been paid - remember the calzones from Il Forno? Trying to get my cash blacklisted from the restaurants as well as the movie theaters?
I may or may not owe you five dollars - but remind me when I have it on my and I'll probably pay it, if just to help your family get your sister off the street and into that clinic they've been talking about.
Cya Wednesday
~Krister
First of all, let me just say I'm not coming up there with you guys, as I've had my fill of that place for a while. I went there on wednesday at 3:00 optimistically, thinking I'd get a good 7-8 hours of 5-10 in before leaving at 11. Somewhat impatiant, I put my name up for every game below 15-30. It was 4:45 before I finally got into a game of 3-6 hold-em. And It was the most boring game I ever played in to boot. Nothing could get these little old ladies to fold a hand, I've never been more drawn out on in my life, and I'm supposed to be the crazy one. Anyways, talking to these people, I find out half the people at the table are waiting for 5-10 to open up, which they refuse to open despite three tables of 3-6. Finally, after 3 more hours of mind numbing boredom and about $150 they ask if our table wanted to switch to 5-10, to which one guy stood up and said "About damn time!". So unfortunately I only got to play 5-10 for 2 and a half hours but ended up $100 up overall, but the floor managers there really suck. oh well, I'm going to bed.
Mark
Does anyone have any creative suggestions for "living below your means"? I make decent money, but I never seem to be spending enough.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
Move to Montana and build a small shack - let your hair grow and ride a bike to town for dried beef jerkey.
Just kidding. I don't spend much money except on travel I take about 15 trips a year. I'm not a millionaire but like to live like one.
Hollybull,
I think you need to concentrate on saving enough rather than "spending enough".
Regards,
Rick
Oops...I meant SAVING enough!
HollyBull,
OK, you meant saving money. Here are a few of mine.
1) Forget about bottled water in most areas. The health benefits are questionable at best. After all, what is Evian spelled backwards? Besides, in France you can't even drink the water. I go with a Tupperware jug and keep mine refilled straight from the faucet and keep it in the fringe.
2) Never buy overpriced merchandise with logos. I have a friend with over a dozen Hard Rock Café and Planet Hollywood jackets gathering dust in her closet. I wouldn’t have even bought the first one. They should pay ME to advertise for them.
3) Those 99-cent burger deals are money losers at the fast food chains. Let them lose money and stick to those. Hold the mayo and cheese if you want to save on calories. Keep a water bottle (filled from the faucet) in your car. A camping bottle from REI can withstand freezing so you can rotate them to quench thirst.
4) In clothing, stick with the basics. Buy half decent quality. Your first suit should be dark gray or blue. Stick to classic colors that match well with anything. Dress socks should be black. Of course, I assume you are a guy. With women, all logic goes out the window.
5) Understand where the best point on the bang for the buck curve is. In cars, I think it is in the Honda Accord, Ford Taurus price range. In computers, you will find that about 70% of the speed of cutting edge can be had for about 1/3 the price.
6) Understand the concept of marginal utility. For example, I have eight to ten short- sleeved casual shirts at all times (I tend to go with the cotton polo style). Twenty would not be twice as good and may even by worse, as the last would be dusty by the time I wore it. Old, worn out polo shirts are my T-shirts for hanging around the house. In fact, I don’t think I have bought five T-shirts in my life, and have never bought one with a logo (I’m eccentric about logos).
7) Do keep at least two weeks of underwear and socks. Then you don’t have to do laundry so much.
8) Buy storable consumable items on sale, with coupons, and in bulk. For example, at one time I went three years getting my toothpaste and deodorant for free with double coupons (actually, the state gets full tax here on the left coast). I rarely go to the grocery store because I ran out of a non-perishable staple.
9) Do buy things you enjoy and get a lot of use out of. When I’m on line, I’m listening to great music being played through my computer with MusicMatch Jukebox software and Cambridge Soundworks MicroWorks Speakers. The speakers are top of the line for a computer and used to cost about $300 but they are about $150 these days (go to www.hifi.com). Factory seconds are available at Ebay for about $90 (that’s what I paid a few months ago). That is money well spent IMHO!
10) Don’t buy single use kitchen appliances like waffle makers, pasta makers, and so on. They usually end up gathering dust and you can always go out for waffles. Do invest in good kitchen knifes and pans. My all time worse appliance is the FryDaddy. Just think, you can have unhealthy, expensive (grease costs a lot), messy food at home that is available at every corner.
11) I’m always amazed at newlyweds who want the best china and silver that only gets used a few times a year yet their every day table wear is junk. Near top of the line stainless is a good investment though.
12) Learn to hate things you buy and then sit in the corner gathering dust. Right now I hate the Beck “Odelay” CD. I thought I was getting Jeff Beck when I bought it.
13) If you have a Robert Redford style hairstyle and the right kind of hair, try the Flowbee. I haven’t been to a barber in seven years.
Hope this helps ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
You might be the only other person in this world with a hatred of logos as strong as mine. Mary bought me a shirt with an almost undetectable logo--it was the same color as the shirt, a kind of relief logo--and I wanted to return it. Occasionaly I've found some good buys with logos I can unstitch and remove, however, so this is a possibility.
John
John,
An unobtrusive logo is fine. A pair of standard Levi Jean’s has a tag about the size of a good booger – that’s OK. The belt hides their other tag with the size on it. The one that gets me the most is this Tommy Hilfinger guy. Have you ever seen what Tommy Hilflnger looks like?
Of course I do wear stuff that is given away for free (or as a gift representing a certain late night wiener joint that is dear to my heart). But if it is card club stuff it never leaves the house. The last thing I want neighbors to know is that I frequent card clubs. They may be honest but who knows about their brother in law.
T-Shirts with sayings on them are the worst of all. Remember Fran Leibowitz? In her book of essays "Metropolitan Life" she said: "If I don't want to talk to you, why would I want to talk to your T-shirt?" She may have used the F word somewhere in there for emphasis but my purity filter removed it.
BTW, I don't think you can save money with the Flowbee though. Too bad, I really do save a lot of money with that one.
Regards,
Rick
Men have always had it better than women in the clothing department. The styles don't change as drastically or as often. It's hard to design them for planned obsolesence, and difficult to convince men that a $100 shirt gives them more status than an identical $15 shirt. Putting the labels on the outside is an attempt to sove both problems.
I have to be right up there in the label-haters club. In high school I would take a razor blade to a new pair of levis, but now I am not so extreme.
Hey, I've got a 1996 Taurus. I guess we think alike.
I also think the best value in cars comes in around the 2-4 year old mark (assuming you want to drive a reasonably nice vehicle). They are through the steepest part of the depreciation curve, yet still look and drive like new. We bought our Taurus last year for $9500, with 28,000 miles on it. It looks and drives like new, and even had some warranty left when we bought it. The new ones are around $24,000 in the same trim level. Five years from now, the $14,500 difference in price will be about $1000, and ten years from now they'll be worth about the same.
I agree completely. I just bought a 1998 Malibu with 45,000 miles for $8990. They even gave me $500 for my 1997 Ford Escort.
The only problem is that I financed it.
you crack me up. >>1) Forget about bottled water in most areas. The >> >>2) Never buy overpriced merchandise with logos. I have >> >>3) Those 99-cent burger deals are money losers at the >>4) In clothing, stick with the basics. Buy half >>5) Understand where the best point on the bang for the buck curve is. In cars, I think it is in the Honda Accord >>7) Do keep at least two weeks of underwear and socks. >>12) Learn to hate things you buy and then sit in the corner gathering dust. >>13) If you have a Robert Redford style hairstyle and the right kind of hair, try the Flowbee. I haven’t been to a barber in seven years.
Pay your bills first, especially the one called "Personal Savings".
My biggest expense is always eating out. I LOVE to eat out. I love having someone bring me good food, take it away when I'm done, and clean up the mess. Restaurants are the greatest service mankind has ever developed. If I cooked at home every time instead of eating out, I'd have been out of debt years ago. So, I guess my biggest word of advice is 'learn to cook'. Either that or keep racking up those dinner comps when you play.
Back in the late 60's and through much of the 70's I used to live a very, very frugally. I had several friends that were into doing the same thing. Here is what we did:
1) We found the cheapest place we could handle to live in. This is a personal preference but be advised you are bound to have some undesirable neighbors at some point.
2) I had no debt whatsoever. If I needed a vehicle I saved the money and paid cash.
3) Eat in as much as possible. Check out the sales at the grocery stores and be adaptable. Also check out some of the fruit and vegetable markets for bargain bins. Yeah eat a lot of veggies. Also scope out the freebies at happy hours and such. I haven't done this in a long time but some were pretty good but they usually didn't have a free meal everyday. Also check out food stamps and learn the system for obtaining them. When we would get our food stamps each month we would invariably treat ourselves to a prepared meal at the supermarket.
4) Somehow you have to have medical coverage. If you can prove you are way below the poverty line a lot of free benefits are available.
5) Get paid in cash as much as possible.
6) Check out the flea markets for stuff you need like clothes and household items.
7) Go camping a lot and definitely take along the fishing gear.
8) Take advantage of hunting season.
"7) Go camping a lot and definitely take along the fishing gear.
8) Take advantage of hunting season."
Man, Tom, this is really getting to the frugal level! :) I guess we could add
Learn about edible plants, trapping, and herbal medicine...
Okay, here are two that will save on medical bills, really. (Unless you have no deductible...)
1) I got a sinus infection sometime around 1990. (I think it actually had to do with playing poker in the smoke.) I went to the doctor, was prescribed an antibiotic, and it went away. I've had a few since then, but have never had to see a doctor. Someone I was talking with told me just to drink huge amounts of water for a day or two, and that that would "flush out" the sinuses and allow the body to rid itself of the infection. Seems to work. The few that I've had since then have all disappeared within a couple of days or so with this method. (Drink enough that you're headed to the bathroom a couple of times an hour for a day or so.)
2) Similar tx for conjunctivitis. This is something you're more likely to contract if you have small children, as you pick up all kinds of stuff from them. I once heard two physician friends, one an opthomologist and the other a GP, debating this. The opthomologist insisted that tyical cases of conjunctivitis did not need the antibiotic drops typically prescribed. He said you could just put a few drops of water (saline? I can't recall.) in the eye every hour or so. My version, since I've had this infection about 3 times in the past few years, is to use Murine Tears drops. Just keep using them a lot for a day or two, and it *usually seems to allow you quickly to fight off the infection yourself pretty fast. On the other hand, the GP friend argued that about one case in 50 or so will develop a more serious infection, thus justifying more aggresive early antibiotic tx. But I live close to an optomitrist, so I don't mind living on the edge. ;-)
Disclaimer: All of that is just uninformed BS and does not constitute medical advice that any sane person would take seriously.
(Drink enough that you're headed to the bathroom a couple of times an hour for a day or so.)
This is good advice anyway. For your body to be performing at a comfortable level, hydration is very solid advice. I realize this is not an overly active forum, but being well hydrated is possibly the most important thing for your health. That and stretching.
Joe
Okay, but I probably understated how much water you need to drink for this cure. You really have to drink a LOT. (Water, that is, Scott.)
>>7) Go camping a lot and definitely take along the fishing gear.
8) Take advantage of hunting season."
Man, Tom, this is really getting to the frugal level! <<
We also raised a couple of pigs, had a few goats, and some chickens as well. It was interesting and mostly fun but I found it to be a lot of work as well. It wore me down and it just became easier to get a paycheck and pay for stuff. However, I sometimes wonder if the casinos in New Mexico were operational and poker would have been available at how things would have ended up.
Consumer interest on credit balances is the single most crippling factor in keeping individuals from achieving economic success.
The interest on consumer debt vehicles (credit cards, bank loans, mortgages, etc.) is triple or quadruple what investmests available to the individual can earn. So, carrying consumer credit balances is like having an ultra powerful anti-investment: one that CONSUMES money.
Yes, but you are forgetting the opportunity costs involved in not borrowing. If most people didn't buy a house until they saved up enough money to pay cash, they would have to live in rented space for 10-30 years, during which time they will have had no equity growth and a poorer lifestyle. In many cases, the equity growth in a home will completely offset the cost of borrowing anyway.
I fully agree when it comes to frivolous purchases, and especially credit card debt. But things like Mortages and Auto loans need to be analyzed more fully.
Opportunity cost is a big deal. A little talked about aspect of saving money is risk, especially for long-term savings. Let's say you decide to save money for your retirement. You put away $500 a month, and expect to have $250,000 when you retire. What is the real expected value of that money? First, there's the obvious inflationary degredation - an investment growing at 5% per year in a country with 5% inflation is not growing at all. But a more powerful factor is the risk that before you get to the point where you can use that investment you will be either infirm or dead.
My grandparents are a perfect example of this: They saved and scrimped their entire lives for their retirement and built up about $400,000 when they sold their farm (my Grandfather was 70, my Grandmother was 68). They had big plans to travel the world and really enjoy their retirement years.
Well, my Grandmother developed extreme arthritis, and was unable to travel. My Grandfather started showing symptoms of Alzheimers within a couple of years after retirement, and soon they were both reduced to sitting in their small retirement house. Both died within 5 years after that, their hard-earned savings totally untouched. The money sparked a big fight amongst their children, and completely destroyed the family. Most of it was eaten in lawyer's fees.
Deferring the thing they really wanted to do was an incredibly risky strategy, but neither of them understood that. Ironic, because they were the most risk-averse people I ever met, yet they gambled everything they earned on a dubious outcome.
Yours points are well taken, but our frames of reference differ. I believe that most persons have the ability to earn and invest (NOT "save") enough money to buy a house in well under ten years. Let's take your average couple in their mid-twenties. Let's have 'em both working, and let's say they make a modest $25,000/year each.
Now, if they're like your average couple, they carry some $4000 of consumer debt (using the oft-quoted average of $2000 per capita) in the form of bank cards or other short-term revolving debt. Annual interest and card fees will suck up about $800 from this couple's pockets.
Doubtless they carry medical insurance, in an HMO which charges them about $150/month each so they can run to the doctor each time they have the sniffles. If they bought catastrophic coverage instead ($5000 deductible) they would save roughly $1200/year and will STILL be insured against major medical crises or injuries, which was SUPPOSED to be what medical insurance was all about, before HMOs came along.
Every single person in the US with an annual income of more than $5 can save 10% on expenses simply by paying attention. Clip coupons. Go see movies in the late afternoon and get the matinee price. Don't buy a new car---buy a good three-year-old used car, and maintain it. Sell that SUV, while you're at it. Go out to eat once a week instead of twice. Wear a sweater and keep the thermostat at 65 degrees in the winter. Get one movie channel on your cable instead of three--or five. Et cetera. Et cetera. I would guess that any couple could save $1000/year this way without breathing hard.
To recap: Pay off the credit cards: +$800/year; cut down on unnecessary medical coverage: +$1200/year; live a BIT more sensibly: +$1000/year. So there we have $3000/year extra available. Put that amount in a good no-load mutual fund (common stocks) and you get a 12-14% annual return over any recent ten-year period (even including the 1987 crash). I'm too lazy to do the math but I'm reasonably sure that this would produce about $75000 after ten years. Whatever the number actually is, it's easy to see that a minimal lifestyle adjustment plus a commitment to investing (as opposed to sticking money in a Stupid Saver's account at your local Bunco Bank) will produce a LARGE chunk of money in a short time. In many markets the above sum will purchase a small house all by itself.
Now, you might say, yes, but during the ten years it took to accomplish this our hypothetical couple had to pay rent, whereas if they had bought a house right away they could have had the use of it during those ten years. True, but first of all it would have taken Mr. and Mrs. Hypothetical a couple or three years to save up the down payment and closing costs. Also, during the first third of a typical mortgage the vast majority of payments go toward interest, so the real choice is, rent expense, or interest plus upkeep plus insurance plus property tax expense? (And, yes, I know that mortgage interest is tax-deductible. But that's a mild benefit at best, and our goverment buddies are slowly squeezing it out of existence anyway.) It costs about 150% times as much to amortize a loan on a given dwelling than to rent said dwelling, given most markets. so our heroes would have had greater expenses by owning rather than renting, and would only realize the dubious benefit of doing so for about seven years anyway.
First, I think you're nuts to believe that you can really earn 12-14% long term in mutual funds. Second, you're discounting the effect of inflation. The house you could buy today for $75,000 might be $150,000 in ten years. Third, you lose ten years of your life living a worse lifestyle. That is an expense that must be considered.
The real cost of mortgages is usually never more than three or four points above inflation. Now factor in the ability to deduct mortage interest on your taxes (and not rent), and the savings in rent, and a mortgage usually makes sense for anyone who can afford the payments. In fact, a lot of investment analysts suggest that you should carry a mortgage with minimum payments rather than accerate the amortization, because the real cost of the mortgage is so small that your money is often better off in secure investments.
Dan,
The story of your Grandparents brought back memories.
My Polish Grandparents on my mother’s side were incredible people and savers. They were factory workers and hardly spent a dime they didn’t have to in their lives. They rented a three bedroom flat in New Bedford, Massachusetts and I remember my Grandmother complaining when the rent was increased to $18 per week (this was about 1978 or so).
They never owned a car, a vacuum, or a stereo and the appliances were early vintage. The furniture was from when they were married except for a few stuffed chairs the kids bought for them over the years. The outer rooms were closed off to save on heat, which was supplied from a gas burner the size of a couch in the central dining and TV room. A beer at the Polish-American club cost ten cents (when I was eighteen my Grandfather bought me one). They would sit in the dark at night listening to the Red Sox (my Uncle lived at home too) because they hated to use electricity on light bulbs.
When my parents bought a house in the early sixties, they were offended when my parents were going to go to a bank rather than borrow from them. The loan was paid off in a few years as my Dad did very well for himself. They passed away with a ton of money in the bank. There was no fighting over the money to speak of, but none of my mother’s generation really needed it as they raised good kids (who raised even better Grandchildren ;-) ).
That being said, they were happy in their simple ways and never seemed to want for anything. They had family and pride and in their way epitomized the American dream for immigrants who left a poor country. I still remember my Grandmother marveling at all the money Social Security was sending her, since most of it went into the bank. God bless them and a way of life that seems long gone.
The boomer generation who were in college in the late sixties and early seventies eschewed materialism at the time but now seem to buy every useless or oversized gadget in sight in an effort to outdo their neighbors. But my Grandparents (on both sides for that matter) were the ones that understood what really mattered in life.
Regards,
Rick
its ok to borrow just dont loan money out that you are not 100% sure of getting back. and of course dont borrow at an interest rate that is higher than the return you can get on that money.
I took my first full time job at age 46. Prior to that I worked 3-5 mos. a yr. I did average 400-500 hrs of subsistence poker. Decide whats important , set your priorities and create a life around these. Fishing and free time is what I liked so I took aseasonal Forest Service job in MT. They provided inexpensive housing a meager wage but unlimited rec oportunites. I virtually fished daily. Winters I spent in NOrthern Cal. fishing and playing a little low limit loball. Thoreau wrote " The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." I believe we spend a lot of our limited time time working for stuff that really means little. On ones death bed what will we reflect upon, money?
Ed,
Now I know who you are! Tall and slender, used to wear John Lennon style glasses, sixties retro look, mild mannered, easy going. Good luck to you and I hope to run into you again.
Regards,
Rick
naw, that cant be him. guys like that dont fish, all they do is sit around and look at flowers and bugs. he is rugged and hikes in the backcountry and fishes with the best of them. even though he lives in missoula which is a burnt out old hippie town(although a nice one to be in).
I'm afraid Ricks right. Besides fishing I do look at flowers and bugs, not much different than swans. Since starting full time work I don't get out in the backcountry. Still try fish 20 0r so days. My daughter just did her 1st backpack, seven days in the Bob. I wish I could have been there. I was wilderness ranger there in 76, spent 17 wks in.
Reasonable description, only you left out the word old. How you got here from my post...? I'll try stop in HP next time I visit my mom.
Ed I,
Actually, I just left my job at Hollywood Park and will be a house player at Hawaiian Gardens Saturday thru Wednesdays, 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. starting in a week. I will probably play quite often on Fridays at Hollywood but Thursdays will be a no poker day for me. Would love to see you and introduce you to some of my friends.
Regards,
Rick
well congrats i guess. you are now a pro. i hope it works for you. give us some hg game reports as i dont know anyone that plays there and havent the foggiest idea what they play. forget about Ed as he is trying to get all the skunks and tweety birds out of the woods before they burn up around missoula. its all smoke and flames around there a little south. i flew into spotted bear air strip in the south fork drainage today to get a little in before they close it all. we had 120 new fires two days ago with the rainstorm.
I flew into Spotted Bear once, my heart did speed up a little. The pilot forgot to tell me we were landing, I thought we were going down.
n
Hey all,
I'm making the move from home games to more structured play, and I'm a midwesterner, Chicago to be more specific. I'm finding that the low limit games at the local casinos (and low limit is about all that is to be found at the couple of boats I've been too) are heavy regulars, low to no tourist, and while beatable are characterized by an ugly rake. Now that could just be the evaluation of a new player, but I've run into essentially 20% or $50 as the standard charge with 6-12 being the highest consistent game to be found. Is there any chance of making a wage playing near me? Am I missing a magic spot?
Thanks,
-Timothy
Any recommendations on where to play 4/8 stud hi/lo 8 or better in vegas?
THX
Anyone know when the new facility is to open and what the current tournament schedule is.
Anyother news on Arizona poker would be appreciated I've been gone since June, 1st.
Hi Rounder - I'm a little out of touch, as my wife came home from her business travel for the summer ...
The only info I have for you is that as far as I know, Gila River still has the two big ($55 - $50) Hold'em tournaments on Tuesday and Wednesday nights.
Here are their numbers:
Casino AZ 480-850-7777
Gila River 800-WIN-GILA
Dick
I happened to be at the same table as Paul Lord at Gila the other night. He said the scheduled opening date is Sept 5. He does not think or at least has no knowledge that would indicate the daily tournament will resume. He believes they will have a once a month tournament, like the big ones they use to have.
Gila tournaments are still going strong and now Fort McDowell has a Thursday tournament structured exactly like Gila's Tuesday tournament.
Come see us Mike.....
JohnnyD
nt
If you like poker don't come to Chicago - Now I know why they call it "Texas" hole'em and "Omaha".
The other day I had to wait 4 hours for a seat for a must move table even though the list was as long as my arm and could have fed 2 tables foer a long time and I was 9th on this long long list (4 hours to move up 9 spots) - even though there were 3 empty tables the management was not allowed to use them on top of that they were "required" by backward Illinois law to close one table down at 7:15pm.
Talk about (cigar) smoke filled rooms. Cough cough!!!
I wonder how Illinois would like it if they were told to STOP selling the evil lottery tickets "that really take food off peoples tables" by 7:15pm.
Then there is "the" bimonthly "tournament" - with buy ins, rebuys and add ons that make no sense what so ever oh yeah and blinds doubling every 15 min.
The only game in town so I play.
Can't wait to get back to my beloved Arizona.
Doesn't exactly sound like the scene at Casino Arizona. Don will get quite a chuckle about this. Oh well, maybe the Diamondbacks will make the Series against the White Sox(you should live so long) and you can be the bad guy at Comisky (is the new park still called Comisky?) cheering for AZ.
Hey Dunc,
The only thing good about Chi town these days is the Sox I am a life long White Sox fan - BTW I was born and reared in Chicago.
A series featuring the White Sox and the Diamondbacks? Maybe you won't have to wait so long after all? Frank and co are sitting pretty atop the AL Central and are in fact 1 game ahead of the Mariners and 4.5 ahead of the world champion Yankees. And with a team only 2 games back of the Giants in the west, how can you count out the D-Backs? They're a great team, with stars around the field, and lets not forget the Big Unit! Sox/DBacks would be a series to remember.
Joe
I still can't beleive the Empress closes the poker room on weekends!
I undertand it closed the poker room for good on friday 8/11.
Only get to try Chicago area poker about twice a year, but my experiences have not been that bad.
Last month, walked into the Aurora room (with no call in) at 6pm on tuesday. 4 tables of Hold'em going--got a seat in 5 min. Played 5-10 and 10-20 for 3 hours and got a buffet comp. Friday afternoon got to the Harrahs room in E. Chicago. They had hold'em of 3-6, 4-8, 10-20, 20-40, and then started a 40-80 h.o.s.e. game. Harrahs has big lists, so you MUST call in an hour or so in advance. Also the boarding times are very tight--only a half hour on the odd-hours.
The games I played in both rooms varied from loose-passive to loose aggressive. An occaisional tight rock, or a skillful tight-aggressive player; but these were easy to spot.
$5 rake on almost every hand---must be terrible at 3-6 or 4-8 level. Smoke was not a big problem at either location. Asked for "Rounder", "mah", and "MJ Chi", at both locations, but got no response.
One funny story----A couple of guys at one table were talking some rgp talk, and I got into the conversation. They asked me if I posted on rgp, and I said, no, that I was a 2+2 guy. Both stared at me for a second and then one said, "OH, you're one of them".
