First I wanna say I'm brazillian so english isn't even my second language so I'm sorry if I make some grammar mistakes on this post. I was playing live $1/2 at some illegal place here in brazil (cash games are illegal here, only tournaments are legal), and all players at my table were a bunch of donkey/tards/drunks/riches. I know i'm not the best player but I was totally sure I was the only player at the table who even knew how to play the game decently... I made the mistake of going to the place with a pokerstars jacket, so at the moment I arrived one of the drunk guys said out loud: "ohhh a pro a the table, what a honor...". I just smiled nicely I took my place at the table with $200, and everybody else was playing already very deeper with at least $400. The table was absolutly insane, paying $20 with Ax(THE NUTS!!) to see a flop was absolutly normal at the table and a flop with less than 4 players was very rare. As the game goes on they started realizing that I was very quiet and not playing much hands and at the moment I decided to play and hand or put a raise to try to reduce the field at the flop they all started trashing me like: "heeey, carefuulll, he is a poker staaarrr hahahahahahahaha"... and as the game goes on I was actualy winning EVERY hand I decided to play, but never showing down any of them. At a moment I had almost 500$ and had never showed one hand... Then this hand is delt to me utg: AJo. I limped cause I was absolutly sure somebody was gonna raise and I could just flat to see the flop. A guy in mp raise $15 a 3 donks decided to call, and so did I. The flop comes A35(raibow), the sb checks and I bet $65, the pf raiser insta-shoves like $800 everybody folds and I thought for a while and said: "I have a hand but w/e, I'm not gonna gamble this" so I folded and showed the hand. Everybody at the table was like "WTF, HE SO STUPID HE HAS TOP PAIR AND IS FOLDING, HAHAHAHA"... The guy that won the hand start laughing and said "hahahaha, the kid cant take the pressure, hahahahaha im gonna be a pokerstarrrr, and then he mucked his hand." I thought: "well... that its gonna give a greeat bluff oportunity"... I was at the button and the same guy raised $20, I decided to reraise him $85, everybody else folded and he flatted, the flop comes Qxx, he overbets $200 and I shoved for $450 more, he thought for a while and said: "u have aces... gonna give u the respect stupid kid"... and then showed a queen. I showed K4 for a total bluff and he was like INSAAAANEEEEEE. He stands up imeadiatly and started calling me all names u can imagine... I never said a word, just waited until he calm down and kept playing. After that EVERYBODY started trashing me a loooot... I just couldnt stay there anymore so I said that it was my last orbit. And the last hand goes like that: 22 delt to me utg. I call and the insane guy makes $30 in mp, the bb calls and I call too. The flop: J22. I was like LOOOOOLLLLLLLLL inside my head. I cheack, then I stand up and say "time to go...", the insane guy checks and the bb checks too. the turn is a blank and I check again, the insane guy makes $80, the bb fold and I say: "hm... ok I call". The river is another blank and I checked, the insane guy look me up and says "GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE GIVE MY MONEY U RETARD, I'M ALL IN", I said: "cmom, what u have there? my hand is good..." and then he said "I HAVE THE NUTS KID, JUST GO HOME TO UR MOMMY", and then I said "I call, this is the nuts am i wrong?". He looked at my hand and the whole table was shocked to see it and the guy jumps out in the table to take me but everybody stops him and put him down... I took my chips very fast and cashed out... Profit: $1400, Fun: priceless.
OK. I just achieved platinum star and have excessive FPP. I am planning on entering Sunday Million satellites (The weekly platinum star + ones). The question is, if I win one, should I use the ticket, or sell it to boost my bankroll, or even play SNGs with it? I'm a NL25 player, and am winning around 6.5 BB/100. As far as MTTs go, I have little experience, but I've played a lot of 45/90/180 SNGs and have a pretty decent idea of what I'm doing, although I don't know how I would handle a $215 cooler. That being said, I guess I am just looking for someone to tell me "Take a shot!" so I can snap enter the Sunday Million.
