"Instead, you cut off my words immediately before the part that refutes your opinion. "
I cut off the part that was irrelevant, and apart from stating that they paid for the help they got, and agreed to host bases for the help they got, what part of your "refutation" addresses the very real fact that you claim no help was given then in YOUR VERY NEXT POINT admit help was given but try to downplay and dismiss it.
Funny how your focus is on the part that got excised while you're avoiding admitting your contradiction.
You failed, you contradicted yourself, and your response did nothing to refute anything.
By the way, where's the part that "refutes my opinion"? You genuinely believe people paying for goods they use refutes the fact that it was "help"? Sorry, that's ridiculous. Ask the people who were starving if it was help. Ask them if paying for it afterward made it less helpful. Be prepared to get laughed out of the room.
You points were contradictory, no amount of deflection changes that, so save that 3rd grade nonsense.
"I did not say that "The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) years after they were attacked by Nazi Germany"."
No you said "when they were attacked by Nazi Germany" and it was wrong the first times you said it, so repeating it doesn't make it true (although Hitler would tell you that if you repeat it enough it will become true, so you're keeping up with Hitlerian tradition at least).
You denied the US helped when they did in fact help. Your statement is just as wrong now as it was when I called you out earlier.
"The GP never once denied that the US made a large contribution to WWII."
I saw this, how did you miss it?
"The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) when they were attacked by Nazi Germany."
"Society doesn't require every individual to have a driver's license."
Which was my point thank you for agreeing.
"The point is, even if one individual can get away without having such a license, he's merely shifting society's license requirement to others around him"
And the examples you gave were professionals, which are vastly different from private individuals.
The entirety of my point is, private individuals are able to do fine without a driver's license. Professionals are another subject, and completely not relevant to this topic, as they are already subject to different, far more stringent requirements.
"Your "arguments" are getting more and more deranged."
Um you're the one who admitted to trolling but attacked me when I called you on it. And I'm deranged.
"I think that if I keep responding, you will be compelled to respond."
Says the guy who replied 20 minutes after I did, when I took the weekend off. Save that stuff buddy, we both know who's off kilter here. I had the whole weekend, but you replied instantly. Pot, kettle, you, all black.
"It's disgusting, like owning a pile or raw sewage."
Speak to your parents, they'll be able to help you cope like they did.
"If you actually think this is true you are using some bad statistics."
No. The statistics are what they are.
"Even if you are taking all other information out of the equation statisiticaly K's full of A's (with 3 Ks on board) will lose approximately 1 in 11 times (opponent has 4 chances to have a king out of the 45 unseen cards). This means statistically you should lay down kings full of aces 1 out of every 11 times you play,"
No actually, it means you should NEVER lay them down, and get sacked the one time in 11 you are wrong. The other ten times you are right, and that is how pros make money while you fail.
"I'm just saying that making statements like "Statistically, you NEVER lay down K's full of A's" is pretty much useless."
If by useless you mean accurate, then yes. Others have explained, as have I, why your post is wrong. If you play to the one time in 11 thinking you can guess when that is, then I want to play you, and bring everything you own and a pen to sign it over when we're done.
You don't understand poker. Stop replying and pretending that you do.
Y"ou have to ask yourself, why do posts mentioning closeted homosexuality push your buttons so hard?"
You have to ask YOURSELF, where have I referenced homosexuality at all in my last three replies?
Trolling assholes who get called on being assholes, admit they're assholes, and then lie afterwards like you did to justify being an asshole push my buttons. You're the one who brought up homosexuality again.
Let's destroy your argument piece by piece shall we.
"Face-matching cameras at every public intersection."
Intrusive but public. Legal but unpleasant.
"And in every public building."
Intrusive, but public. Legal but unpleasant.
"Heck, even better, we could implant every single individual with a GPS tracking device that also reports factors such as pulse, respiration rate, and blood pressure."
Hey LOOK! Intrusive and NOT PUBLIC! Illegal and certainly unpleasant.
So when you said "But hey, it's not the same. Right?" you were correct, they are not the same. If you knew it though, why did you base your entire failed argument on obviously dissimilar concepts?
"I'd venture to say that pot-limit omaha high is a *far* more psychological game."
You'd be wrong. I made my living for two years playing PLO almost exclusively, at a high level (fuck you UIGEA and everyone who voted for you). The general consensus among students of the game is that PLO is one of the least psychological games played. The lack of bluffing being the major reason. Bluffing occurs, but the very same reason you cite as making it more psychological is why you're wrong the number of hands played. Playing such a large number of hand (50% is insane, and I challenge you to show me some poker tracker stats of someone who wins playing 50% of their hands long term). In fact, if a computer were to win consistently, I think PLO is a game that it would play.