Abe,
Forget about rpg. This is the place to be. I have not been on the boats since I got back from Vegas. My real job has been keeping me too busy since I got back.
I recently rented the movies "Gang Related" and "Gridlock'd", and thought Tupac Shakur did a good job in both. He definitely had screen presence, though he wasn't quite Samuel L. Jackson yet.
I'm not much of a rap fan(except for early Ice Cube), but I understand he was very talented at that, too.
Funny how both he and Kurt Cobain worked for everything they got, and then once they reached the top, threw it all away with their own behavior and/or poor choices of lifestyle/associates. Comparing them to Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, what stands out is a father's influence(or lack thereof). Of course, athletes have to stay focused more often; artists have a lot more down time.
A shame and a waste.
Rap sucks. I fail to see any "talent" required to throw out a bunch of obscene rhymes. Many people feel the same about punk but at least punkers play their own instruments and depending on the bands, some of the the stuff they write is very difficult to play on guitar, bass and/or drums. These rap idiots have producers who write their "music" then hire studio musicians to put it together. Even worse, they often use music that was written years ago then just spew their obscenities on top of that. They need help from so many people to get anything going. Punk is just like poker- It has the DIY (do it yourself) mentality. When you are a punk band you do it yourself. When you are on the poker table and making decisions you are 100% in control of what you decide. Independence is glorious! I don't don't know if this post has any value but oh well it was short at least :-)
1) If it's difficult to play, it isn't punk rock 2) Ever hear of Arrested Development?
If it's difficult to play it isn't punkrock!?!?!?!?! Where the hell did you hear that? Obviously you aren't familiar with the punk scene at all. Two prime examples of how you are wrong: Josh Frieze of the Vandals (I am not really a fan of the Vandals but that is besides the point) Is famous for being one of the most talented drummers in the entire world. Most people who have played for 20 years couldn't do half the stuff he does. The bass player (his name alludes me right now) of the now defunct band Operation IV is also one of the absolute best who is known for exceedingly complex use of his instrument.
I could go on and on but I won't.
I admit I'm not familiar with those bands. And I was never deep into the scene. I'm an old guy (33) who thinks of the Ramones and the Sex Pistols and Black Flag when I hear the term punk rock. Maybe the term has evolved to mean something more than it used to. Talent used to be unnecessary to play punk rock. To me it's 3 chords and a bad attitude. I don't doubt the musicians you mention are very talented at their intruments. But it doesn't seem like what they play would sound like punk rock to my ears.
i don't know too much about music, but i figure i will contribute anyway.
while i am sure you will find some of the best rhythm sections in punk rock, the front men are usually mediocre musicians at best. this is likely because better guitarists gravitate toward musical styles that highlight guitars above the other instruments. for example, blues based rock.
besides, these days all punk means is an indie label and a bad singer. and all it ever really meant musically was a refusal to use blues chord pregressions.
scott
Three chords and an antisocial posture is generally what started out being called punk. If you look at the bands at the start of the genre, Ramones and really the Stooges are the first punk band, none of these group had superior musicianship.
If you expand the definition now to mean any alternative group with a bad attitude like say the Butthole Surfers, yeah some people can play, like Paul Leary of the Surfers, another example that some might now (late 80s to 90s that is) consider punk is Fishbone, full of competent musicians.
Two great relatively unknown punk songs:
1) The Meatmen - How Soon is Now - truly the right band to cover this insipid song
2) Poison Idea - To Be Broken - not well known outside of the Pacific Northwest, but an incredible band.
scott,
I am glad that you said you don't know much about music before you wrote:
"better guitarists gravitate toward musical styles that highlight guitars above the other instruments. for example, blues based rock."
Punk music has always been guitar based and punk bands feature some of the best guitarists playing music. IMO, punkers have expanded rock beyond the blues, something that has taken much creativity and talent. One needs only to look at the non-agressive music being created by "punks" in side or main projects to see evidence of this.
KJS
xxx
Punk doesn't mean an indie label and a bad singer. While several punk bands fit this category, Ther are plenty of other types of bands that are not even close to punk yet are on indie labels and have bad vocalists (for example: power-pop, ska, hardcore etc..). Punk is a type of music that today has expanded greatly and has many different sounds. Some fast, some slow, some melodic, some not etc.....
One thing that is important though is to never confuse punk with stuff like Korn or LimpBizkit. That stuff is not punk, no matter what some stupid DJ or VJ says.
scottie, I would have to say that your statement above is not quite correct. Although Punk does not use the twelve bar form, It is rooted in the same progression. Blues uses a I-IV-I-V-IV-I progression, where I is the tonic IV is four notes above tonic and V is five notes above tonic. Almost all punk which is classic punk and not this so called "progressive punk" is based on the I-IV-V progression, or other progressions which are closely related to the blues progression. (i.e. I-V-IV-I, or simply the progression above.) This however is always the case in simple music as these progreesions are the most pleasing to the ear. The IV I resolution being used in churches during the famous A-men for centuries. The V-I is equally popular closing cadence for nearly all Classical music.
He goes to Caltech.
*
Maybe it's just my opinion (but I don't think so)...it's not just that Rap is lower than Rock and Rock is lower than Classical Music, etc... The quality of art across the board, on average, has fallen in the modern world. Sure there are exceptions in every genre, and some great modern talents as well. I'm not taking anything away from today's true talents or artistic geniuses. However, Modern Poetry is generally inferior, on average, to Classical Poetry, and I don't think all those blobs of paint on display can even touch a Van Gogh, for instance.
There have to be exceptional artists in every time, in every generation. But the popular art forms of today are not nearly as deep, rich or complex as the Classics. I feel it is a great loss that many of today's greatest talents find themselves economically driven to produce pulp or semi-pulp art. I am not criticizing people for having favorite modern songs; I do too! But the popular art forms of today have taken a great dive since art in all its forms was revered and studied, even by the common folk, and not just lightly read or listened to or glanced at.
If the greatest talents of today, for instance, were writing classical music instead, and it was truly popular, we might actually find a few in our time who could match the great masters. But alas, the popular art forms and styles of today do not support the depth or complexity for such great works. Much of the populace, generally having been raised on shallower forms of art, is not even generally aware of the difference to a large extent. Thus we have the continuing decline of depth and quality, a slow process over many generations.
Hi Mark,
I think there's a fairly popular view of modern art, especially modern painting and poetry, quite at odds with what is actually produced by artists. Any number of poets today are producing exceptional poetry, but, largely, they go unread. A best-seller in poetry circles has sales of 5,000 copies. Think about that. Where's the audience? Simply, there isn't one because good poetry is hard to read and requires too much thought. Of course, what becomes notorious is something passing for poetry--like Jewel's garbage--that sells a million copies. (I doubt even John Feeney could write poetry this horrible, even if he tried:-) Hell, give me the carefully measured meter of rap: ever notice that much rap music follows the traditional iambic pentameter of Milton and Shakespeare? "Don't push me cause I'm close to the edge."
And, sometimes the way a work of art is produced obscures the work of art itself. I'm sure more people have heard how Serrano created "Piss Christ" than have actually seen the photograph. (BTW, it's quite haunting.) Van Gogh only sold one painting during his lifetime. Mondrian's early work looks like a very good imitation of Corbet, but he really shines with works like "Broadway Boogie Woogie" because that work captures the spirit of the age.
Ezra Pound said that "Artists are the antennae of the race," and, therefore, they must alert us, through the forms they choose, to what is around us. Without them, we might miss it.
John
I agree in large part, especially with, "Where's the audience?"
...would perhaps be a better title.
Indeed, while there are certainly great artists today in all genres, it often seems that the chances of commercial success are inversely proportional to quality and depth. The trashier and pulpier something is, the more likely it is to sell a lot. This is a sad commentary on the tastes of the people en masse today, and in particular on the American public. I am American and love our all-too-fast-eroding freedoms too, but in a lighter vein, a country whose people prefer Big Macs and Budweiser is right in keeping with people preferring Rap to Bach and Rod Mckuen to any great poet.
Don't push me cause I'm close to the edge = //-/-/--/
If someone could enlighten me as to my error, I would appreciate it.
James,
Not strictly iambic, but the overall thrust is iambic. The opening foot is one of the usual substitutions in English poetry ("Milton, thou should'st be living at this hour") and the closing foot is very common as well. If written entirely in iambic, the poem will be too paterned.
John
i know almost nothing about music and only a little more about visual art, so i will only concern myself with "Modern Poetry is generally inferior, on average, to Classical Poetry."
i understand that this is largely a matter of taste, but you are wrong. writing (poetry prose and plays) has steadily improved. modern poetry is amazing. almost all of my favorite poems are from this century.
scott
Not really a decline. You need to look for quality. William Schumann, a very well known 20th Century composer said that popular music for the masses is created solely for its immeadiate entertainment value and this is the level it only has to succeed at. Serious music needs to succeed at many levels to survive. If you want to expand your horizons, visit schott-music.com. They have a CD sale site and provide some "real audio" samples. Schott-music specializes in music of composers of the 20th century.
*
I agree with you. I never really had any appreciation for classical arts but after taking a humanities course I thought the same thing as you did. Arts of today are washed up when compared to some of the masterpieces of the past.
When art is primarily considered as a commodity, that entails that the production have the lowest common denominator in mind. Thus the constant stream of not just genre but the formulaic and the hackneyed. The accent being on what the consumer can submerge themselves into through identification and imagine themselves as they would like to be seen. James Joyce (inspired by St. Thomas Aquinas for his views on aesthetics) in Portrait of an Artist refers to this as not art but pornography. This accounts for the lack of aesthetic distance in most popular art and its overwhelming selfconscious flaunting in what passes for avant-garde.
Certainly there have always been underappreciated artistic geniuses, particularly in the avant-garde, however, never has the overall quality been so low. Two obvious examples from common modes at that time are Elizabethan theatre and in early film the work of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. The bar is much lower.
An exception to the rule, Cormac McCarthy, who is the finest living American writer has attained some measure of popularity. Thinking of what Hollywood will do to All the Pretty Horses makes me cringe. If you are interested in him read Blood Meridian, it is widely considered by his fans to be an unsurpassable work.
Why do you guys even care what the state of the art world is? Does it matter?
possible difficulties with a declining art world:
1. It is indicative of a society which is falling apart morally and socially and blah blah blah. As poker players you are all going to hell, so you really ought to try to not give a darn about these sorts of things. If it is indicative of the growing number of complete morons in the world, that's great too. More suckers. If the world is trying to self destruct, then so be it.
2. We might be getting bored of all the great art that is out there. This is ridiculous.
3. Past art, although great does not reflect our times. We as veiwers of art which to see art which somehow reflects our present ideas and situations. We see things as beutiful which capture some peice of our experience, and is through this relation that we begin to really appreciate art. Although phrased horribly the point is basically Edward Nortan's critique of the Graduate. While he considers it a great film, he knew that he needed to make a movie which defined his generation. Thus Fight Club. The scene where he smashes the bug is all about that, he sais. Baby boomers trying to resell their music, their cultural icons to the present when we need to have our own art.
Anyway, although difficult to set up, the rebuttal is simple. Life never changes. There is nothing essentially different betweeen the life of a king in 1706 and the life of a factory worker today.
Anyway, these are some thoughts I stole from smarter men than I.
You asked: "Why do you guys even care what the state of the art world is? Does it matter?"
Because I would prefer young inconsiderate nitwits to blast Mozart instead of Rap if they must blast something.
i agree with you entirely but isn't rap art too
Before you go criticizing a genre of music, at least learn how to compose writing into cogent sentences. Otherwise you're liable to be thought of as an idiot.
Scottie doesn't like rap either, but he's the first to admit that it is because of inability to get funky (with his wooden leg and all).
a.
Hmmmmmm, I guess I was careless to not write good sentences but I didn't expect my english teacher to read it so why bother? Maybe I could take some lessons on proper English from a rapper......Yeah that would work!
"I fail to see any "talent" required to throw out a bunch of obscene rhymes."
try it. it's hard to write even horrible poetry.
by the way, you meant talent. not "talent."
scott
That's good news because I can write horrible "poetry" pretty well.
OK, John,
Now you've really got to provide us with a sample!
I'm sure I could do much, much, worse.
John
then you are "in" luck. children books are "filled" with horrible poetry. i was reading 'where is bear' in the supermarket "while" my mom was shopping the other day. it was some of the worst poetry i have "ever" read.
it was like: where is bear he is here and there sitting in his chair he likes to think about the sink painted pink and keep his boat afloat through the moat of the palace where princess alice holds the chalice that her dad dying had saved from chad who is bad.
put the line breaks where ever you want.
also, john is right. let us see your stuff. maybe i'll also post some of my horrible "poetry."
scott
Okay scott and John, I'll try to "put" something bad together. Maybe you can outbad me. I'm sure you both have a flair for the putrid.
scott,
I once read a collection of self-published poetry written by a "poet" born in Haiti. He got the Hatian Attache (or something like that) to write this jacket blurb: "Numa [the poet's first name] is like a genius.
One poem was entitled "Kissing You is like Kissing My Math Grades." It contained this immortal line: "You're all bastards searching for mustard."
I'm not kidding.
John
you know damn well the reason i don't like most rap is that i don't like black people. i love stuff by white rappers like vanilla ice and ll cool j.
scott
punk is dead you idiot!
First off I am not an idiot, (usually people insult others because they can't make a valid argument for their side) and you obviously don't know a damn thing about the punk scene. It is alive and well not only in the U.S. but across the planet(mostly here but also big in Japan, Australia, Scandinavia, and Eastern and Western Europe). True punk doesn't sell out to the mainstream record labels and is therefore hidden unless you know where to look. I guess Fat Mike of NOFX made his label famous by promoting a scene that's dead right? He and his bands have made plenty of money and gained fans across the globe without ever having to go mainstream or be played on the radio. Oh yeah, all the shows I have been to recently must have been a dream since according to you punk is dead. Try to talk about a subject that you have a clue about. You obviously don't know much about the punk scene of today.
p.s.punk was born dead
you idiot
Born dead? Thats interesting........I guess all those millions of kids who have been into punk for the last 30 years were dreaming too. Get a clue, you don't know what you are talking about. Once again all you could do is call me an idiot because you have no basis for your ludicrous statement.
Punk is/was the first kind of music ever, which intentionally strove to be disliked by and alienate the general audience. It actually strove to be ugly.
Technical competence by a musician was considered to be against the spirit of the thing; a valid reason not to pass the audition.
--- All of which does not change the fact that punk ca '77, made the strongest social and political statement since 50's rock and roll. If not aesthetic too.
How the heck did this thread evolve immediately into a rap/punk sucks/noitdoesn't flame war(bore, as all "is it art or not" threads are)?
I was kinda hoping for some other comments from those who had seen the above movies, as well as for a "sub-thread" on the importance of fathers to break out...But hey, content is content! :)
Sorry I started the madness!!!! :-)
I have read TOP many times over and read Mason's two poker essay books (a few times) Which Slansky essay book is recommended? I will eventually buy them all, but I am looking for a ranking. I am leaning towards "Getting the Best of It."
The truth is Scott won't give rap a chance because he is afraid of being exposed as a HFS-style racist [nod to scott's sister]. After thinking about it, she is right on.
As to me poetic creation, I would rather open the floor with my new camp friend, Neil R.'s written advertisement for his friday night party (where I had quite the time).
Where be the place be boppin' where be the bitches be hoppin' where be the 40s be flowin' where be Easy E [Evan M., think Milhouse] be gettin' his drink on', and his smoke on', and his snack on' [nod to alex for last 'on] so come to the R. bros bash, be there or be square beotch.
a.
PS. Yo, Scottie, I'm leaving this Wednesday for vacation, and won't be back until after you get to school. Let's hang out before I go, and email me your phone number.
I think that I shall never see a guy as nuts as AlexB.
I believe this is bad, really quite bad. It took a few tries. I'd knock something out in 5 minutes, but my wife kept saying they were good. That's ridiculous. Nice to be supportive, but not when I'm trying to do something bad. So here's a nice bad one. I'm sure of it. The bad, but not quite bad enough ones will be withheld... for now.
The Trouble With Otis
Random number generator
Built into an elevator.
A workman with a quant's interior
Did it just to feel superior.
Now he smiles as riders gasp
As floors they'd punched in fly right past
And doors then open in odd places.
Oh he loves the puzzled faces.
Otis box now on a rush.
Now running bad. Just listen. Hush.
It's just the normal thing you see
When random numbers have their spree.
But his time you can ride the rush
And not sound foolish when you gush
"It went to ten all seven times."
And now this poem is out of rhymes.
as if it matters
John,
No, this isn't close to bad. Just look at the title alone: you have an allusion to Hitchcock's The Trouble With Harry and a reference to the elevator's manufacturer. Of course, "quant" is going to send me scurrying to the dictionary, so you've scored ten points for the use of this word.
I think we have a Shel Silverstein in the making.
John
Oh man, I may have to post one of the more serious sounding ones I came up with. I figured if I cranked them out really fast, they'd have to be bad. Well, if those aren't bad either, then I guess I could look forward to those 5k copies Rick mentioned. :-/
But maybe others will post some of their bad/good efforts first. You John? Scott? Alex, I think you could try something original. I think Ray might join in. David and Mason would be a kick. We'll have a regular little online bohemian coffee house here.
I think quant is just slang for mathematically oriented geek..
Ok, here goes. I hope this is truly bad.
My Kitty
I love my little kitty, Princess;
She comes to me when I call;
With doleful eyes she looks and winces,
And she curls up in a ball.
I love my little pussy-wussy:
I feed her curds and whey;
Then she poops it from her little tushy;
And goes outside to play.
She visits her friend, Franky;
I think he is a louse;
Besides he's rather skanky;
But she leaves him a mouse.
So if you ever see my pussy,
Roaming far from home;
Remember her life is rather cushy;
So don't let her walk alone.
With apologies to any and everybody.
.
Quoth Donne on such a sordid night To steal my name in yon book St. John of no such reply to make "Yon book is the bible, f*ck that, aight!
John is John, and right is right The bible beats any sh*t you've to write And me of matter, and the son of man I'd whup your a*s, you know I can"
The visage of Donne's poor sallow constitution Continued to melt as St. John laid down his retribution As crows gleaming hellish pecked at his eyes John Donne renounced poetry, and all other lies
You may not understand what has transgressed between stanza first and stanza last why heavenly John and hellish crows would be bound in arms together in Donne's last gasp
an original monday morning piece, by a.
Quoth Donne on such a sordid night To steal my name in yon book St. John of no such reply to make "Yon book is the bible, f*ck that, aight!
John is John, and right is right The bible beats any sh*t you've to write And me of matter, and the son of man I'd whup your a*s, you know I can"
The visage of Donne's poor sallow constitution Continued to melt as St. John laid down his retribution As crows gleaming hellish pecked at his eyes John Donne renounced poetry, and all other lies
You may not understand what has transgressed between stanza first and stanza last why heavenly John and hellish crows would be bound in arms together in Donne's last gasp
an original monday morning piece, by a. formatted, hopefully, this time
AlexB,
I know of no other poem in the language that uses both "yon" and "whup." Well done!
John
Okay, both of you guys achieved proper badness, I think. It's actually pretty hard to write something that's bad in a funny way. Just spewing out nonsense is easy, but hardly worth bothering with. You guys found the right zone.
I am going to the LA area soon and want to know where the best Holdem games are found. I am a low to medium limit player. Let me know where the action is. Thanks.
The best action for low/mid-limit games follows in order from best to worst:
COMMERCE HOLLYWOOD PARK BICYCLE CLUB HUSTLER (varies in quality) CRYSTAL PARK (very little mid-limit)
Can't speak for Normandie or Hawaiin Gardens.
I'm planning a trip to CA later in the year too, but am undecided whether to go to LA or SF. Where are the best places to play in the Bay Area, what are the main differences between the two markets, and which is better for mid-limit?
If I'm not mistaken, the rake per hand for 6-12 at Hollywood Park is $3 versus $4 at Commerce. The rate for 3-6 is the same. Doublecheck with Rick Nebiolo. I've been averaging 2 sessions a week for two months at the Commerce playing 3-6 where the fish swim in schools. I presume you are a good player, so please stay away ; ).
The dead drop at Hollywood is $3 for the 2/4, 3/6, and 6/12. The dead drop at Commerce is $4 at the 6/12 and 9/18 (I don't know about 3/6). Hollywood does not have a 9/18 but they do have an 8/16. The dead drop is $4 for this game. Better deal in this range is the 10/20 at Hollywood. The time charge is $5 per half hour.
Good Luck,
Rick
music that enhances the drama. If you were to turn off the sound, the film would lose much of its drama. That's how important the music can be. When I mention the name of Gyorgy Ligeti, most people say, "Who's that." But, if you heard his music from films that used it for enhancing the drama, you would easily recognize it. One of Ligeti's most famous pieces was used in 2001 and is called Lux Aeterna. A more recent film, "Eyes Wide Shut," features his composition Musica Ricercata.
Try Jaws without the music.
As for composers go to www.imdb.com and check out the massive contributions to movie music by the family Newman. Alfred, Lionel, Emil, and Randy, staggering.
What piece was his? I certainly hope you're not referring to that obnoxious, one key strike crap, that got repeated over and over endlessly throughout that godawful film.
Now, Also Spracht Zarathrusta(2001) and the theme music from Rollerball(composer eludes me, Mussorgsky or Liszt, maybe) is real good stuff.
From IMDB, the composers are Albinoni, Bach, Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky.
The main theme is either Bach's "Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor" or S'kovich's "Fourth Movement from Symphony 5 in D Minor". Man, I wish they'd release this soundtrack on CD. Lord only can imagine the Creed/Korn/Kid Rock/Metallica abortion the Rollerball 2001 soundtrack will be......
BTW, another Kubrick movie with a great soundtrack is A Clockwork Orange. Remember "Singin' In The Rain" and "I Want To Marry A Lighthouse Keeper"?
It's the soundtrack to Fight Club.
Electronic music rarely gets the same level of credit in films as orchestral scores, and is almost never recognized by awards committees. The one exception was "Chariots of Fire" by Vangelis. When I saw Fight Club (and I saw it in the theater twice), I remember telling the friend I went with "That score was superb. I'd bet my life that it won't be nominated for an oscar." I was unfortunately right.
FWIW, I still vote for Star Wars as the greatest film score of all time. Not Empire, as most people vote. Next time you're watching Star Wars, just listen to the use of the French Horn. Those 4 players from the London Symphony deserved knighthood for their playing. And the writing is simply the best horn writing not written by Richard Strauss.
shooter
The first rule of the film score to Star Wars is you do not talk about the film score to Star Wars. The second rule of...
Star Wars' score is its most underrated aspect. For exampl, try the heroes' initial Death Star approach without the sound. The effect is almost nil.
The score to Star Wars created the important ever so subtle ominious mood that ran throughout. And that was what Episode I really lacked -- a defining score.
Jon I.
.
x
There wasn't much dialogue in this flick, so the music has to provide some pretty big shoulders to carry things along.
Strange movie, but the soundtrack which combines the voices of Tom Waits and Crystal Gayle is fabulous.
im playing 6/12 holdem at gila river (phoenix) and in a heads up pot i call a guy all the way down because i think my pocket 88 is good. guy says "pocket nines", and shows me one card, a nine. (hes got both cards in one hand and the nine is completely covering the card underneath. he doesnt spread them.) i say lets see. he says what do you have. i said i called you. he agonizes like 15 seconds, and then shows 97 for nine high. my 88 wins.
i called one floor immediately and talked to another one later on, and they both told me that there wasnt really anything wrong with what this idiot did, but if it become a regular thing then they would think about doing something.
of course i immediately left the game, but what do you think, was i right to be totally pissed off ?
p.s. the floormen told me that if i had thrown my hand away, even if this guy showed 97 (not the hand he declared after all bets and it was showdown) i still couldnt get the pot because i had no hand. now im not going to fall for this angle, but it still makes me mad.
brad
If he acts before you, and you call his bet make sure that you see his cards. If he mucks them, before you see them, ask the dealer to show them. In most cases the dealer will turn up his cards. This is a trick some players use to make you prematurely fold a winning hand.
yes, i know. i hold onto my cards until i see a better hand or until i *have* the pot already pushed to me. thats it.
but i always thought (hey, im a stickler for rules) that if someone misdeclares at showdown causing someone to fold, then they forfeit any claim to the pot. in a dream world i guess.
brad
Dealer should have had him spread out his hand I believe the rule there is you have to show both cards to win a pot, if called. If he declaired the wrong hand then it should go to you no matter what you had.
The floor was out of line.
>> If he declaired the wrong hand then it should go to you no matter what you had.
thats what i thought, but i was told by two seperate floormen that that was not the case, that if i had been angled into mucking, i would have had no way to 'prove' that my hand could beat his. what a joke. Aug 5th new casino az full time.
brad
That has happened to me once. It will not happen again. The first line of defense is YOU. Hold those cards until you see the opponent's and understand them. Sometimes there is a split pot if all 3, 4 or 5 cards exposed play. The next line of defense is the dealer. S(he) should announce the hand. By the time the floor gets involves, assumeing he has not seen the play, you are toast if you mucked and did not show. Hold them card!
