I'd be willing to wager that at any major poker site the rules of the game and the honesty of the house is greater than at a brick and mortar shop. A site like Full Tilt Poker has hundreds of thousands of players. A very high percentage of those players are using Poker Tracker to log all their hands. That gives millions of hands to analyze. If something is off, it will be caught quickly. And the sites have too much at stake to run a crooked game. They make enough just from the rake.
I'd guess you have more to worry about from a corrupt dealer at a real casino then you do from the house online.
Of course, online you have to contend with people running bots and colluding. But then again similar things happen in real life as well. I'm not really concerned with any of that though. The only reason why I don't play online is that the games are just harder to beat. The hands come so much quicker that the fish lose their money and quit much faster. In a casino, they tend to stick around longer and give me more of their money.
The gambling industry might not self monitor, but the hundreds of thousands of users do. On a site like Poker Stars or Full Tilt Poker, you have thousands of users logging every hand they play with software like Poker Tracker. These are the kind of people who play thousands of hands each. You have such a large sample that any statistical deviation from what is expected is spotted right away. If it was leaked that a large site was being anything but random and there was proof, they'd lose the customers instantly. Besides they don't need to cheat. The pool of users is so large that they can make tons of money if with small margins.
Gambling is not necessarily a losing proposition. Some games the house always has an advantage (black jack, roulette, etc), but those aren't the only gambling games out there. In poker for instance, you aren't playing against the house. You are playing against other players. Sure, most of them lose, but some players are winners. It's not that hard to be a winning player at small stakes.
Sports gambling is another area where you can consistently win. The house makes money on the vig. All the care about is setting lines so that half the money is bet on each side. If you have inside information, or are a very good handicapper, you can win money gambling this way.
Poker and sports gambling are really no different that something like managing a hedge fund or options trading. They are also forms of gambling, but gambling in a situation where you can stack the odds in your favor.
Not necessarily. He could have been writing songs for others, producing music, charging for use of his studio, living off investments, etc. Royalties from record sales may have (and probably was) only a small part of his income.
I'm going to guess that Brendan Perry made more money from his last tour (based on the ticket prices I saw) than he has made in royalties in quite some time. How many DCD records can really be sold every year? I'd guess at most 10,000. That isn't much of a living.
I know that the article says this affects Rockbox, but I'm unsure as to how? Rockbox replaces the iPod software with new software. It replaces the iPod song database with its own. The hash should be meaningless to it. Of course, Rockbox doesn't yet run on the new iPods, so the point is moot right now.
You can buy home propane wok rings like this one. Or do What I do, fire up a chimney starter full of charcoal and then put the wok on top when the coals get super hot.
I use On Demand all the time. I watched the entire Soprano's season in HD On Demand. It allowed me to watch in 3 hour chunks without using up the space on my DVR. I don't look at most of the On Demand section, but I do look through the HD On Demand section, and very often find a movie or two I want to watch. I'd rather watch a movie in HD than the DVD, it simply looks better.
The problem arises though when the $LESSER_QUALITY_THING actually has more features than the $HIGHER_QUALITY_THING. I agree both TiVo and MythTV are higher quality than my cable box. However, my cable box allows me to record HD seamlessly on two different stations and access On Demand programing.
MythTV can't do that unless I rent two cable boxes. TiVo requires me to rent CableCards. Unfortunately for TiVo, renting a cable card still doesn't give me On Demand, and the cost of renting the cable box is just about equal to renting a CableCard. So I loose features and increase the cost (+hardware$, +Subscription$) by going with the $HIGHER_QUALITY_THING.
It's hard to put someone on an ace when there are two on the board and one in my hand. Him holding an ace is extremely unlikely. If this was a ten handed game and we saw the flop heads up, it would still be unlikely, but less so. If I call and he shows an ace, I just chalk it up to a cold deck and move on.
