People who run call centers have very good statistics available on the likelihood of various call volumes, and in an ideal world they staff accordingly, in a manner that's designed to meet minimum services levels X% of the time.
Call center staffing is, quite literally, a textbook problem from operations management.
This problem was the result of either a deliberate decision to provide inadequate service or gross incompetence. Either way, I wouldn't feel too good about Symantec if they were one of my vendors.
You have stated clearly that Bush is not historically significant. As such, that means his Iraq war is not significant.
As such, you clearly believe that the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, and the destruction of an entire country, for profit and revenge, is no big deal.
You're a sick, twisted, insane man. Or to be more brief: you're a fucking Republican.
I know there should be a rule against responding to fanbois, but I'm going to do it anyway.
1. The operating system is not the thing that needs to work on any computer. Your data is what needs to work on any computer.
I routinely work on the same data using Windows, Mac and FreeBSD machines. The only major exception to this is Office documents, which are always viewed using the Windows version of Office because, unfortunately, it is the only software that is truly compatible with that form of data.
2. I'm going to suggest that flexibility is overrated. Sure, it's fun to spend 40 hours tweaking every aspect of your computer just so. But it's probably better if you have a pretty damned computer on hour two, and you spend 38 hours working instead.
Some flexibility is good and neccessary. But desktop users should never, IMO, need to recompile a kernel, or anything along those lines. That's absurd. Even on the server level, that should be an optional step, for those few people who really need to save 22 megs of ram and 3 CPU cycles.
3. Security. This one is silly. It's a desktop PC. MAC doesn't do much of anything to address the security problems that are actually faced by desktop PCs. I'd argue that you get the best security from whichever system has the easiest to administer updates, simply because that means you are most likely to apply them in a timely manner.
4. Software Ecosystem. OS X has two major software ecosystems. It has the Unixy land of MacPorts and Fink, and then it has all the Mac apps too. If you want to buy TextMate, you can. If you want to run kde, or andjuta, you can do that. It's all possible. As far as I can tell, by moving to Linux, you actually get *less* choice.
5. Usability. I think a lot of this is really a matter of getting used to a new system. I say that as somebody who migrated from a heavily customized unix environment to OS X. It took me a day to feel productive. It took a week for things to feel normal. It took me months of constant use for me to realize how much more *work* i was getting done now that my applications were predictable, reliable and my focus was on my actual tasks, rather than on my system.
Thank you for tacitly confirming that you are, in fact, a registered GOP member.
It's funny, you fucks are all so transparent, it's incredible. It becomes obvious when you try to pretend that the slaughter of a hundred thousand innocent people is no big deal.
You heartless, inhuman, murderous fuck.
It almost makes me wish that God existed, because God would damn your ass to hell for your support of those murders.
Well, I say that having had the experience of having lots of meetings with police officers.
I don't think they really thought about the Constitution all day, but they were pretty universally uninterested in keeping tabs on everything. By far their biggest concerns were officer safety (system had to be simple, and low-distraction; system had to provide warnings if there was reason to believe the parties might be dangerous), and ease of oversight.
They wanted to be sure that if the state or the FBI called their office and asked 'who ran this plate, where and why did they run it?' that they were going to be able to answer those questions effectively.
I don't know if they had problems in their own department, or if they were simply relating stories they had heard, but I was told tales of "idiots" who used police resources for various personal uses (figuring out who was banging their girlfriend, figuring out who that hot girl was, seeing if somebody really was the celebrity that they resembled...) and the department wanted to make sure all that crap was if not impossible, at least difficult and well documented.
there is a general perception held by many that the ACLU is flawed and is just pushing a left leaning agenda. Perception is often more important than reality.
Millions upon millions of dollars are spent by various right-wing groups to vilify the ACLU. Often this is because they disagree with a single decision, usually one where they wanted the freedom to force other people to observe some aspect of their religion. Many times it is funded by groups who simply don't believe that freedom is a good thing, and who would strongly prefer a theocracy.
The ACLU can spend their money fighting for their "image", or they can fight for what they actually believe in. I am glad they spend their money doing good work, fighting for freedom.
Please note that in my actual post I linked to a recent article where the ACLU fought for a student's right to quote the Bible in her yearbook.