Good thing that you caught him but it makes you wonder how many times he has made this move and got away with it. I can not see how the floor can let a player get away with this type of play, there inaction only says to this player " try it again ", he should have been given a warning and you should not have been made to feel that you have to leave the table to avoid this type of play.
That is crazy....if I was at a table where a guy tried that he would be risking a seriouse ass whooping....But that is just me. It would take balls of solid steel to lie about your hand, unless you were truelly mistaken. The other day, I had kings, and made a call even though I thought the guy had the str8, he called str8, and I turned over my kings, and sure as hell the dealer said what str8....I got the pot only because i didn't throw my cards like i have seen some guys do lately. Patience paid off in this case.
Kevin
What you describe is the rule in some cardrooms. That is, in some rooms if a player misdeclared his hand and you mucked, he must show that hand or you (the mucker) will win the pot. In most rooms, this is not the rule, IME.
As for the floor's inaction, I would calmly inform that floorman that if they're not going to try and stop this kind of angle-shooting, that you'll be leaving and not coming back. Don't just leave quietly, tell the floorman and shift manager WHY you're leaving. Doing it in a calm, professional manner will greatly improve the effect. A mad, ranting player will look like someone they want to get rid of, and they will figure you'll be back once you cool off. A calm player will be believed.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If an issue like this pops up in AC, one has the option of complaining to the Casino Control Commission, which is located a few hundred yards away. They have the option of finding fault with the dealer/floor person and can have the casino award money to the person who was wronged if there appears to be deception and cheating. There should be witnesses who will agree to tell what happened. I know of only 1 case in a 10/20 HE game where a player was awarded the equivalent of the pot after prompting by the the CCC and review of the tape by the casino. I forget how much money the guy was given but it was >$150. $400 + seems like the amount.
ive said many times never show your hand till its your turn to show and dont ever throw away until you have seen the better hand. let them say all they want its a games of actions not words. if you are mad you are not an experienced player as this stuff goes on in one form or another all the time. but since the floor made the decision that it is ok as long as you dont overdue it you might as well try it back at him sometime or against players you dont like. explain to the table in front of the floorperson so that you wont have a long lasting reputation as an angle shooter. also ask if they allow a new player to come in behind the blinds for just one bet or for free. if they do find out how long you have to quit for to be classified a new player so you can take advantage of your fellow players. the only way for bad rules to get changed is for the good players to complain then abuse them in front of the house.
...you all have obviously never played low-limit 7-card stud. The reason they have this rule is to protect the idiots at these tables who have no idea what their hands are. I've see people every night say, "straight" with an inside straight draw, and every once in a while someone shoves their cards to the dealer face up only to have the dealer find a straight hiding in there since 5th street.
The rule at all casinos is cards speak - people make mistakes; cards don't. So some guy is trying to take advantage of this - you can protect yourself simply by holding on to your cards - and hey, if you've got a guy that will bluff to the river with 97o, let him shoot all the angles he wants.
~DjTj
i have a sort of win at all costs , within the rules kind of attitude. i need to reconsider that i see.
thanks,
brad
I would like some recommendations on good places to play $1 and higher video poker in Las Vegas.
Krister, scott, and I will be at Turning Stone in NY this Wednesday through Sunday. Maniac Mark will be there, too, if he has the balls to stop kowtowing to the man. Come say hi if you're in the area. Unless you're one of those boring people whose posts always suck. Then just stay at home. You know who you are.
So, I guess you'll be staying home, then.
hey got your number. and the man says no go, but you may be able to stay at sun night
Mark
I'm a member of the Mayfair Club and have been out of touch for a few months. I tried to call to get the new schedule, couldn't get through, stopped by and found a "Mayfair Club is closed" sign. Is it shut down for good? Does anyone know what happened?
Thanks.
Would still be curious for details, if anyone knows them. Can email them to me if you would rather at jstoker@owc.com
Thanks.
in a thread on the tournament forum about "super mario", badger said:
"Mario has probably a higher hourly win rate in 20-40 to 30-60 ring games over the past five years than possibly any player on this forum."
on rgp sklansky paraphrased badger by saying:
"you said his hourly 30-60 holdem rate topped any of the two plus two posters"
badger responded with:
"Lie. I never said that, or even close to that."
huh? what is this reporter missing? is it that badger didn't use the word, "hold'em"? he made other references in the same thread, concerning mario, to play "after the flop". So it did look like hold'em was the subject. (is there a regular 30-60 omaha game soemwhere?)
is it that sklansky left out the "probably" and the "possibly". surely badger can't be nitpicking to that extreme.
well, it's odd, isn't it?
Post deleted at author's request.
Normally I stay out of this stuff but here is someone posting without ID just smearing people for what reason I don't know and I don't care. It's just too bad.
paul
i meant no smear. please read carefully what i said.
perhaps there was a hint of sarcasm in my my question, "what is this reporter missing?" But I was just fairly amazed that mr. badger would say he had not said anything "even close to" what mr. sklansky said he had. at least, by way of his response, i know what difference he was talking about.
i have to admit, i had thought mr. badger's accusing mr. sklansky of lying was sort of a smear. but maybe you're right, maybe it was i who smeared by asking for clarification. i'll not bother in the future.
as for no i.d., i am a little scared of mr. badger. he seems, in my short experience, to come on extremely, extremely strong . as a precaution, i felt it best to post anonymously. i will simply not post in the future. i can see that it is not worth it.
>badger responded with:
>"Lie. I never said that, or even close to that."
>>You posted the words. You think "probably" and
>>"possibly" for 20/40-30/60 are the same as
>>"definitely" for 30/60?
well, it is kind of close to the same thing. i think omaha players need to loosen up a bit:)
brad
Post deleted at author's request.
well, first off youre a world class player, so my thinking is way fuzzier than yours ever is.
on the other hand im more representative of most people, and what they hear.
this is what i heard.
A: "you wont believe it, this guy is so lucky, he makes bank, i mean, its unreal, like 5 or 6 BB hour at least! ive watched him play for a long time and i still cant believe it!"
B: "no way, youre telling me somebody consistently makes that much by luck when some of the best poker minds in the world, the most skillful players of all time, cant even begin to approach that?"
A: "i never said anything of the sort!"
crowd: "oooh ..." (in confusion)
brad
p.s. im sure youre 100% right, im just saying that when it comes to having a conversation, most people dont go for a 'strict interpretation' , but just kind of like go for the 'gist' of what your saying, you know, the main point youre trying to get across.
why are you guys ragging badger so much,dont you know a great player like him can and should get away with anything he wants! badger is the poker worlds bill clinton. READ HIS LIPS! HE DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN!
I am writing this post for me and me alone. I don't care if anyone ever reads it. With that in mind read it at your own dismay. Please remeber, I told you so.
A few days ago at Bellagio's David Sklansky explained a Holdem situation to me. When he asked me what I thought I made a complete ass of myself by trying to show David how smart I was. (I'm not that smart anymore but now I know it so maybe I'm smarter now). I went as far as sending David an e-mail with an attempt at conceptualizing his specific example into a generalized rule. When David saw me at Bellagio's he politely said in so many words "What in the hell are you talking about, that's example you cited in your e-mail has absolutely nothing to do with the one I explained to you." He then added "I worry about you". He then explained the situation to me a gain and this time I got it. No I don't think I got it, I got it. The example is not important to this post other than it is something that a very good poker player should instinctly realize. A very good poker player, I said. And that is the problem, it's my problem. I have overestimated my poker playing abilities and so has David. I don't blame him! After all I have claimed for quite some time on this forum that I am a good poker player. And I probably am good or at least above average but I am not "very good". Hardly.
After my discussion with David I dejectedly returned to my 15-30 Holdem game. Imediately the following situation developed. I late posted ($15) in the cut off seat. UTG raised to $25 and all folded to me. I looked at my cards and spied pocket 88's. Before I could act the button picked his cards up and tossed them into the muck. I won't tell you waht I did but will say that I won the hand. I explained this hand to David. He immediately told me that the correct play was a "No Brainer". There was only one correct play was his point. Well I played it just the opposite of what he told me was correct. I did not agree with him but intelligently did not argue. After thinking about it I could only conclude that he was probably correct. I mull this over in my mind now quite a bit! I'm still not thougoughly convinced that David is entirely correct. Yet I am thouroughly convinced that I can not definitively defend my play. I believe that what drove my decision was the belief that I was beat before the flop but I'm not sure. I won't bother explaining what the correct play was and how I played the hand. I'm sure you already know.
If anything comes out of this experience I hope that it motivates me enough to continue to look at my game and objectively evaluate my understanding of what constitutes correct poker stategy and play. For that I again owe a thank you to David Sklansky.
Vince.
Side note: Last night I found myself faced with three trap situations. In each one I failed miserably.
1) Position: BB, Hand: Q,Jo. Situation: UTG Raise(unknown player) All fold to me. Flop: K,Q,Q. Both check. Turn: 6, I bet (mistakingly) and was raised and called the hand down to see what I knew. A,Q!
2) Position: BB Hand:Ks,2s. Situation Same UTG Raised. All fold to me. I (mistakingly, maybe) Call. Flop K,6,7 rainbow. I check (mistakingly). UTG checks. Turn J river blank. I check-call, check-call. UTG: K,J.
3) Mid position. Hand: A,Jo Raise. Late position caller. Heads up. I (read this guy as clueless). Flop: J,T,x. Turn river, x,x. I bet the flop. Smell a rat but bet turn anyway. He calls. (Now the rat really stinks.) The river card gives me no concern but something is grabbing at my hand trying to stop it's forward motion but too late. Bet and raised. I call. He has a set of tens. This underestimation cost me only one bet but it is not point. The river bet was a mistake for a number of reasons. Least of all the possibility of being raised.
vince i suspect you are a good player but as we all know you are a little twisted on your thinking sometimes. maybe its your creative mind that makes you want to do whats abnormal in a game. do whats in the books and whats been defended here on the forums. and of course play tighter as its a game of winning hands mostly with the best hand.
Just a clarification. The man who raised to $25 was all in.
El Supremo,
How embarrassing! I didn't notice the all-in bet in my response, which was written offline while I was doing other stuff around my cave. I assumed a full raise and plenty of chips.
I still think reraising is correct, although playing against all-ins is an area I have to work on. I do find that the player who raises all-in is often very weak as they just want to get it over with and either re-buy or go home. I would reraise in order to isolate as a small favorite against probable overcards with a lot of dead money in the pot. If called by a blind the bulk of the pot is protected so it is unlikely I would have to pay off a bet by a blind if the flop came with overcards.
On the other hand, just calling lets in at least the big blind most of the time. It Vince had to post the $10 dead penalty blind for missing his blinds, then the pot would probably have $85 in it (assuming the big blind called). Now Vince can call for another $10. He has pot odds on his set, and the pot is completely protected against being bluffed out by the blind.
In retrospect, I don’t think it is obvious as you imply. But then we Italians are known for our lovemaking, not our brains ;-).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. If you have time, would you check my work on whether or not my logic is correct if the UTG player had plenty of chips? I'll consider us even (in lieu of a piece of the royalties) for my questions you answered (or should I say milked) in the major poker magazines and "Poker, Gaming and Life" (page 144 thru page 150).
Regards,
Rick
Vince,
You write for all of us and we love it when you post (at least most of us). My one and only student finds you an inspiring writer and is still in mourning that you didn’t bother to introduce yourself to me when you came to Los Angeles. She was probably playing that day too and I think you would have enjoyed meeting her – she is very charming and wants to buy you dinner for all the great posts you have written (unfortunately for you, I would probably be tagging along).
I’m going to guess on the play that El Supremo (David said he prefers this nickname rather than “OZ”)) called a “no-brainer” when you posted the pocket eight’s behind the button. Maybe I’ll be wrong and you will feel better and I will fall into despair. If I’m right maybe I’ll become his new favorite and you will spend the rest of your life wallowing in misery. But I’ll still read your posts and be pissed if you are in town and don’t introduce yourself.
I’ll assume you had to make up the $10 small blind since you said you returned to the table, but even if you posted as a new player, I believe my play is correct. When posting late you must always consider the fact that folding (unless raised) is no longer an option. I’ll assume the UTG raiser and the blinds are typical for this limit. And we can treat your hand like the button since the actual button folded out of turn (I like to call this the “virtual button” – last week I had two players on my left who telegraphed so much that I had three buttons every round!).
In the absence of your late $15 post, the best possible play when faced with calling a solid UTG raise in late position cold are fold, reraise, and then call. But since you are in for one bet you can’t fold since you will get almost six to one pot odds since one or both blinds will probably call (in addition to the $10 make up blind you may have posted). These are correct odds to flop your set when you consider implied odds. So you can’t fold.
The reraise is the second best option. It puts pressure on the UTG raiser and should get you head up with position. You are gambling a bit but with all that extra blind money it is worth it. Since the best option is not feasible since you posted late, this is your play.
Calling is weak because you will probably end up with two opponents and one or two overcards when the flop hits. It will be hard to play this hand from flop to finish (unless you flop a set).
That being said, I don’t think this is a “no-brainer”. There could have been other factors that would make you lean towards calling (if this was your mistake). Maybe the big blind was the type to over defend and the UTG player one to often make it three bets with overcards. Now you are in a real pickle post flop and calling and hoping for a set may make sense. Maybe the blinds don’t defend and UTG routinely checks overcards when the flop hits giving you a license to steal but making the pot bigger will keep him in there. So El Supremo may be smarter than you or me, but he could be a little more diplomatic to one of his best fans and posters.
Since this is a long post I’ll keep my comments on the other three hands brief.
In hand 1) I think most of us would have played it the same and lost about as much (although I do come out betting on the flop more than most here). Do you really think you could lay it down here?
In hand 2) calling a solid UTG raiser with king little suited head up is a mistake. You are often dominated and the suitedness helps very little. You flop top pair and still can’t apply any heat.
In hand 3) you played it fine. My sense of smell stinks so if you smelled a rat I wouldn’t have done any better. I do wish you would post the x cards as sometimes knowing these help.
Don’t get down on yourself and keep posting. And if you come to Los Angeles and don’t look me up I’m going to put a hit on you.
Regards,
Rick
Vince baby good to hear from you! I hope you are doing well out there and having fun. It seems clear you are doing lots of thinking as usual which can be as good or better than fun.
IF I would not reraise with 8's with the UTG being all in and myself having posted late, I would have to quit playing poker or something like that. Especially if the button pre-mucked. All that money out there and you can probably get heads up and probably have the best hand. You can't afford to entice the blinds in by just calling. Besides, you want either lots of callers and good implied odds to hit a set or you want to be heads-up. Forget 3-way and 4-way action with these hands unless you have a darn good excuse (like if you are in the natural Blind and can no longer eliminate anyone because the UTG raised and got two other callers).
With the 3 trap hands you mentioned at the bottom: #1 and #2--I almost can't think of two worse hands to call with out of the BB heads-up against an UTG raiser. Very easy to get dominated here with these hands, plus you are out of position.
With the 3rd hand, I guess your biggest mistake was not listening to your nose, especially against the Clueless. However, if there had been no stink, I would have bet all the way too. A modest Ten or Jack is just what the Clueless love to play with (not to mention a QJ on occasion as well).
I will say that I have had a few weeks of below par hold'em myself, but at least I identified the reason. It came from playing in the wild (10-way action? why not?!) 20-40 game at the Mohegan Sun on a few recent occasions, and from having tuned up my Stud game to a further aggressive pitch. My own aggressiveness and good results therefrom in Stud went to my head in hold'em, as did all the nitwits at the Mohegan Sun. I forgot that in Hold'em you JUST CAN'T get out of line much at all preflop if you want to have good results. The game is just too unforgiving and too much money goes in before the flop. Fortunately, it only took me a few weeks to identify my complaint and to take the antidote. Have you ever noticed that you go through phases in your game, that sometimes you are on but off because it is not the same situation? This can manifest in various ways. As long as you can realize what is going on you should be OK. I think you have a finely tuned objective streak even when looking at your own play. That is something few have, and fewer still value enough.
Maybe I missed it, but, whats your point? That, no matter how good we think we are, we should continually analyze and try to improve our game? Well......DUH....
OK Al, maybe you missed it.
sorry...I was referring to the original post, not yours...
Hey Al,
You wrote:
"Maybe I missed it, but, whats your point? That, no matter how good we think we are, we should continually analyze and try to improve our game? Well......DUH...."
You obviously or maybe not so obviously did miss it! Reread the original post. Pay particular attention to the first sentence! "Duh..."
Vince.
Vince,
Despite your disclaimer, your original post does what so many of your posts do: you hold a mirror up for all of us to take a peek into. It's up to us to recognize ourselves. You sly thing, you...
John
"All that money out there and you can probably get heads up and probably have the best hand. "
M,
Great response. Why do we play poker. To win money of course. How do we win money. Others play bad, we play good! You are correct. My guess is that in this situation you can get it heads up => %90 of the time by reraising. The 8,8 is probably averages out at a 3-2 (weak guess) favorite over the all in UTG raiser. Thus if you do the math you have have a positive EV just by raising. So tell me, why did I just call?
I somewhat agree with you about calling against the UTG raiser with the hands I described. But that had nothing to do with poor playing of the hands which is what concerns me more.
Vince.
Vince,
You mentioned you dejectedly returned to your seat. This may have increased your passivity in the face of feeling you were beat. Don't tell me you thought you were beat by the Blind who gave off a reraise tell himself. If you felt you were beat by the UTG raiser you could have been calling to try to make some money from a side pot with the blinds. This would be erroneous because first, the chances that the UTG raiser, especially an all-in UTG raiser, has two high cards is much greater than him holding a big pair. Second because calling to beat the blinds out of more money is erroneous. Why? Because if you call, it is probably correct for them to call. You don't want them to be making probably correct plays in your pot. If you just had 88 and everyone folded to you on the button, it would not generally be correct to raise not to call. I know the situation you were in was different because you can no longer steal the blinds, but even if you couldn't steal both blinds, if you knock just one of them out, your hand has a much better chance of standing up against one blind instead of against two blinds. You really are in trouble against two blinds unless you hit your "brave" hand. Plus if you raise and hit your set along with an A,K or Q you stand to trap a Blind for a lot perhaps. He might be calling with AK and think he has you by the balls because you raised and you might have AQ, AJ or AT.
As far as misplaying the hands #1 and #2, you must take into account your opponent and the nature of the flops and the action they are likely to generate. This can be more difficult than playing well preflop. Of course the difficult decisions seem to appear all the time when you hold a dominated hand. If you knew what you did was probably wrong but still did it feeling a bit unsure, it is either a judgment error or a willpower error or a combination of both.
One thing you must watch out for in Vegas is getting to feel somewhat lost and isolated when you are out there for quite some time, especially if you don't have any close friends there. I noticed this effect personally, and it hurt my game and I played marathons which can become quite costly. In Vegas the phrase "it is all one long game anyway" can take on a whole new meaning. You can play so much that you get burnt out, lonely and start to feel a bit spacey or like things are somewhat unreal. Needless to say this is not good for your game. I very much recommend having dinners with people and getting some exercise and going to the various natural sites away from LV for a day here and there. It is very easy to let the atmosphere and the grind or hours give you Vegas burnout and your game will really suffer. Plus you have more good players making plays on you which can feel a bit disorienting as well.
Are you keeping any sort of journal while on your trip? A lot of your posts are in the Classis Vince" style and a journal would be very interesting. You should at least save a printed copy of your 2+2 posts and reports while on this trip. Actually you and DS should gather up your posts at some point and have them all put into a book. But I think there are many more to come and the story is far from over.
See you later, Mark
Mark! Great post! No! Grrreaat Post! A real spirit lifter for me!
Thank you!
Vince.
I've read with interest this controversy about Badger's alleged bias for tournament poker because he is staked. At least this is my understanding of it. I think it's a lot of bull. Let me put it this way, if I could easily afford to pay my own way in tournaments or I could have a backer I would take the backer every time. It seems to me that this would only be common sense. Thus I can't see how this would bias Badger in anyway, shape or form.
One more thing, I think the arguments about tournament players vs. ring game players are silly. Good players should be able to do well in tournaments and ring game play. If there are opportunities to win a lot of money with little more invested than your time and/or the a tournament offers a serious overlay, I think it is crazy for good players to restrict themselves to playing in money games. Out.
In my experience, I have found that tournament players tend to be weaker in live games. Just my own personal obervation and I cannot provide a reason why other than it is just a personal observation of mine. I do find one thing interesting/silly about tournament players-their whining about someone calling a $10,000.00 bet with a piece of cheese. I know one clown who complains about this all the time-one day I finally said to him, "yeah, but its tournament chips, not real money". He just kind of stared at me for a second then repeated his "I cant believe he called..." routine. I think jackoffs like this just like to say out loud about someone calling a "$10,000" bet to make it sound like they are some big time gambler/player. Its kind of like some well known pros (wont mention any names) who are called to big limit games by their names and not their initials (like 99% of most people)...
Post deleted at author's request.
But you get staked in tournaments much more times than you do in live games. This explains your tournament bias and your tendency to defend tournament players everytime they get criticized in this forum. Admit it. You're biased.
Post deleted at author's request.
Why would you say such a thing? Do you have any idea what/when Badger plays? I know I will miss Badger's contributions.
I cannot speak for Mason, but as for myself, I was apparently misconstrued. All I ever said is that Badger, being one of those who benefits from the existence of tournaments, may have an unconscious bias when that subject is discussed. I was not implying anything different from similar thoughts about why it is important for scientific studies to be double blind.
It was not meant to be an insult since everyone is susceptible to this syndrome. Keep in mind that even if there is an unconscious bias, that does not mean that the writer is not speaking the truth or is not making every conscious error to be unbiased. The only reason I even got involved was because I was elaborating on a comment that Mason made. The truth is that I have read very few posts about tournaments and and in one case helped Badger make his point.
There may be some who believe that Badger was consciously arguing a position for selfish motives. I guess he thought I was saying that also or he wouldn't have gotten that upset with me. Hope this clears things up.
Post deleted at author's request.
Excuse me sir, but I think you refuted your own point. By saying you would choose a backer even if you could easily afford to pay your own way, you are admitting that you are in a better position regarding tournaments than most tournament players. That is of course true even if you weren't staked but is even more true now.
Put another way, if all tournaments were eliminated this would displease you more than the average pro player. Whether this fact would affect your (or others in similar positions) written opinions on things is something reasonable people could disagree about.
x
/
If you can easily afford to play in tournaments and if you are an expert tournament player, why would you want a backer? Put another way, if your bankroll is of the size that you don't care much about the fluctuations, then expectation should be the main driver of your decisions.
This concept is also true in side games. When we give advice about how to play poker we usually assume that you have ample money for the game that you are playing in. Thus the advice (assuming it is correct) is generally designed to maximize EV, not minimize fluctuations.
"Thus I can't see how this would bias Badger in anyway, shape or form. "
Tom, are you serious?
"I think the arguments about tournament players vs. ring game players are silly"
Tom are you serious?
Vince
Background:
My firsthand involvement with the AIDS controversy (is AIDS communicable or not?) has inspired me to investigate the ebb and flow of other scientific debates including those relating to forensic evidence in criminal cases like the O.J. Simpson trial. More on the Simpson trial later (in another post).
What I've reconfirmed, alas, is that scientific objectivity is seldom unalloyed and often superseded. Here's what frequently happens. Evidence is cited to support a hypothesis by several or many someones who have a vested interest in the outcome of the debate. Professional prestige, career advancement, Machiavellian alliances, and social and intellectual affectations come into play, the paradigm gets cemented into place, and then zealously defended by the ensconced self-anointed elite guard against any and all able-minded dissidents.
Eventually, the house of cards collapses, but, for a generation or two, Might trumps Right.
Thomas Kuhn spells out the whole shebang in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, first published some time in the 60's by the University of Chicago Press.
One of the juicier subjects under debate for the last twenty years has been the fate of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous Period. Did a collision with a huge asteroid spell their demise, were only terrestrial factors responsible, or was it some combination of the two?
In the pecking order of scientists, physicists are top dogs, and among physicists, recipients of the Nobel Prize reign supreme. Well, the champion of the asteroid-collision theory was both a Nobel Prize winner and a physicist. His last name was Alvarez, and Prof. Alvarez was not averse to throwing his weight around. (Sometimes, of course, the arrogant bullies are proven to have been right.)
I'm not going to rehash the debate here. Suffice it to say that the asteroid-collision theory appears viable at this point in time (see the book Night Comes to the Cretaceous).
I brandish a Small Pair (may need help on the river):
My tack is this: let's assume for the sake of argument that a 10 km. wide asteroid collided with Mother Earth near the Yucatan Peninsula at the end of the Cretaceous. (That would have been approximately 65 million years ago, if memory serves.)
