I don't care if someone calls me an idiot, because that means he's not worth my talk anyway. Someone who jumps into a discussion and starts bashing doesn't seem to realize, that he actively turns it into a no quality thread and creates flaming war fest. Calling out/flaming doesn't add any value into a discussion therefore is worthless. Actually, it negatively impacts whole thread so shouldn't be allowed imho.
If someone doesn't want to help by explaining/giving arguments, he shouldn't post at all because there is no value in his post. Fortunately, there are still ppl willing to help beginners(u like to call them idiots instead). This thread is for everyone and if everyone is allowed to post in here this means the most posts u get from less experienced players. You don't have to like it, but you shouldn't be allowed to ruin it either by creating flame wars.

This is true but there's no room for leeway if you're estimating his shoving range wrong.

I played the biggest nut 2 weeks ago who shoved 140BBs soooo many times, but even he was maybe shoving 70%. Which FELT like 100%, but when I looked afterwards I was like oh yeah, he definitely didn't open shove each time, despite being the biggest tiltbox maniac I have seen maybe ever.

I actually think this could be an interesting topic if we could focus on that instead of trash talking.

Somebody mentioned calling K9 because it's approximately a 58% fav against a random hand. I don't think that'd be a terrible call or anything but I do think it's a fold against the maniac fish that Jekus was playing.

Against that player type you should be able to get it in better then 58% if you wait for a better spot so there's really no reason to get it in as only a slight favorite here. If you double him up that deep he'll probability be satisfied with that and just bounce to a higher limit. I personally like 77+ , A10+ as stated by a few other posters.

never considered myself a top poster/legend but carry on trolling

Ok, we get it

I haven't done the math, but if he is pushing random hands every few hands, i'm pretty sure that calling with Q7o is a bad choice. Just think that the next time he pushes you have a 50% chance of having a better hand.

He also min 3b with KK, and made a way smaller 3b with KT then he did with K4. So it's probably safe to say he's not just open shoving the top of his range. That would make me want to call a lot wider. Q7o is probably right equity wise, but there are gonna be way better spots against a clown open shoving 350bbs.

People open shoving 350bbs aren't clowns, they're wonderful.

o/u on how quickly Dwan becomes fluent in Chinese?

I don't really want to get into this debate. But 5,000 years of the telephone game, and you're going to get all sorts of **** added and subtracted from the story.

Just amused me that he admires someone who never existed


/rant

Yeah would be interesting to see some figures here, it's def not max EV to call any edge.. also player dependent (quitting after doubling, quitting after losing, tightens up after detilting)

A friend of mine once blew my mind when he said "Atheists make a claim of equal weight to that of the religious".

From that day forward I considered myself agnostic.

If this is true, that is probably the biggest pot in history?

I seem to remember the exact same type of hand going down for a massive pot (albeit, not 11M) the first trip he made over there. He won that too with AK in a 3-way AI iirc.

Yeah, I thought I heard it was like 9M last time, and 11M now.


mbn

I love clowns

MBN to play people who will get 3 plus million in the pot aipf with 1010 or jj

Charlie Sheens rants are pure gold. They remind me of Spinal Tap

.

Has always seemed the most reasonable option to me. I can see why you'd call yourself atheist in America, but in Western Europe it just seems weird to me. Like you want to fight a battle that's been over for 30 years already.

He's wrong though. Even if said atheist were to claim that there absolutely is no god whatsoever, the claim isn't of equal weight to that of there being one. As Carl Sagan said, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. A god is an extraordinary claim, the lack thereof certainly is not. Most atheists, however, don't hold that there absolutely is no god, just that there most likely isn't.

The claim of it being very unlikely or that the probability of there being a god being extremely low, so low that we shouldn't live our lives in the hope of the small chance that there is indeed one, is not equal to the claim that there is one and that we should live our lives according to it. Particularly if said lifestyle is reflective of a book written by men in mud huts a couple of thousand years ago and even more so when a lot of said book is a direct copy of other stories predating it. Putting your trust and life in the hands of such a book is certainly not equal to, I suppose it could only be described as, doing your own thing.

Most atheists contend that there is a very minute possibility of there being a god, whereas most theists contend that there's no chance that there is no god.
I'm absolutely loving it, what an absolute legend. I'm seriously considering signing up to Twitter just so I can follow the madness as it continues on.

Not to get in this useless talk but clearly believing in God =/= following the Bible literally

No but those who describe themselves as religious should be following whatever religious text or instructions that come with the religion literally, be it the Bible, Qu'ran etc etc. If you describe yourself as a Catholic, you should be adhering to what the book of Catholicism says. They're the rules so to speak and if you want to adhere to your religion, you follow those rules.

I've more respect for those who take the book literally (though admittedly it's not much in itself) than those who claim to be religious and discard whatever elements they don't like or want to follow. Those people are cowards and not much more.

It's a useless topic of conversation though as it never goes anywhere. Those who believe in the magic sky fairy aren't going to be persuaded by an internet forum, those who don't certainly aren't either and it usually ends up nowhere.

But the origin of life out of random chance is also a pretty extraordinary claim, so I feel like atheists do need some extraordinary evidence in order to support their views.

Also the bible is one of the most historically accurate pieces of literature there is.

Edit: If you can find any prophecies in the bible that didn't come true let me know. Any of the prophecies that are currently unfulfilled deal with the end times or have not yet reached the end of the timeline they were predicted to happen during.

Anyway this discussion won't go anywhere like Mrrpb said, I just wanted to bring up a counter point for the sake of discussion.

Atheists don't claim this is what happened but claim this is probably what happened, given the evidence available at the moment. Similarly most are open to new theories and non-dismissive of it. Again, most atheists would indeed settle that there is a minute possibility that a god created everything.

You'll be hard pressed to find an atheist who demands there cannot be a god and that this is exactly how the world came to be. Remember, atheism is a lack of belief in a god, not a belief in there not being a god.

However, if you're willing to claim that a god did create the universe, who created the god? And if something created that god, what created it? the god theory cannot be irreducibly complex afterall, so indeed the theory of it being a god is an even greater leap than that of random chance because the god itself requires an extraordinary evidence, let alone the evidence of the creation of that god.

Edit: When did I change to pooh-bah?!