The ACLU has never been about removing religious belief from public life. They simply fight to make sure that one religion is not imposed on those of another group. Sadly, many religious people are unable to tell the difference between "we are not allowed to promote our religion in school" and an actual attack on their religion.
As for the pornography aspect, I will simply assume that you're trolling.
the hypocritical angry replies to the abuses that would surely follow if this was deployed widely, creating huge databases of the locations and habits of law abiding citizens and their non-stolen cars.
The right-wingers and the anti-civil-liberties nuts are spinning this as "ACLU wants to halt database of criminals" but reality is that this is not a database of criminals that is being built. It's a database of regular, innocent people, and an occasional criminal thrown in for flavor.
And there's no need for it. After all, why do you need to geotag my license plate when I have done no wrong? You want to arrest the criminals, sure, go for it. But I'm against the sort of intrusive government that wants to keep track of me as well, simply because the technology exists.
I'm not a Democrat, you presumptive, idiotic, Nazi fuck.
I'm a fucking Libertarian.
The Democrats have lots in common with the GOP, whereas we Libertarians just look at you fucking Nazis and think "dear fucking lord, what is wrong when people care more about their team winning than having a small, honest government... what is wrong when a party that claimed to like small government doubled the fucking debt"
Enjoy your fascist America, you idiotic twit.
The craziest part is that they get toad stools like you to stick up for the GOP even though it will never, ever benefit you in any significant way.
You're just an idiotic fucking pawn, singing the praises of the Republican fucking party.
I implemented a system that does basically this, as custom development for a police department in a small American city. It's worked fantastically well, but they had a lot of specific restrictions.
Examples: They didn't want fully automated scanning, because apparently it causes all sorts of legal troubles if you run some plates (undercovers, celebrities, people who are later stalked/attacked).
Also, they didn't want to geotag the searches (even though all of the data was available) because they specifically didn't want to build a database of people's locations outside their duties.
And lastly, they didn't want permanent data storage of *anything*. They wanted two years, to comply with various regulations and to allow time for investigation into abuses, but no more. After that, they wanted it gone forever.
As such, I find it very surprising that a police department would even have interest in building a tool that is so incredibly ripe for abuse, when it is likely to open them to all sorts of litigation, as evidenced by the ACLU lawsuit.
And as to the tools who claim the ACLU is just interested in freeing criminals, I'd remind you that the ACLU simply cares about rights, even though sometimes that's unpopular. They're willing to fight to let you quote the Bible in your yearbook, to prevent 13 year olds from being arrested for writing on their desks and as this article notes, they are also against recorded surveillance of innocent drivers.
It's telling that nearly all of the right-wingers in this thread have distorted the ACLU's actual complaint (that surveillance databases are being built against innocent drivers) and have replaced it with a claim that somehow the ACLU is against running plates altogether or direct claims that the ACLU is pro-criminal.
In June 2006, Caesar's Indiana made $22.8m on slots and $4.4m on table games. What's $500k between friends, when you have numbers like that?
That said, it's completely unsurprising since Caesar's is owned by Harrah's which is, quite possibly, the dumbest gaming company on the planet. They've blacklisted high-dollar non-advantage video poker players simply for getting too lucky, and hitting too many royal flushes. This in a game where the players in question were betting $25,000+/hr at a game where the house holds an unbeatable 0.5% advantage. "You want to give us $125/hr? Hell no, GET OUT!"
Give the market a couple years, and see where the Wii stands then.
The Wii will continue to have dominant market share, as it's particularly attractive to both older and younger game players.
Meanwhile, people who only play first person shooters will continue to believe that the Wii is merely "gimmicky", and that their console is better because it has more pixels.
And besides you lie about the economy, you continuously shift positions to try to get away from the fact that you continuously contradict yourself (mostly because you know that the GOP party line is factually unsupportable, so you state it, and then slowly back away)
Go fuck yourself with an AIDS stick, Mr GOP lackey.
If you think you have an open mind, I can't imagine what you think a closed one looks like, you fascist fuck.
You clearly claimed that it's all just partisan bickering, not something serious when you wrote:
I know. If only the other guys would say that more often, since they are always wrong.
Expecting our side to say that? Well, that's just plain ignorant!
then you said
. I'm amazed people can't see the irony in labeling Bush & Co as "evil".
a quote that only makes sense if you either don't know what irony is, if you believe they are a force for good or if you believe non-GOP-supporters are evil.
