Its almost a garuntee that Im going to get sucked out on the last couple days. Im getting it in good so often and betting with the best hand so often but just not staying on top at all. SOOO Frustrating. Anyways.... guess Ill just have to play through this bullshit.
of April and my first month at redbet. Started the month really COLD, played ok but had brutal ul imo. However I didn't tilt my roll away but instead have continued to grind on NL20. As for now i'm up about 4,5bi for the month and think I'll will be up 12-15bi in rb only, depending if I get time to play more before the end of the month. If something big doesn't occur on the work I think I'll be able to play tongiht and tomorrow, but then I'll join the Uppsala-crew again for some crazy parties wednesday-thursday-friday. It's an old tradition called "Valborg" where you supposed to be drunk for some days to celebrate that the spring finally has come. That's a reaally big happening in a dark and cold country as Sweden. There will be around 30.000 people partying in the streets and in the parks, totally sick but incredible fun. The greatest part is where you head to a "nation" like a fraternity, and party like hell in champagne-rain. You buy cheap carbonated white wine and just splash all your friends and the building with the stinky shit. Damn it's great, just can't get enough of it.
This weekend as was back to my old University in Uppsala to get my LLM-diploma. Nice to get the final proof for being a real MasterofLaws ;-) Now I wanna be a MasterofPoker, but I seriously doubt that will happen in a looooong time. Also I played some livepoker, starting 10hours after taking my first drink for the night. Not a good option. Lost some money to the always sober Remeber87 in our threehanded game. Made the misstake to call his allin A6 with my lousy AK =) But the reward was better than money, I finally was allowed to go to sleep. I tried after I lost 200bb first time, but they woke me up for more some more playing,,nice friends..lol.
Table #15924362 - STT #9859222
Starting Hand #779971074
Start time of hand : 27 Apr 2009 00:27:13
Last Hand #779970414
Game Type: HOLD'EM
Limit Type: NO LIMIT
Table Type: TOURNAMENT
Money Type: TOURNAMENT CHIPS
Blinds are now $100/$200
Button is at seat 1
Seat 1: DhakhaR - $4,925
Seat 6: Tat2me - $4,075
Moving Button to seat 6
Tat2me posts small blind ($100)
DhakhaR posts big blind ($200)
Shuffling Deck
Dealing Cards
Holecards(Odds) Dealing to DhakhaR
DhakhaR: lol Q3 bs Q2
Tat2me says good luck DhakhaR: vs*
Tat2me raises to $400
DhakhaR says good luck DhakhaR calls $400
Tat2me has Flush, King high
Tat2me wins $8,150 with : Flush, King high
DhakhaR: LOL
Seat 1: DhakhaR - $850
Seat 6: Tat2me - $8,150
Tat2me cheers DhakhaR: wtf
End Of Hand #779971074
"The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, the latest stance that has disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups."
While President Barack Obama has reversed many policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the defendants' rights case is another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.
Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.
The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.
Anything police learn through such questioning may not be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.
The justices could decide as early as Friday whether they want to hear arguments on the issue as they wrestle with an ongoing case from Louisiana that involves police questioning of an indigent defendant that led to a murder confession and a death sentence.
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.
At the same time, the administration acknowledges that the decision "only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions."
The administration's legal move is a reminder that Obama, who has moved from campaigning to governing, now speaks for federal prosecutors.
The administration's position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.
"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration's position "is disappointing, no question."
Bright said that poor defendants' constitutional right to a lawyer, spelled out by the high court in 1965, has been neglected in recent years. "I would hope that this administration would be doing things to shore up the right to counsel for poor people accused of crimes," said Bright, whose group joined with the Brennan Center and other rights organizations in a court filing opposing the administration's position.
Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and former FBI Director William Sessions are among 19 one-time judges and prosecutors urging the court to leave the decision in place because it has been incorporated into routine police practice and establishes a rule on interrogations that is easy to follow.
Eleven states also are echoing the administration's call to overrule the 1986 case.
Justice Samuel Alito first raised the prospect of overruling the decision at arguments in January over the rights of Jesse Montejo, the Louisiana death row inmate.
Montejo's lawyer, Donald Verrilli, urged the court not to do it. Since then, Verrilli has joined the Justice Department, but played no role in the department's brief.
errr I'd like to say my piece but I just got home and have to take a shit and I'd actually rather do that than type anymore about this current administration atm
For those of you who have read The Stand by Steven King, you know what I'm talking about. Seems like we have a potential superflu on the loose - shit. This shit scares me a million times more than terrorists or natural disasters.
No wonder health officials are so concerned about the new strain of swine flu that has infected Americans in four states, killed at least 80 people in Mexico, and has already traveled to the other side of the world in New Zealand. Understandably, the World Health Organization (WHO) warns of a "public health emergency."
"This virus has, clearly, a pandemic potential," says Margaret Chan, director general of WHO. Why? The new strain spreads quickly and efficiently from human to human. It's "a completely novel virus," says the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). This latest variant is a brand new mixture of human virus, bird virus, and pig viruses from all over the world. Experts say it's particularly worrisome because people are getting sick without any encounters with pigs. Even worse, young, healthy people (ages 20-40) are dying at a striking rate, a telltale sign of the worst flu epidemics.
I'm betting things will be contained and all that shit, but it's still scary when you think about the potential of what could happen.
A while back someone posted a thread with a quiz to determine whether you would survive a zombie apocalypse. I failed horribly, mostly cause I lost all my weapons in moving from place to place over the last few years, but also cause I didn't have a bunch of food stored up and so on. Now I feel like maybe I should go stock up properly in case we have to go through a real life version of The Stand. At least I live like 20 minutes from Boulder, CO, so it will be an easy journey!
have had a terrific weekend when masteroflaw came up to Uppsala.. a lot of party and a real fun time! however.. the end destroyed me somewhat
After the partying yesterday we ended up at my place for some 3handed poker... I made a somewhat decent win considering we only played 1/2SEK but it didnt end until 9.30am.. gaahhh! a really bad time! my day is totally fucked up (I kinda just woke up, 8pm) and school begins in like 12h... guess I need to set rules so I am in bed before 6am when school is still running.. some hours of poker is not worth it when I spoil the whole next day!
Ok there is the problem, me and a friend decided to start our own rakeback affiliation, since i already refered many player and only gets 1,25% of their rake so.. yeah why not start my own? my buddy would make the site update and payment while i do publicity and take care of complaint/problems. Fayth might even switch to our affiliation since we're all real life buddy. However this represent a lot of job and ''recruitment'' to get members... So my current affiliation got word of this and they're offering me 5% of the members i refered.. and they might also improve my own rakeback by 2-3%..(n condition for me to not quit and do not make my own affiliation) :/ i don't know what's the best seriously if i fail at making the affiliation lack of people etc. i'll just lose a good opportunity to increase my profit off refering. So Advice?
Its like that I'm a player on NL10 and isn't a winnig player.. I guess.. So my question to you are, if I'm going to deposit $50, which of the following bonuses seems to be the best one for me?
Minted Poker
Everleaf Gaming
40% rakeback
100% up to $400
Fat Bet
Poker Nexus
50% rakeback
Cellsino Poker
Everleaf Gaming
40% rakeback
500% up to $500
Contact Users: 4940 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 03:35
to DhakhaR
,
,
,
,