Canada

FYPBWToth, if you want to see some of Loismustdiet's dealings with science have a look here:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=1116460I think the voodoo science probably starts about halfway through, but the whole thread is scary and of course probably contains a few food-based themesLMD, if you want to present a few of these 'scientific facts' to the newer members of the forum feel free to start a new thread. I promise to not put a single post in it or in any other thread referring to it. My word, unlike yours, is worth something. Go on do it. Share the joy!

Given his quote in your sig he's obviously a smart lad.Are you sure he's your son?

I'm guessing you are not the one on the left...

Nice workI set mine to be my photo which comes up when you click my name lol

Systems analyst for a Japanese investment bank.Boring as hell, but pays well

Which bit of irrelevant don't you understand?Let me put this simply: At the beginning of the game can God see what box you will choose? As i said before the links are there for anyone that wants to follow them to get the context. You see the little red arrows? Look what happens when you click on them However again we are back to the word irrelevant. You proposed a logical construct. If you are making a statement based on logic the context, as BW pointed out, is not required.Stop being a coward and answer the question.Edit: **** it. I'm sick of your gutless attempts to dodge the question,

You are missing the point all together. You are talking about changing events at T+/- whatever. It's irrelevant.The fact remains that he can't see the future with clarity enough to enable him to win the game.And the only thing that is preventing him from seeing the future? His opponents free will.Game over player 1.I also noticed you are still too scared to answer my other question, so lets ask it a third time. Simple yes or noYou suggested the following:righteous ----> inherit kingdom of Godunrighteous ----> arent in kingdom of GodThe question remains, do you think that this is logi

The learning reference is DN stating that he (DN) is learning the correct terminology for wording these questions.Also I think you missed this bitYou know that Villian will likely make a continuation bet with any of the hands he has.

If we assume that we are not folding 1000 is going in regardless.Cost of finding out you're winning by raising? 2000Cost of finding out you're winning by calling? (6/47)*(2500) = 319.15The (6/47)*(2500) represents the lost equity for giving a free card. It should actually be less because villain will not always have 6 outs.Seems like a pretty easy call to me unless you are ahead > 85% of the time on the flop

He's folding too much on the river.This obviously shows up in the river fold% but it is highlighted in the river aggro of 3.64 which is insanely high.This street should have the lowest aggro factor of all.Given that he is only calling with a 'stronger' subset on the river you would expect his W$SD to increase. The fact that it is <50% shows he is probably running bad on top of folding too much.

You can go directly to SS2, do not pass Go.Realise though that Super System 2 gives a good desription of a number of games and as such is lighter on detail than other books as far as novice topics are concerned.Personally I believe it is best for someone who is already confident/competent in one form of poker (eg Omaha or Holdem) who wants a good guide to playing a strong game in other forms.Also a slight drawback is the NL section is pretty much unchanged since the original version and describes a style that is not fine-tuned for todays gamesAs such I would add it to your library later in you

Ok little one, lets have a look at a couple of points I have raised on this thread that you choose to ignore then.The glass box paradox. You essentially agreed that the future is indeterminate until a free choice is complete but lets revisit it.Party A is to put a stone in one of 2 boxes. Party B is to choose either box. If the box contains the stone B wins otherwise A wins. Party A can see the future, the boxes are made of glass. All good?Now your objection was that when A shoots off and checks the future he notes what box the stone is in and chooses the other one, so he is changing an ev

Did BW just take the definition you are so fond of and spell it out in plain English for you?Did BW just pwn you like a biatch.Yes.Yes, I believe so.Case closed children.

You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist any more than you can show an intelligent designer does. ie they are both unproveable positionsWhich is more likely?

The links are there sunshine. Anybody can follow them. I've just excluded all the fluff you like to add.The fact remains, Monty correctly explained a simple logical construct and then you tried to use that construct to prove him wrong.See the bit where you said "So using your logic..."The problem is you didn't use his logic, and the funny bit is you still can't see it.Unless you are willing to concede that... righteous ----> inherit kingdom of Godunrighteous ----> arent in kingdom of God...is a logical fallacy and that you owe FullMonty an apology.Of course if you (or anyone else) don'

We never seem to talk directly, but always end up on the same page I know, but string theory does my head in so I was allowing my theistic tendancies to allow me to be satisfied with the simple answer. Einstein is my OT if you like. You can have the joys of trying to explain matter/antimatter, vacuums et al.

Well creation implies there is a time that the ball doesn't exist as well as a time where it does, but this is not the case as I have expained.This answers your original question as to how it is possible for something to have always existed, however it leaves us with more questions than answers.I know what you are driving at; essentially what was before the big bang?Short answer is I don't know.We are getting into the realms of quarks, muons, gravitons, matter and antimatter, which I confess to only having a passing knowledge of. I suspect Yorke or Crow could help you move further down the tra

No because as long as the ball (ie all matter & energy) exists there is time, so this ball cannot exist before time and similarly there is no time before the existance of the ball.

I'll take the other:Time and space do not exist without matter, so if you take the first 'moment', for want of a better word, that your ball of condensed matter existed, there is no time before that, so matter has existed for all time.

Why is it impossible for something to have always existed?If it is impossible and God created everything, who created God?If nobody created God does that mean God has always existed?And wouldn't that mean it is possible for something to have always existed?

Absolutely priceless. Shall we examine your history of dealing with logic?In an old thread here... Sound logical principles. In fact one of the first things you learn in philosophy class, right after the fire drill procedures and the locations of the toilets.Your response? The best thing about this is you probably still think your response is valid and without flaw. You even started a thread as a personal attack on Monty and still got it wrong Give it a rest Matt. You've shown consistently that you are incapable of handling logic and all your efforts here have actually been arguments th

Not too sure. We'll go ask her

So what you are saying is of the possible futures the one that will happen can't be seen until you make your decision?Ie The future is indeterminate as long as free will exists.Exactly. Thank you for your agreement.Or the extension in the other direction... Oh noooooooos, its happening agaaaaaain!!!!

Did TheShank get banned or something?Anyway I hate schizo's and so does Canada.

If you make that claim then you should provide some explanation as to what it means. It makes for a pretty little phrase, but essentially its just nonsense. There is no 'inside' time or 'outside' time. Fantastic that your explanation, whilst still incorrect, needs you to create new ways for the universe to work.You can try to take God 'outside time' all you want, but the fact remains that we are stuck firmly within it. I don't need to break out the special theory of relativity here do I? Oh that's right, its just a theory backed with mountains of practical evidence, so it's worthless as e