And then you admitted Bush wasn't a great president, with the caveat
but he's nothing particularly special, sorry.
None of these statements make any sense unless you truly believe that criticism of the current administration is purely partisan, that Bush & Co are good, that Liberals are evil, and that Bush didn't mess up that badly.
This clearly implies that you think the situation in Iraq is just great.
That or you're just an awful fucking troll who would service the world better as a plate of meat than you ever could as a "human being", because as a human being you're a lousy, ignorant, fascist pig.
When somebody says "the dollar plummeted" they mean "as compared to other major currencies".
Only an idealogical moron would bust out an inflation chart.
That said, you're so fucking stupid that you still claim the Iraq war isn't historically significant, so go fuck yourself, you idiotic cockface. I sincerely hope that terrorists kill your family in revenge for the 100k+ dead Iraqis that you don't care about at all.
Then maybe you'll realize that the mistakes in Iraq are historically significant.
For a nation that invades other nations every few years like clockwork,
It gets into a lot of wars, invasions and other crap. But almost none of them have been handled as awfully as Iraq. Vietnam is the only mistake in the same zip code, and it was certainly historically significant.
I continue to hold that the fuckup in Iraq is historically significant, and that anybody who argues otherwise is trying their damnedest to misguide you about how expensive, how pointless and how awful that invasion has gone.
has a currency that has been steadily plummeting for nearly a century,
Okay, this one is just not true. The dollar has been cyclical, but there have been many significant periods where it was one of the strongest currencies in the world. Basically your entire claim is completely false.
and has never thought anything of invading the privacy of it's citizens.
Sure, but this isn't the reason Bush is historically significant as a terrible president.
I'm through with you. This last post of yours, more than any other, proved that you have absolutely no interest in truth. Previous posts left a shadow of a chance that you were interested in truth, but just drew the lines in odd places. But in this one you made outright, provably false claims, and completely asinine arguments.
Agreed. Although for you and I it is probably exciting to watch the raw unedited real thing. I watched 12 hours of the WSOP final table live, unedited, and without hole cards myself.:-)
I probably watched three or four hours of that feed. Enough to make me wish I had entered this year. (Though in reality, I despise mega-tournaments, and would probably be happier if I busted on day 1 and just played PLO for a week.)
Second, notice that what you are really saying is that in tournaments with rising blind levels there are times in the endgame when the game becomes more like limit hold'em --- the options are reduced.
That's a really gross mischaracterization of limit. I'd venture to say that the final table of an NLHE tournament is a lot like LHE... if the average limit stack was 1.5bets. But that doesn't happen, even in tournament LHE.
I'm not sure if you're mischaracterizing limit on purpose, or if you're just a no-limit-only donkey. My money is on the latter.
Also, these bots are not attempting to win tournaments, they are playing cash games with static blind levels.
One could propose an argument that deep stack no-limit is more complex than deep stack limit. I'm not sure it could be satisfactorily answered at this point in time, as limit and no-limit punish different classes of errors. I've heard strong arguments in both directions, and having played both, I mostly just think they're different.
Unfortunately, you claimed that no-limit is more popular to watch on television, because it is more complex. The kind of no-limit watched on television is not deep-stack no-limit. It's exceptionally short-stack no-limit. As such, you are essentially abandoning your original argument, and substituting a new (and substantially more sound) one.
I was referring to the claims you meant in your *other* troll/post.
Of course you know that. YOu're just pretending not to, because you don't want to admit that you're nothing more than a shrill Republican troll, trying to claim that the mistakes of the past 6 years weren't that bad. Certainly nothing of significance!
Oh, and as for your claim that my example was carictured, I'd note that at WPT final tables, a standard pf raise is nearly always for 20+% of their chips, thus meaning that anybody who chooses to defend is essentially in a 'push/fold' situation.
Occasionally somebody decides to just call, and then push/fold on the flop, but that's all their is, when it comes to televised poker, excepting HSP, and the early stages of PAD. But neither of those are mainstream like WPT final tables.
And besides NLHE would be dead boring to television audiences if they saw how it really played out. It's only exciting because there's a huge amount of money on the line, and they know that better than 50% of the hands they watch will involve significant action.
