could be that the guy has a dozen people working under him with titles like VP of north american marketing, VP of central american marketing, VP of defending our IP from the chinese, VP of middle eastern marketing, etc.
he's "worldwide" cause he's in charge of all the smaller "wides"?
I would have tried OSX ages ago, if only Apple let me install it on hardware I already owned instead of purchasing new hardware which is spec'd damn near the same as what I've already got.
yes I'm aware of hackintosh'ing your machine. just seems like too much of a hassle.
I did try the OS in a VM. it was alright, but you can only learn so much about an OS from a VM. you've got to actually live with it a few months to really know what it's like.
i'm going to go out on a limb and assume that what GGP means was that poker "mind games" were refering to the following: 1. know what your playstyle and betting patterns represent 2. know that your opponents are analyzing your play and betting for trends and information 3. purposely varying your playstyle and betting trends in order to disguise your hands
It works under the assumption that you are already doing all of that yourself, and trying to keep your opponents from doing the same to you.
do I raise 3x big blind reflexively every time I pre-flop raise so that a pair of queens in the hole looks the same to my opponent as as 10J suited? Do I throw in the occasional preflop raise with 56 suited and limp occasionally with a pair of kings so that my opponents can never be truly sure if I hit the flop or not (assuming i took those cards to showdown). Do I think that my opponent has made a pair of aces on the flop, and purposely check my made trips so that he will bet out his aces thinking he's in the lead or do I bet for value and, just as importantly, what did I do last time I was in this situation and who was paying attention when I did it?
It is completely true that if you don't understand basic things like drawing odds, pot odds, and concepts like "small hand small pot, big hand big pot", you're never going to go anywhere in poker... but once you do understand those concepts and basic strategy, and are playing a straightforward basic poker game, you will get -ripped apart- by decent players because you actually become -easier- to play against than the rank newbies who are just button mashing. your game is 100% transparant because everything you do means exactly what it seems.
Those "mind games" have to be woven in your game as your suit of armor. I think "mind games" is a bad term for it, but you absolutely have to do it if you're going to play against even semi-decent players.
I'd say that the "harrington on holdem" series should be a must-read for any player of any style of poker. Dan (and his co-author) has the rare combination of an insight into the game combined with an ability to explain that insight in a simple manner.
I'm not that huge a fan of "harrington on cash games", since a good portion of the book (or at least the portion I was slogging through when I put it down) is based on the idea that you're playing online for real money at one of the major sites using a heads up display. if you're an american, you're almost certainly not doing that anymore because the sites in question either A. are out of business, B. don't allow americans to play real money, or c. do allow real money but use technology that isn't compatable with the heads up displays he's so focused on.
I agree with the guy who said that the books won't teach a newbie how to play poker. They -will- teach someone who is at the end of the beginner phase or the beginning of the intermediate phase what they're missing and how to aquire those missing skills as quickly as possible. That was one of the wonderous things about Dan's books when I read them. I thought I was a "better than average" player when I read them, and they taught me that I was only "better than my friends" while showing me what I truly needed to learn.
I still read those books from time to time and I still learn new stuff from them even to this day.
Of course Hanlon is right. Any time on the internet will teach you that a good majority of "trolls" are actually stupid people who honestly believe stupid things. Excepting of course for sites where trolls tend to congretate for one reason or another... I'm speaking primarily of normal discussion sites.
I'm saying that if we get an anonymous bomb threat called into a hospital or an airport or something once ever, and there was no bomb, maybe it was a mistake. who knows. if it happens twice a month though, maybe we want to find those fuckers.
I never said 'find out everything about everybody who says anything'. I'm saying that anonymity is not and should not be superman's cape, protecting the wearer from any repercussions ever for anything they do. there is a happy middle ground there.
maybe don't post about it on youtube? or on any other place that eschews anonymity?
or better yet, if the potential poster is truly worried about the topic and his inability to post on it, how about a well-thought-out blog entry on why there is such misunderstanding about people over the age of 12 who play pokemon?
don't pussyfoot around if you truly feel you're in the right. If you think a topic is mischarecterized by society, take it head on. Force people to debate you on open ground. That's how opinions truly gets changed.
no, I was unaware of the historical origin of the arguement, but that doesn't change how it is used in the context of this discussion, and how about the other examples?
I would truly like to know from the people in this discussion who are championing ultimate anonymity as a paragon of free speech, at what point are those who are misusing anonymity to cause harm to society, and even those who are misusing it for the lulz, held accountable for their actions? ever?
I agree with you. I do the same thing. I don't post anything under my real name that I don't want linked back to me. The thing is, all that stuff I'm not saying under my real name? most of it is some level of conversational bullshit. Even this. 99.9% of the time, whatever it is that I'm saying under the pseudonyms probably doesn't really need to be said. I don't need to be saying this, right now. I could be doing work or eating my lunch instead.
while there are indeed valid uses for anonymity in the world, I fail to see too many cases where posting a comment on a youtube video is both socially and morally necessary, yet requires anonymity.
