I agree 100%. Bill seems to have assumed that I'm taking a stance on gun control, but he is wrong. Me? I couldn't get a gun legally if I tried, but I would never aim to take that right away from someone else without good cause such as a history of violent offenses or a history of mental illness, nor would I take away someone's right to vote for more strict gun laws. It's your right as a voter and an American to vote whichever way you choose. I was discussing this with a very conservative minded friend of mine from Tennessee, formerly of Massachusetts. "You don't wanna pay my health insurance? That's cool with me. I still got your back."

However, I do have a lot of respect for the message behind the walkout of 2018. To me it's not about gun control, which I think is just a platform for getting national headlines. I think the message behind the walkout is clear:

The kids are not safe. They want to be safe.

I believe that we can make it happen as a community on both a national and local level.

Got the taxes back from the accountant. In a poker session, something +/- a few BB is breaking even. So we broke even on the owing/refund? Turns out that the state of Kansas has quit exempting out of state gentleman farmers, so have to send them a small check. Even saying gentleman farmer makes me feel like leo doc. At least a little.

I mean, what is the probability that a kid gets shot at school*? I'm sure it varies a lot by which school, but seems low to other ways kids die. "Unsafe" is implying some sort of black/white threshold where some number is safe, and some number is unsafe. I don't think it's that simple.

I don't mean to sound heartless (I have kids), I'm just talking simple statistics.

Personally, I think the vast majority of people are too stupid to pretty much do anything (own weapons, have children, drive a car). I point to my local cardroom as proof.

*Edit:
"Over the past quarter-century, on average about 10 students are slain in school shootings annually."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/19/parkland-school-shootings-not-new-normal-despite-statistics-stretching-truth-fox-column/349380002/

Okay, I've been officially baited.

The above is the non-obvious drive of my "do you want to be safer or feel safer" comment.

A while ago there was a high speed police chase near my kids' school that ended with a crash. Parents were very concerned about this, and asked what if that crash had happened during school hours one block over at the school. Barriers to "protect the school" were proposed.

Yet, as I am acutely aware from dropping my kids off, they are FAR more likely to get hit by a car driven by an impatient school parent who is trying to make a left turn into the dropoff area than a gangbanger fleeing the cops. Hurried parents drive like **** and kids have to face that every day.

Surrounding the school with barriers makes us FEEL safer but only marginally increases safety. Creating a second dropoff zone or prohibiting left turns would actually increase safety, but most people probably wouldn't even realize it. And it would probably anger people because now their kids have to cross the street or reduce the parking spaces people use to walk their kids into school.

On one hand, doing something to make people feel better seems ridiculous. On the other hand, if you improve peoples' lives and they don't see the benefit, what good is it?

I agree with the Captain. It's not a simple question.

But I do think the "kids" get a say. Welcome to the grown up world, it's messy and complicated and the best solutions usually leave everyone a little mad.

Random thought of the day (btw, I once argued why randomness doesn't actually exist, which I thought was one of my best thoughts ever) --

If AI becomes advanced/cheap enough to the point where most everyone could own it, it would essentially make everyone "equally smart". That would essentially level the world playing field and bring true equality for everyone.

Not sure if this makes the world better or worse, but at least we would all be equal competitors at the game of life.

Further thinking...

Imagine a world where intelligence was commoditized. I guess if you were smarter than your average human, you would be against it, and if you were dumber you would be for it. In some sense, that's basically what has happened to LHE -- solvers have basically rendered (HU) LHE strategy dead.

Yes, if you really care about your kids you would keep them away from bicycles and swimming pools.

http://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02...searcher-says/

I just thought of a new angleshoot (no, I wouldn't actually use it).

BvB, when it's folded to you in the SB, you tell the BB that you saw his cards during the deal and then raise.

Sounds perfect for a homegame with old friends.

It's exactly this type of analogy that allows the problem to stagnate. I get the joke, but I think it's in bad taste considering the huge difference between kids getting hurt doing stuff they love to do when accidents happen, and kids getting murdered. The former is an accident, the latter is not.

Accidents will always happen no matter how many responsibilities are taken away from kids. Murders, on the other hand, should not be held in the same light, nor are murders even close to the same ballpark.

Well two unique stories from the past two weeks.

First, it finally happened. We were just talking about cashouts in this thread and I mentioned that I am really bad at counting the chips I am cashing out. I generally don’t do it, which I think was part of my push not to track exactly how much I am up or down in a certain day. Plus I am pretty lazy, which is stupid I know but there we are. This is made more complicated by the fact that I game change (eg start at 8-16 and move to 20-40 when a seat opens) and generally buy in for a lot so as not to have to rebuy in crazy games. So I play on like a Tuesday and when I count my roll at home it just seems light, but think nothing of it. The when I return the cage tells me they shorted me
$500. So glad that they caught it, but makes me wonder how often this has happened for smaller amounts.