Well the main point I was making was about computational complexity.
And I think your point is dead false, especially when it comes to televised poker, in which the blinds are always very large, and the stacks quite short, meaning that the correct move is almost always mathematically provable, if one had the inclination.
If one was allowed, one could sit at the table with software like SNG Analyzer, enter the tournament structure, and assuming the player was capable of making decent estimates of people's raise and fold ranges, they could play near optimally, just by knowing how opponents play pre-flop.
It seems almost like you agree with me, that the only reason it's exciting is because it is very simple, and all the chips are at risk on every hand. This is the opposite of complexity.
And FWIW, I am far more bothered by the moderators reaction to your post, than your post. It's not insightful. It's wrong.
There's this myth among new players that no-limit is more exciting. It's so fucking wrong.
The worst part of it, is it's always (always!) spouted by somebody who is so incapable at limit, that they couldn't beat a 20/40 game, let alone any of the high stakes games.
Limit hold'em doesn't televise well because it's hard for an amateur to understand the nuance of what's going on.
Example: A loose and aggressive button open-raises, and you defend the big blind with ATo. The flop comes down: A82r. You know your opponent will bet if checked to a vast majority of the time.
What do you do?
Check-raise the flop, bet the turn and river? check-call the flop and try for a check-raise on the turn? What's your plan if you get three-bet on your check-raise, or if you get raised on one of your bets?
Picking the best possible line for your particular opponent will probably earn you an extra half a big bet when you win, and save you about 1 bet when you lose. Not too exciting, but very detailed.
Now let's do the televised NLHE final table situation:
the blinds are 40k/80k, and there's a 10k ante. 4 players remain.
A loose and aggressive button open-raises to 320k. You have 1.5m chips.
Do you go all-in, fold, or flat-call with an intention of going all-in on any flop.
The NLHE situation is vastly simpler than the LHE one, it's just more exciting to plebians, because it's more of an 'all or nothing' situation.
Slashdot Mirror
People who run call centers have very good statistics available on the likelihood of various call volumes, and in an ideal world they staff accordingly, in a manner that's designed to meet minimum services levels X% of the time.
Call center staffing is, quite literally, a textbook problem from operations management.
This problem was the result of either a deliberate decision to provide inadequate service or gross incompetence. Either way, I wouldn't feel too good about Symantec if they were one of my vendors.
Clearly I'm not wrong.
You have stated clearly that Bush is not historically significant. As such, that means his Iraq war is not significant.
As such, you clearly believe that the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, and the destruction of an entire country, for profit and revenge, is no big deal.
You're a sick, twisted, insane man. Or to be more brief: you're a fucking Republican.
Go kill some more brown people, you fascist fuck.
And I'm leaning towards you being a murderous thug who believes that it's no big deal to kill 100,000 people.
Sadly, that puts you in a huge fucking club of heartless inhuman monsters.
I know there should be a rule against responding to fanbois, but I'm going to do it anyway.
1. The operating system is not the thing that needs to work on any computer. Your data is what needs to work on any computer.
I routinely work on the same data using Windows, Mac and FreeBSD machines. The only major exception to this is Office documents, which are always viewed using the Windows version of Office because, unfortunately, it is the only software that is truly compatible with that form of data.
2. I'm going to suggest that flexibility is overrated. Sure, it's fun to spend 40 hours tweaking every aspect of your computer just so. But it's probably better if you have a pretty damned computer on hour two, and you spend 38 hours working instead.
Some flexibility is good and neccessary. But desktop users should never, IMO, need to recompile a kernel, or anything along those lines. That's absurd. Even on the server level, that should be an optional step, for those few people who really need to save 22 megs of ram and 3 CPU cycles.
3. Security. This one is silly. It's a desktop PC. MAC doesn't do much of anything to address the security problems that are actually faced by desktop PCs. I'd argue that you get the best security from whichever system has the easiest to administer updates, simply because that means you are most likely to apply them in a timely manner.
4. Software Ecosystem. OS X has two major software ecosystems. It has the Unixy land of MacPorts and Fink, and then it has all the Mac apps too. If you want to buy TextMate, you can. If you want to run kde, or andjuta, you can do that. It's all possible. As far as I can tell, by moving to Linux, you actually get *less* choice.
