chrisuk_sw
-
Content Count
170 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by chrisuk_sw
-
-
I've been thinking about this since my tournament exit yesterday (naturally, I pushed with 55 and ran into AA. gg me), and the maths tends to support that its a push, but doing it from UTG still scares me. 30% of the time* we'll be crushed by an overpair, and the rest of the time it's likely that we'll be in a race situation.If we reason that there's an 80% chance that we'll be called with overcards...30% of the time, we are up against 66-AA: win 6%56% of the time, we're in a race: win 28%14% of the time, we don't get called: win 14%so 52% of the time, we're out, 34% of the time, we double up, and 14% of the time we add 30% to our stack. If we increase the 80% chance of being called with overcards, then it gets worse. I know that given our stack size we have little scope for play, but is this a gamble worth taking? Is it still a push with 22, given that its nearer to 40% that we're up against 33-AA?* (211^8 / 220 ^ 8 ~= 71% we have the highest/only pair pre-flop)
-
- there's no ante- there are two other short stacks, three medium stacks, three big stacks- the final table has only just started, there has only been one hand so far - it went: raise 'em, take 'em. we have a reasonably tight image and can safely assume that the other players won't CDU, they'll only call with a hand.- the payout structure is: $750, $400, $250, $150, $100, $75, $50Is there an ante?What are the other stacks?Have we been pushing lots of hands?Whats the table been playing like? How many callers can we expect? Are we the shortest stack?Having said all that with an M around 3 I'm shoving any pp plus lots more hands. The payout structure obv has an influence on our decision but we are just about to go through the blinds again and are more than likely the shortest stack so we have to get it in. -
Situation:It's a live B&M MTT. There are 320000 chips in play and there are 9 players left. 7 places pay.You have 10000, the blinds are 1000/2000. You are UTG, and your hand is 55.Push or fold?If its a push, do you push with 22, 33, 44?It its a fold, do you fold 66, 77, 88, 99?
-
Christopher Hitchens on Falwell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkAPaEMwyKUand Tinky Winky's view: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/...html?source=rss
-
Karl Marx: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."I disagree with the analogy.Who was it that said religion was the opiate of the masses? I think Nietzsche. -
Hello Jayray, thanks for the time and thoughts. I feel the place where you are coming from, despite not being a believer. How about this: imagine that the 60 guys in your scenario were around today, having access to all that we had learned and discovered in the 2000 years since their times. Would they write exactly the same bible? I don't think they would. The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know everything. For that reason, I can't bring myself to believe anyone or anything that says that they definitely do know everything. Aren't they're lying? either to me, or to themselves?
-
I brought up the bible because that's what we were discussing - whether Christian belief makes a people act more morally than a lack of Christian belief. The white man had Christianity. The white man successfully ethnically cleansed America. I am arguing that this was an immoral act, in support of my view that religion makes no difference one way or the other to the morality of the actions of a people.Also - at no point in this discussion did I insult anyone. What's with the personal insults?What does the bible have to do with it? All I said was that there are more facts then just "The white man killed indians." Which you have no answer for,so you bring up the bible? Either you are a moron, or you are impersonating one. -
I must have missed the bit in the bible that outlines the "They asked for it" defence.I bet the ones that assimilated into a new culture were very happy to learn that the Great Spirit was actually God, and that sitting in a sweat lodge to the point iof delirium wasn't spiritual, just stupid,and that scalping was pretty horrifying, alot of their ways was straight up evil, and the white man came with a new way that was not perfect,true. The white man came, yes, but who turned on who first? The Indians fired the first shot, and was so evil in their ways on the warpath that getting medievel was the only way. They asked for it, and history shows just that. -
-
Your "reminding me of history" consisted of "oh so you know about this secret CIA plot that has no evidence?" (which I then pointed out was common knowledge, then gave references) and "no God bad, God good".... You're a little light on actual facts in your postings to be able to claim victory. I like to think that maybe the mass of Americans are not as ignorant of the rest of the world and history as it appears, but I doubt it.Oh and.... modern day Japan seems to do fine without God.The rest of the world has USA envy. To pretend otherwise is to fool yourself.But that is for another thread...in this one, you like to point at one individual to make your foolish conclusions. I point at the entire country. Then you accuse me of not knowing history, so I remind you about history, then you point to one person again, and add a few slams on my country.I win. -
No, I found out about it because I read. Check out the wikipedia link for the FRAPH and the Human Rights Watch report (second one) about the documents. None of this stuff is particularly hidden, except by your media organisations. This is common knowledge the world over, published by respected sources and in the public domain. Don't you ever wonder why there is anti-Americanism in the world? It isn't because "they hate your freedom". It's because your country actively supports murderers and steals from other countries, all the time with God on your side.And as for Haiti having no God - wasn't Aristide, who your government otherthrew, a Catholic priest? Didn't your country support the murderous Papa Doc, who re-introduced voodoo, as a ballwark against communism?I wish your knowledge of politics and history was as keen as your knowledge of the dead book that this thread's about.Of course I know that the CIA took the documents, cleansed them nd then gave them back so that there is no proof of this but you found out because the CIA is really bad with secrets.Makes total sense to me.Anyway: Haiti Bad, Dominican Republic Good. Haiti no god, Dominican Republic yes God. what happens in the process is irrelevant to the foundation of their society. -
-