"I don't think there's a difference between statistical knowledge and psychology."
Then let me learn you up. Let's use PLO. I have A-A-10-J double suited. I raise pot preflop. A VERY tight player reraises, and I call. Flop come K-K-K. Against an aggro player, I can reasonably infer that my 2nd nuts is good. Against Mr. Tighty, who I have seen reraise only with large suited pairs (KKJQ, QQJ10) or rundown hands (9-10-J-Q, 10-J-Q-K) I know within a certain range what he's holding, with some certainty. I am first to act, I check, he bets, I raise, and Mr. Tighty RERAISES. Based on my assessment of his likely behavior (psychology) I can reasonably infer that he has the K. Statistically, you NEVER lay down K's full of A's, but when your read (psychology) is good and the opponent is uncreative and direct (psychology) you lay it down.
Statistically the correct play is to put it all in if you can, but by understanding the other players decision making process (psychology) you can find a fold.
"The fact that you felt compelled to respond in such a way to my obvious trolling says a lot about you, none of it very good."
I disagree, I think it says a lot. I could have been a pussy and modded you down, but instead I made a comment that clearly highlighted how ridiculous your statement was.
I can, however, understand that someone like you would think standing up to a loudmouthed idiot would not be "very good".
"they bascially gave the human team a huge insight into the inner workings, strategy, and tendencies of their opponent. Something that Polaris definitely did not have.
In my opinion this sours the competition and completely invalidates the final two matches. The human likely found a weakness (or two or three) and exploited it, and we can't know for sure that they would have found the weakness without those logs."
First of all, they would have found weaknesses, they've proven as much by doing so against human opponents well enough to earn a substantial living at it. That is, in fact, how successful poker players win. Saying they couldn't do it is like saying a world champion weightlifter can't bench press 600 pounds, after he has previously bench pressed 700. He did it already, and it was harder then, so doing it now is certainly possible.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the researchers programmed information about the players into Polaris. How is it unfair to provide the same information to the humans? Especially when they are certainly taking their own notes and acting on them. The researches simply provided information that the players would have definitely gathered on their own anyway.
You basically objected to behaviors which are not only common, but totally expected and necessary to being a winning poker player.
I think you simply don't understand what playing poker really entails and are reacting based on that.
"Sure, but whether the society that is left after that is one you want to live in even if the insurgents win is a completely different matter."
Sorry, but your post was a little incoherent. The only thing I'll say to this is, society isn't static and "what's left" immediately after a conflict has little bearing on what the society becomes after it rebuilds.
"but about getting the kind of society you want, I'm not so sure anymore"
Well, it's live under tyranny or fight, destroy society, and hopefully win the right to rebuild. Not much to be unsure about there, unless you're ok with living under tyranny because your cowardice causes you concern for "what's left". Cowardice and I never got along, sounds like you might have better luck.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, but I'm right too. And you hate it so you post AC and call names.
But I'm still right.
"Instead, you cut off my words immediately before the part that refutes your opinion. "
I cut off the part that was irrelevant, and apart from stating that they paid for the help they got, and agreed to host bases for the help they got, what part of your "refutation" addresses the very real fact that you claim no help was given then in YOUR VERY NEXT POINT admit help was given but try to downplay and dismiss it.
Funny how your focus is on the part that got excised while you're avoiding admitting your contradiction.
You failed, you contradicted yourself, and your response did nothing to refute anything.
By the way, where's the part that "refutes my opinion"? You genuinely believe people paying for goods they use refutes the fact that it was "help"? Sorry, that's ridiculous. Ask the people who were starving if it was help. Ask them if paying for it afterward made it less helpful. Be prepared to get laughed out of the room.
You points were contradictory, no amount of deflection changes that, so save that 3rd grade nonsense.
"I did not say that "The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) years after they were attacked by Nazi Germany"."
No you said "when they were attacked by Nazi Germany" and it was wrong the first times you said it, so repeating it doesn't make it true (although Hitler would tell you that if you repeat it enough it will become true, so you're keeping up with Hitlerian tradition at least).
You denied the US helped when they did in fact help. Your statement is just as wrong now as it was when I called you out earlier.
Nice try though.
"The GP never once denied that the US made a large contribution to WWII."
I saw this, how did you miss it?
"The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) when they were attacked by Nazi Germany."
There's your denial.
You claim this
"1. The USA did not lift a finger to help..."
