Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
POG Politics Thread POG Politics Thread

06-06-2017 , 04:44 PM
The Second Amendment: Only Applicable To Racist Hillbillies And Their Alt-Right Brownshirts

-Zorkman (who definitely thinks it applies to him, and would have been totally fine with people saying this about Hillary, Obama, or any black politician ever)
06-06-2017 , 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorkman
What are you trying to prove, exactly? And don't give me this vague "that Russia tampered with the election." "Tamper" means whatever you want it to mean. And even if they did, why punish Trump for it?
This is a bit silly. "Why punish Trump if he's only president because the election was rigged?"

LOL, that's all there is to say.
06-06-2017 , 04:53 PM
I'm going to allow DWetzel's characterisation of Zorkman's posting under the "can't tell stupid from trolling" rule but I'll ask him not to further characterise Zorkman and to stick to laughing at what he says rather than him personally.
06-06-2017 , 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWetzel
The Second Amendment: Only Applicable To Racist Hillbillies And Their Alt-Right Brownshirts

-Zorkman (who definitely thinks it applies to him, and would have been totally fine with people saying this about Hillary, Obama, or any black politician ever)
Presumably you mean the First. The Second is the one from the Bible, where God said "Let there be guns" and there was guns.
06-06-2017 , 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorkman
More of the same rampaging screams for violence in response to the democratic will of the people, from multiple calls for the assassination of our president, now graduating to open calls for revolution.

Next time do a better job winning elections with better ideas. It's easier, more effective, and won't land you on the Secret Service's radar. Again.
I think threatening to take legal measures against other posters as a means of attempting to gag them is something I really ought not to permit.

In any case, you are doing one of two things:

1/ Threatening DWetzel in a way that is objectionable
2/ Trolling him by pretending to find what he says reportable and pretending you are reporting him to the feds

Neither is in the spirit we wish to encourage in this thread of lively but respectful debate.
06-06-2017 , 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Banana
Presumably you mean the First. The Second is the one from the Bible, where God said "Let there be guns" and there was guns.
Tacogirl.gif
06-06-2017 , 05:20 PM


what a ****
06-06-2017 , 05:29 PM
The video is truly chilling. She is saying that if you are "suspected" of being involved in "terrorism", your rights can be infringed.

Quote:
"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him except upon the lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land."
Whenever I read some **** talking about "British values", I laugh my nads off, because our "values" amount to little more than racism, exploitation and prudery. But the principles that were fought over in the 13th century underpin the concept of liberty for all of us who think it's worth having: whether we are liberals of one sort or another or libertarians. I understand of course that authoritarians such as our thread's Stalinist don't share our love of that concept and doubtless disagree that habeas corpus has or should have any virtue.

But surely it's clear that our enemy is not ISIS, who have little interest in us except to troll us by claiming responsibility for every bomb that explodes and every nutjob with a knife who rampages so much as it is May and her ilk.
06-06-2017 , 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokiri
Ecstatic. Except for the social unrest. Ideally I'd like them to indulge in a slow inexorable process of failing to leave, in order to give the public time to forget.
Definitely a bold take
06-06-2017 , 05:45 PM
i was thinking about ****trump's tweet criticizing london mayor for saying "don't be alarmed". and yes i know the mayor wasn't talking about the terror attacks, but police presence BUT....

how many people died? 8? how many people live in london? 8 million? if you look at it that way, it's really not cause for alarm

how many people die every day in london? like 1000 or so? 8 people more or less isn't even a noticeable difference if 1000 people a day are dying... of course i just mean statistically. obviously if you or loved one dies from a terrorist attack it's completely different.
06-06-2017 , 05:48 PM
What are these "rights" you speak of?
06-06-2017 , 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Banana

But surely it's clear that our enemy is not ISIS, who have little interest in us except to troll us by claiming responsibility for every bomb that explodes and every nutjob with a knife who rampages so much as it is May and her ilk.
Does isis even exist i wonder? It's probably just some 13 yr old kid on the internet in iowa. Master troll for sure.
06-06-2017 , 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwnsall
What are these "rights" you speak of?
Those enumerated in this law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

Based on the European Convention on Human Rights.