Interesting choice of examples. You do know that the Haitian paramilitary FRAPH- responsible for extra-judicial executions, torture and rapes- was founded with CIA assistance and received CIA money, don't you? (wikipedia) You also know that this echoes the US-sponsored creation of the Haitian National Guard of the 1930s that went on to commit countless atrocities against the Haitian people, don't you? You also know that after the US invasion in 1994, masses of documents were ceased by the USA and not returned until they had been cleansed of US involvement in the atrocities (source: Human Rights Watch).Of course you know this, it's your Christian tax dollars at work after all. But, yeah, all those nasty executions, rapes and torture were a result of voodoo.You are a bad representation for the British people. (Another Christian nation.)look at the island of Hispaniola, one side Christian: Dominican Republic...great cigarsOther side non Chrisitan ( voodoo main religion) Haiti....no cigars, only burning tires over the necks of the political opposition.About as clear an example that Christianity makes for a better foundation for a community than any alternative. -
You lose your $10.Here's what I will say though. Your Christian country, the United States of America, barely 6 generations ago completed the world's best example of how to successfully achieve the genocide of an indigenous people and the ethnic cleansing of a country.My point is that the religious belief held by a nation makes pretty no difference when it comes to the morality of the actions of that nation.$10 says this guy believes 9-11 was an inside jobWho's got me here, $10 before he ruins it and quotes an internet site that shows American Generals ordering the rape and murder of 2 billion peace loving vietnamese children during the American Tet offensive. -
I don't know where you got your figure of 500,000,000 from? You are mostly talking about communism (yet I know someone who was taught at school by communist Catholic Nuns), yet you say nothing about fascism that was generally not atheistic.According to your assertion that: religion = more good, lack of religion = more bad.... who acted worst in the Vietnam War? Theistic America or atheistic North Vietnam?Why do students always think that text books are better than real life examples?Christianity has had it's hand in most of history for the last 2000 years, the world didn't fall apart. The few atrocities were mild compared to the forms of government that at it's foundation taught the very absence of religion. they talked about how religion was an opiate of the people that was bad for the health of society. Then after they slaughterd 500 million people, the church came back and is trying to pick up the pieces and help the people regain hope.And here you are saying that it's your mission to save the world from Christians and what they think cause you know it is bad.....Too bad the whole world wasn't created 5 years ago, then your theories could have some grain of a chance to be true. But until you rewrite history, you are stuck with:religion = more good than bad,lack of religion = more bad than good -
You could just as easily say that the absence of baseball resulted in the atrocities of the 20th century. The political systems in themselves are concerned with human power structures, not faith (or sport). Religion is largely an irrelevance, just as it is to the political system that triumphed, democratic capitalism.I am not lumping Christianity in with radical Islam as a threat, I am lumping radical Christianity in with radical Islam as a threat. The moderate versions of Christianity and Islam are also a threat in that, once you have made the leap and have abandoned reason for faith, you can believe anything you wish, and justify anything you wish.In most of the 20th century, the absense of God resulted in the atrocities you mentioned, belief systems that had at their core a no God foundation. Communism, there is no God and Nazism, the German people are the most evolved of all people and deserve to rule.... To lump Christianity in with radical Islam is grasping at straws. Just as picking the worst of a group and labeling the entire group by their actions. -
Well, there's been a whole topic on this one point, but it does seem to contradict other parts of the Bible where it says that all sins are forgiveable. There were 3 other apparent contradictions I gave - about fearing God/not fearing God, about thieves going to heaven/not going to heaven, about Revelation saying only 144,000 would be saved/all who believe will be saved.I deny the Holy Spirit. I do not care whether I have committed the unforgiveable sin. Therefore, I think you're saying that I have committed this sin.To threadcross, Loismustdie asked what would happen if we found that aliens had and used the exact same Bible as we do. If this were to happen, I would accept that the Bible is true, and that Jesus Christ was my lord and saviour. But there would be no salvation for me as I have already committed a sin that cannot be forgiven.I know of no contridiction that exist that have not been explained a hundred times, but they will be explained agian and again as new people think they found a new one. The Davinci code is a good example, total myth refuted hundreds of years ago, and yet once again the swoon theory comes alive.********The blasphamy of the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin.The Holy Spirit is the active force working inside you to lead you to Christ, to deny Him would mean you deny Christ, which leaves you in your sin, hence not going to heaven. Therefore, unforgiven.It is a debated issue that my pastor explained to me by saying if you are worried that you've committed it, then you haven't, since committing it would leave you not caring about it.We on the other hand have nothing that we can be indignant bout, all f our sins are forgiven, so for us not to forgive others is to be judgemental and prideful. I fall short of this at times. But my forgiveness is moot in terms of a persons salvation, just affects my personal walk. -
I gave serious consideration to this, but it is my belief that it would be immoral not to challenge people's religious belief.In most of the 20th century, the driving engines of strife were political worldviews, revolutionary communism and fascism, evils that led to mass starvations, wars, gulags and people being burned in ovens.Now we have different driving engines of strife - the religious worldviews of fundamentalist Islam and Christianity. Blind faith can lead people to fly planes into buildings. Blind faith can lead people to believe that rape victims deserve it. Evil must be opposed.