Perhaps in Syria or Iran, or China it does. In the free world, not so much. at least not yet anyway.
so the "fire in a crowded" theater guy should retain his anonymity? how about the guy calling in bomb threats to airports? how about the kid posting that some other, completely innocent, kid he doesn't happen to like is supposedly bringing a gun to school tomorrow?
where is your line? is there a line? is anybody responsible for anything anymore?
I never said anybody has the freedom not to be offended. In fact, if you had reading comprehension above the level of 2nd grade (since we're apparently resorting to personal attacks here mr. "spoken like a true dictator"), you'd note that I specifically posted a case where somebody exercised their freedom to offend others. I also posted the consequences of such.
Where is it written that "freedom of speech" necessarily includes "freedom from responsibility"? Nowhere that I've ever seen.
The problem with the slippery slope arguement is that people think it applies to everything. there are outlieing cases.
it's entirely possible to say "hey, you know what, maybe we don't let members of the public own thermonuclear weapons" without that meaning that everything else in the catagory of "weapon" from fully automatic assault rifles and flamethrowers down to potato guns and super soakers needs to be banned too.
ahh yes AC, but one of the key tenants of our freedoms is personal responsibility. you are free to do what you like within the law, but you are also responsible for any repercussions from said actions.
you can call a bunch of hecklers at your stand-up comedy show filthy niggers, and you -do- have that right... but the repercussions are that your career goes into the shitter.
I know I should be annoyed at the elimination of anonymous options, and in most any other setting I would be, but youtube? yeah I think I'd like to see this play out. just don't make a universal case out of it google.
I liked crystal pepsi too. it was a little different, but in a good way. pepsi crystal, which came out a few years later, was not the same thing at all!
huh? I thought one of the main knocks on unity was that linux users weren't allowed to dick around with the UI as much as they've classically been allowed to?
keep reading. [quote] market surveys at the end of 1985 showed Pepsi ahead of New Coke and Classic Coke combined. [/quote]
also, since you said that "many people can't stand to drink a full can of pepsi" I was showing that however many your "many people" are, they aren't enough to stop pepsi from selling a metric shitload of product.
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of Super Street Fighter II, Turbo Champion Hyper Fighting Edition madness from the 90s.
pretty sure at least one of those editions only added extra colorshift palates.
could be that the guy has a dozen people working under him with titles like VP of north american marketing, VP of central american marketing, VP of defending our IP from the chinese, VP of middle eastern marketing, etc.
he's "worldwide" cause he's in charge of all the smaller "wides"?
I would have tried OSX ages ago, if only Apple let me install it on hardware I already owned instead of purchasing new hardware which is spec'd damn near the same as what I've already got.
yes I'm aware of hackintosh'ing your machine. just seems like too much of a hassle.
I did try the OS in a VM. it was alright, but you can only learn so much about an OS from a VM. you've got to actually live with it a few months to really know what it's like.
you are aware -why- there was such a gap between xp and vista, right?
or are you just poking MS with a stick to amuse yourself?
i'm going to go out on a limb and assume that what GGP means was that poker "mind games" were refering to the following:
1. know what your playstyle and betting patterns represent
2. know that your opponents are analyzing your play and betting for trends and information
3. purposely varying your playstyle and betting trends in order to disguise your hands
It works under the assumption that you are already doing all of that yourself, and trying to keep your opponents from doing the same to you.
do I raise 3x big blind reflexively every time I pre-flop raise so that a pair of queens in the hole looks the same to my opponent as as 10J suited? Do I throw in the occasional preflop raise with 56 suited and limp occasionally with a pair of kings so that my opponents can never be truly sure if I hit the flop or not (assuming i took those cards to showdown). Do I think that my opponent has made a pair of aces on the flop, and purposely check my made trips so that he will bet out his aces thinking he's in the lead or do I bet for value and, just as importantly, what did I do last time I was in this situation and who was paying attention when I did it?
It is completely true that if you don't understand basic things like drawing odds, pot odds, and concepts like "small hand small pot, big hand big pot", you're never going to go anywhere in poker... but once you do understand those concepts and basic strategy, and are playing a straightforward basic poker game, you will get -ripped apart- by decent players because you actually become -easier- to play against than the rank newbies who are just button mashing. your game is 100% transparant because everything you do means exactly what it seems.
Those "mind games" have to be woven in your game as your suit of armor. I think "mind games" is a bad term for it, but you absolutely have to do it if you're going to play against even semi-decent players.
I'd say that the "harrington on holdem" series should be a must-read for any player of any style of poker. Dan (and his co-author) has the rare combination of an insight into the game combined with an ability to explain that insight in a simple manner.
I'm not that huge a fan of "harrington on cash games", since a good portion of the book (or at least the portion I was slogging through when I put it down) is based on the idea that you're playing online for real money at one of the major sites using a heads up display. if you're an american, you're almost certainly not doing that anymore because the sites in question either A. are out of business, B. don't allow americans to play real money, or c. do allow real money but use technology that isn't compatable with the heads up displays he's so focused on.