Recently got back into poker, i had changed from the $3 SnGs on stars back to cash games because i was pretty successful pretty quickly but when that happens its easy to lose focus and i felt like i was doing that, so i thought i'd relax on 6max 2c/5c (is that 5nl?)
Anyway i've been playing pretty well and am pretty happy so far. When i have sticky hands i now post them here and ask for advice so i thank thee for that.
Please note that i'm only bothered since the 16,700 mark as thats when i decided to stop being a tard and learn poker instead of just playing it:
Basically, this red line is a little off putting. Am i folding too much? Is it important?
My EV line. I admit i don't know the mathematics for these calculations, i generally just go by basic pot odds knowledge and least have a good hand preflop, but still, it seems i'm making the right decisions with the right cards for the moment? http://www.liquidpoker.net/user_pictures/13696322a4fef39110f20367560698c8.png
Anyway this is my monthly graph, i've been playing since the 17th. At the moment i'm just two tabling so i don't have that many hands done i don't think. I've pretty much got all day free so how many hands should i be getting in if i two/three table per day? Should i set a goal each day and slowly build up? I thought about it, but when i'm running good after 250 hands its quite hard to stop
I find it so incredible how everything can perfectly come together and can also instantly & chaotically break apart...
First off, a new battle has begun. I just received this email. This is the first time this has ever happened ^^
"Hello xxx,
Unfortunately we are unable to approve the image that you have
selected. We feel that this image might, in some way, offend other
players, and therefore we ask that you select a new image.
To select a new image, go to "Account" in the main lobby menu, then
click on "Select/Change Image".
Please note that we only allow one more change, so select your new image
carefully.
Regards,
PokerStars Support Team"
So naturally what was the image I tried and want to put through right? + Show Spoiler +
I am going to fight it of course as it's perfectly politically correct (it even has pictures for those that can't read English) but I have alot of other priorities before I get to this in proper fashion.
Next bit is I am going to ask you the reader if you have ever heard of CAFR reports and I am going to state that atm I'm also making a thread in which I hope you watch. This one not counting, it's going to be imo the second most important thread I've made and the title will be Joe Bannister.
The first most important is here: http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-forum/763552/Its_Federal_Reserve_time_baby.html
And last but not least is a little history, from our Presidents in the semi-current past. I think actually one should actually go back to the founding Presidents or at least 3 Presidents before this time but since I like to use videos for people of today, I will say start here with these two speeches.
The first is the farewell speech of President (R) Dwight D. Eisenhower and the second is from his predecessor four months later President (D) John F. Kennedy <- my fave president. This speech is called the "President and the Press" speech. His speech is vastly important and I realize to some that the length will be entirely too long but I prefer to deliver unedited things to prevent skewing as much as possible. With the second speech w/ JFK, one can easily cut down the time by skipping the first 6 minutes and listen from there as that's when the joking get's set aside and where the topic and meat of the address is.
(both speeches have two spoilers, the first one will be part 2 of the video and the second spoiler is the text of the speech if that is what you prefer)
First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.
Three days from now, after half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. This evening, I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other -- Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling -- on my part -- of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insiduous [insidious] in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many fast frustrations -- past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of disarmament -- of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
So, in this, my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust in that -- in that -- in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibility; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the sources -- scourges of poverty, disease, and ignorance will be made [to] disappear from the earth; and that in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.
Thank you, and good night.
The President and the Press
(again, if u don't like history, skip to 5:58 to get to the heart of it)
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
II
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
III
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
I really can't say enough that I hope you listen to these men and not the graffiti.
A revolution is coming - a revolution which will be peaceful if we are wise enough; compassionate if we care enough; successful if we are if we are fortunate enough - but a revolution which is coming whether we will it or not. We can affect its character, we cannot alter it's inevitability. --John F Kennedy
Fuck whining, been doing that enough over the last 2 weeks. Maybe I'll go back into whining mode next month, but no more of this shit for now. Time to fucking man up and play like how I know how to.
Thanks for everyone's support in my previous posts, I'll be taking the advice to heart as I conjure up the discipline to rid myself of the terrible habits I've developed over this downswing.