5. Usability. I think a lot of this is really a matter of getting used to a new system. I say that as somebody who migrated from a heavily customized unix environment to OS X. It took me a day to feel productive. It took a week for things to feel normal. It took me months of constant use for me to realize how much more *work* i was getting done now that my applications were predictable, reliable and my focus was on my actual tasks, rather than on my system.
Thank you for tacitly confirming that you are, in fact, a registered GOP member.
It's funny, you fucks are all so transparent, it's incredible. It becomes obvious when you try to pretend that the slaughter of a hundred thousand innocent people is no big deal.
You heartless, inhuman, murderous fuck.
It almost makes me wish that God existed, because God would damn your ass to hell for your support of those murders.
Well, I say that having had the experience of having lots of meetings with police officers.
I don't think they really thought about the Constitution all day, but they were pretty universally uninterested in keeping tabs on everything. By far their biggest concerns were officer safety (system had to be simple, and low-distraction; system had to provide warnings if there was reason to believe the parties might be dangerous), and ease of oversight.
They wanted to be sure that if the state or the FBI called their office and asked 'who ran this plate, where and why did they run it?' that they were going to be able to answer those questions effectively.
I don't know if they had problems in their own department, or if they were simply relating stories they had heard, but I was told tales of "idiots" who used police resources for various personal uses (figuring out who was banging their girlfriend, figuring out who that hot girl was, seeing if somebody really was the celebrity that they resembled...) and the department wanted to make sure all that crap was if not impossible, at least difficult and well documented.
there is a general perception held by many that the ACLU is flawed and is just pushing a left leaning agenda. Perception is often more important than reality.
Millions upon millions of dollars are spent by various right-wing groups to vilify the ACLU. Often this is because they disagree with a single decision, usually one where they wanted the freedom to force other people to observe some aspect of their religion. Many times it is funded by groups who simply don't believe that freedom is a good thing, and who would strongly prefer a theocracy.
The ACLU can spend their money fighting for their "image", or they can fight for what they actually believe in. I am glad they spend their money doing good work, fighting for freedom.
Please note that in my actual post I linked to a recent article where the ACLU fought for a student's right to quote the Bible in her yearbook. The ACLU has never been about removing religious belief from public life. They simply fight to make sure that one religion is not imposed on those of another group. Sadly, many religious people are unable to tell the difference between "we are not allowed to promote our religion in school" and an actual attack on their religion. As for the pornography aspect, I will simply assume that you're trolling.
the hypocritical angry replies to the abuses that would surely follow if this was deployed widely, creating huge databases of the locations and habits of law abiding citizens and their non-stolen cars. The right-wingers and the anti-civil-liberties nuts are spinning this as "ACLU wants to halt database of criminals" but reality is that this is not a database of criminals that is being built. It's a database of regular, innocent people, and an occasional criminal thrown in for flavor. And there's no need for it. After all, why do you need to geotag my license plate when I have done no wrong? You want to arrest the criminals, sure, go for it. But I'm against the sort of intrusive government that wants to keep track of me as well, simply because the technology exists.
I'm not a Democrat, you presumptive, idiotic, Nazi fuck.
I'm a fucking Libertarian.
The Democrats have lots in common with the GOP, whereas we Libertarians just look at you fucking Nazis and think "dear fucking lord, what is wrong when people care more about their team winning than having a small, honest government... what is wrong when a party that claimed to like small government doubled the fucking debt"
Enjoy your fascist America, you idiotic twit.
The craziest part is that they get toad stools like you to stick up for the GOP even though it will never, ever benefit you in any significant way.
You're just an idiotic fucking pawn, singing the praises of the Republican fucking party.
HEIL BUSH, HEIL CHENEY, HEIL GOP FOREVER!
I'm surprised by the way this system works.
I implemented a system that does basically this, as custom development for a police department in a small American city. It's worked fantastically well, but they had a lot of specific restrictions.
Examples:
They didn't want fully automated scanning, because apparently it causes all sorts of legal troubles if you run some plates (undercovers, celebrities, people who are later stalked/attacked).
Also, they didn't want to geotag the searches (even though all of the data was available) because they specifically didn't want to build a database of people's locations outside their duties.
And lastly, they didn't want permanent data storage of *anything*. They wanted two years, to comply with various regulations and to allow time for investigation into abuses, but no more. After that, they wanted it gone forever.
