Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Zeatrix

  • Rank
    Poker Forum Groupie

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Poker Game

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. The thing I noticed though when playing was the players tended to shut down completely when a straight or flush card hit making it hard to extract any value from them. Maybe I was unlucky, just looking for comments if indeed players tend to pay off possible straights flushes to a higher degree than I noticed, remember I'm mainly a limit player so don't have a lot of NL cash game experience.
  2. Well mainly and that's the only place I've been trying it before but reading DNs blogs and some of his comments in the forum I deduced that he uses it in cash games too, like in his current challenge. Did I deduce wrongly?
  3. Ok, I was hoping to get a discussion going, but never mind. Useless forums. I'll just go back to killing in limit instead...
  4. I knew people was going to say that before hand but I wanted to hear what others have to say.Sure it's a small set of hands but I'm more concerned about the feeling of it than the actual results. This based on the way the average PS low limit player plays. My feeling is they rarely commit big parts of their stacks unless they have something which is kind of the idea behind small ball that they do, or did I misunderstand something...
  5. I just got DNs Power Hold'em Strategy book and read the Small Ball chapter. Although I was familiar with most of the concepts I hadn't tried it in cash games.Let me just say that DN owes me $100 :)All the small pots I won didnt nearly cover the big pots that I lost, most money I lost trying to draw cheap to straights/flushes that never got there. Also, for example managed to loose a big pot with KK on a Q66 when I checked trying to induce a bluff (following the reasoning that either I'm beat or way ahead) only to loose to a guy that hit a set when he took a free card.My point is, I wasn't even
  6. No, because anything that isn't status quo is BAD!
  7. they've fullfilled? Must have been this morning when I went to the bathroom.
  8. I don't have a lot of insight into how researchers get their money in the US, but I've seen a lot of comments about scientists doing it for the money.One thing I know, if you want to make money in this world, scientific research is NOT the way to go. At least not in Sweden. Here researchers are hired by universities and colleges and they get money from the government to educate students, so scientists work part time as teachers and the rest of their time researching. They don't get more money if they discover something. So I've always had a hard time swallowing the notion that scientists are o
  9. So much doubt! :)I haven't read up on all the research being done on evolution but from what I understand they have some very good data that supports evolution.For example, I'm pulling this out of my head since I read about this some 5 years ago but, scientists found a special pair birds. The two bird species had not had contact with each other for a long time since they lived on each side of a vast ocean but they were related since they shared a lot of DNA. The DNA was so similar that they had to have come from the same "branch" of species. The interesting thing about the story was that the t
  10. I just read the two first and kind of chuckled. What are these quotes (that are full of "...", meaning missing content) really saying?If we start with the second one. Dr Simpson is saying that she is no longer affiliated with an organization and therefore can be frank. Ok check. Then she says she is skeptical. Ok check.What does this tell us? She is not an active scientist and she is skeptical. Did you know that skepticism is a cornerstone of ALL science. All scientists are skeptical of everything unless they can prove it correct. If you take scientific methodology 101 that's the first thing y
  11. He did not mention at all that they got care for very special conditions. Had I known that it would have made more sense. I agree that it isn't anything special for rare conditions. See, I can acknowledge when I'm wrong
  12. So you have to travel out of state to get good care? That seems like a great system!And your comment about fantasyland was great. Get back to me when you get a grasp of how it really works...
  13. Well, I just don't know what to say about this anymore. The IPCC (the organ set up by UN to research global warming) has been working on collecting scientific data and summarizing it since the nineties. WAAAY before any media hype. The media only caught on to it after Gore released and got a lot of attention for his film. Also, the "conference" you are referring to was organized by people and organizations that gains from no actions against man made global warming being taken. At that conference you got PAID to hold a presentation about why global warming was false. Not so hard to find people
  14. I'm sure you have a very particular case in mind when you ask this so I'm not even going to bother answering. Don't you see the difference between the care you get if you have infinite amounts of money and if you have an average income. I'm sure the best treatment money can buy in the US is up at the very top. But that's not what we are talking about, we're talking about the overall system, not a particular clinic. Does every single person in the US go to the Mayo clinic? No.And your example is pretty lame. When Yassir Arafat became ill he was sent to a French hospital. He's not as rich as a s
  15. Yes, look towards France. They have the best healthcare system in the world. Guess who runs it?
  • Create New...