In particular articles 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 where it applies to citizens of other European countries.
06-06-2017 , 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
Does isis even exist i wonder? It's probably just some 13 yr old kid on the internet in iowa. Master troll for sure.
Does anything exist, dustin?
06-06-2017 , 06:08 PM
This statement is untrue.
06-06-2017 , 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Banana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

Based on the European Convention on Human Rights.
06-06-2017 , 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix
edited to fix glaring typo in 2nd example and to clear up AA v KK example - edits are in italics (matrix128)


Expected Value - is commonly referrred to as EV.

from here on in positive Expected Value is +EV and negative Expected Value is -EV.

Poker is a game in which skill will beat luck every time assuming that you play for long enough. While it's true that any two cards preflop can win any given individual hand and that luck is a large part of this game if you hold any aspirations whatsoever to beat Poker overany significant amount of time/hands you must learn to make +EV plays and not make -EV plays.

EV is simply what you expect to make on average with any particular play.

here is a simple example

Hero(100BB) has A A and raises preflop to 4xBB from the CO.
Villain(100BB) calls from the BB and both see a HU flop of 9 3 6

Villain tells us he has black Kings (he's not lying) and then raises all-in and Hero calls.

Villain tables K K

(disregarding how good the play is in this hand) what is the EV of calling knowing we are against specifically K K ?)


If we punch those numbers into Pokerstove we get this output..

Board: 9c 3d 6h
Dead:

equity (%) win (%)tie (%)
Hand 1:08.3838 % 08.38% 00.00% { KcKs }
Hand 2:91.6162 % 91.62% 00.00% { AcAs }

we can see here that if this hand goes to showdown (as it is going to) that Hero will win on average ~92% of the time.

so if we run this hand 100 times Hero ought to expect win 92 times and lose 8 times.

there are ~200BB at stake so Hero wins 18400BB the 92 times his AA holds up - and loses 1600BB the 8 times he loses the hand.

Total net win of 168BB/hand.

This play is +EV and has an EV of 168BB *every* time you make it.


It's important to note that EV and actual results can vary massivley over any short term period. e.g. if we actually ran the hand above 100 times you might win all 100 times - does this mean the EV has changed? or you might be unlucky and lose 25 times in 100 - does this mean the play is now less EV? - no EV remains 168BB per hand. Everytime you make this play you "earn" 168BB and the more times you repeat this the closer your actual real results will get to the "perfect average" of winning 92% of the time.

Once you have played enough hands (an infinite amount) your total actual results will equal the sum of all of the total EV of the plays you have made. The closer your total number of hands gets to infinity the closer your actual results will get to this theoretical figure. So in theory every time you make a -EV play and get chips in when you are an underdog you a "losing money" regardless of the actual results of the hand - and conversely everytime you get chips in when you are a favourite in a hand you are winning money. If you added up all the "Sklansky Bucks" (theoretical EV money) you made in the long run and compared this amount to your actual winrate - after playing an infinite amount of hands these two numers will be identical - and the more hands you play the closer these two numbers will get to each other.

Lets look at a more complicated example, in our simple example above we knew villains exact hand before calling so we don't have to put him on a range (which affects the EV of our play) in practice we never know what particular hand we are against when we make our decisions. This is a real hand from my database.

Poker Stars
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $0.10/$0.25
6 players


Stack sizes:
UTG: $27.85
UTG+1: $24.65
CO: $28.95
Button: $23.95
Hero: $25.15
BB: $27.80

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is SB with 2 2
UTG calls, 2 folds, Button calls, Hero calls, BB checks.

Flop: J 2 5 ($1, 4 players)
Hero bets $1, BB raises to $3, UTG folds, Button calls, Hero raises to $8, BB raises all-in $24.9,Button folds, Hero calls.

Turn: 9 ($53.8, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $53.8)


River: 9 ($53.8, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $53.8)


Results:
Final pot: $53.8

- it's the flop action I am interested in here.

In real life we don't know what sepcific hand we are facing at the point in time where we make a decision. What hand does BB have here? is my hand strong enough to call his all-in? and how do we work out the EV of this play??

The answer is to put BB on a range of hands - if we re-run this hand 1000 times say sometimes he has AA and we are a huge favourite, sometimes he has 55 and we are a huge underdog, he might also have JJ-KK, AJ,KJ,J2,52,J5, Ax, or he might be bluffing. In this particular case his range is wide because there was no preflop raise. Also we are not saying htat he will always play every hand in this range exactly this way - but that he isn't playing any other hand apart from the ones in this range in this fashion.

Against most of these hands I am a favourite, and against some of them I am an underdog. I have no way of knowing what hand he has and certainly don't have time at the table to put the numbers into Pokerstove so we just make an educated guess.