Then you say this
"2. While neutral, the USA supplied food, weapons, and other goods to Britain..." and China, and France, and the Soviet Union.
I don't believe that any definition of "help" would exclude the lend-lease program, so you have contradicted yourself completely here.
With this in mind, I'm going to dismiss your opinion on the war and its aftermath.
"Society doesn't require every individual to have a driver's license."
Which was my point thank you for agreeing.
"The point is, even if one individual can get away without having such a license, he's merely shifting society's license requirement to others around him"
And the examples you gave were professionals, which are vastly different from private individuals.
The entirety of my point is, private individuals are able to do fine without a driver's license. Professionals are another subject, and completely not relevant to this topic, as they are already subject to different, far more stringent requirements.
"You are correct, sir."
Fixed that for you. No technically about it.
Why would you respond to me when your point has nothing at all to do with mine? GP said society required a driver's license, That's wrong.
Your examples have nothing to do with that fact. In fact, apart from a rant about what "should happen" your examples seem to support my point.
"Travel and transportation of supplies inside the border ought not require government permission."
You mean like having a driver's license? Let me know how far you get with that.
On second thought, don't.
"Your "arguments" are getting more and more deranged."
Um you're the one who admitted to trolling but attacked me when I called you on it. And I'm deranged.
"I think that if I keep responding, you will be compelled to respond."
Says the guy who replied 20 minutes after I did, when I took the weekend off. Save that stuff buddy, we both know who's off kilter here. I had the whole weekend, but you replied instantly. Pot, kettle, you, all black.
"It's disgusting, like owning a pile or raw sewage."
Speak to your parents, they'll be able to help you cope like they did.
"If you actually think this is true you are using some bad statistics."
No. The statistics are what they are.
"Even if you are taking all other information out of the equation statisiticaly K's full of A's (with 3 Ks on board) will lose approximately 1 in 11 times (opponent has 4 chances to have a king out of the 45 unseen cards). This means statistically you should lay down kings full of aces 1 out of every 11 times you play,"
No actually, it means you should NEVER lay them down, and get sacked the one time in 11 you are wrong. The other ten times you are right, and that is how pros make money while you fail.
"I'm just saying that making statements like "Statistically, you NEVER lay down K's full of A's" is pretty much useless."
If by useless you mean accurate, then yes. Others have explained, as have I, why your post is wrong. If you play to the one time in 11 thinking you can guess when that is, then I want to play you, and bring everything you own and a pen to sign it over when we're done.
You don't understand poker. Stop replying and pretending that you do.
"they take it, from those people who..." sit down and play voluntarily.
How is it different from a performer? Oh right it isn't, you've just got a hard on against poker.
Save your retarded rant for someone who cares.
"I'm just saying that making statements like "Statistically, you NEVER lay down K's full of A's" is pretty much useless."
No, it means that statistically, you can't assume that the one card that beats you is there without extraordinary evidence.
Don't worry, being good at cards is hard, you shouldn't feel bad because you're not.
And you need to check your stats, they're wrong too. How does it feel to craft a reply based on statistics only to find out your statistics are wrong?
"I don't blame this on you"
Yes you did liar. Read your own posts.
Y"ou have to ask yourself, why do posts mentioning closeted homosexuality push your buttons so hard?"
You have to ask YOURSELF, where have I referenced homosexuality at all in my last three replies?
Trolling assholes who get called on being assholes, admit they're assholes, and then lie afterwards like you did to justify being an asshole push my buttons. You're the one who brought up homosexuality again.
"It moves with the common, majority travel means of each age from when it was recognized"
Source please.
"That getting from point A to point B in the way society has designed it (i.e. by driving)"
You'd have a MUCH better point if you didn't insist that something was true when it clearly isn't.
I am currently sitting next to a gentleman who has never had a driver's license, and has never owned a car. He seems to have made it just fine.
When you have to assume a falsehood to make your argument valid, that doesn't say much about your argument.
"The biggest problem here is that cops are quite often worse than the criminals they hunt."
No, actually, the biggest problem is that you believe what you typed there.
Hyperbole is lying. You used hyperbole.
"How else would YOU describe someone with a flat chest, possibly narrowish hips, and not much of an ass?"
Did you not read the part where I wrote "I think 'hey she's thin'"?
You're not very bright are you?
"You're right and I was an asshole, but now I'm justifying it by... still being an asshole."
Again, you trolled, I called you on it, yet somehow, in your tiny little pea brain, you blame this on me.
How long have you been a Republican?
"But hey, it's not the same. Right?"