Cheers,
-Uptown.
P.S. - I vow to play with un-Ansky-like poster (ie proper posture)
So being the pro gambler that I am, I took an opportunity to to gamble today while on the flat shopping trip. http://www.quantumwebsitedesign.co.uk/shopping%20trolley.jpg
At the checkout my flatmate was sure that the total bill for the flat shop would be over $300, I thought it looked close.
He claimed he was 100% positive, so I offered him $1 to his $10. He says "not worth it". I offered $10 to $100. He was reluctant.
I say "So in reality you are less than 90% sure of the over."
"No, I'm 100% sure."
"Easy ten bucks then."
"ok, fine." we shake on it.
Checkout girl gives a little smile.
The bill runs up quickly, meat and canned goods going through first. But as bread, TP and veggies finished the haul, the bill is on $291. The last item is a tray of eggs, boom, it nudges it over to $301.
I curse it out and had over the $10, but then my other flatmate remembers that we have yet to use the store loyalty/coupon card. A roar goes up from the spectators! The card knocks it down to $297.
VICTORY!
...only he's not interested in paying up. I get my $10 back and the excuses start. That I forced him into the bet (haha) and so on.
I think the bet was a good one, I just made a mistake in thinking that for $100 he would definitely honour the bet. He did seems like a trustworthy guy, I've flatted with him for over a year. Maybe should have added in a significant % chance of default to my EV calcs?
Any further action I could take now would be too destructive to flatting environment? probably just going to ask firmly and argue a bit more, light harass, but other than that...
Won't be betting with him again.
Poker in my city is illegal. A few police raids over the years have made the papers, but other than that the sport remains totally underground and invite only. I finally met a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy which finally brought me my first invitation to a real game. The games running in my town are 1/2, 2/5, and 5/10. Way outside of my bankroll, but since I often only play with 3-4 buyins at a limit anyway, I felt comfortable buying in at the 1/2 game. My first real live experience beyond kitchen table poker with the guys from work. And it was awwwwwwesome. Boy people arent lying when they say 1/2 live plays like .01/.02 online. Everyone limps, every single hand, and you have to make it $30 preflop to thin out the herd. Try making a standard $6-$10 raise preflop, the whole fucking table is in lol. You dont know how many times someone has made it $50 preflop, everyone folds, and they show AK or JJ and proudly say "I had to protect my hand".
So my first couple of nights went ok, I finished up like $60 or so just playing ABC, as I was pretty nervous and terrible at counting chips and shit. I kept misfiring and throwing in chips before announcing my intent and being forced to just call or make stupid automatic minraises etc. After one weekend though my confidence was high and I felt very comfortable around the table. Everyone is cool and seems to really like me. They all have good attitudes and it's a very friendly game. The host said he was happy to bring an internet player to the table to see how differently "we" play. Some kid was there with a pokerstars shirt on but other than that they were mostly old and middle aged guys. Most have nicknames, like "doc" and "scooter" etc. The house provides a full open bar and a nice array of snacks. The host also makes sandwiches for people and cooks other forms of grillable shit. Table side service for whatever you want, it's a pretty fuckin cool operation. I think the rake is like 5% starting at $30.
Then came my second weekend. I absofuckinglutely demolished these players. I just played hyper aggressive, Doc.Lemon style, FPS'ing my ass off and it worked pretty well. In reality I just ran well though, as I kept getting paid off by TPNK type hands and other retarded shit. Then there was today. I basically sat down and started bombing players perflop and on the flop, and I just couldnt shake them for the life of me. I even got called out for raising too much preflop at one point lol. And thats when I began to rage. Silently of course, I'm not about to disrespect any of these guys who have graciously accepted me in their circle at a time where everyone is freaked out and suspicious of the next police raid, which have been described as full SWAT with firearms drawn and bullet proof vests adorned. Pretty ridiculous really. Each time a raid has been successful it has been with the use of an informant, so you really have to earn your way in.