I agree with the guy who said that the books won't teach a newbie how to play poker. They -will- teach someone who is at the end of the beginner phase or the beginning of the intermediate phase what they're missing and how to aquire those missing skills as quickly as possible. That was one of the wonderous things about Dan's books when I read them. I thought I was a "better than average" player when I read them, and they taught me that I was only "better than my friends" while showing me what I truly needed to learn.
I still read those books from time to time and I still learn new stuff from them even to this day.
hah, I'd mod you up myself if I could.
If this post is any indication, I can totally understand why you'd fear your loss of anonymity.
Of course Hanlon is right. Any time on the internet will teach you that a good majority of "trolls" are actually stupid people who honestly believe stupid things. Excepting of course for sites where trolls tend to congretate for one reason or another... I'm speaking primarily of normal discussion sites.
I'm saying that if we get an anonymous bomb threat called into a hospital or an airport or something once ever, and there was no bomb, maybe it was a mistake. who knows. if it happens twice a month though, maybe we want to find those fuckers.
I never said 'find out everything about everybody who says anything'. I'm saying that anonymity is not and should not be superman's cape, protecting the wearer from any repercussions ever for anything they do. there is a happy middle ground there.
maybe don't post about it on youtube? or on any other place that eschews anonymity?
or better yet, if the potential poster is truly worried about the topic and his inability to post on it, how about a well-thought-out blog entry on why there is such misunderstanding about people over the age of 12 who play pokemon?
don't pussyfoot around if you truly feel you're in the right. If you think a topic is mischarecterized by society, take it head on. Force people to debate you on open ground. That's how opinions truly gets changed.
no, I was unaware of the historical origin of the arguement, but that doesn't change how it is used in the context of this discussion, and how about the other examples?
I would truly like to know from the people in this discussion who are championing ultimate anonymity as a paragon of free speech, at what point are those who are misusing anonymity to cause harm to society, and even those who are misusing it for the lulz, held accountable for their actions? ever?
When really you're just another bugshit Christian telling others how to behave.
wow... just wow.
you are SO far off base.
unless you were -trying- to offend me by callingme a christian.
i get it.
very meta.
I agree with you. I do the same thing. I don't post anything under my real name that I don't want linked back to me.
The thing is, all that stuff I'm not saying under my real name? most of it is some level of conversational bullshit. Even this.
99.9% of the time, whatever it is that I'm saying under the pseudonyms probably doesn't really need to be said.
I don't need to be saying this, right now. I could be doing work or eating my lunch instead.
while there are indeed valid uses for anonymity in the world, I fail to see too many cases where posting a comment on a youtube video is both socially and morally necessary, yet requires anonymity.
Perhaps in Syria or Iran, or China it does. In the free world, not so much. at least not yet anyway.
so the "fire in a crowded" theater guy should retain his anonymity?
how about the guy calling in bomb threats to airports?
how about the kid posting that some other, completely innocent, kid he doesn't happen to like is supposedly bringing a gun to school tomorrow?
where is your line? is there a line? is anybody responsible for anything anymore?
I never said anybody has the freedom not to be offended. In fact, if you had reading comprehension above the level of 2nd grade (since we're apparently resorting to personal attacks here mr. "spoken like a true dictator"), you'd note that I specifically posted a case where somebody exercised their freedom to offend others. I also posted the consequences of such.
Where is it written that "freedom of speech" necessarily includes "freedom from responsibility"? Nowhere that I've ever seen.
right, thus the "don't make it a universal case".
The problem with the slippery slope arguement is that people think it applies to everything. there are outlieing cases.
it's entirely possible to say "hey, you know what, maybe we don't let members of the public own thermonuclear weapons" without that meaning that everything else in the catagory of "weapon" from fully automatic assault rifles and flamethrowers down to potato guns and super soakers needs to be banned too.
ahh yes AC, but one of the key tenants of our freedoms is personal responsibility. you are free to do what you like within the law, but you are also responsible for any repercussions from said actions.
you can call a bunch of hecklers at your stand-up comedy show filthy niggers, and you -do- have that right... but the repercussions are that your career goes into the shitter.
I know I should be annoyed at the elimination of anonymous options, and in most any other setting I would be, but youtube? yeah I think I'd like to see this play out. just don't make a universal case out of it google.
ah my mistake.
so, like about as transparent as your shower door with some soap scum on it? 30% obfuscation seems like a lot...
I liked crystal pepsi too. it was a little different, but in a good way.
pepsi crystal, which came out a few years later, was not the same thing at all!
all true hackers drink jolt!
huh? I thought one of the main knocks on unity was that linux users weren't allowed to dick around with the UI as much as they've classically been allowed to?
man, damned if you do, damned if you don't...
keep reading.
[quote] market surveys at the end of 1985 showed Pepsi ahead of New Coke and Classic Coke combined. [/quote]
also, since you said that "many people can't stand to drink a full can of pepsi" I was showing that however many your "many people" are, they aren't enough to stop pepsi from selling a metric shitload of product.
you can get the "old" firefox interface with any of the newer versions. I've got 14.0.1 installed right now with the old look.
just go into "view" -> "toolbars" and change the "menu bar" setting.