You're correct, it's not.
Let's destroy your argument piece by piece shall we.
"Face-matching cameras at every public intersection."
Intrusive but public. Legal but unpleasant.
"And in every public building."
Intrusive, but public. Legal but unpleasant.
"Heck, even better, we could implant every single individual with a GPS tracking device that also reports factors such as pulse, respiration rate, and blood pressure."
Hey LOOK! Intrusive and NOT PUBLIC! Illegal and certainly unpleasant.
So when you said "But hey, it's not the same. Right?" you were correct, they are not the same. If you knew it though, why did you base your entire failed argument on obviously dissimilar concepts?
Maybe you should have stuck to saying nothing.
Actually, you did. My bad.
"I'd venture to say that pot-limit omaha high is a *far* more psychological game."
You'd be wrong. I made my living for two years playing PLO almost exclusively, at a high level (fuck you UIGEA and everyone who voted for you). The general consensus among students of the game is that PLO is one of the least psychological games played. The lack of bluffing being the major reason. Bluffing occurs, but the very same reason you cite as making it more psychological is why you're wrong the number of hands played. Playing such a large number of hand (50% is insane, and I challenge you to show me some poker tracker stats of someone who wins playing 50% of their hands long term). In fact, if a computer were to win consistently, I think PLO is a game that it would play.
"I don't think there's a difference between statistical knowledge and psychology."
Then let me learn you up. Let's use PLO. I have A-A-10-J double suited. I raise pot preflop. A VERY tight player reraises, and I call. Flop come K-K-K. Against an aggro player, I can reasonably infer that my 2nd nuts is good. Against Mr. Tighty, who I have seen reraise only with large suited pairs (KKJQ, QQJ10) or rundown hands (9-10-J-Q, 10-J-Q-K) I know within a certain range what he's holding, with some certainty. I am first to act, I check, he bets, I raise, and Mr. Tighty RERAISES. Based on my assessment of his likely behavior (psychology) I can reasonably infer that he has the K. Statistically, you NEVER lay down K's full of A's, but when your read (psychology) is good and the opponent is uncreative and direct (psychology) you lay it down.
Statistically the correct play is to put it all in if you can, but by understanding the other players decision making process (psychology) you can find a fold.
You're wrong again
"I'm not in the mood to argue like a child anymore today."
Fixed that for you.
It's funny though how you act like a jackass, admit it, I call you on it, and you still seem to think it's ok to act like a jackass.
What mental disorder do you have that causes such behavior?
"I don't really believe it always wins anything truely valuable"
The Revolutionary War in America was a guerrilla insurgency.
If I were you I'd stop before I said something else that's wrong and ridiculous.
"The fact that you felt compelled to respond in such a way to my obvious trolling says a lot about you, none of it very good."
I disagree, I think it says a lot. I could have been a pussy and modded you down, but instead I made a comment that clearly highlighted how ridiculous your statement was.
I can, however, understand that someone like you would think standing up to a loudmouthed idiot would not be "very good".
"they bascially gave the human team a huge insight into the inner workings, strategy, and tendencies of their opponent. Something that Polaris definitely did not have.
In my opinion this sours the competition and completely invalidates the final two matches. The human likely found a weakness (or two or three) and exploited it, and we can't know for sure that they would have found the weakness without those logs."
First of all, they would have found weaknesses, they've proven as much by doing so against human opponents well enough to earn a substantial living at it. That is, in fact, how successful poker players win. Saying they couldn't do it is like saying a world champion weightlifter can't bench press 600 pounds, after he has previously bench pressed 700. He did it already, and it was harder then, so doing it now is certainly possible.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the researchers programmed information about the players into Polaris. How is it unfair to provide the same information to the humans? Especially when they are certainly taking their own notes and acting on them. The researches simply provided information that the players would have definitely gathered on their own anyway.
You basically objected to behaviors which are not only common, but totally expected and necessary to being a winning poker player.
I think you simply don't understand what playing poker really entails and are reacting based on that.
"Sure, but whether the society that is left after that is one you want to live in even if the insurgents win is a completely different matter."
Sorry, but your post was a little incoherent. The only thing I'll say to this is, society isn't static and "what's left" immediately after a conflict has little bearing on what the society becomes after it rebuilds.
"but about getting the kind of society you want, I'm not so sure anymore"
Well, it's live under tyranny or fight, destroy society, and hopefully win the right to rebuild. Not much to be unsure about there, unless you're ok with living under tyranny because your cowardice causes you concern for "what's left". Cowardice and I never got along, sounds like you might have better luck.