Anyway, back to the hands. So here I am squeezing OTB with Ax and sometimes any two, and I guess they picked up on this finally, and apparently their strategy to combat this was to just call with any two OOP when I raise. And I just kept getting outflopped every damn time. And the sickest thing was I flopped 2 fullhouses and a set at one point, and got zero action, even though I played them exactly the same as all the others. I flipped up the nuts from time to time and then 83s other times, trying to mix it up and generate some action. Just would not work. They were more than happy to continue limp calling whatever the fuck, and catch any piece and just check-calling it all the way to the river.
I finally chilled out and just went back to ABC. If I had AQo, I raised regardless of preflop action. If I missed a 4way pot I just c/f. If it's HU I cbet 100% and then just c/f. I managed to piss away 2 buyins over the course of 5 hours, just bleeding chips from iso-raising and cbets + double barrels on occasion. They just showed up with a hand every single goddamn time. Not good hands mind you, but hands. And of course fish love nothing more than to limp AA and AKs UTG, but I never fell victim to a trap. Just one big annoying downswing all day.
Anyhow, I'll be going back next weekend, since I'm at breakeven status right now with my winnings/losses. I planned to give the live poker ring a couple of shots. Meaning I'll show up with 2-3 buyins per game (honestly I shouldnt lose more than 2 buyins in a single session playing 1 table live vs a bunch of fish. If I do then I'm doing something wrong and will come back next time to re-evaluate my game).
I dont really want to be sinking $400 every shot I take, I'd rather play NL50 or NL100 online with that shit. I especially wanted to break in to MTT's but simply dont have the time to put in the hours. But if I can become the local Tom Dwann and clean up at these tables, it might just pad my bankroll enough to take a trip to a real casino one of these days. I like one table poker better than multi table grinding, and I like live better than online already. My vision of being a professional poker player is one mixed between lots of live casino play, and SOME online play. I do not wish to be the next internet superstar nor do I think I ever would. Online is a different game. Too many professional grinders and cardrunner clones running around. Besides, being a live pro is where you go to play the WPT and WSOP etc. I would like to be very used to this rather than switching between and failing because im not used to it.
So heres to another shot this weekend. If I fail the next 2 weekends in a row then I'm done for awhile, as I cant afford to lose $1000 every month right now. Cheers.
The massive tilt ups/downs in the middle are actually not as tilty as they look, its tyr tables, i think 240TYR = 100EURO or something. i mixed in some 100NL tyr tables some halftilty session (on BOSS they offer euro/tyr/dollar and gbg tables) but ANYWAYS!
over last 1.5 months, rakebackpro ftw, lol.. i feel sad when i look at my graph since the last sitetransfer
Hey guys, there are a lot of WCOOP tournies that require an very large bankroll to play.
I am not rolled for the 340+ one,s and was hoping to be staked for any of them.
anyone who wants to cover any that cost over $215 PM me and we can talk a deal, percentages, possible make-up (there will be more than 3 tournies that I will be looking to be staked in unless i win an early one)
I have very much experience in high stakes MTT's, am in the top 20 on the Pokerstars TLB and have a very high integrity that can be backed by many sources.
We got about 650 signups. WINNAR. To put that in some perspective, the booth to our left had about 10 signups. I think we had among the most signups of any club!
Our marketing tactic was pretty sick. We just screamed ILLINI POKER CLUB!! and WHO LIKES POKER!? from 12-4pm. The crowds were so ridiculous that there wasn't really much else we could do. PokerStars used to sell those limited edition decks of cards in different colors, and I had those out to attract attention. Some people tried to snatch them because they thought it was free, and in the end I lost my red colored deck .
I thought we'd get like 2 girls MAX to sign up, but I think there was 10-20 girls that signed up.
I met SpeedyJack from LP, and some 2+2ers and other regs. I also met someone named Haseeb (I remembered him as the guy who shared dogishead's name, not dogishead himself!), who apparently knows DCal Zone and Faraz Jaka?
I have to respond to my last blog post where I got some good criticism . For one, I kind of really screwed up the question. It was actually a flyer but I accidentally said poster. Also, I forgot to mention we could only use black and white, so colored pictures would be bad. Whoops.
