Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About LincolnK

  • Rank
    Poker Forum Nut

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Poker Game

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  1. Sorry I don't remember naming conventions for other players (been a while). If I call and catch the straight on the turn I figure I'm good and will get the remaining $8000 from villain1. How do I calculate implied odds for the remainder of the hand? Table and Position Review Game #84990136-117: Night Owl Knockout - $1K Gtd (84983631-1) - No Limit Level 12 Ante 50, Blinds 250/500 Holdem Tournament - 300.00/600.00 Seat #0: villain1, 15886.00 Seat #1: ---, 19460.00 Seat #2: ---, 4900.00 Seat #3: villain2, 5580.00 Seat #4: --- (D), 29394.00 Seat #5: sb (SB), 13032.00 Seat #6: hero (BB), 15296.00 Seat #7: ---, 5000.00 Seat #8: villain3, 30393.00 *** Blinds *** sb posts the small blind of 300.00 hero posts the big blind of 600.00 *** Pre-Flop *** hero got hole cards [ Th: Jd: ] --- folds villain3 raises with 1320.00 villain1 calls 1320.00 --- folds --- folds villain2 calls 1320.00 --- folds sb folds hero calls 720.00 *** Flop *** Pot: 5580 [ 9d: Kh: 8s: ] hero checks villain3 checks villain1 bets 6120.00 villain2 goes all-in with 4200.00 hero folds villain3 folds villain1 shows [ Kd: Ad: ] villain2 shows [ Qc: Kc: ] *** Turn *** Pot: 15900 [ 9d: Kh: 8s: ] [ 6h: ] *** River *** Pot: 15900 [ 9d: Kh: 8s: ] [ 6h: ] [ Ts: ] villain2 is out villain1 wins 14520.00 villain1 wins 1920.00
  2. I haven't been keeping up here lately, but I came across this and thought it might spur some discussion.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/27/...in6905221.shtml Personally if I have the option of paying $93,000 of my own money for another 4 months at 80 years old (guy in the story is 80), I'm just going to let it go and let my family use it for something worthwhile. If it was my private health insurance willing to pay for it, I still don't think I would do it on principle. It seems like an awful waste of money, and I bet those 4 months aren't going to be much fun anyway.Are there any supporters of government-run health care here who would like the share their thoughts on this? Specifically, is this something that should be an option at tax-payer expense? If not, why? What kind of metric do you use to determine if a treatment provides enough value for the cost? Where do you draw the line for this sort of thing?
  3. is this a situation where i want to push someone out? i know conventional thought is that fewer players increase my chances to win, but in this hand 1. it's almost guaranteed i'm giong to have to show my hand to win. there's no way that everyone else is going to fold 2. my mostly likely outcome is that i have the nut low in which case i want more people making bad calls (or nothing and it doesn't matter). so do i want to force out people that would may later call a bet with a bad low hand, or those who might hit a card on the turn for their high hand, which i'm not all that concerned with?
  4. PokerStars Limit Omaha Hi/Lo, $1.00 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.comPreflop: Hero is Button with A, 3, 2, KUTG calls, MP calls, CO calls, Hero raises, 1 fold, BB calls, UTG calls, MP calls, CO callsFlop: (10.5 SB) 6, 7, 9(5 players)BB checks, UTG checks, MP checks, CO checks, Hero checksTurn: (5.25 BB) 8(5 players)BB checks, UTG checks, MP checks, CO bets, Hero raises, 2 folds, MP calls, CO callsRiver: (11.25 BB) 10(3 players)MP checks, CO checks, Hero bets, MP calls, CO callsTotal pot: $14.25 (14.25 BB) | Rake: $0.50should i have bet on 3rd? was the raise on 4th ok?
  5. so i thought i'd provide a summary of the ruling and whatever:previously the 2nd amendment was only considered as a federal-level right, i.e. the feds could not make laws infringing it. this did not apply to state laws. some of the amendments are viewed as protecting individuals at the state level and up like free speech and some are only applied at the federal level like the 5th. the supreme court ruling today puts the 2nd amendment from the latter to the former.the majority opinion given by scalia is that the 2nd amendment should apply to individuals at the state level do the the due process clause of the 14th amendment, which is often used as reasoning when deciding situations like this. one of the majority wrote his own opinion (can't recall the name atm) where he came to the same conclusion due to the privileges and immunities (?) clause of the 14th amendment. this is not often invoked, and lots of people were hoping this would be used more prominently so that other laws may be challenged citing that clause.the 4 communist hippies comprising the minority opinion were the same as in the heller case, saying that (paraphrasing) "it was wrong then and it's wrong now and even if it was right then we'd still say it's wrong now. we hate freedom." (my bias may be showing through here)the supreme court did not actually invalidate the chicago handgun ban, it only ruled on the federal/state aspect of the 2nd amendment. the case is being sent back to a lower court where the actual ban will be reviewed with the context of the new scope of the 2nd. it's very likely the ban will be struck down at that level.someone already mentioned scalia's point about not invaliding laws concerning crazies and felons and whatever. the majority wanted to be clear in that they are not addressing any specific laws, and are expecting that individual laws will be challenged in courts in the future.mayor daley is planning changes for the chicago law, thinking he will be able to keep something going. i'm curious how that will turn out. as an aside, i remember him recently saying something to the effect of "i don't care what the courts say, i'm right and we're doing it my way." this all seems completely rational.one of the higher ups from the brady organization considers the ruling some sort of victory. the attorney general(?) for massachussetts also thinks that whatever laws/bans they have in place are not going to be affected. mass. has some recent state supreme court case(s) concerning the legality of their laws, which were upheld mostly based on the 2nd not applying to states.i think that's about all I absorbed today. feel free to point mistakes in reporting or gun rights theory.edit: oh, and a fun fact i forgot- a couple weeks back in chicago, they recorded 40+ murders over the weekend.
  6. i spent a bunch of time at work today staring at my desk and reading the various reports about the ruling. somewhere along the way i saw a claim that murders in d.c. are down like 25% since the heller(?) ruling. i don't have a citation offhand, if i get around to it later i'll look it up right or wrong.
  7. i'm aware of them and catch a blip about them every once in a while. i think the goal is just to make information available that people in charge normally try to keep under wraps. i think it's a pretty principled group- a while back someone "leaked" their list of anonymous donors back to them, and they opted to let it stand.
  8. citation needed. everything i've come across that i can think of right now has said nothing of value was obtained. it also sticks out in my memory that one of these guys was borderline retarded and couldn't have given a useful answer if he wanted to (and this was after the fbi had determined he was useless through normal interrogation).
  9. hooray, was looking for this after first post. still hilarious.also, lol. i'm a terrible person.
  10. so if i'm up on everything going on, that big ugly insurance bill has passed the senate, along with whatever the house had passed before. it's now in the reconciliation process to produce a final version of the bill that the senate and house agree upon.what happens if no agreement can be reached on a final version of the bill? let's say the republican fellow running for Ted Kennedy's seat wins the special election-what effect can he have on anything? (he has vowed to "block healthcare reform" if elected)
  11. could you explain the part about places being colder as average temp rises? are you stating that average global warming is responsible for the cooling of some regions or just reminding us that average rise in temp does not preclude a localized cooling trend?also, I have not heard of winter storms being a result of global warming outside "the day after tomorrow"
  12. there's no real point to this post, i just wanted to share. taken at 930 am. that's me in the circle.
  14. i found this interesting. would anyone care to counter any of the arguments in the video? i'd appreciate it.
  15. I just want to add that I appreciate having someone present reasoned arguments from the other side of the fence, even if you are all a bunch of dirty lying communists.
  • Create New...