It's not hard to imagine the devastation to the entire biosphere of this planet due to the immediate consequences of the impact and the "nuclear winter" which would have ensued. The energy released by such a collision has been estimated at many times the wallop of a hydrogen bomb (I'm being vague about this figure on purpose because I'd like to see calculations independently arrived at by several different whizbrains).
My hypothesis (analogous to a pair of 55 heads up against David Sklansky with a flop of A Q T) is this: when this oversized meteor or asteroid collided with Earth, not only was the immediate impact great, but there was a significant alteration in either the Earth's orbit or tilt (angle of inclination) or both. Now the repositioning need not have occurred all at once. Perhaps it was more a matter of destabilization which, when combined, say, with the Moon's gravitational influence, eventually resulted in a restabilized orbit/tilt hundreds of thousands or even millions of years later. Before you scoff your heads off, I've already run this concept by the brilliant director of the Griffith Observatory, Dr. Krupp, and he couldn't unseat it with a clean swipe. I also had a conversation with one of his associates, who sole counterargument was that the alleged collider wouldn't have been large enough to effect such a destabilization. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the formula for determining the energy released upon impact is E = 1/2mass multiplied by velocity squared. Therefore the mass of the incoming object, while by no means negligible, is far less of a factor than this object's velocity at impact. (Can't a relatively small but high-sped projectile knock a good-sized man off his feet?)
(The turncard is a 7 and Sklansky checks; is he trying to induce a bluff?)
I think there's a 1 to 5% chance of my having hit the nail squarely on its head. Moreover, there is a 100% chance of this hypothesis proving productive if it encourages someone to sit down and crunch some numbers or design a computer simulation program to determine 1) the amount of force needed to dislocate the Earth from its established orbit or alter its tilt or both 2) the amount of force needed to cleave the Earth asunder.
All comments appreciated.
Mark Harris
Mark,
Just a small quibble with your representation of Kuhn's work. You seem to imply that Kuhn sees global change in scientific world views as a kind of boxing match, and this is really not the case. Pardigmatic shifts occur when a world view is significantly altered by an event of some kind. For example, Kuhn cites the shift occasioned by the publication of Lyell's text Geology. (Certainly, Skanlsky's TOP might be considered one such pardigmatic text.) It is not a matter of who simply yells the loudest, which you seem to imply. Nor does Kuhn say that the previous paradigm which has been replaced is really "wrong." Of course, it's been 20 years since I've read Kuhn's work, so I might be a bit off, too.
You might also note that Kuhn's work draws upon the research of Benjamin Whorf who showed that our world views are conditioned by the very language we use.
John
It's also been twenty years since I read Structure of Scientific Revolutions and I'm no doubt guilty of some retroactive infusing. That's not necessarilly all bad as Kuhn's paradigm may itself be overdue for an oil change.
First I will adress the idea of a change in the earths orbit.
The energy released by a hydrogen bomb is approximately 9e16 Joules
(http://www.barryrudolph.com/pages/atomic.html)
if i read the page right. Even so, we will assume this is a minimum, and maybe the asteroid had an energy release at impact 1 million times that times that so
Ei = 9e22 Joules.
The Kintic Energy of The Earth = .5 m v^2.
v = 2 Pi R / T = 2 Pi 1.5e11/(60x60x24x365) = 10^4 m/s
Ke = .5 (10^27) (10^4)^2 = 10^35
Comclusion: There is nowhere near enough energy for there to be a significant change in the earth's orbit.
Now for the tilt argument.
The angular momentum of your asteroid = m v cross R where R is the radius of the earth. (We are in the inertial frame of the earth which is good enough for this calculation) The magnitude of the angular momentum of the earth is I w, where I = 1/5 m_earth R^2 and w is the angular velocity of the earth. I really don't feel like doing this calculation because I don't have all the numbers but I beleive the angular momentum of the asteroid will be piteously small.
Finnaly a note onthe integrity of science. Everyone fights for the theories they beleive are correct. I would caution anyone however who beleives what they see on TV. Science does not work like that. Everyone who has ever heard of a null hypothesis knows what i am talking about. We never accept a theory. We never prove a theory is correct. Science is based on the idea that there exists a claim which can be refuted. We can refute claims or reject the null, or we can not refute the null. We never prove the null. Semantics, yes, but this is an important point in the philosophy of science. a good example is also this neutrino hubbub. We have yet to prove that the neutrino has mass. Many people beleive that it does, but no one would say that it is anywhere near certain. Same with your asteroid theory. People tend to follow leaders in feilds, but people get shaken all the time. Look at Einstein and how quickly his ideas were accepted, and he argued that the speed of light = c in a moving train.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
-james H.
If a 10 km. wide asteroid is too paltry, what would it take? A 100 km. wide asteroid? A 1000 km. wide asteroid?
And what if your assumed value of 9e22 joules is 100 or 1,000,000 or 10^10 times too low?
How much energy would it take to nudge the earth off course?
The one informal calculation I found actually supported my hypothesis -- to my surprise. This bit of serendipity encouraged me to proceed; still, I'm banishing it from serious contention as not being rigorously arrived at.
(To repeat: this hypothesis is a longshot, but it may be that the asteroid need not be as large as common sense would dictate to effect an alteration in tilt or orbit)
Quirky quarky theoretical physics is an atypical scientific field: here the counterintuitive and unexpected are normative.
You wrote: Science is based on the idea that there exists a claim which can be refuted.
My retort: egos are inflated by Nobel Prizes, prestigious posts, and sizeable grants.
Most meat-and-potato scientists know little and care less about the philosophy or history of science.
that's one hell of a suckout!!
Post deleted at author's request.
You're too emotionally sensitive to criticism, Badger. You remind me of Rounder, who is emotionally over-sensitive too. You can't handle criticisms at all. What a waste for you to leave this forum. You've given many very good advice over the past few months. I hope that you reconsider.
I can't say I blame you. I think you are probably one of the most under appreciated world champions that contribute here. And how are you thanked? Every word, every thought is twisted and misrepresented to further the agenda of those who are in awe of your incredible gift for communication and clear thinking.
The barbs and subtle innuendos that are hurled your way like shoes thrown at a cat screeching in an alley under a tenement window are the weapons of a vast right wing conspiracy out to discredit you and all those who speak for truth justice and the American way. Go Badger, and God speed. May you light the path so others can follow. And Don't look back, never look back, lest you turn to salt.
(Too Much??)
What a friggin cry baby.
I have been reading this Forum for just about 7 months and I am amazed at some of the stuff people tolerate around here. David Sklansky has been called a liar, a cheat, a swindler and much more. Mason Malmuth is routinely berated by some posters here. Even a great guy like Jim Brier who helps everyone and anyone is accused of being mean and malicious by Andy Fox in that very revealing play by play between Roy Cooke and Bob Morgan.
And now Badger is fed up with it and he's not going to take it anymore? Fine, go, but why the tearful goodbye? Did you expect some grassroots outcry, some sort of 2+2 mutiny to oust the authors and instate you as premiere personality?
And what's this crap about deleting your posts from the archives. Forgive me but it sounds like you're taking your ball and bat and going home. Well, the game will go on, the forum will not disintegrate, but you will be missed.
After all, hardly anyone I know ever heard of the movie Suddenly. Great Flick.
Post deleted at author's request.
There are other people involved in your posts. This kind of interchange is like a tapestry. You pull your posts from the archives and suddenly the whole thread is affected. The input from others, thoughtfully written or carelessly mean, loses context.
I have followed this forum long enough to have seen similar reactions. In fact, David Sklanksy wrote off RGP awhile back. Someone called him evil or whatever, and Ismet challenged him to a three hundred dollar bet he'd be back. I won't challenge you to a three hundred dollar bet, I can't afford to lose three hundred dollars right now. Besides you sound down, man.
Steve Badger:
I'm with Daniel Patton on this one.It's, not fair to the other posters who have had exchanges with you in the past.I had an exchange with you back in May (You called me a troll,I called you the Bobby Knight of the internet).I don't want any of my post to be deleted and if they delete yours,mine are going to look kind of strange (well stanger then normal:-).
I just got out of the hospital(heart failure) today and joked to the wife that I can't wait to find out which poker guru is fueding with whom. I turn on the internet and what do I find out? Steve Badger is mad,real mad,at Mason Malmuth.So mad that he will no longer post here and wants to wash his hands of Two Plus Two( I know those are not your words,got to give you something to accuse me of making up "-).
Well Steve, just one man's thoughts, but I think you should reconsider leaving. The knock on Two plus Two, by a lot of people, is either the deletion of post,or the hero worship of the Two Plus Two hierarchy. Your departure ,and the departure of your posts would do more harm then good to the people who come here to learn and exchange thoughts on this wonderful game of poker.
Sometimes your right,sometimes your wrong,sometimes you get downright out of line. All in all you bring a lot to the table for both the lurkers and the posters of this site.
I enjoy RGP but a lot of the post there are missing from my screen.I still read as much as I can there,but I rarely get the whole thread,some are always missing.If all of your post go over there,It's just more post I want to read that never come up on my screen:-(
In closing,Sorry to get sappy here but here goes:
The other day while in my hospital bed, I got the news that while my 76 year old father was coming to visit me he had a stroke and was now in the same hospital as me.
My point,you can do what you want but there's a lot worse things in the world to be mad about then Mason's website(YOU DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE HERE).
Good Luck Steve
Howard
To Howard- I just received a newsletter stating that they have recently discovered that exercise is very helpful for heart failure as long as you take it easy. This reverses what had previously been thought. If this is news to you, I would suggest that you talk to your doctor.
%
Thanks
Post deleted at author's request.
xx
It appears that Badger is leaving, not because his opinions are being attacked but rather because he feels like his integrity is being questioned (not by me). I'm used to that but I guess he is not. I would point out however that there are a lot of lurkers and semi beginners out there who avidly read the advice he directs at them. I'm kind of surprised he would abandon them.
amen, david
I will be visiting 2+2 less if badger dissappears. David, Mason, Ray, Abdul, Vince (vince, you are a natural writer -- i'm serious)and several others are the posts i click on always. Particularly helpfull pieces I cut and save, and *many* are from badger. Of course do what you want, B, but don't think you are not appreciated.
sincerely
lurker (NB or pierre)
Steve, I hope you reconsider. Regardless of your personal or strategic differences with Mason or anyone else, I hate to see a serious thinker leave the forum. Dissenting opinions should always be welcome, especially when they are backed up with some excellent analysis.
However, I don't think it's appropriate that all your old messages be deleted. They're part of the structure of the archives, which are a valuable research tool for everyone. Removing your messages would render many of those threads incomprehensible and misleading.
Steve,
Dan Hanson said exactly what I would have set, but more elegantly.
I’ll just add good luck, I’ll miss you, and I don’t think you can or should take your old posts with you.
Regards,
Rick
Please delete all of my old posts. What's good enough for Badger is good enough for me. By the way, be sure to watch my speech tonight and then don't forget to vote for me in the fall. I will make poker legal in all 49 states.
I think I have gained knowledge from many of your contributions. I am not kissing your ass, but I think you have made significant contributions and think you should continue posting. I'll still read your column(s), but there is nothing like "live" stuff. I respect your decision to stop. You could have stopped without saying anything; just disappeared. Thanks for the notice, but I hope you would reconsider. Just because I never addressed your posts directly did not mean I never studied them.
Badger,
Good luck and thanks for telling me over a year ago "that I don't usually read these posts". You gained alot of respect from me for saying that, because you spoke the truth about how you felt. You have Omaha advice as well as other advice that I will miss. Take care and maybe our paths will cross someday. Remember it's only what the mirror says back to you that matters.
Paul
Please reconsider.
As Willie Nelson once said,
"I didn't come here and I'm not leaving".
Oh, grow up Badger. You're just trying to be like me. First, I say "Hasta la vista, baby". Then I say "I'll be back". You'll be back before you know it, Badger. Believe me, you will.
- HHH, good luck.
xx
Steve, I will be sorry to see you leave. I am relatively new to poker and this forum and your posts have been very valuable in helping me to learn the game. I would like you to reconsider.
It must be very upsetting to have people take shots at what you have to say or what you have written in the magazine. Well, I have seen rude, ignorant people say rude ignorant things from time to time on this forum. Some have shown up in this thread. It is they, not you, who have the problem. Let it go.
I was just telling my wife last night that sometimes playing poker is like playing with a bunch of three year olds, the way they argue with each other. Don't let the three year olds drive you out of this forum where you obviously have a lot of supporters. I am new to the game, but old to life. Email if you like. If I can give you moral support, I will.
Delete my posts. I am not coming back. I am a big baby. Whaa, whaa, whaa. Sniffle, sniffle. Poor me, someone said something bad to me. MOMMA! MOMMA! Yes Stevie honey what is it? MOMMA they said bad things to me...SLAP!... Grow up you big baby! WHAaaaaaa!
Post deleted at author's request.
/
I will personally pay you a dime a day not to leave. Thus you must either stay or come up with another excuse.
David,
How much would you have offered The Beatles to reunite? Your answer will tell Badger where he really stands.
There are morons like me who find RPG cumbersome to navigate. Good luck.
Steve Badger,
I have not been following many posts here on THE forum lately. I was looking for something Sklansky has posed when I came accross this the above. Since your posts always interest me even if mine seem somewhat unworthy of your attention opened this thread. I take it from what you say above that you prefer rgp. I read into your comments that the problem that you have with 2+2 is that it is a commercial site. I do not read rgp. I have little enough time to scan the internet as it is so I read and post only here on 2+2. I speak only for myself.
I understand that this is a commercial site. Therefore the hosts have a profit motive along with any other motive they may have for running and contributing to this forum. Gary Carson, Scott, the Feeney boys, Andy Prock, Jim Brier, that Glover guy, M, Fossilman, Ratso, Me, etc, etc, etc do not have any other motive than interactive discussion. I don't know about the other, as I have said I speak for me. You have been an exceptional contributor to this forum. For that I thank you!
Vince.
...perhaps even more than I am at times. He gets all worked up about who is right or wrong instead of emphasizing learning above petty issues. I don't think he took it too kindly when Sklansky showed that he was wrong about the AQ late reraising against the early JJ's (by giving a simple formula for play that would guarantee his grandmother could show a profit with the JJ's against Badger in that spot). He "sniffed bait and swam away" the next time rather than stick his neck out. He took the debate about Strategy vs. Tactics to heart so much that his next column was a rehash with the emphasis on supporting his position.
Now I don't care if he is right or wrong about anything. And guess what? He shouldn't care much either. Right or wrong should not be the issue here. The point is, is he willing to discuss analyses to get to the bottom of the analysis or is there too much ego involved. An example is Vince's recent scenario of late 88's against an all-in UTG raiser. Apparently the further analysis surprised even Sklansky, and Sklansky was the first to tell Vince that it was a "no-brainer." I was quick to tell Vince he was wrong. But a deeper look indicates that it appears to be different under the surface. Good ol' Vince somehow came up with another surprise question, although this time he didn't cook it up.
There is a quote from an old Chinese book, the Tao Te Ching, which goes something like this: "If the one is right while the other is wrong, and the other is right while the one is wrong, then the best thing to do is behold the light beyond right and wrong."
Now I have been a great wuss in my day on certain occasions, and I have usually lived to regret it. It sure sounds like Badger is being a wuss here. He might just like RGP better and that is fine--he should spend his time wherever he feels like it. But this delete nonsense and everything else sounds awfully babyish.
I have also noticed that on many occasions he tends to get very emotionally involved in the threads, even when they are just poker threads. I think he might find it a little easier even on RGP if he took a little more clinical and less emotional approach to the discussions. This appears to be one reason he so often seems to get involved in charged debates with a personal flavor. Gary Carson tends to inject a more personal acidic tone, but Badger tends to absorb more acid. Since his posts are often very blunt with a touch of personal feeling, people respond in kind and that sets things going.
There is little doubt that one of the most important attributes of a successful player should be continual improvement. Badger should do whatever the hell he wants. But he won't find as many people on RGP as capable of showing him when he is wrong, poker-wise, as he will on 2+2. If one's goal is to not be shown wrong on occasion, RGP is definitely the better choice. If one's goal is an interchange and exploration of higher level concepts, 2+2 is the better choice. It all depends on one's priorities. Just as at the poker table, people will irritate you on the forums. What do you do about it? Why should it be all that much different? So I will, in the spirit of "what do you do about it at the table", not beg Badger to stay, but rather tell him that he is indeed being a wuss.
Post deleted at author's request.
Enuf said, I'll check you out on that cumbersome, black and white, hard to follow, inane (at times) RGP site. Best wishes,
Ratso Ripoff (1st time I used my last name)
"If Mason can't behave like a decent person, and David can't help but also behave indecently to coverup for him,"
Badger,
Your read on people is so influenced by your own bias that you constantly berate people soley for the reason of not agreeing with you. Mason Malmuth is one of the most DECENT people I have ever met. You seem to believe that Mason and David gain some benefit from LYING about you! As if they will profit from demise. I am beginning to believe that you hold yourself up somewhere that us mere mortals are not allowed. It seems to me that most of the name calling I see between you, Mason and David eminates from your mouth. Why is it you can't just do the analysis and refrain frm personalizing your comments? It's one thing to humorously ping on another person but there is no humor in anything you say concerning our 2+2 hosts. Give it a break!
Vince.
Mason Malmuth is one of the most DECENT people I have ever met.
All right that is going too far. I must intercede.
Did you all see my speech last night? Sucked huh?
Please don't vote for George W. in the fall, I need the job and if I don't win the election my wife will lose her account and D.C. Tent and Awning.
Post deleted at author's request.
And I didn't say anything about movies. I might still post to this, the "other topics" forum.
Oh Christ! Just go away and be gone! I could never stand your supercilious attitude anyway.
I think the problem is that he hasn't won every tournament he's played in and is starting to tilt.
I knew there would be hell to pay when he sucked out and won the WSOP event. He has been a giant pain in the ass ever since.
Too bad RGP has got you now. There goes that forum. Pretty soon you'll be asking God to delete your posts. Jesus please save us!
Good bye. Don't come back. We won't miss you.
OK Badger, if that is the only reason I admit it is different. I have not deeply followed the latest issue you mention, in part because I have no way to know what is really going on.
However, I find it rather hard to believe that Mason and David would both flat out deliberately lie about you.
My guess is that there is likely to be at least a partial misunderstanding somehow involved in this situation.
Wondering if you ever saw Compulsion. Great movie about the Leopold and Loeb thrill killings in the 30's. Dean Stockwell (incredible child actor that Hollywood didn't ruin), Bradford Dillman, EG Marshall (loved him in The Defenders) and Orson Welles overacting the part of Clarence Darrow.
Post deleted at author's request.
Steve - Nothing that hasn't already been said ... I find your lessons very valuable and I will miss them.
I guess a lot of people have strong feelings for/against both 2+2 and RGP. I personally find 2+2 much better for poker content, with much less advertisements, junk, and personal attacks than RGP. So I read and post much more here.
I'll try to catch you some on RGP.
Dick
there is a big man livin way up in montanna and he so damm mean once killed a bear with a bannana
the mens call him mr and the womans call him honey when the cards hit the table womans hide all they mens money
he dont need no caps he dont use no punctuation when you ax him what to do he say depens on situation
who you think this crazy mountain poker player be he just a fella name a ray name a big ray zee
Ray, I would not open my mail for a while.......or answer the door for that matter.
Come and listen to a story bout a man named ray.
He bought Montana cause he liked to get away.
He wasn't scared of black bears and he wasn't scared of snakes
And he wsn't scared of gambOOLers who loved to play high stakes
Poker that is, Stud, Hold Em.
Do you think Ray "Uncle Jed" Zee carries that "couple unhundred thousand" in pocket money still? You know, the one he was always trying to give away to help a good cause.
Ellie Mae rocks!
betelguesebetelgeusebetelseuse
Not sure if this is acceptable use or not ... and it's only slightly poker related ... but I was more than pleasantly surprised tonight to see the advertisement at the top of the screen for About.com.
Reason: one of the hats I wear is as the new Auto Racing Guide there.
I haven't yet figured out how to combine poker with auto racing but I'm working on it. Anyone have a suggestion how I can do that ... email me please!
And if you like auto racing come over and say "hi!" (Just click on the ad at the top of the screen then search for "auto racing" ... you'll find my area and the good folks here will get their affiliate brownie points.)
-- Jae
Though Mason hates plugs, I believe he relaxes that stance somewhat when that which you are plugging is giving him money.
The Discovery Channel complex had a program on video surveilance. Wanting to be real, I have tried to find out exactly what, where and when but...try to trust me.
They, the producers, were trying to show the affects of video surveilance and the growing technology behind it on our lives. The program discussed a new concept to me, 'biometrics'. Basically a computer finger print of your whole 'self', that could be picked up by software, anywhere the technology exists. The program touted the benefits. Bad guys. This technology could be used to supress Bad Guys.
The program went to Las Vegas, video surveilance center of the universe. An example they used was a card counter. This person was clearly defined as a Bad Guy. I am a card counter. I am not a Bad Guy. The whole point is: It is very important who you let define who is a Bad Guy.
P.S. to Badger, you see what I mean about 'carelessly mean', right after I posted to you, I find another post called, 'don't let the door hit you in the ass'. If you see this, maybe I should have bet you three hundred dollars. I could use the money.
Perhaps its sort of like apples and oranges, but here we go....
Say there are 2 guys. One of them has averaged $30/hr playing Holdem for the last 5 years. The other has exactly the same record as a day trader.
Who's standard deviation is higher? Who is more likely to continue making $30/hr? Who is more reliant on luck?
When debating this with a friend, I said that day trading is more risky, because the market cannot be predicted. A deck of cards and a random shuffle can be counted on to behave itself over the course of 5,000 or 10,0000 hours. The stock market however, cannot.
He said that with trading, one can "know" that a stock will go up today, but a poker player can never "know" that he'll make his flush, etc.
Seemed like an interesting topic to post here.
B$
The Trader is more reliant on Luck.
Psychological.
When in a losing Poker situation, a poker hand is over very soon.
When in a losing Trading situation, every hour or every day or every month is a constant reevaluation of the Trader’s original reason to take the position.
Stop losses notwithstanding, there are many millionaire stock and commodity traders that, with just a little less luck, would be in the grave.
By their own hand.
hmm... well put. thanks B$
I'll Tell You Why Poker Has A Bad Name Is Nasty Poker Players. Like At The WSOP For Instance I Wont Menchen Names, There Was A Pkoke Player Very Nasty For Years Finnally Thrown Out For Attacking A Security Guard. But He Always Trys To Intimidate Them With Threts And Drinks Like A Lush. ( M.L. ) This Person Follows Alot Of Tournaments, Also One Day People Like That Will Be Banned And Then You Will Have A Better Turnout With New Poker Players. But Now He Will And Some Others Will Give It A Bad Name And Scare New Players Away. Because Also After They Get A Bad Beat And Knocked Out Of A Tournament He Will Want To Start A Threat, To Scare The Bo Person.
The King
I'm going to be spending some time in Hawaii. Any poker in Maui?
There are some home games that go here and there, but not much action in hawaii. It is one of two states that have no (zero, zip, zilch) forms of legalized gambling. Email me for some underground leads if you really want them.
If you can't find something better to do while on Maui than play poker, then why go there?
ok...this idea of splitting the HE forum into general, small stakes, medium stakes, high stakes etc sucks..no offense.
Let's face it, most of the strategic advice that is given on the HE forum is not very dependant on whether you are playing 2-4 or 30-60. Now, I have to wade through 4 different HE forums to find out what the superstars on this board have to say about the play of hands. Sorry, but I just don't have that kind of time on my hands.
Please stop this lunacy and take it back to the way it was.
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
.
Many of the games tend to play quite differently at different limits. In addition, most players play within a range and do not play all limits. This way you do not have to wade through posts about limits that do not interest you. PL/NL are especially different.
Perhaps you did not notice that we still have general holdem forum. Use the other ones only if you think it is appropriate.
The Holdem Forum gets so much use that threads of interest are often quickly buried. Offering the option to split up some of this should help alleviate this problem.
The links should be to individual posters like below
Theory and Strategy
Poker
... Jim Brier (Straight to the matter)
... Vince Lepore (Funny Insights)
... Dan Hanson (Renaissance Man)
... Abdul Jalib (Loyal Opposition)
... Izmet Fekali (The boy who loves him)
... Rick Nebiolo (On the Run Wisdom)
... Louie Landale(Acidic Analyses)
... David Sklansky (El Supremo)
... Mason Malmuth (the boy who loves him)
... ray zee (Anytime anywhere anygame anystakes)
With this menu you can go right to the threads that contain your favorite posters instaed of wading through all the nonsense from guys like me.
Give it a shot Chuck.
I'm with SKP on this one. A lot of advice is applicable to all limits, and interesting threads are liable to be missed because they are in the wrong forum.
