just the way theories are done in analytic philosophy. I havn't studied continental philosophy at all; imo theories should be done like in natural sciences: they should pick something out of the natural world and try to understand it, which can be done in many ways, like finding the underlying laws and principles of such natural phenomena.

Take an example from metaethics: The moral error theorist denies the existence of objective moral truths. But there is confusion over what an objective moral truth is, it doesn't seem to be a well defined concept. This is a trivial error, and the theory can't even get off the ground because it doesn't know what it's talking about.

The sciences create definitions for pragmatic value, often. and use them to deduce certain principles or theorems. There is a lot of abstraction involved. This was actually a revolutionary idea that the enlightenment philosophers like galileo grasped, that you need to abstract and simplify in order to understand basic things about the world.

Philosophers are doing the opposite, often, they have arguments over what a person is, and can never agree on a definition. They try to fit the definition to folk science conceptions of what a person is.

That is my problem with contemporary analytic philosophy, my disagreement is on how they go about tackling problems. there are some philosophers agree with me on some level as well. There are still a lot of valueable contributions that come out of the philosophical profession, though. I just don't think theorising should be any different than it is in the natural sciences.

It should be noted that every single philosopher in the profession disagrees with a lot of what philosophers say, since virtually everything in the field is an open question-the field is actually defined that way basically.

As for continental philosophy, or 'postmodern philosophy', the worst parts of it was exposed and turned into a laughing stock by alan sokal and jean bricmont, in the sokal affair. (fashionable nonsense). So i've stayed away as it doesn't seem worth my time, though there is probably some good stuff hidden in the rot.

i don't pick out specific hands that often, I just look at specific decisions in the decision tree, like button opens, gets called, and regs bet the flop, for example. Similar to nick howard except i do it with more rigor.

could you tell us how big is the difference between your winrate at 200z and 500z?

gl!

PokerStars Zoom Hand #191051037149: Hold'em No Limit ($2.50/$5.00) - 2018/09/14 13:59:30 ET
Table 'Lambda Velorum' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: Stroggos_nz ($1001.14 in chips)
Seat 2: Tydarax ($668.98 in chips)
Seat 3: wazawskiHH ($528.18 in chips)
Seat 4: DuTTiFruTTi9 ($890.36 in chips)
Seat 5: ElieChouraki ($172.61 in chips)
Seat 6: PopAShush ($632.28 in chips)
Tydarax: posts small blind $2.50
wazawskiHH: posts big blind $5
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Stroggos_nz [4s 7s]
DuTTiFruTTi9: folds
ElieChouraki: folds
PopAShush: folds
Stroggos_nz: raises $7.60 to $12.60
Tydarax: folds
wazawskiHH: calls $7.60
*** FLOP *** [6h 2d Ts]
wazawskiHH: checks
Stroggos_nz: bets $27.50
wazawskiHH: calls $27.50
*** TURN *** [6h 2d Ts] [Jc]
wazawskiHH: checks
Stroggos_nz: bets $110
wazawskiHH: calls $110
*** RIVER *** [6h 2d Ts Jc] [7h]
wazawskiHH: checks
Stroggos_nz: bets $449.55
wazawskiHH: calls $378.08 and is all-in
Uncalled bet ($71.47) returned to Stroggos_nz
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Stroggos_nz: shows [4s 7s] (a pair of Sevens)
wazawskiHH: shows [2c 2h] (three of a kind, Deuces)
wazawskiHH collected $1055.86 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $1058.86 | Rake $3
Board [6h 2d Ts Jc 7h]
Seat 1: Stroggos_nz (button) showed [4s 7s] and lost with a pair of Sevens
Seat 2: Tydarax (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: wazawskiHH (big blind) showed [2c 2h] and won ($1055.86) with three of a kind, Deuces
Seat 4: DuTTiFruTTi9 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: ElieChouraki folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: PopAShush folded before Flop (didn't bet)

why c bet so big in a spot where villain has more sets than us?