So don't discuss it. Simple as that.But I had to challenge your assertion that "doctrinal differences simply aren't there". They are. I do kind of agree with you, though. The bible should be too ridiculous to discuss, and would be if people didn't believe it. -
You claimed the bible has no contradictions in doctrine. I pointed out four apparent contradictions that are known to me. Believe me, I never expected anything other than one of your 4 catch-all irrefutable anti-logic opposing arguments (I was careful to only use the NT to avoid number 5: "that's the old testament so it doesn't count")1. The quotes are taken out of context2. The meaning of the quotes are different from the meaning given by the actual words3. It only makes sense if you take the bible as a whole4. I just don't "get it"But I had to challenge your assertion that "doctrinal differences simply aren't there". They are. I do kind of agree with you, though. The bible should be too ridiculous to discuss, and would be if people didn't believe it.Every "point" he made was to ridiculous for even me to discuss. He knows it. You know it. Why pretend? -
Do you have to abide by a set of doctrines if you believe in God?What about if you use the word God in a broader sense, as distinct from the God Of The Christian Bible. I like to look at it in meme terms, where memes are replicators in the landscape of human communication. The God Of The Christian Bible and its companions in the super-meme Christianity, is a virus using our reproductive facilities for their own selfish purposes.In other words, instead of us humans talking to each other about things that help us to survive in our lives, we end up talking about religion in order to help religion survive.How about not limiting the word God to just this one meme? I know that I exist, and because of that, I know that there is something called "reality". If we wanted to go very broad, we could redefine the word God to mean that. If narrower, there are some phenomena, like consciousness, that we currently do not have a compelling description of. We could redefine the word God to mean them. I'd rather like to drop the capital g though, as it supposes that it is a given name, like Bob or something.Can I still be rational and believe in god?***I've followed Dawkins' for a long time, but haven't bothered to read anything after Unweaving the Rainbow. I've found he's just repeating himself now, just coming up with yet another metaphor for the same message. I do remember being struck by the brilliance of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, but found he's got ever more high-handed and arrogant. I feel like I want to say to him: "Yeah, ok, you're *right*, but its not the be-all and end-all of critical thought on the subject."***Apologies for lengthYou say you'd like to believe in God but just don't agree with his prescribed doctrines? Eh? How does your personal interpretation of his doctrines bear pertinence to his existence (or lack thereof)?? If you accept the existence of God you must abide by the doctrines, whether you "agree with them" or not. -
A couple of differences in doctrine in the New Testament....Fear God, or do not fear God?Luke 124: I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more.5: But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.(Matthew 10:24-28 has pretty much the same passage)1 John 416: And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.17: In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.18: There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.Thieves cannot go to heaven, or they can go to heaven?1 Corinthians 6 9: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders10: nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.Luke 2340: But the other criminal* rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence?41: We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."42: Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom43: Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."* this criminal is a thief - Mark 15:27: They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left.There was also this thread about how the NT says that denial of the holy ghost is an unforgiveable sin, yet Acts 13:39 says that all sins can be forgiven through faith, or Revelation 14 stating that only 144000 male virgins will be saved, when numerous passages (John 3:16 for example) say that whosoever believes will be saved....etc etcThe test is this- find me a difference in doctrine. Guys like chrisuk_sw will bring up things like numbers of birds on the ark not matching, who cares? That's the best we can come up with? Please. Cry me a river. If that holds you up, I cannot help you. That's like finding the perfect women except she can't type, so no go. Now, what we are looking for is difference in doctrine, difference in how we get to heaven, how we serve God. Those differences aren't there, and by all rights they should be.... -
Loismustdie - how many birds did God ask Noah to take onto the ark?
-
Lois, How many birds did God ask Noah to take onto the ark?You've been pwned many times on this forum, and this thread has shown what a desolate black place your heart is.No real thought process of your own, I see. Good form. -
Ugh. I just wanted to add my voice to the disgust felt at this and other postings of a similar vein.Maybe a rape now was better then what God saw in the future for the child? I think it maybe a little of both sometimes. I don't know of any christians children who have been raped. God would not make a christian go through that. The thing is, with my reasoning I am doing the world a favor, because what God says is,"Time and chance happens to them all." Sadly, I have to go to work, but I will post some scriptures on Gods protection later tonight.
Daniel's Reasons For Being A Poker Player And A Christian
in Religion
Posted
One thing that I think that everyone speaking up for poker here needs to take into account is that poker is a zero-sum game, and is therefore a zero-sum occupation. Your fictional friend involved in the fast food business is not involved in a zero-sum occupation because his/her activity adds to the overall net wealth of humanity. In playing poker, you are not creating anything or adding anything to the world, just extracting wealth from those that have created it elsewhere.