The last split made sense because the sheer volume of posts was overwhelming. It hasn't been that way recently. Splitting the Holdem section into limits makes no more sense than having a forum for 'tight games', 'loose games', 'agressive games', etc.
Under the new format, where would you put a thread that discussed variations in strategy between 2-4 and 20-40? In the low-limit forum? High limit forum? It doesn't make much sense.
Anyway, you need a certain density of readers and posters to keep a message board alive. By thinning those posts out, you run the risk of having sections die. For instance, if there aren't any posts about low-limit poker for a few days, people will stop checking that forum, and then when a thread starts there it won't get responded to, and people will stop posting. I've seen this happen to other boards.
Dan:
As I said in another location, we will be watching to see how this breakup does. If it makes things worse, we can always go back to the former format. If it helps, like we tink it will, then it will stay. I suggest that people such as yourself post your opinions of the new format in about a week. Hopefully you will be pleasantly surprised.
Sure. I'm always willing to try something new.
I'm willing to go along with Dan and adopt a 'wait and see' attitude. At first, I thought as others do that this was not only overkill, but that it would dilute to overall quality of the Forum. Although I play in low limit games, generally at 6-12 and below, with the occasional foray into 10-20, I do not consider myself a typical 'low-limit' player per se. I am trying to elevate my game into more advanced thinking than the typical LL player I come up against, and when I post a hand, I want as much feeback as possible from ALL levels of player.
I'm not sure I will get that quality feedback if I post a hand in the 'Under 6-12' section, just because I played the hand at LL, but had got into a higher level of analysis and thinking about the hand. I'm out of town all next week and unlikely to have time to read the Forum, so we'll se how things are progressing by the end of the month.
Last November when there was only one forum I wrote the following post, which is still in the archives if anyone is interested:
Break Up Microsoft - I Mean the Forum! Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net) Posted on: Wednesday, 3 November 1999, at 2:25 a.m.
Amazingly, a month or so later the forum was broken up and 2+2 came up with sub-forums I never even thought of that have been very successful. I believe the December 1999 change has been mostly for the better.
Once again we have the problem on the holdem forum of great threads started in the morning getting buried by the end of the day. This is a bummer for all of us as. In addition, there is a problem with the speed of loading the message index, which is solved somewhat if you have a high-speed Internet connection.
Other posters have made good points. Four forums may be too many. By labeling a forum low limit, will it attract top quality posts? If a forum is too specific, it may not achieve the “critical mass” needed to ensure timely participation. And some posts seem to fall between categories.
I think changes were needed but I agree that four holdem forums are too many. If changes need to be made, the following are my suggestions (note that some apply to forums other than the holdem forum).
First, I would break out pot limit and no limit and open it to all games. Then it would include PL and NL Holdem, PL Omaha Hi, PL and NL Lowball, and NL Mexican Stud among other games played no limit. PL and NL are so different that they deserve their own space. And by combining all games, we would have the “critical mass” needed to keep many people returning to visit and contribute on a regular basis
If I had to divide limit holdem, I would restrict it no more than two categories. Four is too many. But where to split is problematic. Right now the best I can think of is Low To Mid Limit Holdem (2/4 to 9/18) and Mid To Upper Limit Holdem (10/20 and Higher). If someone wants both low and upper limit perspectives, post it on both. Or if someone has a post concerning a tough 6/12 game, post on the “Mid to Upper Limit Holdem” forum.
The Tournament, Internet, Other Poker Games, Other Gambling Games, Stock Market and Beginners forums seem to be fine. Don’t mess with these.
The Exchange forum needs to be split up and renamed. I’ve gotten a great kick out of learning or zee’s encounters with bears, Dan Hanson’s politics, reading movie reviews, and all the other fun stuff. But one forum should be dedicated to Poker News and one could be called Poker Players Discuss Other Topics. RGP dominates on Poker News right now but this could become the site for quality news. And I think many of us are having fun with the non-poker stuff while still contributing to the meat of the forum.
At the beginning of every message index, there could be a two line “mission statement” (i.e., a few sentences describing the purpose of the particular forum). I’m sure webmaster Chuck could put in a button where a regular could turn it off. The forum that needs a clear mission statement the most is the “General Poker Theory” forum. I’m still not sure what goes there.
Finally, a few things need to be cleaned up. On the home page, put a photograph of Ray Zee that is less than twenty years old. The link titles on the left pane should match up precisely. They don’t now. And maybe there is a little problem with the site correctly tagging visited links. But that topic deserves its own post.
In the meantime, I’ll give this version a fair shake.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I wondered where to put this post since even this discussion is spread out over at least two forums.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
As one comedian said about Celine Dion-- "Honey, If you want us to miss you, you have to go away!!"
This is a catastrophe for us. We were two-thirds of the way through our new book "The Best of Carson and Badger."
Best one-liner I've seen on this site.
Brett
PS Did Gary leave too?
Hey Badger, I'm thinking of having my first ever joint! Want to tag along?
Vince.
Vince,
You're kidding! You mean you write the way you do.... Ah, forget it.
"Don't let Daddy hear it; he don't believe in that ginmill spirit."
Best,
John
Well, I can't top the book idea so I won't try. However, after reading John Cole's post below in response to Vince, I naturally thought of John and of Literature. Suddenly a phrase popped out of nowhere:
"Much Ado About Nothing"
Mark,
Of course, Shakespeare's audience knew that "nothing" meant something; it was Elizabethan slang for "vagina."
For what it's worth or what you will ;-}
John
PS. I'll miss Badger's acerbic wit and his knowledge of movies, music, and things military.
I never read that work of Shakespeare, or about it.
Badger was alson always good for an emotionally charged debate about hands or other points of interest. I was amazed at the extent of his movie knowledge also.
I guess the stronger one's opinions, the more upsetting it may be to be contradicted. I find that as I go through life I am constantly contradicted (and occasionally affirmed).
I think Badger should consider tagging along with Vince.
Good riddance.
It's too late. I have downloaded and printed out a compilation of Badger's posts. I will print it on recycled paper, and sell it through Gambler's Book Club for $1.95. I'm thinking of calling it, "The Best of Badger's Blather".
I will include a 2-for-1 coupon for the famous Surf buffet in Vegas and a $2 matchplay good at the Western Hotel/casino, just to make sure people buy the book.
.
...they are almost all about the movie "Rounder". - Rick
this guy sammy b is funny and makes great posts. i hope he sticks around and tells us some things about himself(where he is from what he plays and the like). its possible if he works out ill put him on my million dollar payroll of favorite posters. those that are not recieving checks from me of at least 10,000 should post more often with better content and the money may start flowing in.
Eez,
In honor of Badger leaving I thought I'd go to the archives for the real answer.
"badger any of several related members of the WEASEL family. Most are large, nocturnal burrowers with broad, heavy bodies, long snouts, sharp claws, and long, grizzled fur. The Old World badger (Meles meles), found in Europe and N Asia, weighs about 30 lb (13.6 kg) and feeds on rodents, insects, and plants. The smaller American badger (Taxidea taxus) has short legs and a white stripe over the forehead and around each eye; a swift burrower, it will pursue prey into their holes and may construct its own living quarters 30 ft (9.1 m) below ground level."
ukw
Ray,
I like SammyB stuff too. But, I thought that my trip report would get you to put me on your payroll. If you think I was bad, tell me what I did wrong. I need someone to buy a percentage of me, just like Fossil (he he he).
Thanks for the kind words, ray.
I live on Long island. I play low-limit holdem on Planet Poker, there's a sammyb on paradise and that's not me. (Probably scott or Niels). when I get a chance I play at the Taj and usually do quite well at 5-10 there. I'll be coming out to Vegas the first week in November and am looking forward to meeting David, Mason, Jim, Vince, yourself and whoever else is in town then.
Again, I'm really glad you enjoy the stuff I write. I pretty much write to amuse myself and hope there's someone else out there that gets it. The best thing is that now when my wife and kids tell me that I'm the only one who thinks I'm funny I can say, "Not anymore!!"
never met anyone from long island i liked. i used to ride out there from jersey every nite to roosevelt for the trotters and all the drivers from l.i. were creeps. who said you were funny, did i say that. i said i like your posts. dont get a big head so fast or we will squash it around here.
My mistake, I guess I sort of misunderstood what you meant when you wrote, "this guy sammy b is funny".
As for getting a big head, no need to worry, now that badger's gone you were short one big head anyway.
i was joking
so was I, well, except for the part about badger having a big head.
I've watched a bit of both political conventions these past few weeks. It never ceases to amaze me that people writhe in apperent ecstacy in response to a politicians words.
I would be amazed too but I think it is so boring I can't bring myself to watch. Besides, I don't have a TV.
x
The only coverage I watched is on "The Daily Show". Absolutely hilarious.
I wish they had an anti democrat convention. That would be worth watching !!! :-)
Wait what am I saying???? I never could have posted this message if Al Gore hadn't invented the internet for all of us.
If you think Gore is/will be bad, wait till you get a load of Geo. Bush. His level of inability far exceeds Gore. The charasmatic Bush is a great guy, and I would love to hang around with him, but as President of the US.....simply not qualified.
Like it or not, Gore is hands down the most qualified. It is probably the best we could do.
And the conventions......they both suck.
Al Gore is too f*cking liberal. If Al Gore had his way, our government would have dominance over almost everything we do and we would pay taxes similar to what people pay in Sweden. And the crap about him "being instrumental in the founding of the internet" is such poppycock...... Another thing about him is that he is on a mission to destroy big tobacco companies. Okay so smoking sucks, but where do you think his wealth came from????? (he comes from a family of wealthy tobacco farmers) If he was truly dedicated to his word he should donate all that "dirty" money of his to some charity or something. Anyway, Gore is a crook- maybe just as much as Slick Willie.
As far as the republicans are concerned, I just wish Bush would have gotten either Colin Powell, Alan Keyes (even though he is kind of a religious nut), or McCain. I guess none of them were options but I think it would have improved his odds to win. Oh well at least Dick Cheney is not a crook. I guess thats about all this punker has to say about politics for now- poker, music and chicks are more interesting- I think we can all agree on that :-)
Goat,
You are the only punker I have ever heard of identifying himself as a Republican. What is the world coming to?
KJS
Yeah I am one of the very few. One of the guys in my old band was, get this: A punker, republican, and Mexican. Now thats a rare combo!
I am hoping you are not a registered voter. I only regret I cannot vote more that once for Gore. Under the GOP, the Rich get Richer and the rest the taken. If you are rich, then you should definitely vote for Bush. If you are a working person, you have to vote for Gore.
You are wrong about the non-rich getting taken under Bush. That is just liberal scare talk. Who wants to raise taxes?????? Its the democraps, NOT republicans. Get your ideas straight.
First, it is impossible to be a Punk rocker and a republican. You are mearly a rocker. Punks ain't republicans.
Second, who gives a damn if taxes stay the same as long as services remain intact
You probably pay very little taxes since Punk rockers ...oh I mean Rockers do not make much money, and it won't make much difference to you; probably enough for a couple Dead Kennedy's CD's.
Finally, The GOP only want to cut taxes for the wealthy. It has always been that way, and will always be that way. Actually, the GOP has some pretty good fiscal ideas. I like a lot the Republican money ideas, except of course Arther Laffer's trickle down ecnomics and supply side ecnomics (Voodoo ecnomics remember that?)
Stop listening to mom and dad and decide for yourself. Read (and not Rush Limbaugh)
Since someone makes more money and would be a beneficiary of a larger tax cut than me, I should be willing to give up mine? Now if that isn't fuzzy thinking!
If I make 30K and BIG OIL makes 100 billion. The tax cut is 0.1%. That gives me a net $30. That gives the US treasury 100 million $$$. Yes, I would give up MY tax break.
How much are you paying for gasoline and heating oil/gas? Do you think big oil is making a lot of profits or is it the environmental rules for clean air (ha, ha) that cause the prices to rise and stay up there. Under Nixon when interest rates went to 20% and money markets were paying 19% interest, credit cards raised their rates. As interest dropped, and money markets dropped to 3-7%, credit cards stayed (no they went UP) to 19%. Think the banks are doing OK?
Are you better off now than you were 10 years ago. I definitely know so. The thingthat pisses off the GOP is that Clinton and his administration have taken many of the fiscal policies of the Republicans and put them to work. The GOP is pissed because he got he ecnomy is good shape using their ideas. Who cares who did it. It works.
The republicans are so pissed at Clinton that if he died, they would dig him up just to continue to bust his balls.
The sex thing is over. Who really cares.
The new "leaked" inditement just when the Dems had the convention is childish and is going to cost the US treasury a lot of YOUR money. If the GOP stopped chasing Clinton to a dead end, the money saved would amount to a significant tax cut. This inditement is a perfect example of the rich getting richer at YOUR expense. Who benefits here--the lawyers, the PR companies and investigators of course. I wonder how many Senators/congressmen will have to travel all over the world with ther families/mistresses to "investigate" connections that he had in Europe and China?
Aren't you (we ) tired of this crap. Lets all play poker and get _____________ (fill in for yourself)
Respectfully (yea),
Ratso
Of course I'm tired of a lot of this crap. That's why I support the Libertarians. I think the Demecrats are the worst of the bunch.
Ratso,
I do think for myself and I have never read a Limbaugh book. I do listen to him occaisionally but I think his ego is a little too big. The whole punk subject is probably boring for most people here so I won't go into it again, but believe me, one can be both. Some of us are conservative, some liberal and others hate both parties. I would estimate that the percentage of true punks (not wannabies who think they are punk because they listen to CD's from punk bands) that are also conservative is very low, but there are also very few minorities too- Does that mean they are only rockers and not punks? I think not. Racist skinhead punks are the types of people that would say a minority couldn't be punk. Of course that is ridiculous, but that is essentially what you are saying about me simply because of my political affiliation. I want to say that I am not heavily into politics but pay plenty of attention to whats going on. I don't just listen to the conservative sides either. I sometimes watch CNN (liberal), O'Reily Factor (right down the middle), and Hannity and Colmes (Liberal and conservative). I am not closed minded and as a matter of fact I agree with a few liberal philosophies (very few)and disagree with some conservative philosophies. By the way I agree with you about trickle down economics. I think this was an idea that benefitted the rich way too much. Lower and middle class people need the tax cuts as much as anybody. The best solution would be to go to a flat tax and abolish the IRS. Unfortunately none of these republicans have the nuts to do it. Later, Kris
Kris, you are coming around. You have gained my ear and my respect. Actually, you watch good stuff. I also like Chris Matthews, and I also subscribe to the Limbaugh Letter. Anyway, I certainly respect your independent thinking and wish you would realize that there is a difference between the haves and have nots in America. We must be sympathetic to some extent for those less fortunate. I agree we should not just give things away. No party is perfect, but the Democrats seem to have more heart. I think Republicans are too worried about people getting over on them and thus really dislike welfare type programs. That's fair, but I resent BIG OIL (BIG INSURANCE, BIG UNIONS, BIG RELIGION etc.) getting over on us by not paying their fare share of taxes etc. I do not mind paying taxes (am I nuts?) because that means I am making money. If you get a chance read the boot, "The Politics of Rich and Poor" written by a former GOP strategists. It is quite enlightening and disturbing.
Ratso,
Yeah you hit the nail on the head by saying neither party is perfect. I realize that there are several people who are less fortunate and indeed with all the taxes we pay many of them should be helped. The thing that infuriates me though, is those people who want to live on welfare even though they are capable of working. Unfortunately Democrats (in general) are way too sympathetic to these types of blood sucking individuals. I often hear of people who are disabled or down on their luck yet refuse to take welfare. Then there are assholes who are just flat out lazy and just wait for their check to come in the mail. Have you ever seen people in line at the grocery store pay with food stamps? Oky nothing wrong with that but this one lady was buying all this expensive shit when she should obviously be buying generics and bulk package food. Even something this small adds up to millions of tax payer dollars. Problems with welfare are abundant and we need some serious reform (I don't think it should be abolished, just reformed). Working people should NOT pay taxes toward these non-productive leeches of our society. I could go on and on as I have heard and read plenty of stories on welfare abuse but I think you get my point. Also you were right that I think totally independantly but in general I am fairly well in line with the GOP. I do agree with some of the stuff democrats say, but some of it is just so blatently hideous to me that I have really grown to hate their party. Actually it is more the ACLU that I hate. They are way crooked. Ratso, maybe you could start a new thread if you want to bring up a new topic- I am too lazy to scroll all the way down here :-) Later Kris
.
Why is Cheneys college deferments less honorable than Liebermans or anyone elses - hell he is 59 and didn't dodge the draft like one clinton yellow liar.
Clinton is a crook!
x
Bush was a fighter pilot - served two years then on reserve status for 5 years - he wore the uniform and did his duty with honor. I resent you bashing him - specially from who probably supported a true yellow draft dodger - clinton.
bush showed admirable bravely successfully defending texas from all enemy fighter jets discovered in texas air space during those 2 years of harrowing active service.
scott
He did his duty and served his country smart ass - he was ready to go if called.
What have YOU done for your country lately besides take up space huh?
i am not going to pretend i have any idea of the gravity of the decisions people of my age face during war time. but elluding serving at the front by either educational defferments, alternate serice, or outright fleeing the country seem to me to be morally equivalent.
bush was not in texas because he could do more to ensure victory there than elsewhere. he was there because he (rightfully, it seems to me) did not want to die.
whether someone takes an educational deferment or joins the coast gaurd is of no consequence. they decide for themselves whether it is worth risking their life to help their country win the war.
if bush wanted to see action he would have. as he didn't, he didn't.
i am not judging any of anyone's decisions, but bush's ostensible participation has far more in common with clinton's draft dodging then with, say, mccain's genuine serive.
i may not do much good for anyone, but i take up about a third the space you do. in any case, the odds of me seeing action is incredibly small. it would be a rare war before i would even consider fighting on foriegn soil. plus the marines don't want me anymore after i told them i was a gay communist. all of sudden they stopped calling. go figure. and if they somehow got their hands on me and forced me to help them, they would probably have me breaking codes or some other noncombat activity.
my honest opinion, which i understand is quite limited by my lack of first hand experience, is that one had to either suffer from severe bloodlust or an acute lack of intelligence to pursue active combat duty in vietnam. but i am probably just missing the allure of it.
scott
Bush's service in the military is a joke, the U.S. would have been as safe from it's enemies had he spent those years of service guarding a traffic cone. And as for him being ready when his country called him, it wasn't like he was on a waiting list or anything, daddies influence got him a cushy little spot far away from the action that will look good on his resume. And I for one am tired of everyone going on about service to the country. If everyone who bitched about clinton's and similar people's draft dodging had voted for the one genuine war hero we've had then I would be voting republican this fall instead of deciding between the idiot and the stiff. C'mon, Bush has all his speeches written for him and he still manages to screw it up.
Second point, people don't learn from the mistakes of the past. Once again we have a charismatic person versus an uncharismatic one. People like Bush because he seems like a more natural guy then Gore, someone they'd like to see more off. In the same way he's a lot like Clinton, a southern governer full of charm. But does he deserve to be president? He coasted through school, had fantastic business deals handed to him (such as the rangers), and a seemingly prearranged political career. I'll concede that gore's career was pretty prearranged as well, so in the end I'm just voting for the least buffoonish.
my sentiments exactly, and also you left all your shit in my car.....damn crazy games
Clinton is a pig
Bush is the crook
Oh, look! Politicians without ethics!
I'm shocked!
Why do so many Republicans hate Clinton so much? I know many Democrats who simply will not vote for Bush, but they like him, even though he has done some sketchy stuff. Also, both Nixon and Reagan were not hated by the Dems. Well Reagan anyway.
We are really better off today than we were 10 years ago. Is there any doubt? If so, then I suggest you read the last 10 years of the Wall Street Journal
Ratso,
You are right that we are in good shape, but economies go through up and down trends all the time and the President only has a little bit to do with that. Remember that we have had a majority repuclican congress so Clinton couldn't get away with all his propositions. Luckily we have that great thing called checks and balances.
I could list a bunch of reasons why I absolutely hate Clinton but the list would be too long. I will say one thing about the whole Lewinsky thing. While I feel it was sort of blown out of proportion, the thing that gets me is that Clinton was such a convincing liar. He flat out LIED to the people he is supposed to serve. That is absolutely disgusting. The only time presidents should lie is when they have to protect national security, and those lies are intended to protect us from some foreign threat. Also, he tried to worm his way out of the lie by saying that he thought a BJ was not a sexual relationship! He has no dignity.
If the only things we can beat him up for are his personal conduct, then I think his presidency was pretty good. You said, "He flat out LIED to the people he is supposed to serve. That is absolutely disgusting."
So what? They all lied. Truman lied, Nixon lied alot as Veep, Kennedy (whew, he was king of the liers) and LBJ, man if her had Pinocchio's afflicition, he wouldn't fit in Air Force 1. Nixon was the Emperor of liers Reagan was the King of liers. Bush lied to everyone and forgot about it (Iran Contra, "No new Taxes"). Only Carter told the truth and you see what he got--no more years. So Clinton lying about a BJ (and I understand it was a very good one at that) is really no big deal. Even Jimmy Swaggert fell off the deep end once.
Frankly, I think if Trent Lott and newt Gingrich and Asa Huchinson etc. jot a BJ once in a while, they would be better off.
Ratso, You are right, a lot of these politicians are crooks. Let me give one other major democrat error: I don't know if Clinton was directly involved with this one but if he wasn't then it was one of his henchmen. The democrats are better defenders of the environment then republicans (this in general is good but the EPA has way too much power and they take this to extreme levels too often). Anyway, they had this great idea to make our fuel for cars less harmful to the air we breathe.......Good idea, but these idiots found that their legally required additive is now destroying our groundwater and soil in many places. Save the air, kill the ground. Another example of a liberal blunder.
Hey, if you're starting a 'blowjobs for all' party, then man, I'm with you!
Read my Lips!
Read "Earth in the Balance" and tell me again that Gore knows what he's doing.
Read ANYTHING by Bush then tell me what he knows except how to be part of a swindle. His $$$ deals with the Astros dwarfs Clinton's Whitewater.
Your a Canadian. You can't vote here. I suppose Lieberman on the ticket bothers you. Thank God for the democrats.
Oh, you are talking to Dan. I think Dan is simply a conservative "gov't leave me alone" type which is OK with me, but the gov't should protect the interests of BIG BUSINESS over the population. The gov't should protect BIG BUSINESS from outside influences and from itself.
x
..
Any LA players know.
Those people writhing in ecstacy are delegates and NOT average people. The Democratic delegates were much further to the left than the rank-and-file. The GOP delegates were much more conservative than the base of of the Republican party.
But at least the Republican delegates weren't selected with QUOTAS based on race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and even a requirement for transgendered people. The Democrats have quotas for everything!
And shame on the Democratic delegates who lustily BOOED a group of boy scouts who were on stage!
The Republicans had a quota; rich, white, affluent, conservative, bigoted, selfish, excessive. they just did not announce it.
"The republican method for feeding the birds is to give more oats to the horses" (not my words, but sounds about right).
For those who loved Reagan, in that era, the GOP had a giant party and charged it all to the American people. (words of a republican...really)
Can 2+2 be far behind.
i was thinking more on the line of about 25% of what you win for the year or if you lose a flat 10,000 dollars. the forums here are worth that and of course a person would be expected to leave a big tip of at least 5% of their winnings. make sure i get the dough as david would just squander it on pretty girls. thanks for the idea Rounder as your fellow posters will appreciate you.
In the spirit of constructive criticism, may I suggest that you re-design the menus on the right? Serif typefaces are extremely difficult to read in small point sizes, especially when each one is a link with a line under it. You would be much better off switching to 'arial' or 'verdana' as a typeface. Verdana was specially designed for small menu text on web browsers, but it will make it a little wider.
Another suggestion: For browsers that can handle style sheets and DHTML (any 4.0 browser or above), strip the underlines off the links, and have the text color change on rollover. That makes the menus much easier to read. You still have to support the old menus for older browsers.
If you'd like some help with a few changes to your format, I'd be glad to volunteer some time.
Here's the difference, using 'arial':
• Theory and Strategy • Texas Hold'em
• General
(to $6-$12)
(to $30-$60)
(including pot-, no-limit)
• Archives
• Poker
• General Theory
Directory
• Books
• Authors
• Essays
• Calendar
• Feedback
• Home
• Theory and Strategy
• Poker
• Texas Hold'em
• General
(to $6-$12)
(to $30-$60)
(including pot-, no-limit)
• Archives
Directory
• Books
• Authors
• Essays
• Calendar
• Feedback
• Home
• Theory and Strategy
• Poker
• Texas Hold'em
• General
(to $6-$12)
(to $30-$60)
(including pot-, no-limit)
• Archives
Directory
• Books
• Authors
• Essays
• Calendar
• Feedback
• Home
Jeez, how do you do all this stuff...I still can't even figure out how to bold, italicize etc....but at least I can figure out which post to respond to unlike that bloke Sklansky:)
The third menu uses the 'Verdana' typeface, rather than 'Arial' as described.
if you cant keep your madonnas in line and your ariels right, how the heck can those of us that cant even find the key that makes capital letters figure out anything. i finally got my gps to tell me where i am so now i know where im not.
