Im really not looking forward to playing on the WPN software. One thing that Merge has right is their software. HEM is too lazy to add them and I already want to blow my brains ouf trying to multitable Lock. Because most of my volume is now on Lock my hands per month went from 50k to 30k a month just cuz of crappy software.

HEM doesn't support WPN? nice that's nice.

yea the Merge software is pretty legit.

God I fkn hate politicians.

I got dibs on WPN thread

Good thing I'll finally be hitting King High today.

who's ready to get their multi-table live on?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...table-1273141/

junyun should start that one IMO

Wow this is pretty cool they are at least trying this sort of thing. I kind of think it will be a clusterf***. Why not have live poker and then a video screen with the different poker game but not dealt by a dealer, and by a computer. Seems that would be much quicker.

I guess I'd just prefer not to have chips, stupid $100 bills laying all over the place, & dealers to begin with. Just use virtual chips as this would almost double the speed of the existing game and the casino would make more rake per hr. But I'm sure I'm the minority.

I would assume before saying a bad word about Merge they would want to make sure all the balances are actually moved plus they get paid for November from Merge.

gotta make sure you are all the way across the bridge before you torch it

lol mtt pros

Not that I want to get into the college debate again, but saw an interesting article relating to college tuition and increase in salaries.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...a-college.html

(summary, as college tuition goes up, avg salaries of college educated people goes down)

that graph/article are pretty silly as they fail to consider the fact there were 2 crashes in 8 years

True, I thought the same thing, though it was still declining from 2000-2004 when the economy was extremely hot. During that time, I remember guys graduating with Finance degrees and getting $60K a year+.

Either way, for some people it is worth the investment and pays huge dividends and others it doesn't. i think that if you have what it takes to be successful it doesnt matter either way, and conversely, if you dont, you dont.

assuming the graph is accurate its only silly if you use the info to make silly conclusions

i dont think its silly to conclude that the cost of education is going up along with the burden of debt on college grads. i also dont think that having a huge population of 20 somethings with massive debt is a silly problem

i wonder if americans find the relatively low cost of education in other first world countries silly?

valid point or are my attempts to poke fun at the yanks just silly?

Depends if the cost really is lower or are other people just paying for it?

not sure i get you

you mean the 1%ers (maybe the 10%ers) putting their kids through school while the rest of the kids cant afford it or graduate with suffocating debt? or something completely different?

americans find everything about other countries silly, atleast the ones that actually know other countries exist.

It's silly because its intent is purposely misleading and the vast majority of people reading it will misinterpret it.

i havent read the article but i can guess where they headed with that graph and take your world for it. i was just pointing out that graph itself probably isnt silly

im not saying you're wrong or calling you silly. im just suggesting that the usa is probably a giant shltbag

I'm asking how much other people (aka taxpayers) pay extra for the "cheap"/"free" educations people get in some countries. I honestly don't know the answer to it haven't really studied other systems but it's pretty relevant. If it costs US students 20k/yr while in another country it's free but the government is giving the school 30k/yr it's not that great of a system and the claim that schools in other countries are "relatively low cost" wouldn't really be true.

yeah i dont know the answer either but i assume the cost of education is subsidized. you could argue that its not fair people with out kids or to people who dont want to go to college but you could also argue that it creates a better society in which you actually do benefit from. also if you arent going to subsidize college where is this artificial line drawn? shouldnt parents pay for elementry school too? why should i have to pay for someone elses kid to learn not to shlt in the sandbox or read?

the graph starts in 2000. im not sure other first world countries should look at that graph and say oh wow we should re evaluate our affordable education. in the usa education costs a fortune and its been a dozen years of awesome over there

oh and btw i dont think spending a fortune on college is the only option in the usa. for those that cant afford it the military is an excellent option

What is misleading about it