As such, I find it very surprising that a police department would even have interest in building a tool that is so incredibly ripe for abuse, when it is likely to open them to all sorts of litigation, as evidenced by the ACLU lawsuit.
And as to the tools who claim the ACLU is just interested in freeing criminals, I'd remind you that the ACLU simply cares about rights, even though sometimes that's unpopular. They're willing to fight to let you quote the Bible in your yearbook, to prevent 13 year olds from being arrested for writing on their desks and as this article notes, they are also against recorded surveillance of innocent drivers.
It's telling that nearly all of the right-wingers in this thread have distorted the ACLU's actual complaint (that surveillance databases are being built against innocent drivers) and have replaced it with a claim that somehow the ACLU is against running plates altogether or direct claims that the ACLU is pro-criminal.
Casino ATMs all do $100s, and I once used a supermarket ATM that even dispensed coins if you wanted them.
In June 2006, Caesar's Indiana made $22.8m on slots and $4.4m on table games. What's $500k between friends, when you have numbers like that?
That said, it's completely unsurprising since Caesar's is owned by Harrah's which is, quite possibly, the dumbest gaming company on the planet. They've blacklisted high-dollar non-advantage video poker players simply for getting too lucky, and hitting too many royal flushes. This in a game where the players in question were betting $25,000+/hr at a game where the house holds an unbeatable 0.5% advantage. "You want to give us $125/hr? Hell no, GET OUT!"
Give the market a couple years, and see where the Wii stands then.
The Wii will continue to have dominant market share, as it's particularly attractive to both older and younger game players.
Meanwhile, people who only play first person shooters will continue to believe that the Wii is merely "gimmicky", and that their console is better because it has more pixels.
And besides you lie about the economy, you continuously shift positions to try to get away from the fact that you continuously contradict yourself (mostly because you know that the GOP party line is factually unsupportable, so you state it, and then slowly back away)
Go fuck yourself with an AIDS stick, Mr GOP lackey.
If you think you have an open mind, I can't imagine what you think a closed one looks like, you fascist fuck.
then you said
a quote that only makes sense if you either don't know what irony is, if you believe they are a force for good or if you believe non-GOP-supporters are evil.
And then you admitted Bush wasn't a great president, with the caveat
None of these statements make any sense unless you truly believe that criticism of the current administration is purely partisan, that Bush & Co are good, that Liberals are evil, and that Bush didn't mess up that badly.
This clearly implies that you think the situation in Iraq is just great.
That or you're just an awful fucking troll who would service the world better as a plate of meat than you ever could as a "human being", because as a human being you're a lousy, ignorant, fascist pig.
More idiocy from the right-wing shit.
When somebody says "the dollar plummeted" they mean "as compared to other major currencies".
Only an idealogical moron would bust out an inflation chart.
That said, you're so fucking stupid that you still claim the Iraq war isn't historically significant, so go fuck yourself, you idiotic cockface. I sincerely hope that terrorists kill your family in revenge for the 100k+ dead Iraqis that you don't care about at all.
Then maybe you'll realize that the mistakes in Iraq are historically significant.
For a nation that invades other nations every few years like clockwork,
It gets into a lot of wars, invasions and other crap. But almost none of them have been handled as awfully as Iraq. Vietnam is the only mistake in the same zip code, and it was certainly historically significant.
I continue to hold that the fuckup in Iraq is historically significant, and that anybody who argues otherwise is trying their damnedest to misguide you about how expensive, how pointless and how awful that invasion has gone.
has a currency that has been steadily plummeting for nearly a century,
Okay, this one is just not true. The dollar has been cyclical, but there have been many significant periods where it was one of the strongest currencies in the world. Basically your entire claim is completely false.
and has never thought anything of invading the privacy of it's citizens.
Sure, but this isn't the reason Bush is historically significant as a terrible president.
I'm through with you. This last post of yours, more than any other, proved that you have absolutely no interest in truth. Previous posts left a shadow of a chance that you were interested in truth, but just drew the lines in odd places. But in this one you made outright, provably false claims, and completely asinine arguments.
Fuck off, you lying cunt.
