timwakefield

Why don't you just end the mystery. I'm not gonna wade through 300 pages so I can see that Darwin said the eye is extremely complex and fashioned by God, or whatever it is he said. But I'm sure that he didn't refute his own theories, so using Darwin to argue against evolution is pretty naive if you ask me. And as far as evolution being a poor method for describing the creation of man? Well that just doesn't make a bit of sense at all. Evolution describes quite well how homo sapiens evolved over millions of years. Just what are you trying to get at anyways???? Just come out and say whate

That's why it's in the off topic discussions buddy. Anyways, Daniel started this thread, and it's his website. Obviously there are a bunch of interesting discussions throughout the thread.

Two points, then:1) Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, just what happens once it starts. The theory you're looking for is Abiogenesis. Lots of Christians believe that God created life 3.5 billion years ago, and then let evolution occur to bring about humanity (since God, being omniscient, knew that it'd happen). And there's even lots of young-earth creationists who believe that Noah had a relatively small number of animals with him on the ark, and in the last 6000 years some kind of hyper-evolution has occurred to bring about the diversity we see today (this "theory" was concocte

The moon was created billions of years ago when an enormous mini-planet collided with earth. The mini-planet combined with earth, and the huge amount of debris set loose by the collision began orbiting the new earth. Slowly, gravity formed this debris into the moon, much in the same way all of the other solid planets were formed. When it was young, the moon was much much closer to the earth. Tidal effects were enormous. The moon is now moving at approximately 2 inches per year away from the earth. This has been observed by scientists.

Yes I have. Why?

I've got blisters on me fingers!!!!

Just to warn you, Sin City is reallllllly violent. But it's also ****ing awesome.

not me. i wasn't expecting someone with such an apparent high level of intuitive poker-style savvy to be so gullible when it comes to religious beliefs.i love people who call christians gullible...this is usually coming from the same people who accept the "theory" of evolution as fact simply because its what's put out in front of them to believe...i chose to believe something based on my faith and i'm gullible, they chose to believe something else based on faith as well (save the scientific "proof" claims) and they're intelligent...I agree, calling a christian gullible is silly...you might as

Cubeman, now I'm gonna take up my partisan rhetoric. If Al Gore had been inaugurated president in 2001 (as he may well have to deserved to have been), this country would be in a dramatically different state. Al Gore is no great leader along the lines of Lincoln or FDR, but he is a good, honest man. He is very concerned with the environment, an issue which the Bush administration has not only ignored, but has very well sneered at. That's just one obvious difference, and an extremely important one. Who knows what would have happened regarding Afghanistan, but I find it unlikely that we woul

First of all, that "Any party we vote for is just going to screw us over" is clearly a viewpoint of somebody who is jaded and irrational. This is neither the intent nor the practice of politicians. Sure, lots of them are scumbags, but suggesting that politicians are fundamentally against the interests of the public is silly. I agree that politicians "aid the interests of those who fund them." At least half their job is getting re-elected. That is the main problem with politicians, if you ask me. But that doesn't mean that they are ONLY interested in big business and lobbying groups. And

NL hold 'em 1000 person game, $30 buy. Blinds at 25/50, I have about 1000 chips. I raise to 150 with qq, button calls (he has about 1700 chips). Flop kj7 with 2 diamonds, I bet out 250, button considers for awhile and calls. Turn comes ragged and I decide to gamble on it, figure it's worth a shot that he doesn't have a king. So I move in....but I accidentally don't move in. Instead of betting all my chips, I bet the minimum, 50 chips totally by accident. He considers again for a minute, decides to put me all in. I figure there's a good chance that he's either on a draw, has a worse pair

Fairly early in a big tournament, me and villain are both very high stacks at the table, maybe 3x what anybody else has. Blinds 50/100. First to act, I limp with kk. Folded to villain who raises to 1000, I quickly make it 4000 (about half my stack and his). He quickly calls. Flop 4 7 10 rainbow, I put the rest in, he calls with trip tens. Big limp/raise, I'm screaming that I have a monster. Some people just don't understand betting patterns I guess. But who risks half of an enormous stack early on tens????

Yes, another reason to play mid pairs only when it's cheap is because you want lots of people to see the flop along with you.If you have 77, you don't want to be in a hand with only one other player. You want to be in a hand with 5 other players, because when kj7 falls, it is more likely that somebody has made top pair or two pair and will pay you off. Against 5 people, somebody else probably has a good piece of that flop, but against only one opponent with say AQ, you might not get any action on your trips.

I think you really have to play them slowly, you don't want to be re-raising with 88 early in a game. I don't see how you can "go over the top" when your opponent raises a fair amount in front of you and you have a mid-pair. You have to think he is 50-50 on you at best, and at worst he has you crushed. "Before the Flop, with any of the small pairs (except Jacks, Tens and Nines)...I'd limp-in. If somebody raised it from an early or middle position...I'd call it. I wouldn't re-raise. I'd almost take a Turn with any small Pair. I'd be trying to turn a Set so I could break somebody." -

Original post says a bet of 5x or 6x blinds. I think it is better to be more careful not call a bet of say 150 with 88 if blinds are 15/30. q76 falls and raiser bets the pot, what do you do? Yes they have only 1 in 3 to catch the flop, but they can pretend all they like. Love to play if it's cheap (maybe 3 or 4 times bb early on) or if there are other callers, or if the bettor is quite loose. As far as playing well postflop, I don't see how you can determine what exact cards your opponent has...if you hold a mid-pair, the most likely flop is AT LEAST one overcard with no trips for you. F

Be careful calling a fairly significant raise with a hand like 88. Even if you put your opponent on face cards, you can't possibly know which ones. Since you only called his raise he will most likely bet again, and if j32 is out there you have a tough decision. q 10 6 and you have to fold. I think that early in a tournament you want to play mid pairs pretty slowly, calling when you can get in fairly cheap, because really what you want to do is either have an overpair or hit a set. If somebody is raising for real just muck it.... almost half the deck is a scare card for you if he does hav

Oh wait I thought it was a cash game. Tourney for 800 chips, hope he has qj or something.

I'd be too afraid of 33 or 55 to call.

what are you talking about i make mad $$$$ at poker

Yo econ tim how's it hangin in Cambridge boyyyyyyy. I grew up in Watertown.

Definitely check/call against one opponent, probably check/fold if they both play.Pretty likely that one of them bets and the other one folds. If that happens, you have 7.5 to 1 to call for the pot. I think that it must be better than 7.5 to one that he is bluffing. Players often bluff at flushes because it's such an easy bluff - if your opponent doesn't have say any diamonds, they pretty much have to fold. So take 7 to 1 that he's kiddin ya.

I think that you shouldn't look at 99 as so strong. In a limit game with so many players seeing the flop, you're really looking for a set. Even with a rag flop you can't push very hard, so sit back and limp and wait for a set.

You could have lost less if you had checked the flop. Then if you want to you could fold right off when the Ace bets, or you could quite likely check/call it down to see. Hands like these are why some of us prefer NL....

Nobody said he was a tight player. Also, why is there no way you'd check? q10 isn't really what you're afraid of there, it's just a small chance. Kx is the problem.

" but it seems likely that he also could have q10, in which case he checked his straight on the river because he KNOWS that you'll bet"Dammit was my post too long for anybody to read?? I said it first! hahaha