Bart, as much I love the scantily clad females u post, remember the spoiler-policy. Otherwise I'll have to get lame and infract u.

You know me, i am clueless.

I thought we only need to spoiler if nippels, manbeard or dwarf javlin is is involved ?

half naked lady = spoiler ?

does she play PLO?!

how are you finding games at those stakes?? i was taking shots (pretty successfully) at 400/600 when i quit - i can't imagine playing those stakes now!

Yes, all bikini, lingerie and such should have spoilers

As Napsus' post in the rules-sticky says, "better to err on the side of caution"

^^Well, you gotto have some deception in ur game fosho, and table-select well to keep variance at bay. Lots of good regs out there, but if you can hold ur own against them, certainly tons of spew to be profited off.

okay, i have problems with reading.

lets try it out

where are you playing?

I'm thinking about building up to about plo50 and stopping there - it's high enough stakes to make a living, while still having a lot of bad players.

We'll see

Pokerstars its the realm beneath hell.

Oh man, I had position on that new red pro Hana Šoljan in the 5-card PLO MiniFTOPS... I thought at first it was a fictional SN based on Han Solo, lol.I shouldn't have googled her up - I got very 'tilted'. Things were going well while we were together, even though this nasty woman once caught my triple barrel holding bare KK, apparently putting me on trup QQ. But as soon as I got reseated, I fapped my stack away in 2 hands

Almost everywhere, but mostly Stars

I suggest you try to get as high as you can, and settle down when u start feeling over-matched. Conservative BRM, obv

real men go <10 buyins

True.

It used to cost me 10 buy ins just to get settled into a session

My current bankroll (separate from liferoll) is $70. Well, $70 and about 80k FT points. i'm going to play a couple of miniFTOPS with the points (my rolls was started with a place in a £26 tourney) and see how that goes. i'll prolly move up to 02/05c when i get to $100, and basically move up every time i get 20 buy ins, up to PLO25 when i'll prolly double that dependant on how soft the games still are.

PLO25 is a threshold as that's probably the smallest stake i can make a (meagre) living off. My biggest threat is loss of motivation, however the alternative (having to get a mundane job) should hopefully be enough to maintain my enthusiasm.

Elrazor didn't you play on Microgaming for a while? You crushed my soul regularly at 50 & 100. Can't imagine you won't be at 100+ soon enough

yes i played at Microgaming with several different sites, and usually at PLO50 and 100

I can't really remember anyone from my time either there, or on Full Tilt where i played till the site went down - once i stopped playing i really forgot everything about poker and so i was kind of surprised when i picked the game up again so quickly (albeit at $0.01/0.02!).

good to see you back and gl on the grind.

is your thesis available online? i'd be very interested to read it

Thanks - hopefully i can save that luck for when i'm taking shots

My study isn't available on-line yet, although i am working with my supervisor to get the study published in an academic journal - send me your email or skype and i'll mail you a copy.

The main gist of the study relates to duel processing, a theory that suggests we have 2 distinct ways of thinking - analytic and heuristic.

Heuristic thinking is somewhat automatic or instinctive, whereas analytic thinking is demanding on cognitive resources. In descriptive terms, when i'm playing poker my though process is almost 100% heuristic; decisions are made in fractions of seconds based on experience. Away from the tables, thinking is (or should be) 100% analytic.

Anyway, if you have any further questions or want any further reading, give me a shout.

i started reading this Daniel Kahnemann book but forgot it back in finland as i left, gonna read that during xmas time.

i find all these things very fascinating and always happy to read about them. your study sounds super interesting so would be thrilled to read it

napsusss on skype

This is nothing new but more studies would be awesome to weighten the science part of the philosophy of cognition. It is ignorant though to digitize it into binary labels like 'analytic' 'heuristic'. Just find out what its already been called and use that.

I could write for hours on it. It is super relevant in mental health.

All thinking is 'heuristic' (apart from that which does not depend upon senses (memory) to formulate 'concepts' 'building blocks' 'monomers of thought structure' 'ideas' (cannot describe what these are by default- I guess systemic things(a person without senses or memories cannot think analytically/consciously))). The questions more relate to the distinction between long and short term memory. And the distinction between impulsive and inhibitive cognitive processes.

You are (clearly) not familiar with the illusion ideas derived from ego (as you follow the idea of distinct/digitilise heuristic and analytical)

What subject is this study for? Cognitive psychology? Have a link? (edit: Oh I see- skype it me plz- stehorz)

ALso there are semantic issues with the term 'heuristic'.