If I give him the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't raise without out some kind of hand, I can fairly easily define his hand as:
any pair, Ax, Kx suited, K-10+, QJ+, 87+ suited. That is basically my opening raise range heads up. Out of those only some could move in on the flop. I'd say any pair would do it except for probably KK. Ax would probably do it as long as it wasn't AK. Any straight flush draw could do it as well. And Kx would be likely to do it. Of the hands likely to move in there, the only hand that beats me is Ax where x > 2. We've already established that of the hands he could hold that is least likely because of all the aces already gone. And even if he does hold that hand I still have 3 outs twice to win. Plus there are a lot of outs to chop. Any card higher than his kicker will chop. Plus if whatever comes on the turn is paired on the river we chop.
Of course if he turns over KK or AK I'm in a world of hurt (4 outs and 2 outs respectively), but I just can't see someone pushing with either of those two hands. Once again, he would know the only hand that could call is Ax, and that hand is least likely because of the board.
In a heads up game, I don't believe I could ever fold top set. Maybe, and only maybe, if the stacks were really deep, and my opponent was a horrible player, I could do it. But I doubt it.
Of course, most of this depends on what happened pre-flop. If this was a limped pot, I'm going to call. If he raised pre-flop I'm more likely to put him on a hand that beats mine badly.
1) Is far from trivial as there are 1,325 possible hand that the opponent could hold. Also, the number of hands and your odds of winning changes with every street. Plus, your opponent always has a chance to act too. Your opponents bets do give some information about the strength of his hand
2) Again, far from trivial. The best move against a weak passive player is different than against a tight passive player. Do you know how he is playing? Has he switched up? The best move might be a check raise, but you do you know he won't check behind?
3) This is actually very important. Certain players can be pushed around more than others. You have to know how your opponents are playing to find their leaks and exploit them. If I know you always throw out a continuation bet on the flop, I can check raise you. If you either fit or fold, I'm better off betting into you.
4) This still doesn't include bluffing. If you only play to maximize your hand value, you will be a losing player. Because everyone gets the same cards in the long run, the best you could hope for is that you maximize leaving you breaking even. Any mistake you make costs you money.
7-2 off suit will never have a winning percentage good enough for your system to try to maximize it. But depending on position, previous action, and who acts after me, I can raise with it and make it's expected value quite high.
My problem with limit holdem, especially at small stakes, is that it turns me into a robot. The pot odds are so easy to calculate and almost always in my favor that it just becomes a robotic exercise for me. In your example, I bet the flop. Sure, I might miss one bet if I don't check raise, but it's only one bet. If he raises my bet, I call and check call the rest of the way down. If he calls I bet again on the turn. If he folds, I may have missed one bet, but it is counteracted by the bets I save when I check raise with the worse hand.
Why I prefer no limit is because deep stacks make much more interesting play. I will concede that most final tables on TV are boring. But if you watch a show like High Stakes Poker, or a show that televises early tournament play, you will see much more interesting moves. Betting the exact amount to give the flush draw the wrong odds to chase for example.
Actually, AK there is the nuts. The fact that him holding one ace means there is only one left in the deck. Therefore quad aces is not a possible hand. The best hand possible is AAAKK. There is only one had that can worry AK at all here. That would be if two of the cards on the flop were suited and the opponent held some combination of J-10-Q of that same suit. That is a very unlikely hand to hold, and to draw to that is even more unlikely. So AK really has nothing to be scared of here. That would mean that the opponent is unlikely to be holding AK unless he is on some sort of bluff to appear weak. More than likely he has something like KK or Ax. You actually loose to both of those hands right now, so I'd suggest folding.
How is picketing hurting their rights at all. He's not keeping them from the synagogue. He isn't hurting their freedom of religion in the slightest. The second he hurts someone or physically stops someone from entering the synagogue he's stepped over the line, but until then it's free speech.
I would very much like more wolves and bears in the woods. They do plenty of good, and any harm they do is greatly exaggerated.
Humans also evolved to kill the weaker animals. It only became fairly recently (the last few centuries) that we became capable of focusing only on the strongest and biggest animals.