Agreed. Although for you and I it is probably exciting to watch the raw unedited real thing. I watched 12 hours of the WSOP final table live, unedited, and without hole cards myself. :-)
I probably watched three or four hours of that feed. Enough to make me wish I had entered this year. (Though in reality, I despise mega-tournaments, and would probably be happier if I busted on day 1 and just played PLO for a week.)
Second, notice that what you are really saying is that in tournaments with rising blind levels there are times in the endgame when the game becomes more like limit hold'em --- the options are reduced.
That's a really gross mischaracterization of limit. I'd venture to say that the final table of an NLHE tournament is a lot like LHE... if the average limit stack was 1.5bets. But that doesn't happen, even in tournament LHE.
I'm not sure if you're mischaracterizing limit on purpose, or if you're just a no-limit-only donkey. My money is on the latter.
Also, these bots are not attempting to win tournaments, they are playing cash games with static blind levels.
One could propose an argument that deep stack no-limit is more complex than deep stack limit. I'm not sure it could be satisfactorily answered at this point in time, as limit and no-limit punish different classes of errors. I've heard strong arguments in both directions, and having played both, I mostly just think they're different.
Unfortunately, you claimed that no-limit is more popular to watch on television, because it is more complex. The kind of no-limit watched on television is not deep-stack no-limit. It's exceptionally short-stack no-limit. As such, you are essentially abandoning your original argument, and substituting a new (and substantially more sound) one.
What a filthy Registered Republican liar you are.
I was referring to the claims you meant in your *other* troll/post.
Of course you know that. YOu're just pretending not to, because you don't want to admit that you're nothing more than a shrill Republican troll, trying to claim that the mistakes of the past 6 years weren't that bad. Certainly nothing of significance!
HEIL GOP! Right, mein feepness?
Yep. That's why most people suck at it. It's just not that exciting to think about such details.
Oh, and as for your claim that my example was carictured, I'd note that at WPT final tables, a standard pf raise is nearly always for 20+% of their chips, thus meaning that anybody who chooses to defend is essentially in a 'push/fold' situation.
Occasionally somebody decides to just call, and then push/fold on the flop, but that's all their is, when it comes to televised poker, excepting HSP, and the early stages of PAD. But neither of those are mainstream like WPT final tables.
And besides NLHE would be dead boring to television audiences if they saw how it really played out. It's only exciting because there's a huge amount of money on the line, and they know that better than 50% of the hands they watch will involve significant action.
Well the main point I was making was about computational complexity.
And I think your point is dead false, especially when it comes to televised poker, in which the blinds are always very large, and the stacks quite short, meaning that the correct move is almost always mathematically provable, if one had the inclination.
If one was allowed, one could sit at the table with software like SNG Analyzer, enter the tournament structure, and assuming the player was capable of making decent estimates of people's raise and fold ranges, they could play near optimally, just by knowing how opponents play pre-flop.
It seems almost like you agree with me, that the only reason it's exciting is because it is very simple, and all the chips are at risk on every hand. This is the opposite of complexity.
And FWIW, I am far more bothered by the moderators reaction to your post, than your post. It's not insightful. It's wrong.
There's this myth among new players that no-limit is more exciting. It's so fucking wrong.
The worst part of it, is it's always (always!) spouted by somebody who is so incapable at limit, that they couldn't beat a 20/40 game, let alone any of the high stakes games.
Limit hold'em doesn't televise well because it's hard for an amateur to understand the nuance of what's going on.
Example:
A loose and aggressive button open-raises, and you defend the big blind with ATo. The flop comes down: A82r. You know your opponent will bet if checked to a vast majority of the time.
What do you do?
Check-raise the flop, bet the turn and river? check-call the flop and try for a check-raise on the turn? What's your plan if you get three-bet on your check-raise, or if you get raised on one of your bets?
Picking the best possible line for your particular opponent will probably earn you an extra half a big bet when you win, and save you about 1 bet when you lose. Not too exciting, but very detailed.
Now let's do the televised NLHE final table situation:
the blinds are 40k/80k, and there's a 10k ante. 4 players remain.
A loose and aggressive button open-raises to 320k. You have 1.5m chips.
Do you go all-in, fold, or flat-call with an intention of going all-in on any flop.
The NLHE situation is vastly simpler than the LHE one, it's just more exciting to plebians, because it's more of an 'all or nothing' situation.