The biggest reason though is because of the people that are going to be joining the club. Here's my logic: the vast majority of the people who sign up will be people who play with their friends or online for play money. The club is geared towards that level of poker for that reason. However, within those people are many, many players who think they are much better than they really are. There were a ton of people who said things like, "I'm really good, I just won a lot in Vegas" or "I have a lot of experience; I always beat my friends", and I was hoping that they might be a bit humbled when they read the sheet and realize they probably don't know much about the game. Also, I have to make it very clear that the primary purpose of the club is to teach poker, and not to actually play it. If I advertise it wrong, I think it's possible hundreds of people will walk in expecting to see tables and chips setup their gambling pleasure. So basically, I'm also trying to filter out certain traffic. Does that make sense? If I'm forgetting something or the logic is flawed, let's hear it!
In any case, I wrote the flyer in like 10 minutes at 5am. Now that I look at it, it's pretty cheesy and bad LOL. I didn't have enough time to check on my blog for responses though .
But after all the chaos, I think today was a pretty big success!
Just read a bit of ToTheEastSide's blog and thought I'd post some of my thoughts on the current health care debate in the US. This is a general complaint from my morose mind and hasn't got much to say about the politics of the situation. This is also too long to probably interest many readers, but I think it's simple and easy to argue for or against.
Not only is insurance causing pricing problems - medical insurance, at least as it exists today, doesn't even make sense. Insuring against buying monthly medication is pretty much the same as insuring against buying groceries. The whole point of insurance is to avoid variance, something poker players know a lot about. Example: if we summarize your yearly income from poker as being either 10BB/100 or -10BB/100, with an 80% chance of 10BB/100 and a 20% chance of -10BB/100 then your EXPECTED win rate for the year is 6BB/100. Remember, we're supposing that at the end of the year you will either come out at 10BB/100 or -10BB/100 and that (unlike the real life) no other option is a possibility. Would you, knowing that your EV was 6BB/100, be willing to pay a .5BB/100 premium to LP.net Insurance in order to ensure that your win rate was 5.5BB/100 for the year?
That's how insurance works: You insure against the possibility of a low-probability, high-impact event. You don't insure against relatively low-impact certainties. You don't insure against buying groceries. We shouldn't insure against monthly medication. Why are you paying a premium to medical companies on top of what you're already expecting to pay?
Insurance has other problems. It creates a lot of fucked up incentives. With a typical insurance company, we have copay (for simplicity's sake I'll ignore other types of insurance, but the principle is basically the same for coinsurance, etc.) Suppose my copay is $25 for any medication I buy. Medical corporations can now price their $35 product at $125 and yet no matter what they price it, demand from the insured is the same because copay is only $25. The whole concept of quantity demanded as a function of price goes right out the window. Profit-maximizing firms are incentivized to raise their prices.
Suppose then that not all of the population is insured. Insurance companies are gonna say "fuck the uninsured demand, I'm raising my prices. I can sell my shit at $125 where I used to sell it at $35, and people [the insured] will still buy it exactly the same as before." In other words, the insured have an extremely inelastic demand cure, meaning they will continue to purchase the medication is though it were $25 even as prices skyrocket. So, given that fact, medical corporations have an incentive to raise prices regardless of the uninsured demand because it benefits them to sell less product (also meaning less costs associated with production) at a substantially greater price. This whole phenomenon forces some of the uninsured to consider purchasing insurance just so they can afford the extreme prices of monthly medication.
Obviously this is a vicious cycle.
