CA poker is the kind of poker where we're significantly more liberal with our raises, much like our morals and politics.

Also it's harder to bluff people because they're sticky icky.

Also you can't limp preflop, you always have to come out with a raise.

Another hand against the same old nit. Fold, nit limps, I raise ATs, lots of folds, BB and nit call - 3 see the flop of KQx. I c-bet and take down the pot. Nit says "I have a Queen but I'm going to fold because I'm putting you on a set of Kings."

My preflop raise was marginal because of how strong his limping raise is. And based on hands he showed me before mucking, I believe him when he said he folded a Queen.

Nits going to nit.

It's all good from Diego to the Bay. Our cities da bomb if our cities are making pay.

FYP

Flash the ace and claim AK.

NO! Flash the 10 and say 'Good fold, I flopped a set!'

Often enough they then go ballistic.

And then get so mad that they start calling second pair?

Or just flash them.

I'm quite happy the way the nit plays, so I don't want to do anything to discourage him from sticking with his strategy.

Generally, I just agree with whatever someone guesses. Had he asked "did you have a King?" I would have said yes, or perhaps answered"at least one" since I want him to trust his reads in the future. A set of Kings was so specific that I couldn't just agree to it, so I didn't answer at all. Plus, I was too busy stacking chips to answer.

If someone asks what I had, I usually say Aces. People like thinking they are good enough to fold against Aces. Once I recall once someone being impressed I had Aces hold up to win hands four times in a two hour period. :-)

If they really press me (did you REALLY have Aces again?), I'll ask what they want to hear and say I'll tell them whatever will make them happy.

big trump fan jon?

i think it was jesse8888 who told me that when they ask you what you had the correct answer no matter what is always 'jacks'

Everyone on the east coast is already sticky icky vs me

Old nit never going to change. I must play against a billion of them. That may seem like a lot but I'm pretty sure many of them have split personalities which explains why a dentist can have trusting patients who would leave his practice in a minute if they saw the lunatic he becomes at the table!

Saw some quality nittery today. Guy limps UTG, fold, raise, folded around to cutoff who calls, everyone else folds.

Flop: Kh Jh x

Checks around

Turn is an offsuit 8, UTG checks, original raiser bets, cutoff folds, UTG sighs, flashes QQ and mucks

Sounds like original raiser has a nitty image.

I do, but more than that, I see it as a way to experience the world. IMO, people are way too comfortable surrounding themselves with familiar things and people and ideas, and way too uncomfortable when that delicate equilibrium is perturbed even a little. The Trump win was a pretty big perturbation for everyone (even Trump supporters) and it's worth exploring that a little with people who disagree with me.

Much like the time I got into an argument with a Black Jesus guy (which ended with me asking, "Wait, I'm black??" and him responding, "Yeah, you black." ), even if we disagree at the end, at least I understand the "opposition" a little better.

No, not really but I think he had done some very good stuff so far in office (And some not so good, seems to be a big propenent of assert forfeiture).

Basically I was eqUally likely to vote for him for rep nomination as I was to vote against him for president

What do you think of his foreign policy?

(I don't count the immigration issue as foreign policy but you can include it if you want - I mostly mean are you worried about his interactions with Russia and China, and to a lesser degree, how would you rate his interactions with Japan and western Europe?)

I think it's pretty bad, most notably his interactions with china. Will be curious to see how the North Korea situation plays out, hopefully nuking North Korea not on the table.

In terms of issues I care most about, big fan of Mexico City policy, big fan of Gorsuch, and big advocate of school choice/voucher programs (whether or not I'm a fan of devos tbd).

My belief is that school vouchers as they'll be enacted are just a Trojan horse for A) funding religious schools with public money and B) dismantling public schools in places where we well off people don't like to go. It isn't school choice, it is a tactic to avoid the Establishment Clause.

I say that living in a place where charter schools seem to work very well and haven't harmed other public schools. We have very liberal open enrollment and a broad choice in charter schools, locally.

You don't have to dig very far to find that the charter school movement has lead to seriously shady use of public funds, and even more fun/profit involved in for-profit companies supposedly certifying schools -- including companies owned by the same people both running schools and auditing them. I'd want evidence that the kind of "free market, give them vouchers" ideas proposed by DeVos's backers has done any good.

I think you likely have a misunderstanding of the purpose and intent of the establishment clause. Not only does funding religious schools with government money not violate the establishment clause, founding era documents make it pretty clear that the framers would encourage/expect government funds to be used for that very purpose.....

We actually had this talk at the table the other day... freedom of religion not freedom from religion

I don't know how anyone could find it constitutional to allow for governemtn vouchers to cover expenses for religious schools. And no, allowing it to cover only part of the expense and not the hour of explicit religious indoctrination does not cut it. The whole systems are set up for religious indoctrination. I truly don't think they even should be allowed as a substitute for legally mandated education.

And yes, I went to 13 years of religious schooling myself.

One reason I enjoyed my undergrad education so much (and hated law school) is because we spent countless time reading all the founding era documents to get a better context of things like the first amendment... so for example: September 1789:" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....

Then in October 1789 the president of the United States, states: "Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."