'd be staunchly against your proposal of hunters killing young, sick, or old animals due to one fact:
1. They are less useful (less good meat, trophies, furs)
But that wasn't the argument. I would not argue that the sick and weak animals are good for anything but culling the population. However, the argument was that hunting is an effective form of population control. And I continue to insist that it isn't. It doesn't take much logical thought that if you cull the population by consistently killing the best animals, you are exerting a reproductive advantage to the ones who don't meet your criteria. In essence, we are performing the exact opposite of natural selection.
I have nothing against hunting or hunters as long as they stick to species that are populous enough to withstand it. What I do have a problem with is people making bogus arguments to justify it. Hunting is not a substitution for natural predation.
Hunting should be allowed but regulated because it helps manage populations.
The best way to manage populations is with the natural predators. When a wolf or panther kills a deer, which deer does it kill? The old, the sick, the weak, or the very young; regardless of sex. When a hunter kills a deer which one does he kill? The biggest the strongest male he finds. Not exactly the way nature intended. If regulate hunters actually meant regulating them to act like predators, I'd be all for it. And I'm not against hunting certain species who's populations have exploded. But human hunting as it exists now is a poor method for managing populations.
But we outlawed off shore gambling on horses. We also outlawed off shore sports gambling. The WTO says we can't. The US said they outlawed it for moral reasons, but the WTO said that as long as you have some online gambling you can't use that excuse.
We do allow domestic online gambling. You can gamble on horse racing online legally in the united states. This is Antigua's argument. We either have to ban it all, or ban none.
It wasn't clear from the article, but I assumed that the large existing mammals and birds died off as well. What the article stated was the the lineages already had split. So there was a proto-primate and other proto groups. The actually surviving species may have been quite small though.
Most cerebral films simply don't put a lot of butts in the seats. They almost always play to a smaller audience then your action/eye-candy film. The problem is that sci-fi movies are going to usually be more expensive to produce because they generally have to use more special effects to be believable. Movies rarely get made if they don't make money and spending a huge chunck of change for a movie with a limited auidience isn't a great idea.
Just out of curiosity, do you listen to the albums that those people released pre '94? KMFDM in particular probably peaked in the years from '88 - '94.
They actually tackled this on mythbusters. The idea of kickstarting a florescent is largely a myth. Basically if you need it for more than a few seconds, it will always be better than an incandescent.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be willing to wager that at any major poker site the rules of the game and the honesty of the house is greater than at a brick and mortar shop. A site like Full Tilt Poker has hundreds of thousands of players. A very high percentage of those players are using Poker Tracker to log all their hands. That gives millions of hands to analyze. If something is off, it will be caught quickly. And the sites have too much at stake to run a crooked game. They make enough just from the rake.
I'd guess you have more to worry about from a corrupt dealer at a real casino then you do from the house online.
Of course, online you have to contend with people running bots and colluding. But then again similar things happen in real life as well. I'm not really concerned with any of that though. The only reason why I don't play online is that the games are just harder to beat. The hands come so much quicker that the fish lose their money and quit much faster. In a casino, they tend to stick around longer and give me more of their money.
The gambling industry might not self monitor, but the hundreds of thousands of users do. On a site like Poker Stars or Full Tilt Poker, you have thousands of users logging every hand they play with software like Poker Tracker. These are the kind of people who play thousands of hands each. You have such a large sample that any statistical deviation from what is expected is spotted right away. If it was leaked that a large site was being anything but random and there was proof, they'd lose the customers instantly. Besides they don't need to cheat. The pool of users is so large that they can make tons of money if with small margins.
Gambling is not necessarily a losing proposition. Some games the house always has an advantage (black jack, roulette, etc), but those aren't the only gambling games out there. In poker for instance, you aren't playing against the house. You are playing against other players. Sure, most of them lose, but some players are winners. It's not that hard to be a winning player at small stakes. Sports gambling is another area where you can consistently win. The house makes money on the vig. All the care about is setting lines so that half the money is bet on each side. If you have inside information, or are a very good handicapper, you can win money gambling this way. Poker and sports gambling are really no different that something like managing a hedge fund or options trading. They are also forms of gambling, but gambling in a situation where you can stack the odds in your favor.