I just checked my GPS, and sure enough, I'm right here.
It's good to know these things.
Wasn't Arial the Little Mermaid? She was a babe. But she had fish parts.
I posted a message about 2 months ago that I was moving to Vegas. My move was delayed but I've finally arrived. I'd be interested in meeting any fellow two plus two posters. I should be playing 8/16 at the Bellagio, and 6/12 and 10/20 at the Mirage.
I'm a little over 6 feet tall, short brown hair and usually wear a Seattle Mariners sun visor. I should be playing 8/16 tonight (friday) at the Bellagio. If you spot me tonite or any other night please introduce yourself.
My email is atwoodK2@hotmail.com for any who want to email me.
too many people look like that, nobody will recognize you. wrap yourself in duct tape and hang a sign around your neck, that should get some attention from the players.
I'll try that tonite, I should be at the Mirage playing 10-20.
Just in case more than one person matches this description are we looking for a male or the other thing?
Last time I was in California was at maybe nine years old, so needless to say I haven't played any poker there. I always got the impression that the games there were looser and wilder because there aren't any house games available.
For example, in Atlantic City, or Vegas, someone who likes to gamble, and is loose and wild, might have alot more fun losing at craps, or even roulette, than at poker. But in California, he's got to play poker, or not play at all.
Do you west coast players think this is accurate? Do you think the opening of full casinos will hurt your games?
B$
Ray Zee I need your help. The upcoming election will be very close. I feel that Montana will be the swing state. I know that if Ray Zee will publicly support me then the rest of Montana will soon follow. Three electoral votes is three votes and it may very well come down to that. Ray Zee please vote for me and tell everyone you know to vote for me as well. If only bears could vote I would win in a landslide. I promise to make all of Montana non smoking and hunting and fishing legal every day of the year. God bless you Ray Zee and God bless The United States of America.
what good is having 365 day a year hunting going to be after you confiscate all of our guns you bedwetting pinko liberal communist hippie?
it doesnt matter as montana is so conservative republican that no candidates even bother to waste time on the state as its going all rebublican no matter what. thanks but i didnt sneeze?
No matter how conservative, many in the state hold out their hand towards DC, ranchers, farmers, loggers, other extractive industry workers, etc. Conrad Burns is very good at bringing the pork home to Montana.
you got that right Ed. the ones crying for the feds. to keep out of their lives are the first to beg for their cash.
Actually, I don't think this is true. Most libertarians or even rabid right wingers really DO want to be left alone. I think the opposite is true on the left. Show me a liberal who advocating a "woman's right to choose", or "the right of free speech", and the same personal will inevitably (and inexplicably) be the first one trying to legislate or regulate away YOUR right to smoke, gamble, work, send your children to private school, keep more than 60% of your paycheck, etc.
Maybe you can give us some examples of someone "crying for the feds to keep out of their lives", while also asking for a handout.
I think the liberal viewpoint is that you can smoke, but not if it affects me; you can send your kids to private school but not with my money; you can gamble all you want; you can have a gun, but get it registered in case it is used in a crime it can be traced.
This is almost laugable, but typical misrepresentation of the liberal orthodoxy. Let's take these one by one:
"you can smoke all you want, but not if it affects me"
The how can you explain the Clinton/Gore Administration's war on tobacco? Federal and state lawsuits, that in aggregate, will cost the industry nearly a trillion dollars. Federal excise taxes (regressive, mind you), that will drive up the price of cigarettes to over $5 per pack.
"You can have a gun, but get it registered in case it is used in a crime so it can be traced"
Bull*. That is the "conservative" position. Handguns of any type are illegal in New York City and Washington D.C. to name a couple of places. If Al Gore had his way, handguns, registered or not, would be illegal everywhere. The administration is also supporting federal and state lawsuits to hold the firearm industry responsible for gun-related deaths and medical costs. This is the tobacco model all over again. Take away individual rights at any cost, the constitution, due process, legislative checks and balances, and the rule of law be damned.
"you can send your kids to private school, but not with my money"
More like you can send your kids to rivate school with your OWN money, as long as you play taxes so that I can send my kids to public school on your nickel. Th9is works for the liberal enemy (the "well-off"), but what about the lower and middle income family who can't afford to pay taxes and afford private schools? That is what vouchers are all about. Your comment on this belies your true statist thinking. ALL wealth belongs to the state to dole out as the bureaucrats see fit. Its is really their/("my" as you stated) money.
"you can gamble all you want"
...as long as you gamble on state-sponsored lotteries that fund more ill-advised social engineering. Again, this is another regressive, hidden tax on the people. Additionally, hom many states have unfettered, legalized gambling rather than Indian Gaming handouts? Nevada is the only one that comes to mind. They just shut down our private poker room here in NYC.
An example from my Forest Service days, some ranchers expect subsidized grazing and water fees yet scream to high heaven to have to follow any land management directives.
Montana has elected Max Baucus (a pretty liberla Democrat) to the Senate for as long as I can remember. Before that, it was Mike Mansfield for about a billion years. The last Congressman I remember was Pat Williams, a Democrat. They also historically elected Democrats as Governor, although I'm not sure who they have now. The state legislature was alsom predominately Democrat.
What is your basis for calling the state "conservatiuve republican, Ray?"
Granted, they do appreciate their gun rights like most western, southern, or agricultural states.
Montana, like many other large, unpopulated states, is a huge beneficiary of Federal highway money (i.e. lots of money spread across a few people). It has more to do with geographic and demographic reality than it does from political ideology, however.
we have conrad burns senator and raticot as gov. both far conservative.
Ray-
If you think Burns and ROSCOE are conservative, I would hate to see your definition of a liberal.
Is it true that most of the rivers in Montana have been closed to fishing due to the fires and water levels?
just some rivers in south montana like the bighole. also alot of area is closed to the public to keep from having more fires. most of the land around hamilton and much of s.e. montana you cant go off the county roads. all the waters are real low and the fish are in the holes in many of the rivers.
I hate everything! I hate everybody! I hate poker! I hate Holdem! I hate you! I hate me! I hate, hate! I hate hating everyone! I hate Holdem again! I hate AK suited! I hate late position! I hate the blinds! I hate money! I hate chips! I hate smokers! I hate floor people! I hate Bellagio's! I hate women poker players! I hate male poker players! I hate poker dealers! I hate poker authors! I hate smart people! I hate stupid people! I hate L.A.! L.A.! L.A.! Ay! I hate Las Vegas! I hate the Sun! I hate the heat! I hate the cold! I hate winning! I hate losing! Tiger Woods is o.k.! But I hate him for being O.K.! I hate baseball! I hate apple pie! I hate pocket Aces! I hate pita bread! I hate thinkin I left something out!
Have a nice day!
Vince (whom I hate)
Vince,
IMO, you have surpassed your lifetime supply of exclamation marks!
John (who is suitably mediocre, so as not to incur Vince's ire)
Vince -- That's 'cuz you're not getting the GOOD pita bread.
Not a good day Vince?
Hmmm........Pita bread, .........pita bread.........,pita bread.......YES!
OK, I get it now; yea pita bread rules (although I call it something else).
Be not offended anyone since man does not live by bread alone (nudge, nudge) and you all know you like it.
/
At first it seemed OK, but it is a bit restricting. If I want to see some of the posts by the big guys (you knw who your are), I have to go to the 30-60 forum. I can't play that level. It's like having to see an intern or resident when you really want to the the attending doctor or the head of the department.
I would prefer a HE section divided into (1) Beginners and (2) Experienced.
I appreciate your input but allow me to explain the increible humor in my post.
You see my post, as you can tell, is under Vince's post. Vince had just enumerated many things for which he has lost affection. I thought asking him at that volatile time what he thought of the new and more cumbersome forum format would be hysterically funny. Picture this,
Vince: I hate this, I hate that, I hate this, I hate that, I hate this , I hate that,
SammyB: Vince, what do you think of the new format?
Vince: I Hate that.
See, funny.
Actually, SAmmy, I saw that and thought it was funny. Had I known you did it for that reason, I would not have placed my post under it. Mea Culpa
/
"See, funny"
I hate funny!
Vince
emit ot emoc emoh ecniV!!!!!!!
wku
Hey Vinny - my list to a tee. Lets find all like minded people - at least 2 of us and drink some grape kool aid.
I hate sundays.
To see the kind of thing Ray-san might encounter in the woods...
Which of the two following options are more likely to occur:
(1)Winning the Californina State Lotto?
(2)Winning at Craps on a daily basis? (Enough to pay for all your living expenses throughout your entire life starting at age 30, modest lifstyle, single and no kids to support.)
The answer is whatever number 3 is.
I'm afraid of living. I'm afraid of dying. I'm afraid of hating. I'm afraid of loving. I'm afraid of television. I'm afraid of heaven. I'm afraid of eating. I'm afraid of not eating. I'm afraid of heights. I'm afraid of winning. I'm afraid of losing. I'm afraid of being stupid. I'm afraid of emotion. I'm afraid of addiction. I'm afraid of John Feeney. Well maybe not John, but I'm afraid of everyone else. I'm afraid of playing poker. I'm afraid of not playing poker. I'm afraid of making mistakes. I'm afraid of being afraid.
I'm afraid there is nothing more to say!
Vince
I notices some of your words might heve been taken from some popular songs of the 60's and 70's. Very good
Take 2 Atavans and tall me in the morning.
that great big grean thing over there
people who cant spell green
Take it easy Vince. Well, you didn't say you were afraid of reading. Go read John Feeney's book. I'm sure it will give you something to say.
...But shucks, I'm just glad you decided you don't fear me, cuz I agree it's everone else who's got scary problems.
As his message is fear - Vinny please get back on the lithiam you are just not the same guy since you stopped taking it.
:-)
Best seat at the table?: #1 - #10
1) Do you play better in any given one? 2) Should you really care?
Besst of it !!
MJ
P.S: 2 or 3 8 or 9
I like to sit where I can see as many "faces" as possible - I don't hate 1 or 10 but it is impossible to see the other with the dealer in the way.
I dislike 4-7 and avoid them.
I like seat 1 or 2 since I am right handed and the seat is protected somewhat. If you have a problem, the dealer's ear is right next to you.
I like seat 1 or 10, so I don't have to listen to a player at least on one side of me. I also like these seats best in LV when I do play there as the smoke is not as bad.(because the dealer doesn't smoke)
Depends who's playing. If I know the players, I would want the fairly skilled players to my left, and the average players to my right.
Bill
Come and listen to my story 'bout a man named Vince.
He got a Sklansky question wrong and hasn't been well since.
Sometimes his posts are full of hate the rest are full of fear
I hope he's feeling better soon he's the best damned poster here,
2+2 that is, SMZ , badger free
people who can't spell can't
...it was too easy...
~DjTj
You are simply to fast today.
So, it's been a few days and I've navigated around here quite a bit and feel the changes will make the Forum less entertaining. I am concentrating on entertainmeant as one of the most importsant qualities of the Forum because I believe that's what makes people come back again and again.
I read ALL the forums here. I have little to contribute as it is, but even less where tournaments, stock market and other poker games are concerned. Sports betting also holds no interest for me but other gambling games include blackjack so I sometimes find a reason to post to that forum.
It's not so much for me to navigate all the forums and read all the threads, I do it while I'm playing poker online. But, it might take too much time for guys like Rick Nebiolo and Louie Landale to read small stakes, med stakes, high stakes, and the general forums. I love it when Rick, during a bought with insomnia gets into the discussion. He writes well, makes his point and asks the same questions I need answered. But he's always running. He just doesn't have the time to scan all the forums and make contributions,so some otherwise Nebiolic threads might go unnebioloed.
Louie is funny as hell, but will he take the time to spot a target for his wit on small stakes. Incredible sarcastic opportunities might go unnoticed because he sticks to 30-60.
And if you're willing to pay badger 10 cents you gotta give Jim at least 1.87 a day to sift through the labyrinth you've created. I realize he might be retired but give the guy a break.
My feeling is it takes longer to swith forums than to scroll through threads that have no interest to you. If time is money and money is the whole idea of playing poker than time is the whole idea of playing poker and you guys are squandering just about 1/2 bb/hr in wasted time. Does this constitute a mathematical catastrophe, no, but it's close.
x
Will be in Toronto in mid-October. Any places to play poker, and if so, any advice?
carry canadian money and say "eh" alot at the end of your sentences and you will be fine.
there are some clubs that play poker in toronto but im out of the loop so you need some other poster to help on where to go.
don't forget about the gloves and fur coats because we live in igloos 12 months a year
You have any idea how tough it is to install security cameras in an igloo? Or to build one big enough to fit a couple of poker tables?
Log cabins all the way...
Just remember... Say "Abowt" not "A boot"... and if you see the easterners they like to change "sure" to "Shore" alot of the time... And if you claim to live beside Wayne Gretzky, we'll all want YOUR autograph...
I expect to try Wayne's reatsurant on the lake
Don't forget the snowshoes.
Ken
That was VERY helpful. Isn't the US dollar worth 10 Canadian dollars?
On Thursday night, the 17th, at 6:32 my wife gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. 7 lbs., 10 ozs., and 20 ins. long. Mom and baby are doing great. I have never had such an intense rush in my life as when that baby was born. Wow!
To catch a peek: check out www.stmarysmadison.com; go to the Special Delivery Babies and click on Emma Katherine, born 8/17/00.
Jon I.
P.S. At what age does a child first develop the cognitive ability to learn poker?
Congrats Jon.
I waited until my daughter was 21 to teach her something. I was in the delivery room for both my kids and it was the greatest moment of my life.
Like flopping quads.
All the best.
Nice, and congrats!!
BTW, I'm a new grandfather (for the first time). My granddaughter was born 8/8/00.
I also got pictures on my poker website.... www.geocities.com/jd8336
JohnnyD
Hope your daughter is doing well.
Mike
Congrats Jon,
I have been through that process 3 times myself. First time is the hardest...hehe
At what age does a child first develop the cognitive ability to learn poker?
My 7 year old is one heck of a card player(Loose /Agressive). But she has a bad habit, she loves to hit inside str8's :-) (dad is working on that part with her)
Best to you and your family !!
MJ
PS: The next six months are not so fun ...Hang in there.
"At what age does a child first develop the cognitive ability to learn poker?" I don't know the answer to this question but I do know I don't wanna play heads up with this guy: cjta.net/special/rabbit 4.htm
Congrats and join the club. My wife and I had our first on July 29, 2000.
BTW, who is the nutbar that coined the phrase "I slept like a baby"? What a nonsensical simile that is....seriously, it has been a lot of fun despite the raccoon eyes that my wife and I have been sporting of late.
skp,
Congrats to you, too. Hope all is well.
My baby is only 5 days old now, but I have never been so grateful to grab 3 hours of sleep in a row.
I must note, however, that pulling all nighters in law school is not half as fun as pulling all nighters with one's new baby. :)
Jon I.
Errol Morris's new film, Dr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Frank A. Leuchter, Jr., is one of his best yet, and it is also one of the best of 2000. Morris's subject is Frank Leuchter, inveterate coffee drinker and smoker (forty cups and six packs) and the author of The Leuchter Report, which was used by Ernst Zundel as "expert testimony" during his trial for publishing false history by the Canadian authorities.
Morris's film uses hypnotic images--the opening shots call to mind James Whale's The Bride of Frankenstein--home movies, overexposed film stock, slow motion, and combines these with interviews and recreations to probe Leuchter's fascination with both humane methods of execution and Holocaust revisionism. The first half of the film details Leuchter's attempts to design humane and safe execution devices, electric chairs, lethal injection machines, scaffolds, and gas chambers. Leuchter says that his "expertise" in designing electric chairs led to other jobs because prison officials mistakingly assumed one kind of knowledge led to another. Since he could design an electric chair, he could design a lethal injection machine. Leuchter admits it does not follow.
However, when Leuchter is recruited by Zundel to prove the gas chambers at Auschwitz couldn't have been used to kill human beings, he apparently forgets he has very little knowledge of gas chambers, science, engineering, or historical research. So, Leuchter and his camera crew head to Auschwitz for some clandestine research which later becomes the infamous Leuchter Report.
Morris assiduously avoids confrontation during his interviews and lets his subjects talk; we are left to judge rather than told how to judge. After watching the movie, I still don't know how to judge Leuchter. Certainly, he's not evil like Zundel. Complicit, perhaps? A pawn? A troubled man hungering for attention? Whatever, it's a great film on many levels, and miles ahead of anything I've seen in the past year or two.
Sounds interesting. When was it released? Where?
Just picked it up on video--at Blockbuster--the other night; I never saw it in its theater release--if it even had one around here.
Thanks. I'll look for it the next time I'm at Blockbuster.
I haven't seen Dr. Death... yet, but these should be up your alley if you can find them:
Dancing Outlaw (& Dancing Outlaw II: Jesco Goes To Hollywood) West Virginia PBS program about tap dancer, elvis impersonator, butane sniffer, and hero, Jesco White
Hands on a Hard Body 23 hopefulls gather in a Texas car dealer parking lot, put their hands on a pickup truck, and the last one left standing wins the truck. "Its who can maintian their sanity the longest"
Paradise Lost (& Paradise Lost II) IMPORTANT film about a contriversial murder trial in Arkansas. www.wm3.org
Bret the Hitman Hart: Wrestling With Shadows You don't need to be into wrestling to appreciate this humorous and sad bio & expose from National Film Board of Canada
Alright... enough for now. I turned my computer on to read about poker!!
Hands on a Hard Body 23 hopefulls gather in a Texas car dealer parking lot...
Loved this one.
Paradise Lost (& Paradise Lost II) IMPORTANT film about a contriversial murder trial in Arkansas. www.wm3.org
Great flick. Gut wrenching to watch.
When PokerSpot.com opened, they had a promotion giving $2000 cash to the first 10 players to play 200 hours. When I dropped out around 75 hours, I recommended Hands on a Hardbody to all the other hopefulls. (along with They Shoot Horses, Don't They)
B$
Disregard this message, it's just a test.
John,
Thanks for the review. Will look for the movie. I have one for you. "Hurricane" It is the story of Rubin Carter. It is an excellant humanities study. The following line by Rubin Carter (Denzel Washington) should be all that is needed to convince you to rent it: "Writing is magic!" (My exclamation mark).
Vince
You know, in another thread I said that I didn't think there was a lot of anti-semitism in my little backwoods of Canada here. But now you mention Ernst Zundel, and it all comes flashing back. There is a large group of neo-Nazi sympathizers in some of the smaller towns of Northern Alberta. There was a teacher from Eckville Alberta that was fired for teaching in class that the holocaust never happened and that the Nazis were misunderstood.
It's amazing that I had forgotten all that. It was daily news here for months on end when he went to trial.
Dan,
I read your posts about anti-semitism in Canada before seeing this movie. Zundel, though, if I remember correctly, is a German National living in Canada. He seems to have a fairly minor following, and I was amazed that Canadian courts would prosecute the charge of publishing false history.
John
The teacher in Eckville was Jim Keegstra, and he was teaching this garbage in social studies class in high school. The school board rightly fired him, if for no other reason than he was not following the approved curriculum.
Zundel ran afoul of Canadian hate speech laws, if I recall correctly. As a libertarian, I have some serious issues with any laws limiting speech of any kind. And I'm not sure that they are in the best interests of tolerance anyway. Sometimes the best way to flush out a cockroach is to switch a light on.
I agree with you that curtailing free speech, even hate speech is a mistake. I want my enemies out in the open where I can see them.
This thread will strive to determine which was the greater loss, one bigheaded badger or 100 million dinosaurs?
Last Wednesday evening I hiked to a peak 2800+ feet high which overlooks the San Fernando Valley (roughly 10km. by 10km.) and imagined a spherical asteroid 10km. in diameter plummeting down and impacting the Valley right smack in the middle. If the resulting impact crater were 10 times the diameter of the asteroid, it would extend to Santa Monica. If the impact crater were 20 times the diameter of the asteroid, it would stretch to Santa Barbara. If the impact crater were 100 times the diameter, San Diego would be within the squash zone.
If an asteroid ten times that wide smacked into Kansas , it would take out an unfathomable number of wicked witches and much of the North American continent besides.
Here's another scenario. What if the asteroid alleged to have collided with the Earth at the K-T boundary was part of a debris field. What if the Earth came within 20,000 meters of Big Brother asteroid, one, say, 1/6 the size of the Moon? Would this close encounter have affected the Earth's orbit/tilt?
Why do I think the Earth might have entered into a different orbit?
I can't help wondering why the dinosaurs didn't rebound after the alleged cataclysm. After all, the dinosaurs, if considered as a biological experiment and evaluated in terms of their resilience and longevity. had been stupendously successful. If the crocodilians and small reptiles and amphibians and small mammals survived in sufficient number, why couldn't have the chicken-sized dinosaurs? And after several hundred or a thousand years had passed, why didn't these remnant species begin to reestablish another reign of eminence, evolving into new forms to reoccupy vacant ecolgical niches?
Could it have been that the Earth's climate had been permanently altered by the impact or a concomitant close encounter?
In a sense, the whole discussion about whether the dinosaurs were warm-blooded might be irrelevant. If the ambient air temperature never varied more than 20 or 30 degrees throughout the Mesozoic over the entire range inhabited by dinosaurs, then biological mechanisms to regulate body temperature are more of a liability than not. Could a behemoth like Brachiosaurus have withstood severe seasonal changes? Fossils of large dinosaurs have been found in what is now tundra. Is this because of continental drift or because there were only mild seasonal variations over most of this planet? If the latter, could this have been because the Earth was more upright?
The Earth's magnetic polarity has flipflopped many times. Have the Earth's orbit and tilt remained constant over time?
Now, you want this asteroid to not hit the earth. For this to be the case, it would have to be moving very fast. Specifically, the force of gravity must not be enough to act as a centripetal force:
Now, we want to find out how much energy such an object would impart, travelling at 140 km/s on a path tangent at a distance of 20km. Hmm...this has a few too many free parameters - well, lets say it hangs that close for a while - perhaps even orbits the earth for a while. Why don't we calculate the energy in one orbit of this object at 20km...
This is pretty much an upper bound for the energy this asteroid could impart - if it really just did an orbit, you could imagine that it wouldn't really impart any significat lateral motion. Anyhow, this is only 1% of the earth's kinetic energy, which could do something, but nothing significant.
This is all just throwing numbers around and I suppose I didn't finda good way to approach this problem...However, you could of course imagine some sort of scenario that would actually move the earth, but maybe my numbers show that its pretty unlikely.
Anyways, the asteroid did cause major climate changes. It sent massive clouds of dust into the air that blocked out the sun for years. Plants that the highly specialized dinosaurs depended on probably died out. The entire ecological niche of the dinosaur disappeared.
And to answer your last question, the Earth's tilt and orbit have changed over time and are still changing. The spin of the earth, and you can find analogs for them in a spinning top. When a top starts spinning, it is fast and spins upright. As it slows down, it starts to precess - its axis starts spinning in a cone shape. The tilt gets greater and greater until it finally stops spinning. This is what the earth is doing also. It started out mostly upright and spinning faster than it is today. In a 50,000 year cycle, the axis spins around once. Depending on the tilt direction in relation to the closest and furthest approaches to the sun, the severity of the seasons changes. The ice ages are actually closely related to this cycle.
Anyhow, this post is already too long...if you're really interested in this stuff there's plenty of literature out there - and probably internet forums devoted to the subject. Stop bugging us poker players!
~DjTj
As mentioned, the Earth's axis will move over a long period of time due to precession. But it can't make any sudden moves, due to conservation of angular momentum. Some hack pop science theorists have speculated that the Earth 'swapped poles', apparently equating the flipping of the magnetic field with an actual physical rotation of the Earth. There was a popular theory a few years ago that Atlantis was actually under the South Pole, and that it used be tropical but the crust of the earth shifted or the whole earth tilted and put it where it rests today.
The problem with that is that the energy required to translate the Earth across its axis would pretty much heat it up into a molten ball of slag. Since my desk isn't made out of molten slag, it didn't happen.
You're alluding, I believe, to the theory entertained (note my choice of words) by Graham Hancock in Fingerprints of the Gods and first broached in the 1950s.
Actually the entire planet isn't supposed to have flipped upside down (in the version I'm familiar with); rather what's under discussion is a sudden shifting of the earth's crust (oh I see you mention that as well). Imagine an orange with rind still intact but detached; the rind can rotate independently of the orangeflesh. My understainding is that Einstein viewed this idea as at least plausible. Was Einstein a hack scientist?
I remind you that the whole notion of plate tectonics was dismissed as absurd by mainstream geologists in the 1920s. I submit that the phenomenon of black holes would have occasioned some guffaws back in the old days as well.
My mentioning the multiple reverses of the Earth's magnetic polarity was merely a reminder that a fundamental physical characteristic of the planet we inhabit has changed drastically (and relatively suddenly) from time to time.