I see your aim and this word is not appropriate. IT is easily seen as going against 'automatic' - 'instinctual' is CERTAINLY not a good choice for synonym. YOu seem to be using heuristic as the synonym for the ACTUAL concept/idea you are advocating and there are superior choices int he dictionary (as heuristic and analytic are quite similar yet you are polarizing/distincting them?). SO this goes back to my first comment about using a word that was already been thought of. This word is not good semantically. TO avoid inadvertently contradicting yourself..

40 years of research in psychology investigating the difference between heuristic and analytic thinking and all they had to do was ask low content in 2+2

I nearly included a link to Kahneman's book as a good layperson's introduction to duel process theory - i started reading it during my thesis, but i was familiar with most of the concepts he was describing through reading many of the original journals he did with Amos Tversky so i didn't get to finish it.

It's on my 'to read' list.

Are you saying your 40 (-age of non self awareness) years old?

smirk right back at you

Anyway I am curious how this distinction is 'investigated' or 'proved'.

It is philosophy until they invent sufficient 'emphatic/telepathic' technologies.

Empathy and self awareness applied with relativity and logic is the only way to understand. Finding a mean of individual semantic expressions would be a nice study. It's not really objective is it this distinction? You are assuming it and not even using the correct words (again you used instinctual as synonym which shows clear misunderstanding of terms) There is little point chasing something which is fundamentally flawed just by semantics. How you gonna express the data from your study? Also LOLOLOLOL at referringt o anything 40 years ago to with with psychology. It's more like 2000 years + this idea has been 'investigated' and its all bull**** and segregated into opposing 'schools' with oppsing ideas (because they don't recognize semantic inconsistency and you seem not to have discovered that either)

Duel Process is a theory that has a great deal of empirical support, although various authors dispute exactly how we should reason, and how we do reason, and as you rightly say behaviour is not necessarily a direct route to cognition.

Examples of the empirical research include FMRI scans that show different areas of the brain being activated by simple and complicated tasks (e.g Goel and Dolan, 2003) and how burdening working memory affects 'analytic' tasks, but not 'heuristic' tasks (e.g De Neys, 2006).

Original research dates back to the 70's (hence the 40 years), when Tversky and Kahneman were able to demonstrate a number of tasks where actually thinking did not correspond to how people should think. Daniel Kahneman was eventually awarded the Nobel prize in Economics, so his work has been scrutinised by his peers at the highest level.

With regards to your language, it does tell me how little you understand science. Nothing is ever "proved"; all theories are simply ideas that have yet to be disproved.

De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science 17(5),428–33.

Goel, V. & Dolan, R. J. (2003). Explaining modulation of reasoning by belief. Cognition, 87, 11–22.

you tell him MFN - what was he thinking posting about something he studied in the last 5 years...

length of time of study is only relevant once quality of study (especially data expression) and frequency is determined.

I could probably find inference derived references in the bible, socrates ect

Now you are talking about neuro-psychology. This brain activation discussion would take hours to break down. I am sure you aware of some of these ideas but I will ramble them out anyway ; Complicated tasks requires more memory and motor utilization which explains higher brain activation. Brain activation is also dependent on neuro transmitters and complicated tasks require more. Even affect : towards the task plays a role. And so does 'how does the task relate to biological success/evolution' will have an effect on brain activation. Also in how the task has differing requirements of memory recall and memory creation. Some things only require memory, some things require imagination/calculation (and potentially motor). But its ALL memory derived from sense. There is also the idea that as behavior becomes more instinctual/sub conscious/biologically derived that it activates areas of the brain closer to the 'reptile' era evolved areas (tasks related to biological success). The ego sense (and its illusionary aspects) needs to factored in You are looking at some unknowable and insignificant abstract system in isolation. These studies do not need to take place when logic is proof enough that the findings were 100% predictable if you understand the larger system.

So it's not testing or proving anything definitive which isolates the question. I'll have to read this guys stuff anyway as it may be relevant to mental disorder (and order) which is where my main interest lies. Many disorders are caused/solved by over/under use of analytically thinking and concluding (negating dissonance)

It sounds grandiose but I am so far ahead of the curve in this area it is ridic. 40 years is still ****ing LOL its still primitive and been around aslong as ego.

You are the one who misunderstands science as you call a philosophy a science. OR maybe you do not understand philosphy. Regardless semantic inconsistency strikes again.

Thanyou for the reading items, I presume they hold strong in your mind/reasoning so I put them on my list for appraisal. (I just noticed Dolan, I wonder if I've already read some of his ****- did he do some stuff on calculating risk relating to aggressive behaviors? or is that different one)