Not necessarily. He could have been writing songs for others, producing music, charging for use of his studio, living off investments, etc. Royalties from record sales may have (and probably was) only a small part of his income.
I'm going to guess that Brendan Perry made more money from his last tour (based on the ticket prices I saw) than he has made in royalties in quite some time. How many DCD records can really be sold every year? I'd guess at most 10,000. That isn't much of a living.
I know that the article says this affects Rockbox, but I'm unsure as to how? Rockbox replaces the iPod software with new software. It replaces the iPod song database with its own. The hash should be meaningless to it. Of course, Rockbox doesn't yet run on the new iPods, so the point is moot right now.
You can buy home propane wok rings like this one. Or do What I do, fire up a chimney starter full of charcoal and then put the wok on top when the coals get super hot.
I use On Demand all the time. I watched the entire Soprano's season in HD On Demand. It allowed me to watch in 3 hour chunks without using up the space on my DVR. I don't look at most of the On Demand section, but I do look through the HD On Demand section, and very often find a movie or two I want to watch. I'd rather watch a movie in HD than the DVD, it simply looks better.
The problem arises though when the $LESSER_QUALITY_THING actually has more features than the $HIGHER_QUALITY_THING. I agree both TiVo and MythTV are higher quality than my cable box. However, my cable box allows me to record HD seamlessly on two different stations and access On Demand programing.
MythTV can't do that unless I rent two cable boxes. TiVo requires me to rent CableCards. Unfortunately for TiVo, renting a cable card still doesn't give me On Demand, and the cost of renting the cable box is just about equal to renting a CableCard. So I loose features and increase the cost (+hardware$, +Subscription$) by going with the $HIGHER_QUALITY_THING.
It's hard to put someone on an ace when there are two on the board and one in my hand. Him holding an ace is extremely unlikely. If this was a ten handed game and we saw the flop heads up, it would still be unlikely, but less so. If I call and he shows an ace, I just chalk it up to a cold deck and move on.
If I give him the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't raise without out some kind of hand, I can fairly easily define his hand as: any pair, Ax, Kx suited, K-10+, QJ+, 87+ suited. That is basically my opening raise range heads up. Out of those only some could move in on the flop. I'd say any pair would do it except for probably KK. Ax would probably do it as long as it wasn't AK. Any straight flush draw could do it as well. And Kx would be likely to do it. Of the hands likely to move in there, the only hand that beats me is Ax where x > 2. We've already established that of the hands he could hold that is least likely because of all the aces already gone. And even if he does hold that hand I still have 3 outs twice to win. Plus there are a lot of outs to chop. Any card higher than his kicker will chop. Plus if whatever comes on the turn is paired on the river we chop.
Of course if he turns over KK or AK I'm in a world of hurt (4 outs and 2 outs respectively), but I just can't see someone pushing with either of those two hands. Once again, he would know the only hand that could call is Ax, and that hand is least likely because of the board.
In a heads up game, I don't believe I could ever fold top set. Maybe, and only maybe, if the stacks were really deep, and my opponent was a horrible player, I could do it. But I doubt it.
Of course, most of this depends on what happened pre-flop. If this was a limped pot, I'm going to call. If he raised pre-flop I'm more likely to put him on a hand that beats mine badly.
1) Is far from trivial as there are 1,325 possible hand that the opponent could hold. Also, the number of hands and your odds of winning changes with every street. Plus, your opponent always has a chance to act too. Your opponents bets do give some information about the strength of his hand
2) Again, far from trivial. The best move against a weak passive player is different than against a tight passive player. Do you know how he is playing? Has he switched up? The best move might be a check raise, but you do you know he won't check behind?
3) This is actually very important. Certain players can be pushed around more than others. You have to know how your opponents are playing to find their leaks and exploit them. If I know you always throw out a continuation bet on the flop, I can check raise you. If you either fit or fold, I'm better off betting into you.