Note that in my original thread I tossed out the possibility that a slight nudge was imparted to the Earth and that over time the effect became gradually accentuated. Note also that I acknowledged the long odds against this idea bearing up under impartial scrutiny.
What DjTj (prototype for R2D2?) and you seem to be affirming is that the accentuation of the Earth's tilt did in fact occur only more gradually and without outside intervention and that the Earth's glaciation cycle is dependent upon both the precession (wobble) and tilt of the Earth's axis. (As an aside, how do you think the ancient Maya learned about the precession?)
A) What would happen if an asteroid the size of the Moon rammed into the Earth? B) Now halve the size (mass) of this projectile and repeat the thought experiment. C) repeat B repeatedly until mass is not less than 3km.
Come to think of it, the newly "transcendent" mammals did later evolve into megasized species. Is this an ecological echo of the dinosaur era?
The shifting crust idea is the least of the problems with Hancock's goofy theories. He is exhibit 'A' for pop science 'theorists' who sound convincing because of good showmanship but ultimately have very little to substantiate their claims.
I'm not aware that Einstein thought it was possible that the crust could suddenly shift. If he did, I'd guess that he was talking about a much more subtle or long-term event. Hancock's notion that the crust could slip so much that a major tropical continent could wind up 45 degrees across the globe has serious conservation of energy implications. What force acted on it? Where did the energy come from? Where did that energy go?
If an Asteroid the size of the Moon hit the Earth, it would destroy every living thing, blast away our atmosphere, and in general be very bad. Lesser impacts would have lesser effects. But anything powerful enough to knock the Earth out of its orbit or cause it to tilt rapidly would destroy everything.
Remember Erich Von Daniken, and "Chariots of the Gods"? His theory required that Jupiter spit out a blob that became Venus. Calculations of the energy required to move a mass the size of Venus into a new orbit from Jupiter's orbit showed that it would have created a molten ball.
Proponents of a novel idea might be 90% wrong in the particulars and still be moving in a useful direction or arrive at an erroneous conclusion but still make astute observations. The tendency is to assign some dismissive label like goofy or irresponsible or fanciful, give oneself a congratulatory pat on the back, and call it a day.
I'd like to hear some other substantive criticisms of Hancock's theory. (I think the shift he posits is less than 45 degrees and from a temperate region but it's been awhile since I read his book). You don't see a correspondence between the configuration of the pyramds and the stars constiuting the belt of the constellation Orion? Or find the engineering feats of Ancient Egypt and Mesoamerica extraordinary? And the gigantic figures of Nazca, too large to be identifiable from the ground, these don't engage your curiosity?
I have to get some shuteye: more manana maybe.
Mark Harris
Mark Harris wrote: > You don't see a correspondence between the > configuration of the pyramds and the stars > constiuting the belt of the constellation Orion?
Yes, so what? There are thousands of stars in the sky. When you look at that many, it seems rather likely that the configuration of the pyramids will correspond pretty well to at least one group of those stars.
> Or find the engineering feats of Ancient Egypt and > Mesoamerica extraordinary?
Yes, but again, so what? Engineers have shown that all of these feats were achievable with the technology known to have existed at those times. Lots of labor, very hard and expensive, but quite doable.
> And the gigantic figures of Nazca, too large to be > identifiable from the ground, these don't engage your > curiosity?
Yes, but the question is why would they do it, not how. The infamous cases of patterns being found in farmer's fields that consist of complex patterns of circles and what are also not clearly visible from the ground, only from the air. Yet, I saw a show on TV where a team of 3 men, with tools consisting of boards of wood and ropes, were able to create one of these patterns in a period of 6 (I forget, but it was between 4-8) hours. The fact that ancient people's did some things for reasons we don't understand is more of a sociological curiosity than anything else, IMO.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The TV show Nova has demonstrated how the pyramids were built by actually building one, albeit on a much smaller scale. Also, it has shown how the statues were erected on Easter Island (someone finally had the bright idea to ask the island's natives how the feat was accomplished). Again, the real mystery lies not in the "how" but in the "why," which we really have trouble fathoming.
Oh, where to begin... First, Hancock DIDN'T find a correlation between the stars and the pyramids, until he went back 12,500 years. The problem is, the Egyptian Civilization didn't exist 12,500 years ago. Therefore, he suggests that there was another, earlier civilization we don't know about.
The problem with this is simple: We have absolutely no evidence of such a civilization. So Hancock invents evidence by 'proving' that the Sphynx is 12,500 years old. To do this he references the work of a Geologist named Shoch, who suggested that the Sphynx is older than previously supposed because its erosion patterns suggest water runoff, and the area around the Sphynx has been dry for thousands of years.
Two problems with this: First, there are other ways that the Sphynx could erode that way. Salt Exfoliation will leave erosion patterns identical to what we see on the Sphynx. Second, Shoch dates the Sphynx to 8000 years ago instead of 4500. Hancock glosses over that little fact and moves the Sphynx back to 12,500 years ago, just so his astronomy matches up. This is extremely bad science.
Once having established this connection by fudging the numbers, Hancock proceeds around the world to find verifying evidence. He does this by using tried-and-true numerology methods - he goes data mining. Count the number of steps in a pyramid. The number's irrelevant. Oh well. How about the number of steps divided by its angle? Nope. Hmmn.... Hey, if you take THAT number and add the number of steps between the pyramid and a temple, you get the same number as the total volume of the great pyramid! Look, a correlation!
If you sift through enough data, you will ALWAYS find correlations. Hancock's theories fail one big scientific test - they don't predict anything. If he had figured out that, based on the geometry of Orion there must be an undiscovered relic at location X, and a subsequent dig unearthed it, THEN he have corroboration. Playing fast and loose with numbers by examining data and then trying to build theories to make it all fit together is standard pop science mumbo-jumbo.
And that's just for starters.
If the sphinx is 8000 years old, that's still several thousand years before the technological knowhow necessary to carve it had developed, according to standard time charts of Ancient Egyptian History.
Hancock doesn't insist that the pyramids are 12,500 years old, but that a celestial/geological event was being memorialized. Could the great flood legends found in farflung cultures all be harkening back to some global cataclysm which occurred then? If what was responsible for this upheaval is governed by a celestial cycle, then perhaps someone was leaving behind a warning aimed at a future scientifically sophisticated civilization. Sketchily put, this is what Hancock has proposed.
You wrote:
Once having established this connection by fudging the numbers, Hancock proceeds around the world to find verifying evidence. He does this by using tried-and-true numerology methods - he goes data mining. Count the number of steps in a pyramid. The number's irrelevant. Oh well. How about the number of steps divided by its angle? Nope. Hmmn.... Hey, if you take THAT number and add the number of steps between the pyramid and a temple, you get the same number as the total volume of the great pyramid! Look, a correlation!
This is such a gross misstatement of Hancock's case, I find myself heaving a sigh of exasperation. For openers, Hancock doesn't fabricate the superfluous exactitude exuded by the dimensions and alignment of the Great Pyramid. If you indeed think Hancock was playing fast and loose with figures, at least don't mimic his methodology by sloppily flinging mud at an effigy. Many investigators including Dr. Krupp of the Griffith Observatory have found precise correlations between astronomical cycles and the orientation of ancient monuments like Stonehenge.
But I was originally discussing the asteroid collision and its alleged extirpation of the dinosaurs. I happen to value this theory highly. But I hate to see when a "mere" theory gets brandished as indisputable fact, overruling uncorroborating evidence, and thereby becoming immunized against further review. That's what happened with the correlation between HIV and AIDS. (Instances of AIDS sans HIV have been stealthily classified as another disease because they don't fit the template.) If the global climate was not altered permanently by this collision, then why didn't vegetative patterns which existed before the collision return? There are still plenty of conifers around. I'm about to read Horner's most recent book about dinosaurs (if I can excavate the blasted thing). I'm hoping he addresses the extinction issue with far more insight that I can at present supply.
It's a big leap between admitting that the ancients attached importance to celestial objects, and a worldwide ancient civilization that vanished without a trace.
Shoch's work was grossly mischaracterized by Hancock in the first place. And Shoch's original work is still highly controversial. And Shoch himself doesn't agree with Hancock's dates.
The thing is this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We have a worldwide body of scientific and historical evidence that the world developed in a certain way. Along comes a guy who says we got it all wrong. He'd better be able to make his case. Hancock has been frantically trying to do this for a long time. And he's had to backpedal on a lot of claims after being debunked.
For example, he originally claimed that the great pyramid at Giza dated to the same era as the Sphynx. When Zahi Hawass, the curator in Egypt, claimed that he was wrong simply because we have graffiti on the stones that date to the 4th dynasty, the 'accepted' date of the pyramid and Sphynx. Hancock's answer was that the graffiti was a forgery, or written there in the 4th dynasty, thousands of years after the pyramid was built.
Hawass then gave Hancock unrestricted access to some interior chambers, where you could clearly see that the graffiti continued in between the rocks, and in places was visible through very small cracks between stones. There was no way that graffiti could have been written after the pyramid was built. Hancock finally succumbed to the inevitable, and conveniently changed his theory to fit.
Another problem for Hancock: Carbon-14 dating of all kinds of relics around the Sphynx, Angkor Wat, and other supposed ancient sites shows dates similar to currently accepted dates. Hancock responded by dismissing carbon 14 dating. His point is that stone can't be carbon-14 dated, because it's not organic. And that's true, but misleading - the dating is done on bits of cloth found stuck between stones, wooden construction implements, etc. And they match the accepted dates, not Hancock's inflated ones.
I saw him on a show recently where he exhibited a 'proof' that the great Pyramid was built by an advanced civilization. His 'proof' was that a large stone sarcophagus was 3 units wide, 4 units long, and had a diagonal length of 5 units. He claimed that this was proof of advanced trigonometry, since it was unknown at the time that a width of 3 units and a length of 4 would result in a diagonal of 5. HUH? Who cares? Since it is in fact true, it doesn't presuppose any knowledge. If a monkey lays down two sticks 3 units and 4 units long at right angles, the hypotenuse will be 5 units long every time.
This is the kind of stuff pop science gurus pull all the time. Throw out some scientific-sounding stuff that is true but meaningless, or of unknown truth but unprovable. Pile it up high and deep until it sounds like a convincing body of work. Cross enough discplinary lines that there are no single experts who can refute all of it. The geologists think the geological evidence is poor, but they're really impressed with the astronomy. The astronomers laugh at the astronomy, but think the historical correlations are pretty impressive. The historians laugh at the historical evidence, but...
So it goes. Hancock has one or two original ideas that may have some merit. I think the Orion connection is considered seriously by Egyptologists, for example.
But he's wrapped it around so much garbage that it's hard to take any of it seriously.
You wrote:
We have a worldwide body of scientific and historical evidence that the world developed in a certain way.
Well, it took Robert Bakker's Dinosaur Heresies to get us to reevaluate dinosaur behavior. Would you prefer he hadn't rocked the boat? I mean progress doesn't come without a few ruffled feathers and the pursuit of more than a few false leads. If Hancock has been chasing will o' the wisps, history will afford his ideas a proper burial as it did Velikovsky's. In the mean time, I found Fingerprints intriguing and provocative. The book not to be missed by any serious would-be puzzle-solver, however, is Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea.
What rankles me is slipshod medical research and all those brainwashed physicians who can't tell the wheat from the chaff.
I'm all for stirring the pot. And scientists are all for it too, when it's defended well. Look at how quickly the asteroid extinction theory became accepted by paleontologists - that's about as 'far out there' as you can get. But the theory passed a crucial test - it predicted something. According to the theory, there should have been enhanced levels of Iridium at the KT boundary due to the asteroid strike. So a team went around the world sampling soil at the KT boundary and found... enhanced levels of Iridium. The theory may yet be wrong, but now the burden of proof is on others to explain alternate mechanisms for a worldwide band of Iridium. This is how the give-and-take of science works.
Hancock's work has never predicted anything. But more to the point, it's just incredibly lousy scholarship. The whole thing started with Bauval's Orion theory. But to make it work, there had to be a civilization 12,500 years ago. There's no evidence for it. So they MANUFACTURED evidence for it, by taking a geological theory and stretching it beyond all recognition. Once they established that 'link', they started playing numerology games to build up more 'evidence'. Along the way they've even picked up garbage like Edgar Cayce's mystical revelations about the Sphynx.
Let me give you another example of how Hancock twists science - in 'Fingerprints of the Gods' he makes all kinds of claims about Atlantis being under the Antarctic ice cap. He NEEDS for this to be true, because it allows him to answer the critics who ask, "If there was a great civilization 12,500 years ago, where are the relics?" His answer is that they are under a mile or two of ice. This is convenient because it's not falsifiable - we have no way of actually checking.
So, now that he's pre-defined his conclusion, he goes looking for theories that can support it. Along comes the continental slide theory, which says that it's possible that an ice sheet got so heavy that it caused a shift that put a tropical area (Atlantis) under the South Pole. Hancock provides all kinds of great scientific buzzwords and references to published works that make this sound like it's highly plausible. He cites the finding of fossilized trees, etc. That show Antartica was once much warmer. What he DOESN'T say is that none of the authors of those works believe this could have happened any time in the last 100,000 years, and Hancock needs it to have happened about 12,000 years ago. In fact, the theorists proposing this generally suggest it could have happened something like 100 million years ago, which makes it totally useless for Hancock's needs.
Then we have the evidence from ice cores. We've drilled thousands of ice cores in Antarctica. We can date some of these cores back at least 70,000 years, so we know with CERTAINTY that there has been an ice sheet on Antarctica for at least 70,000 years. Case closed. But Hancock didn't report that, did he? He had to have known about it, because it's common knowledge to anyone who puts even the remotest amount of work into studying the literature on Antarctica.
This is how he picks and chooses his evidence to make his claims sound plausible.
Here are some links you might want to look at:
First, a skeptical look at 'Fingerprints of the Gods' and other CryptoArchaology:
http://www.intersurf.com/~heinrich/wildside.html
Next, THIS page was written by Bauval and Hancock, and I think their own words do more damage than the skeptics can. This is an example of how they take a news story that everyone is interested in, make all kinds of 'logical connections' to their own work, and use it to gain publicity:
The secret chambers beneath the Sphinx at Giza could hold the key to a link with Mars.
These guys instantly aligned themselves with clowns like Richard Hoagland, and started making wild claims based on nothing more than a very low-resolution photo. Stuff like this should destroy any credibility they might still have.
The link below gives some good information about Ice core sampling. It turns out we've already sampled ice from 160,000 years ago:
This should put the final nail in the coffin of Hancock's 'Atlantis' theory. But most importantly, this information was widely available at the time Hancock wrote the book. The evidence is incontrovertible. It is impossible that Antarctica was warm at any point during the age of man. And Graham Hancock knows it The scientific literature on Antarctica is full of scholarly papers on ice core analysis. But it doesn't fit his theory. A real scientist would have to explain away conflicting evidence. Hancock doesn't, because his books aren't peer reviewed. So he just ignores it, and a credulous public buys his books, reads them, and thinks they are scientific truth. The experts know better, but consider his stuff to be so stupid that they don't even bother commenting on it. Only Carl Sagan and a few other skeptics took up the challenge of counteracting these loons in the public eye, but people don't listen because they'd rather believe that a wonderful civilization, perhaps descended from Martians, built this stuff. The alternatives are just too boring to care about.
"The Earth's magnetic polarity has flipflopped many times. Have the Earth's orbit and tilt remained constant over time?"
Mark Harris,
This is a very interesting question? The world on tilt! Wow, dat's heavy. I remember the first time I met a dianosaur in person. It was during the meziopickle period you mention in your post. Yes a metro had just smacked into what would later become Long Island after those stupid Indians sold the place for aout 24 bucks. God what a bunch of numbskulls. Donald Trump really sucked them in. Funny though, what goes aroound comes around. Now the Indians are a thorn in Trumps Gambling behind.
The dinkosaurus was the meanest critter you ever saw. He had a nose the length of a football field and his shwantz was astroidically big. He was the favorite game of the meziopalenthalic man. Better known as mezza mezz. Mezza mezz loved hunting the dinko and usd to have regular Sunday dinko rib barbecues in the astroid craters surrounding long island. God those were the days.
Yup, I still remember that day that the earth went on tilt and really screwed up our paradise. It was the day that all the dinosaurs committed suicide. Yeah they all jumped into the colorado river which was the long island river in those days but later moved to colorado. That's why the bones of dinosaurs are found strewn throughout North America. The river ran through it. Anyway that was the last day that the earth was allowed to play poker with Badger and it hasn't gone on tilt since. Pretty sad story, huh?
Vince.
Once abound a teem a goldentoed acekicker yclept Badger rallied from crest to stumble in the vast domain Exraise uberminded by unfuzzy pokermeisters Essky, Madtooth, and Zeal. He cheaply sought renown as a thwarter and flavored a diet of cinematic paradisos.
One daze, Badger pokered his ungreen thumb in his ungreen I and yellowbellowed. The Very Mountains shuddered and chasmed. The Moon howled. Jupiter shrouded, Venus choked, Mars blushed. And the River rained suet.
Dinkosaurs came from fur and hide to calmmiserate the Goldtoe but he rolled them all to get a life. Poor poor dinks, they couldn't coz they be all exdinked.
And Badgerboy, he's repealed for long until the clues come loose.
The And.
Harris, Mark,
How True! How true! And don't forget that Bill Cosby asked why is there air long before Badger pissed them guys off. I really enjoyed reading your account of all things small and big. You are a true genius. Unlike David who just thinks he knows one. Yes dinko's would be proud to grace your grill. I bet if you were to have a dinkosaurs cook out, Elvis would show up with BH as his date and we'd have a Grand O'l Opry time. Just like when we were kids. Gosh I love that story.
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger is a compulsive poster. He'll be back.
Why'd he leave?
Check out the "Hasta La Vista, Baby" thread started by Badger in the Other Topics forum on Wednesday, Aug.16,2000 and the "Super Mario" thread started by "ex-newbie" on Thursday, Aug.10 at the Tournaments forum. You may find hints as to why Badger left from these threads.
Considering making a journey north to the frozen wasteland of Minnesota. I hear there's some good action at Canterbury Park. Anyone have any insight to share?
Does anyone know if there are any plans to eventually broadcast coverage of the 2000 WSOP anywhere on TV?
I just clicked on my first banner ad ever. Since it's election season, I just couldn't resist voting for the "cutest couple" on the Alloy Teen webzine.
I hope Mason, David, and Ray get a few cents off my click. Alloy needs some help in its direct marketing department.
p.s. I voted for Sarah Michelle Gellar and Freddie Prinze, Junior.
hey i'm on the strip doing e-mail. isn't that something.
vince
where specifically?
One block south of Bellagio's on the same side of the street. A little trinket place. Don't know the name. $1 - 6 minutes Vince
Or get stuck in an elevator with or introduce to your sister ...
10. darunk
9. fishhead
8. batface
7. dogsbreath
6. booger
5. crabs
4. cracksmoker
3. The Sucker
2. Dr. Feelgood
1. fartknocker
why?
Because of their names. It's funny Ha Ha. I've actualy played against some of them.
CV
What handles do they use on Paradise?
According to the Gaming today,the former card room Mgr.was arrested by Gaming Control agents for stealing Tournament entry fees.Estimates are the amount was in the 200,000 neighborhood.I've heard they took him out in handcuffs.Card Player Magazine,in typical journalistic fact finding style congratulated the person who was promoted to take his place with no mention of the scandal.It will be interesting to see how Poker Digest handles this,given their recent editorial about printing all the facts about poker including topics that they formely would'nt touch.
have not heard about this...my brother in law works there, next time I talk to him I'll ask him about it.
I actually think the scandal is bigger than we will ever know. I also suspect that the scandal has something to do with Mike Sexton becoming a consultant for the Tournament of Champions (leaving his current position) and Linda Johnson stepping down as publisher of CARD PLAYER sooner than anyone expected.
I hope the full story comes out. I'd like to see poker magazines take an active role getting the truth to players.
"I'd like to see poker magazines take an active role getting the truth to players."
Have you noticed where all the advertising income is coming from, for those magazines? This is a very, very small market, with limited interested parties.
So, generally pointing out faults in management, uniformity of rules, decorum, etc, will continue to be acceptable, as long as it doesn't get into specifics.
Mason- Why on earth would you try to tie this to Mike Sexton or Linda Johnson?
Just trying to stir the soup?
Diane
I am no stranger to scandal. I was accused (falsely) of doing dirty dealings with the Buddhists Monks and the Republicans will make a big issue of this in the fall. I am not guilty of all charges. I think everyone here knows that.
In the meantime I need all of the votes I can get. The election will be very close and George W. will soon pull out all the stops. I expect to clobber him in the debates but as you very well know running for President is one gigantic poker game where both sides will push in all of their chips.
Think of all the good things Bill Clinton and I have done for poker and cast your vote for me on September 28th.
I don't think Mason has anything to gain by "stirring the soup". But I would like to know more about his theory. I value his opinions as he has been a Vegas insider for a long time.
Brett
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by being a Vegas insider, but I'm definitely not an insider concerning the Orleans Scandal. While I don't believe that Mike Sexton or Linda Johnson did any thing worng, I do believe that they made decisions that hurt poker in the long run.
Specifically, it is my opinion that the best way to improve poker is to put emphasis on improved daily operations of cardrooms. But what these people have done is put emphasis on more and more tournaments. This can easily be seen by all the tournament columns that are now present in CARD PLAYER magazine.
Now don't get me wrong. I do believe that poker tournaments have their place. I just feel that they have gotten out of balance recently, and the problems that have apparently occured at the Orleans may be a result of this.
I suspect that I am not the only one who thinks this way. Barry Shulman in a recent column in CARD PLAYER (if my memory is correct) asked the question, "How good are poker tournaments for poker?" Now that wasn't his exact language, but it seems to me that he may be wrestling with this same idea. That is, when is too much of a good thing bad, and are all the tournaments and the emphasis on tournaments damaging poker in the long run?
Again to be a little more specific, I can think of many major tournaments that are no longer with us. Some of these were held at casinos that didn't even have a poker room at the time. (Yes, I'm aware that the WSOP was held at Binion's Horseshoe for many years when they did not have a poker room.)
Another trend, which I find disturbing, is the independent contractor who comes into a casino and holds a poker tournament. I believe that this was first started by Amarillo Slim many years ago with his tournament in Tahoe. But there is a difference with today's independent contractors. It is that (I believe) Slim got many more concessions out of the casino than today's contractors do. For example, I have always understood he had a piece of the drop.
This means that today's promoters have to come up with other revenue sources to be profitable. Thus we see increased juice, less buffet comps, etc.
So in answer to Diane's question, I think that there are some issues here that need to be addressed and debated. I'm not sure exactly what is best for the long term good of poker. As for Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson, I believe that neither of them did anything wrong, and furthermore I believe that their intentions were good. I also believe that they made mistakes which will have repercussions for years to come.
Mason wrote: >>While I don't believe that Mike Sexton or Linda Johnson did any thing worng, I do believe that they made decisions that hurt poker in the long run.<<
What decisions were those and why. I'm not necessarily disagreeing but I would like to know.
>>Now don't get me wrong. I do believe that poker tournaments have their place. I just feel that they have gotten out of balance recently, and the problems that have apparently occured at the Orleans may be a result of this.<<
Again I'm not disputing what you're saying but what do you mean by "out of balance." Although I do believe that poker tournaments provide opportunities for good players to make a lot of money, I'm not saying that things are perfect either.
>>Another trend, which I find disturbing, is the independent contractor who comes into a casino and holds a poker tournament. I believe that this was first started by Amarillo Slim many years ago with his tournament in Tahoe. But there is a difference with today's independent contractors. It is that (I believe) Slim got many more concessions out of the casino than today's contractors do. For example, I have always understood he had a piece of the drop.<<
Why is this disturbing? I can only surmise that you feel that this encourages corruption involving tournament officials, contractors, and players. If you do feel this way how does this corruption manifest itself?
>>So in answer to Diane's question, I think that there are some issues here that need to be addressed and debated. I'm not sure exactly what is best for the long term good of poker. As for Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson, I believe that neither of them did anything wrong, and furthermore I believe that their intentions were good. I also believe that they made mistakes which will have repercussions for years to come.<<
What do you feel are the issues as I for one am not clear on what they are. What mistakes did Mike and Linda make? Again I'm not disagreeing with you but I think it would serve players well to know what these mistakes were.
So is Poker Digest going to cover the Orleans scandal?
- Andrew
Andrew:
I hope they do. However, I need to point out that I'm not part of the ownership or management of POKER DIGEST. I do not have any input into their editorial content or what issues they address.
Mason- Can't you use your column in PD to write what you want? Cover the Orleans scandal there if you want.
But LEAVE LINDA AND MIKE OUT OF IT.
Sorry for shouting, but those two have done more to legitimatize poker and make it more socially acceptable for new players to enter the game than anyone else associated with the game.