Try again

Just try to be as rational about it as possible, there's no other method. and realize that variance calculators are never ever ever wrong, only assumptions put into them can be. criticize your own game as harshly as possible, and look at the facts/statistics. yeah, it's all common sense basically. The typical tilt people have is mainly from self deception usually, not from anything that is intellectually challenging.

day 16:

biggest downswing -40K in 3days, cooler after cooler. All at nl2K with a lot of deep pots involved. but grinded it back up very quickly after. I don't think i've had a losing month but have been playing for 14 months now (after a 5 year break from poker in which i played for 2-3 years).

I posted lifetime z500 graph so u can see the biggest downswing i've had at z500 there.

very good and inspiring thread.
how high were you playing 14 months ago?

I was a midstakes reg from 2011-12 on stars, 2bb/100 winrate or so.

14months ago, started at nl50 with $300, then built it up to nl2k after 6 weeks, i was an endboss on the site i was playing, which was insanely soft, but quite dry now. Studied linuslove hh's for about 1 month after that and got better, then studied solvers and skillevel skyrocketed from there and basically been improving ever since. My solver work and rate of improvement has slowed down a bit lately and have been working on other parts of my game.

in before you are battling at 5knl

great work habits. GL

I'm not interested in coaching anyone.

I'm looking for a few solid (3bb+) nl50zoom and nl100zoom regs who play more than 30k hands a month to talk with and share info regarding those stake levels. Pm me if interested.

What's your opinion for people who start to take poker more seriously in 2018 and try:

a) become full-time pros
b) create side income to their regular job

Still worth in the era of solvers, bots, high rake environments, no rakebacks and smaller edges in general? Would love to hear you opinion on that.

Really inspiring thread.

How much time someone wants to invest in poker is something individuals can figure out for themselves and know far more about it than me since i don't know anything about their personal lives.

Basic facts to consider:

1) poker gets harder every year, and drier every year. very hard to make more than 200k in a year without some sort of knowledge of soft sites no one else knows about.

2) will lifestyle be good or bad for you? Will it make you happy?

The outlook is bleak, i'd never recommend it as most fail.

Please let’s not have another skyisfalling convo! They’ve been around for 10 years and we still making that dolla

The sky is falling claim is relatively accurate imo, 10 years ago people could make far more at poker. But yes that will be the last i discuss of that since anyone can really answer this for themselves.

@z50/z100 regs please no more pms, i can't respond to anymore.

+1 very curious to know this

I havn't got all my z200 hh's on my database. my guess is it is around 7-8bb/100.

pm u about a question i have

Not a crusher here, just another microstakes donk, but I´m pretty sure that most people with the intelligence and drive to succeed in 500nl nowadays would earn more money learning to code and using poker and those skills to: develop new tools, better solvers, new and (currently) undetectable bots. Or develop a new game. Or become an entrepreneur in another interesting area. Poker is fun, but having (a lot of) money is better imo. Anyway, gl!

I don't think it works like that, some people will naturally do better at poker than working at some job and progressing through it, in order to move up in a company, one must have great social skill(maybe it's even more important than the technical aspect of the job) , while people can succeed at poker without that skill.

There is and there will be still a lot of money to be made at poker because of how hard the game is to master, even a talented person dedicating full time on it could take 2+years to be playing at a good level, also most(even those with talent)lack the mentL fortitude to keep playing while on a downswing. Even top pros start feeling they can't beat the game while on a downswing.

The biggest problem for the poker world would be if recs wouldn't enjoy playing the game anymore/governments started banning it.

You stuck in micros but still you run your mouth everywhere like you know whats going on up stairs. I really wondering like geniuly what the **** is wrong between your ears. Why run over this forum with your scitzofrenia?
There isent one humble Word. You rambling on like you state facts. But still you play micros. Got a database 80khands at 200nl and think youre some kind of endboss. You desperatly try to mingle with msnl players. Its fkn tilting to go lurk here while waiting for action or after ended day on the grind.
I dont know why i give a fk about you and your sad micro life. Just something really annoying with your behaviour. Like you think your superior to everyone.
Grow up kid, move out or something. Do something productive. Dont try to comfor yourself. Not able to move to 200nl with all energy you put into this should tell you how off you are. Incase you make it im waiting up stairs.
Rock n roll!

I think rapidesh contributed some very good points tbh

‘I’m waiting upstairs’. Lol. Get a life man