4) This still doesn't include bluffing. If you only play to maximize your hand value, you will be a losing player. Because everyone gets the same cards in the long run, the best you could hope for is that you maximize leaving you breaking even. Any mistake you make costs you money.
7-2 off suit will never have a winning percentage good enough for your system to try to maximize it. But depending on position, previous action, and who acts after me, I can raise with it and make it's expected value quite high.
My problem with limit holdem, especially at small stakes, is that it turns me into a robot. The pot odds are so easy to calculate and almost always in my favor that it just becomes a robotic exercise for me. In your example, I bet the flop. Sure, I might miss one bet if I don't check raise, but it's only one bet. If he raises my bet, I call and check call the rest of the way down. If he calls I bet again on the turn. If he folds, I may have missed one bet, but it is counteracted by the bets I save when I check raise with the worse hand. Why I prefer no limit is because deep stacks make much more interesting play. I will concede that most final tables on TV are boring. But if you watch a show like High Stakes Poker, or a show that televises early tournament play, you will see much more interesting moves. Betting the exact amount to give the flush draw the wrong odds to chase for example.
Actually, AK there is the nuts. The fact that him holding one ace means there is only one left in the deck. Therefore quad aces is not a possible hand. The best hand possible is AAAKK. There is only one had that can worry AK at all here. That would be if two of the cards on the flop were suited and the opponent held some combination of J-10-Q of that same suit. That is a very unlikely hand to hold, and to draw to that is even more unlikely. So AK really has nothing to be scared of here. That would mean that the opponent is unlikely to be holding AK unless he is on some sort of bluff to appear weak. More than likely he has something like KK or Ax. You actually loose to both of those hands right now, so I'd suggest folding.
They didn't discontinue the echo, they just renamed it. Get a Scion or a Yaris and you end up with the same car.
How is picketing hurting their rights at all. He's not keeping them from the synagogue. He isn't hurting their freedom of religion in the slightest. The second he hurts someone or physically stops someone from entering the synagogue he's stepped over the line, but until then it's free speech.
Humans also evolved to kill the weaker animals. It only became fairly recently (the last few centuries) that we became capable of focusing only on the strongest and biggest animals. But that wasn't the argument. I would not argue that the sick and weak animals are good for anything but culling the population. However, the argument was that hunting is an effective form of population control. And I continue to insist that it isn't. It doesn't take much logical thought that if you cull the population by consistently killing the best animals, you are exerting a reproductive advantage to the ones who don't meet your criteria. In essence, we are performing the exact opposite of natural selection.
I have nothing against hunting or hunters as long as they stick to species that are populous enough to withstand it. What I do have a problem with is people making bogus arguments to justify it. Hunting is not a substitution for natural predation.
But we outlawed off shore gambling on horses. We also outlawed off shore sports gambling. The WTO says we can't. The US said they outlawed it for moral reasons, but the WTO said that as long as you have some online gambling you can't use that excuse.
We do allow domestic online gambling. You can gamble on horse racing online legally in the united states. This is Antigua's argument. We either have to ban it all, or ban none.
It wasn't clear from the article, but I assumed that the large existing mammals and birds died off as well. What the article stated was the the lineages already had split. So there was a proto-primate and other proto groups. The actually surviving species may have been quite small though.
Most cerebral films simply don't put a lot of butts in the seats. They almost always play to a smaller audience then your action/eye-candy film. The problem is that sci-fi movies are going to usually be more expensive to produce because they generally have to use more special effects to be believable. Movies rarely get made if they don't make money and spending a huge chunck of change for a movie with a limited auidience isn't a great idea.
Just out of curiosity, do you listen to the albums that those people released pre '94? KMFDM in particular probably peaked in the years from '88 - '94.
They actually tackled this on mythbusters. The idea of kickstarting a florescent is largely a myth. Basically if you need it for more than a few seconds, it will always be better than an incandescent.