You and David have taught us. But Mike and Linda made it seem perfectly ok for all the new players to dip their toes in the water. We owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude.
Your original post was scandalous in trying to tie their names to the Orleans problem. Smacks of sensational headlines like used in the National Inquirer or the rags that talk about alien babies.
Now all you do is backpedal and trump up reasons for why you said what you did.
I am very disappointed in how low you stooped here. Apologize, admit their names were used inappropriately linked to Orleans, and drop it.
Diane
Diane:
If in any way some of you mistook my words to mean that Linda and/or Mike had something to do with money being stolen or other inappropriate activities then I do appologize for poor written language. However, I do think that they might be innocent victims of the problems that occurred.
As for legitimizing poker and making it more socially acceptable for new players, well, I have to question that. I believe that tournaments do very little to develop new players. I can't think of any poker player that I know who began his "poker career" in a tournament. I suppose there are a few who perhaps played in a free "press type" tournament that began this way, but I believe that the vast majority of players began their careers in low limit side games. (I do recognize that tournaments are sometimes able to generate publicity that benefits poker. I think that we all agree that the WSOP has been very successful in this area.)
(In fact, I would argue that I have done far more in this area of helping new players become perament players than almost anyone else. For example, one of our publications, the FUNDAMENTALS OF POKER is recognized as the premier beginners book. For years it sold at a retail price of $3.95, and the current version is $5.95. But what you don't know is that between 1993 and 1996 we sold 60,000 copies of it to cardrooms at just slightly above our printing cost. We did this in an effort to help cardrooms develop new players. Unfortunately, the cardrooms seemed to lose interest in the project, and we don't attempt to sell it to them any more.)
Now I do agree that many relatively new players discovered tournaments after some period of time, thought that they were great, and have stayed on as poker players because of them. (I suspect that you may belong to this group since whenever there is a tournament in Las Vegas I know that there is a good chance that you will be here.)
Furthermore, and this is where I am coming from, for poker to survive and grow, there must be an influx of new players, and new players need to be developed mainly by the cardrooms.
So how do the cardrooms develop new players? I believe that one of the important ingredients in accomplishing this is to run their daily operations well. (You may want to look at the paper I wrote with Donna Harris several years ago called "Cardroom Theory -- A Two Way Street." It is reprinted in my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME TWO, or I can send you a copy if you send me an appropriate email address or regular address.)
As you know, I play my poker at either The Mirage or The Bellagio. (However lately, all of my poker has been at The Bellagio.) In my opinion, both of these rooms are doing a good job in the area that I am talking about. In addition, The Mirage has daily tournaments, and The Bellagio does not.
Finally, I am not an investigative reporter, and do not have the necessary tools to tackle the Orleans scandal. I'm sure that there are many other people around who could easily do a much better job than I would. I do hope however that either POKER DIGEST or CARD PLAYER will discuss it, but I have nothing to do with their editorial content. This is a decision that the appropriate editors/publishers will have to make.
Finally, I am not an investigative reporter, and do not have the necessary tools to tackle the Orleans scandal.
Then why are you bringing it up here?
- Andrew
Mason-
Linda's contributions through Cardplayer have made it lots more comfortable for people to give casino poker a try.
I do give you and David credit for your published works that educated all of us to the intricacies of the games. My copies of Holdem and Advance Holdem are dog-eared and highlighted in multiple colors.
But you are zoning in on just tournaments as being the claim to fame for Mike and Linda in the poker world. They have done so much more. Don't just associate them with tournaments, they have helped ALL elements of poker.
Linda and CP and her gracious, friendly demeanor at all poker functions she participated in (and there were 1000's of them all over the country)gave poker a friendly warm, welcoming "face".
Mike is the consumate gentleman and puts a polished image on poker in all that he touches, not just the TOC.
One of the best ways cardrooms can encourage and cultivate new players is by prominently displaying CP and PD for new players. They will then learn about the wonderful and gracious people that are part of poker.......like Mike and LInda.
Both of these individuals make you want to be associated with poker and to give it a try despite how intimidating it looks from the rail.
I disagree though about your position that tournaments don't really bring in new first time players. Many times I have encouraged interested, but intimidated new players to try one of the very low buy in tourneys to get a feel for the casino poker game with a limited cost. The $10-15-17 buyin events around the country are great for a new player to try it out. The fixed expense takes some of the fear out of it. They know they can't be fleeced by a savy "pro" by more than their original stake. I can't tell you how many times I have had this conversation with newbies sitting on an airplane or among friends and spouses of friends.
After trying $1-3 stud on my first poker excursion I came back to WI and started playing in $10 buy-in tournaments at a small casino in upper Michigan.That experience only fueled the fire for my enduring love of poker.
Yes, I love tournaments. I probably balance my play 40% tournament and 60% live. I only come to Vegas or Reno or Foxwoods during the tournaments. That's the only time you see me for sure in Vegas, otherwise the daily games at Bellagio/Mirage aren't juciy enough for me to make that plane ride from WI. I would rather play live in Tunica the rest of the year.
You WERE wrong to use Mike and Linda's name in that thread it caused all kinds of misunderstandings. As one of their staunch admirers and a friend with both of them, I was very offended. Your clarification has helped....but you did stir the soup quite a bit with your original post.
Diane
It was very upsetting to read about the Orleans scandal. I can remember when the person in quetion ran the poker room at the Barbary Coast. I enjoyed playing there, the Gold Coast, and the Orleans. Since we do not know the facts we should not assume his guilt. We should however be aware of problems that make a person put themselves in such a position. I hope that he is cleared of any wrong doings and if there is a problem that he is able to get his life together.
I do think this is a far greater issue then the issue of Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson.
From what I understand, David H. has confessed and Gaming is insisting that the Orleans prosecute. He stole $200,000 for Petes sake.
Now this is an appropriate well reasoned response. Contrast that to Badger's insanity.
David- I appreciate the personal compliment.
However, I disagree with your statement regarding "Badger's insanity". Steve Badger and I have a different "style" for responding on issues, but we are definitely in agreement that Mason was way out of line with his post.
The fault lies with Mason spouting off innuendoes regarding a supposed sinister link between Mike, Linda and the Orleans scandal.
Mason owes both Mike and Linda a public apology on this forum and a private one as well. His subsequent messages on this thread so far are just attempts to backpedal and avoid admitting he made a mistake.
Diane
In Today's Las Vegas Review-Journal (August 28th): --
POLICE BLOTTER: The manager of the poker room at The Orleans was recently arrested and charged with embezzlement after more than $200,000 was missing from a recent poker tournament at the Tropicana Avenue hotel-casino.
David William Hricsina, 53, was arrested by Nevada Gaming Control Board agents on Aug. 18, according to the state agency.
Investigators charge that Hricsina embezzled entry fees from The Orleans Open, a 15-day tournament that was held in July.
Mason wrote: >>While I don't believe that Mike Sexton or Linda Johnson did any thing worng, I do believe that they made decisions that hurt poker in the long run.<<
Tom Haley wrote: What decisions were those and why. I'm not necessarily disagreeing but I would like to know.
My answer: It obvious to me that they decided to push poker tournaments in a bigger way than they were ever supported before. I believe that this had the effect of encouraging cardrooms to neglect their day-to-day activities.
Mason wrote: >>Now don't get me wrong. I do believe that poker tournaments have their place. I just feel that they have gotten out of balance recently, and the problems that have apparently occured at the Orleans may be a result of this.<<
Tom Haley wrote: Again I'm not disputing what you're saying but what do you mean by "out of balance." Although I do believe that poker tournaments provide opportunities for good players to make a lot of money, I'm not saying that things are perfect either.
My answer: As I have stated, when the emphasis becomes all poker tournaments, cardrooms begin to neglect their day-to-day activities. Here's one simple example. One of the problems with many tournaments is dealer quality. This is because many dealers have to be hired for a short period of time. Furthermore, much of the supervision is temporary. This leads to further deterioration. Thus instead of an industry that promotes quality in these areas, we the players end up with lower standards that hurt poker in the long run. For example, do you think that a casino that doesn't have a cardroom (or only has a small one) that tries to run a big tournament once a year and will only have these dealers employed for a few weeks is very concerned about dealer technique. I suspect that their main concern is things like filling their rooms, getting the event over with, keeping their expenses at an acceptable level, and adding business to their other games (which do go year round).
>>Another trend, which I find disturbing, is the independent contractor who comes into a casino and holds a poker tournament. I believe that this was first started by Amarillo Slim many years ago with his tournament in Tahoe. But there is a difference with today's independent contractors. It is that (I believe) Slim got many more concessions out of the casino than today's contractors do. For example, I have always understood he had a piece of the drop.<<
Tom wrote: Why is this disturbing? I can only surmise that you feel that this encourages corruption involving tournament officials, contractors, and players. If you do feel this way how does this corruption manifest itself?
My answer: While you raise some good points, my main concern is with the fact that these contractors are forced to take in additional revenues in order to turn a profit. This usually manifests itself in excess juice, but it can also show up in other areas such as less floor supervision. I don't have access to the inside goings on of any tournaments, so I don't think it is appropriate to comment on possible corruption.
>>So in answer to Diane's question, I think that there are some issues here that need to be addressed and debated. I'm not sure exactly what is best for the long term good of poker. As for Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson, I believe that neither of them did anything wrong, and furthermore I believe that their intentions were good. I also believe that they made mistakes which will have repercussions for years to come.<<
Tom wrote: What do you feel are the issues as I for one am not clear on what they are. What mistakes did Mike and Linda make? Again I'm not disagreeing with you but I think it would serve players well to know what these mistakes were.
My answer: Again my answer is the same as above. They have encouraged cardrooms to over emphasize tournaments. I believe that this has caused neglect in their day-to-day operations. The heart and soul of a successful cardroom are their daily games and the development of "regulars" who come to the cardroom daily, start games, and keep them going. Tournaments tend to counter much of this. I don't believe they develop new players, and they have many problems such as deal making, constant staking, etc.
I'll just address the constant staking in a little more detail. I strongly believe that one of the important reasons why poker games remain honest is that the players play independently of each other. This doesn't mean that some of us aren't friends away from the table, but at the table, you should be trying your hardest to win the most from everyone. I feel that some of this independence may be breaking down during tournaments because of all the players who are getting staked.
I have a feeling that all the heated correspondence may have missed a relevant point, namely that while the resignations had nothing at all to do with the theft which apparently occured they most definitely were connected with other non-related problems. It was purely coincidence that everything came out in the same wash.
Now none of your contributors have asked the questions of why the people concerned did actually resign. Of course we had a rather whitewashy editorial, but that probably posed more questions than it answered. It seems to me that the TOC may have had plenty of reasons to be concerned about the direction it was heading towards, which had nothing to do with the Orleans. Poker players should be aware that things are not always as they appear. Remember The Emperor's New Cloak when the little boy said 'The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes'? You never know what's around the corner!!
When I read Card Player awhile back and read that Linda was being replaced by Barry Shulman's son Jeff it made a lot of sense to me since Barry Shulman owns Card Player. It seemed "logical" that since Barry is a fairly new owner of the magazine that he might want to make a change just because he wants to put a person that he chooses there. The magazine talked about going in a "new direction" with Jeff Shulman (who took 7th in the big one this year) so we'll see what happens.
Now that would be a blast. I'd love to get at a final table with DS, Mason, JohnnyD, Badger (if he is still talking to us) Big John (who I'd probably lose a LL bet to) Fossil Man, Vinny (I hope he takes his meds), Padraig and mah. SmoothB would probably bust out early over playing his 7-4o :-)
On the scandal- big whoop - when you have loads of cash and no strong control on it guess what - someone is gonna get sticky fingers. I also understand (without mentioning any names) a lot of world wide travel and personal expenses were written off to the TOC - making it really hard to show a profit.
As an one time auditor I say "follow the money"
This is not your usual bad beat story. This is a bad beat story about a hand that I won. I am only relating it to you all because I'm an ass. Also I have been running pretty bad lately and I wanted to give you an example of my plight. Of course you all can relate to running bad from your own experience base but I wonder if something similar has ever happened to you.
I was playing at Bellagio's2 night ago or mornings depending on your point of refernce. I was stuck abotu $700. In the game was a young local player. I have played with him on numerous occaisions. On each of those occaisions he has bought in for a rack of red ($500). Promptly, within 2 hours, lost the rack and quit. He is "beautiful" to play with. Anway I was really getting beat up. Everything I tried failed. I could not win a hand. Then the following hand developed. "Beautiful" limped in from up front. All folded to me on the Button. I held Kd,Qc. I raised and it went heads up with "beautiful". Beautiful I thought. To make a long story short I made a King High straight flush on the Turn. "Beautiful" made a Jack high straight flush on the turn! In Clubs of course. Wow what a break down $700 and I have the top hand of a double handed straight flush pot. Now you may ask how this could possibly be a bad beat. Well you see what actually happened was that "beautiful" called my $15 flop bet with $10 all in! So I won a whopping $65, minus the rake, with the hand. Yes, I just shrugged my shoudlers, cried a little and played the next hand.
Vince
Hi everyone. I am Leaving Las Vegas on 31 August heading back to Massachusetts. I will be there for a while and will probably visit the Fossilman down at Foxwoods a few times a month. I plan on returning to Vegas sometime during the winter. I play at Bellagio's but my bankroll only allows me to play at the 15-30 level. Well it doesn't allow me I make my own decisions and I decided my BR can only stand that level.
But you see there are a lot higher games there at B'agio. Tonite for instance there was a $1500-3000 game. And there were a bunch of fish playing in it, headed by Doyle Brunson. But just because I din't have a half a mill on me I didn't feel comfortable sitting in. And that just pisses me off. And that's not all. Not only can't I sit in that game with the big whale's I can't even sit in the little whale gfames that David, The Oz, Sklansky frequents. That be 60-120 and 80-160. Now I just bought a tee shirt in Ensenada Mexico that displays my seniments exactly. It says or has written on it because it can't talk:"Will not work for anything". Since that is my lies motto I refuse to go to work or play enough hours of poker to put together a bankroll necessary to play up there where the air is thin. So my only solution is to get, beg, plead for a backer. Now if you want to make a little investment of around a $100k that should be enough for one session of $80-160 the way that I play. (I like to play a lot of hands). For that you can keep ALL of the profits and sit next to me and "sweat" me. I just want to play for the excitement. Of course if you let me have 60% of what I win you may increase your chances of winning. I will also consider multiple backers if necessary. So what tdo you think? Any takers? Zee? Fossil? guys, anyone? Huh?
Not you John Cole. I know that teachers ain't got no money!
Vince
Vince,
I got enough to keep you in toke money. And, please, "Professor of English," if you will; "teacher" is just so, so . . . quotidian! ;-)
John
I'm in for 20K if you can get Oz to give you the other 80K.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Vince, after reading Badger's posts about what a great investment it is to back a player, I decided to do it. I wish I had known you were interested.
After all, why should I play with my own money when I can sit at home while someone else plays?
I am currently backing a poker author, initials GC, and a young guy known as "beautiful". When the profits start rolling in, maybe I'll add you to my stable.
Brett
Vince,
I'd like to back you old buddy, but I got no dough left since I left LV. But, I think you have a money making opportunity here. The Fossilman did say,"I'm in for 20K if you can get Oz to give you the other 80K." Now, all you have to do is make a deal with Oz and you'll have some cash. He did put it in writing (hehehe). If my idea is worth some cash, please pay for my next tourney buy-in.
mah
What exactly do you do up there in Amesbury, Mass anyway. Don't tell me they let you in the games at the St. Jeans club.
He's one of my favorite posters.
John Gierach..."Fishing is a test of character, but it's a test you can take over as many times as you want." Poker is also a challenging test.
JG rocks!! his stories about AK best and himself on the frying pan put me on fishing tilt when I think about the put and take nor cal waters I have to fish. Oh well, i'll tie up a couple dozen gold ribbed hare's ears and do with what i have.
Are you familiar with Putah Creek? I have no idea if this is correct spelling. A friend from the Bay area used to talk about it some 20 yrs. ago. I thought it was a wild trout fishery.
Very familiar with it. I learned to FF there when I was at UC Davis, and I learned to FF because it was there. You could say thatI was introduced to Gierach (and Lyons, Tappley, Wulff, et al) because of Putah Creek.
The Putah trout fishery extends for five miles below Lake Berryessa to the Solano County Diversion Dam. After that it becomes a pretty good (if unknown) warmwater fishery. the creek is heavily planted in the summer months as it is one of the few streams cold enough to support trout year round (bottom draw dam). Unfortunately, the creek also runs about 3X fishable flows during the summer because its main purpose is to supply water to the farmers. The wild trout that your friend is talking about are the holdovers from the plantings as well as their progeny. the trout there could be self sustaining if the creek weren't managed as a put and take water. With trophy regulations, we could see a close to world class fishery IMHO. I've personally caught both browns (all wild, they don't stock browns anymore) and rainbows to 4+lbs there and heard of many that were much more. A few years ago, a guy fishing for catfish in a canal below the cold water section landed a 17lb brown on a clam (some trout get through the diversion dam and the water is cold enought for them for a little ways below). If you're ever in the Bay Area and want to fish a little, look me up. especially in the fall/winter months when the trophy regulations are in place and the flows are dropped to fishable levels.
The state of California adopted some progressive management plans for Hat Creek and the Fall River. Any chance of them extending these to Putah Creek? They should have enough data to change to a wild trout management philosophy.
there is another creek called fordyce near the donner summit by truckee cal. it runs out of fordyce lake which was great fishing. if you hoofed it back in on the creek you got lots of good sized fish. its probably too well known now as that was 25 years ago i fished it alot but it might be worth checking out as in the heat of summer its usually pretty cool up there.
After helping my daughter and son move back to college last Tues. I decided to drive up to Soaring Eagle casino in central Mi. from Terra Haute for a look see and the Wed tournaments - 400 miles but it was worth it. The casino hotel is really 1st class and the card room is super - well run and well comped all meals were free for players playing over 3 hours.
Wed I made $571 in 7 hours playing 4/8 & 6/12 I was on the 4/8 table waiting for the 10/20 seat which never came the 6/12 opened up but I hated the table (personality) I knew the 4/8 was a better game so I moved back. Thurs I played 10 hours and won $3 down to felt 3 times. It could have been a lot worse I had a lot of really bad beats and unusual "luck" Here is an example: I'm in mid position with 66 call one limper. a few others are in behind, flop comes 255 2 (clubs) limper checks I bet and the others fold. Turn is a 6 limper bets I raise I get called I put this guy on a flush draw maybe X5s - river is a 9c - perfect card I hope this guy has a flush he bets I raise he reraises I reraise he reraises - I now put this guy on 9's full so I just call. He turns over quad 5's. "suprise" The players by and large are quite good - lots of older guys and young turks who think (some do) they know the game. I had to switch gears several times as the game changed but it was a good exercise as I like playing with better players - lots of 2+2 thinking involved - which made it easier for me.
I did meet a few 2+2 lurkers and when I introduced myself it was like they had met a an old friend - 2+2 guys always have the same reaction to meeting me it's fun.
I liked it so much I stayed 2 extra days to play in the Fri $120 buy in Hold'em freeze out. As with the hotel and card room the tournaments were very well run - they started on time, table moves were fair and balanced and players were kept informed. In that tournament I had never got the run of the cards and was struggeling most of the way they paid 15 places - 203 buy in. I was mistake free 16th - "bummer" - as Arnold said "I'll be back".
All in all a very pleasant experience in Mt. Pleasant. Good poker great (free) food and nice people.
It's a 4 hour drive from my home but seeing I have to wait 4 hours for a table in Chicago - might as well drive up to a REAL casino.
:-)
Rounder,
It sounds like fun. I'll have to try it sometime.
Rounder--
I played at the Soaring Eagle all last winter, and my feelings on the place aren't nearly as positive as yours.
For one, the 10-20 game is horrible. Very tight, and studded with some very good players. Not an easy game to beat. I made about 22$ an hour there last winter in the 10-20, but that's due largely to the fact that I managed to find a couple very juicy shorthanded games. In the full ring games during the weekday afternoons I doubt I could make that much. The 6-12 was better (I didn't play the 4-8, so I'll take your word for it), but still not nearly as good as the 20-40 games in Chicago or Denver.
Further, I can't stand the way they run that place. If it wasn't too busy when you were there you wouldn't have seen this, but on weekend afternoons they flatly refuse to open more tables, no matter how long the wait lists may be. They may open up another 2-4 O8 table now and then, but never a 6-12 or 10-20 HE table--- even when the wait lists for these games exceeds 30 people. I've seen acquaintances come in at 1 in the afternoon, get on the 10-20 list, and languish at the 2-10 Stud 8 table for 7 or 8 hrs before finally getting a 10-20 seat.
Overall I wouldn't recommend that place to anyone looking to play. But, I'm glad you enjoyed yourself. Maybe they've changed things.
Far and away my favorite place to play in the Midwest is Harrah's in Gary, In., followed closely by the Aurora Hollywood. The wait in Gary was awful, but the games there just might be the juiciest anywhere in the country. And the games at the Aurora were equally soft.
S.E. seemed to hbe opening up tables as they got lists long eneough to support them. The 10-20 was hard to get on but from what I saw I wouldn't have been happy their - looked like a rock garden. They did run the tournaments with perfection.
I agree about Aurora - the wait is a long one though - I must get over to Harrah's soon.
You're dead on about the 10-20 being a rock garden. I've played many, many 8 and 10 hr. sessions in that game where the 'pot of the day' was around 250. IMO the best game up there is the 6-12 O8 w/ a 1/2 kill-- lots of action, TONS of pre-flop limping, plenty of bitter arguments on the river--- in other words, everything you'd expect from a table of fishy Omaha players.
Harrah's in Gary is a treat. A lot of the working pros out of S.E. go down there about once a month, just because the games are so good. It's not uncommon to play for 2 or 3 hrs. and have every pot contested at least 6 ways pre-flop-- and that's in the 10-20. The only setback are those ridiculous boarding times, and the wait list can get long. But once you're in a seat, you almost can't bear to leave.
I loved playing at the Aurora, and personally never had much of a wait there. But I know that's one of your old haunts, so I'll defer to you on that one.
Again, glad you had a good time.
Haven't been to Soaring Eagle yet, but it's on my Canterbury trip plan. Thanks for the report. Incidentally, Tunica is only 5 hours from Terre Haute and you may find it to be much more rewarding.
I don't know anything about explorer, or really if this will help. But what is possibly happpening is that for some reason the file that contains your surfing history isn't being closed properly (certainly if you shut down your PC in a non-recommended fashion while your browser was open), then the file to which changes are written would not be closed properly and all your history would be lost. This might not be what you're doing, of course. I'd gather that if the browser was closed for any irregularity without getting a chance to fclose the history file, then you'd lose recent changes. Of course, maybe there's something odd about tpt's way of naming messages or storing cookies, but surfing with lynx in a stateless environment precludes me from telling at the mo.
JG
in netscape its edit --preferences -- then history so many days till they expire. you may find its a blessing in disguise as by not knowing what was read you now need to remember your past actions. helps with reading hands.
I was wrong I thought the best poker scene from a movie was from the Cincinati Kid. I don't believe that anymore. No it's not from "Big Hand for a little lady." Certainly not Rounders. No it is from a movie that almost all of you have seen but probably do not associate with poker. The movie is a classic. It is about a rebel and his fight with authority. In the end he is killed because he can't be broken. It is one of my favorite movies of all time and it's star one of my favorites also.
The scene goes something like this. The game is five card stud. There are a lot of breathers just like in cinci kid. But in this movie the breathers are a lot more vocal and actually participate in the outcome of the hand. Not true to life I know but it is a movie. There are three players in the hand. On fourth street player one has 7,7, two has A,x and three has K,3. Player one bets a cooter (quarter for you not so southern folk). The A,x calls and three says "Kick it a buck" Anyone know the movie yet? Player one calls but with a worried look on his face. Player 2 folds and now it's heads up 7,7 against K,3. The next card is a blank for both players. Player one looks up at one of the breathers and the breather says go ahead and bet you got him beat. So one bets another "cooter". Kick it a buck is the response. Player one looks at the breather again and he tewlls him to call so he does. The last street is a blank for both. The breather played by George Kennedy says you got him beat bet a dollar. So player one bets a dollar. Kick it a buck is the rebels response. Geoge Kennedy now looks away and says to one don't look at me the man obviously has Kings. Throw it away your'e not going to pay a dollar just to see those kings. Player one throws his hand away. Kennedy then picks up three's cards and turns them over and says "see there are the Kings." But the hand revels only King high. Kennedy then says to Luke "You got nothin, you beat him with nothin". Luke, Paul Newman then says. Yeah well sometimes nothin is the best thing you can ahve. The movie "Cool Hand Luke." My vote for the best poker scene of all time. Well at least one of the best.
Vince
I like the scene in "House Of Games", too.
Written by David Mamet, whose father once responded when David told him he was going to play poker: "Are you still using cards?"