Another consideration with regard to insurance is the consumption of doctors' labor. The AMA already has a stranglehold on the number of doctors being licensed so in the USA we already have too few doctors to be called socially efficient. Couple the shortage of doctors with the copay example of how prices rise due to insurance. The price of a doctor's time, already artificially high because of the AMA's licensing procedures, is further increased by the fact that copay pays for all but $25 of a doctor's visit that can range into triple digit prices. Doctors prices are pushed higher, making them unaffordable to the uninsured while the quantity of doctor's labor demanded by the insured remains unchanged. We can imagine some unsavory, if not unlikely results: Suppose that before the introduction of insurance, a doctor's visit was relatively expensive, and suppose that once insurance is produced, a large fraction of the population purchases insurance. Then the quantity demanded for doctor's labor may actually increase due to the introduction of insurance meanwhile, because of the copay system, prices charged by doctors skyrocket. This means that not only will there be a shortage of doctors' labor, but that the condition will persist perhaps completely unchanged in spite of prices becoming incredibly expensive.
Do I think there should be medical insurance? Yeah, for stuff that doesn't happen often and is hugely expensive; not for routine check-ups or monthly/weekly prescriptions.
Sadly, insurance isn't the only problem with medical markets.
The very nature of medical markets disposes them to social inefficiency. As people are constantly pointing out, if you're dying and there's only one company with the cure, you're probably willing to pay a pretty high price to that company. In medical markets there are often no good substitutes for a given treatment; there are R&D/licensing barriers to entering the market; etc. Basically medical markets breed monopoly (or at the very least, they breed inefficiency).
Because medical companies are essentially monopolies reaming public welfare, government regulation of medical markets is absolutely necessary to achieving a socially optimal equilibrium. The breakdown of revenues and costs in medical markets is so far out of economic equilibrium that when I first read it I was hung up on the fact for days. What i'm referring to is neatly summed up in the fact that across the ENTIRE medical market, the mean after-tax accounting profit is over 20% of medical firms' revenues and costs balance. Without going into too much detail, there's a huge economic profit being realized in medical markets, and economic profit is a reliable red flag for social inefficiency. Socially efficient market structures do not yield positive economic profit, so positive economic profit is always suspicious to someone interested in socially optimal outcomes.
So you can see what I'm talking about, compare the following:
The graph is from 2005. Oil/gas is doing worse than you might expect. If this graph were current, banks and financial shit would be crashing, and I suspect that medical/biotech would stand well away from its competitors in terms of profits reaped. This is important for economic consideration: the fact that medical markets are way better than "the best alternative." Medical markets are raping all the other markets listed, and medical markets are also raping society at large.
So I have to create a blog to do this, and am wondering if someone will be able to assist me by shipping me $2k on pokerstars for $2k on full tilt poker.
Meh, I feel completely dead & depressed. My roll & all of my money in general has been completely obliterated. I have to redeposit to play nl100 anymore, if I can even beat the limit, because I'm back down to my original deposit on FTP (1800). If I don't do that I have to grind god damned 1/2 and 1/3 live, which is fucking pathetic.
I can't play anymore today to try and save myself because I'm fucking awful and obviously tilted.
I dunno what to do except keep grinding but that's already what I've had to do and it clearly hasn't worked.
I don't know wtf is wrong with how I'm playing except that I can't fold when I ought to, I timebank-call everytime I should click the fold button and its hilarious.
I do appreciate all the advice and thoughts I get on hands btw, I know there have been a couple comments I haven't responded to in the hands section.
I might as well post a funny graph of my 6max online this month
also I'm down 1350 online this month lollllll and like 6k live(this was legit sick running bad) + expenses & I got robbed for 400 this month
after playing so badly yesterday which led to me tilting for the first time in a long time I won the morning $109 tourney for 5.6k its not much but I'll take it let the run good begin
My rebuilding excercise was going well until today.
I was running good in the morning, but then I sat down when I came back from the town...
Got stacked 1x KKvAA, 2x AKv AA and lost all flips but one. But w/e thats poker. Unfortunately I lost it and started multitabling again... and fell 4BI's while multitabling and playing really bad. I just can't bloody control myself...
I KNEW I had hit my stop loss and I KNEW that multitabling is the worst thing to do. But nope... I still couldn't do it.
By my super strict rules, I withdrew to 1k and will move down to NL25 at 900 should that happen.
Poor tilt control and multitabling urges are the only things keeping me at NL50 for so long, and nothing less drastic will work.
Contact Users: 1128 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 21:07
.
,
,
,
,