LincolnK

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: he

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 sup

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?

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 4

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

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.

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.

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).

hooray, was looking for this after first post. still hilarious.also, lol. i'm a terrible person.

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)

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"

there's no real point to this post, i just wanted to share. taken at 930 am. that's me in the circle.

HURRR??/ DEMOCRAT BAD REPUBLICAN SMASH!!!!1!!11ONE

i found this interesting. would anyone care to counter any of the arguments in the video? i'd appreciate it.

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.

the only thing i can comprehend from all this is that BG thinks we should all be supplied with cuban cigars for free. i'm pretty sure my grandpa has been fueled solely by scotch and cigars for the last decade so i'm inclined to agree with him.

obviously you're not a bowler.

what shocks me about coulter's statement is that she, a christian, is advocating murdering some people, and that forced conversion of the remainder is going to magically solve our problems with foreign nations, as if christians haven't been murdering each other for centuries.

i was referring to that political quiz thread floating around here where BG was well into "the government should make people live how I want" territory, which was considered "fascist" on that axis.

your links aren't showing.i'm beginning to think you're trolling us as a conservative/fascist and are just really committed to it. it blows me away that public figures can say things like this and people wholeheartedly support it.this is funny though.

the fox news part or the mission of the site?i didn't have any knowledge of media matters other than it was the first hit when searching for the story as i remembered it. i'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are representing what happened truthfully.their purpose statement is pretty negative, but i don't have a problem with them if that's what they're actually doing. "conservatives" floating around washingtion the last few years have been known to stretch the truth. it would be nice if they also committed to watching the other side of the aisle.

i'm going off topic, but your post reminded me of this:http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002

this has nothing to do with the election, but this is the first thing i saw on that wikipedia page.i can't think of a more fitting image that demonstrates the differences between the left and right for me.

i guess if i could get paid to do a sitcom that's one long running stereotype gag, i'd do it too.

the government regulates what you can do with your vehicle in a public context. like, you can't go driving on the wrong side of the road or mowing down pedestrians for points. if you want to buy a big plot of open land and spend all day doing donuts or dukes of hazzard jumps you go right ahead. you don't even have to title the car for that. :)something I just thought of that may be relevant: you're not allowed to get drunk and drive, based on the idea that you are significantly more likely to do harm to someone else. [let's assume the law appropriately determines what "drunk" is and not worry