I play using the general rule that I should never fold a flopped set for ~100BB. The reason being that no matter the flop if we can get all the money in on the flop we are almost always a favourite to win the hand at the showdown vs our opponents range of hands.
So I happily call his all-in. But have I made a +EV play and will this earn me money in the long run???

Lets put his range and my hand into pokerstove and see...

Board: Jc 2h 5h
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 78.7155 % 78.72% 00.00% { 2d2s }
Hand 2: 21.2845 % 21.28% 00.00% { JJ+, 55, AhKh, AJs, J5s, J2s, Ts7s, 52s, AJo, J5o, J2o, 52o }

(T7ss is included in this range to represent a bluff)

and the numbers say that on this wide range of hands my play is +EV and that calling his all-in here means that vs that range I expect to win ~79% of the time.

The actual results don't matter, as long as my range is accurate, and what cards come on the Turn or on the River don't matter either (as the decision is already made by then) if I make this play everytime it is +EV and in the long run I expect to win ~170BB everytime I make this play. As this play costs me 100BB to make I make a profit everytime here of 70BB, whether BB shows me JJ for top set or A 8 for a busted flush draw I still "gain" ~70BB everytime I make the play.


Whenever you determine at the table that a play is +EV you should make it EVERY time. If you don't you are losing money in the long run. Do You See Why?

Ultimately it is EV that will decide what your true winrate is, you can't beat it, or get around it in the long run eventually your total real results will match your expected results.

Closely tied in with EV is variance - a lot of people misunderstand what variance is and try to avoid it. But you shouldn't. The very very best players at poker don't care about variance and try to make every single +EV play that they can (this is the main reason why they are such big winners) Variance is simply how much your actual results can vary from the statistical EV results in the short term. It's the reason that a 20x buyin roll is recommended. So that you don't go broke in the short term making +EV plays that you lose in the short term because the real results vary from the Expected results. Variance is neither good or bad - and the bigger bankroll you have to absorb variance the more you ought to be willing to risk on a marginal +EV play.

Lets say you determine that a play is +EV and you'll win 51% of the time, the more money you stake on this play the more you stand to win in the long run. 51% of 200BB is more than 51% of 20BB - though in the short term real results will vary lots and you stand a great chance of losing this particular bet if you can afford it (have a large enough bankroll) you should bet as much as you can on this 51% shot.

As a final thought here is an exercise you can try when you next get a big losing session.

Review all the hands in the session and for each hand you play work out a range of hands for each villain, run the numbers into pokerstove and see how much you made in EV.

I do this sometimes and often find out that I had a +EV session that in real results lost me lots of real money. If most of the losiung sessions you have are +EV you are paying well and eventually real results will catch up with your EV results and you will be a long term winner, so despite losing now in the short term you can be happy that in the long run you're still winning
The question was in regards to if the results were explicitly NOT the will of the people. If people actively had their votes changed by a hostile foreign government. Follow along.
06-06-2017 , 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorkman
What are you trying to prove, exactly? And don't give me this vague "that Russia tampered with the election." "Tamper" means whatever you want it to mean. And even if they did, why punish Trump for it?
My question was clear. IF Americans electronic votes were changed by the Russians in an act of hacking, what recourse would we as Americans have
06-06-2017 , 06:35 PM
it's the Russians! unplug your routers!!
06-06-2017 , 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Banana
Those enumerated in this law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

Based on the European Convention on Human Rights.

In particular articles 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 where it applies to citizens of other European countries.
Cool. I was just never sure you believed in such things.
06-06-2017 , 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
it's the Russians! unplug your routers!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvfD5rnkTws
06-06-2017 , 07:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Banana
Those enumerated in this law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

Based on the European Convention on Human Rights.

In particular articles 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 where it applies to citizens of other European countries.
Cool. I was just never sure you believed in such things.
06-06-2017 , 08:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwnsall
Cool. I was just never sure you believed in such things.
I'm an anarchist. Of course I believe in rights.
06-06-2017 , 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwnsall
I still maintain refugees and immigrants have no obvious right to be here and we don't even need a reason to keep them out.
It seems problematic to me (read: horrific) to assert that people must be born in a certain part of the world in order to have rights.
06-06-2017 , 08:43 PM
Hyperbole and virtue signaling aside, I think they have rights like not being tortured but not rights like entering the country.

I would be surprised if most people didn't think similarly. But hell, thinking everyone should have everything is a really cool opinion to have.

      
m