Second, I got into a bit of a verbal argument with a player that I’d like some opinions on how best the handle. The context is that this player is great for what already is a great game. She strikes me as a bored, well to do house wife who has no qualms about dropping several thousand into this game a week. But she is also obnoxious and hasn’t terrible table etiquette and probably has no clue as to the rules of the game. For example, she has been admonished multiple times for grabbing mucked hands (that weren’t shown down) after the hand and looking at them. The other piece of context is that this a friendly game between a bunch of regs who are friendly and there is a bunch of “gray area” behavior (eg sweating hands, table talk). So it is pretty clear that this particular player is following along with the general shenanigans, but doesn’t understand what is “too far” given that she doesn’t understand the rules.

So in this hand, she limps in UTG and the guy UTG says something along the lines of “just a limp xxxxx?”. She says “yeah you should raise”, he raises and it folds to me in MP. So what is my play here? I dont want her eventually booted or to be upset and not come back, but I’d like her to understand rules and that what she did isn’t ok.

I’ll post what I did and he result in a bit.

Hf

I would 100% let it slide for the first time given your description of the situation.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think she could gain an advantage doing this, unless they collude postflop. If it bothered me I would say “one player to a hand”.

Limping UTG is basically saying “raise me” anyway.

I'm not even sure that I would call it out if it happened repeatedly.

Encouraging her to continue playing seems to be THE best strat for the sharks AND minnows at the table.

It seems very unlikely that the guy raised because she told him to.

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about #2.

#1 is all on you obv. I rack up my chips in a manner which allows it to be very easy to tell how much I have. I can't imagine ever being off by $500 unless I was cashing out >$10k. They are off by a few dollars here and there, but nothing significant like that.

I don't really see a problem with this. She has nothing to gain and everything to lose, with the possible exception of colluding, but I don't even really know how much gain there is from that, even in the best of circumstances. It's not like you're isolating a weak limper. You're isolating the person you're colluding with. So... winning the blinds? It doesn't make sense.

I can also see this as gamesmanship. In a home game with friends, if I did that I'd be angling a LOL-LRR with some random suited hand or 72o.

I agree that this is pretty benign. It's closer if someone opens and then tells another player they should three-bet. Although usually when that happens, in my experience, it's an attempt to either under- or over-represent the strength of a player's own hand, or just joke about taking shots at one another, rather than an effort to collude into shutting people out of the pot. As a matter of course, I wouldn't say anything in either situation.

You guys are netting out where I did. My thought was that this incident in and of itself wasn’t a big deal - but is could be a slippery slope and as at minimum a chance to educate. The issue with her pulling cards out of the muck evolved in that way. It started with the “friendly regs” needling her on the river when they bet and she folded. They would “tell her” what they held, flash her one card then muck the other, etc. So she started to invoke SOSA rule, then she started just grabbing the “friendly regs” cards and looking at them, even though they didn’t flash one. And then one day (presumably because no one addressed it with her) she folded the river in a huge pot, then grabbed the cards of a “non-friendly reg” and looked at them. The proverbial **** hit the fan at this point.

So when this happened, I paused and just said a short “you know it is one player to a hand” or something like that. She looks confused and whispers something to the player next to her (the guy who raised). He says “he thinks we are colluding” to her, then looks
at me and says something like “ this isn’t my problem, what do you want me to do about it. I tell him that it isn’t his issue but I want her to understand OPTAH. He says that I can call the floor if I want. I look at the dealer and he isn’t going to intervene. She repeats that I can call the floor, just parroting what the other guy said. I let it go and explain the situation to the floor later, with the suggestion that he has a non-threatening conversation with her to explain the rule, the next time he catches her away from the table.

I felt like that was a good middle ground.

Hf

Their reaction is standard, and I would say your statement isn't the catalyst for this type of defensive reaction: fake bravado to dissuade further contest.

****'em. Their money is always good here, worm!

Eh, seems a bit too intrusive to me, but if you are happy with it, then go with it.

I try to keep the game as happy and friendly as possible. If a player is just having fun and it isn't upsetting anyone, I let it go if it isn't impacting the game in any major way. If someone is clearly dulling the mood of a game, I try to change the topic or somehow otherwise get it to stop.

The only exception to this, which might be my fault, is if the player dulling the mood is clearly the biggest mark in the game and it isn't close. Then I just let it go as much as possible.

When it comes to someone who is a huge loser the list of things that they can do according to me is very long indeed.

Are there any rules that can't be changed? Does a flush still beat a straight? When did the rules become a product of who is playing? Shouldn't there be a prominent notice that this is a non-standard game where anything goes?

Sent from my HTCD200LVW using Tapatalk

I don't think that's what "Show one show all" means. I've always understood that to mean show one player, show to all players, so that all revealed information is public.

Also, this is on the dealer for not stepping in. Even if it's friendly, the dealer can't be allowing players to touch mucked cards.

It's not a problem until it is a problem. Then it's a problem.

I wouldn't have said anything because I don't even think this is about one player to a hand. It's not like anyone was showing anyone else the cards. It's just chatter at this point. "I dare you to raise me" communicates the same thing. And that's not a violation to one player to a hand.