Let's Go Surfing Now, Everybody's Learning How
So what's new on the web ? Daniel Negreanu is always worth reading when he's actually playing poker, unfortunately he seems to spend much more time schmoozing with the media. But he's out in Tunica, where the first source of amusement is his attempt to find some vegetarian food. 1 2 3 everybody - you'll be alright. When the action starts he finds a hand which, maybe it's just me, I find very funny :
"A young player in late position makes it 150 to go, the button calls and I call from the small blind with Q-4 of hearts and the big blind also calls. The flop comes down 7-4-4 with two spades. I check, the big blind checks and the original raiser bets 200. The button calls and I make it 500. The big blind folds and the first raiser says, “I’m all in.”
“Huh? Are you serious?” I thought to myself, “Do you really have pocket sevens?” I thought for a few seconds and finally asked him a question, “Do you play on the internet?”
“Yes, unfortunately I do.” he replied. I shot all my chips to the center after hearing that and doubled up against his 9-9." "
This reminds me of the scene in Ghostbusters where he says "Ray, when someone asks if you're a God, you say - YES". When you're trying to knock Daniel Negreanu off the best hand, and he asks if you play on the Internet, you say - NO .
Speaking of God, there's some sport on Paul Phillips' blog at the moment, where a couple of creationists are getting the intellectual kicking they deserve. You could almost respect the effort these people put in to shaping everything around them to match their own subjective beliefs, if they weren't deliberately trying to mislead so often (or parroting misleading arguments that they haven't questioned). There's something about their tone that's familiar. The core assumption is that I'm right and you're wrong. All facts are either interpreted to match this assumption or ignored. All supporting arguments are accepted without question, while all contradictory arguments are cross-examined ruthlessly. The slightest problem with a contradictory argument is then held up as proof of their own beliefs in entirety. Hmmm. Does sound like someone I know, I'm sure. I just can't put my finger on it ...
And today on the Mob Forum there was more blasphemy as the highest of highest was questioned about a diary entry - Barny ! This is one of those threads I'm glad I didn't get involved with in the end, because I could see both sides of it. IMO it is unprofessional to drink to excess during a poker festival, because it does affect your mental strength for days afterwards. Unless you're already an alcoholic :-). Then again I'm not the professional police and much worse liberties have been taken with sponsors' money. I do think Barny would have been better off saying either "So What" or "Yes but it didn't affect my performance" than trying to make out his comments were jocular, because they clearly weren't. Although I do have a history of missing the joke on there.
As usual, I derive my own entertainment from wherever I can. I find it amusing that if you want to criticise Barny's play, you have to be there, but if you want to kiss his arse, you can do that from anywhere :-). Sounds like the creationists again. Shaun Hayes once said to me "You talk a lot of shit on that forum, but at least you're objective". I still think that's quite a compliment.
"A young player in late position makes it 150 to go, the button calls and I call from the small blind with Q-4 of hearts and the big blind also calls. The flop comes down 7-4-4 with two spades. I check, the big blind checks and the original raiser bets 200. The button calls and I make it 500. The big blind folds and the first raiser says, “I’m all in.”
“Huh? Are you serious?” I thought to myself, “Do you really have pocket sevens?” I thought for a few seconds and finally asked him a question, “Do you play on the internet?”
“Yes, unfortunately I do.” he replied. I shot all my chips to the center after hearing that and doubled up against his 9-9." "
This reminds me of the scene in Ghostbusters where he says "Ray, when someone asks if you're a God, you say - YES". When you're trying to knock Daniel Negreanu off the best hand, and he asks if you play on the Internet, you say - NO .
Speaking of God, there's some sport on Paul Phillips' blog at the moment, where a couple of creationists are getting the intellectual kicking they deserve. You could almost respect the effort these people put in to shaping everything around them to match their own subjective beliefs, if they weren't deliberately trying to mislead so often (or parroting misleading arguments that they haven't questioned). There's something about their tone that's familiar. The core assumption is that I'm right and you're wrong. All facts are either interpreted to match this assumption or ignored. All supporting arguments are accepted without question, while all contradictory arguments are cross-examined ruthlessly. The slightest problem with a contradictory argument is then held up as proof of their own beliefs in entirety. Hmmm. Does sound like someone I know, I'm sure. I just can't put my finger on it ...
And today on the Mob Forum there was more blasphemy as the highest of highest was questioned about a diary entry - Barny ! This is one of those threads I'm glad I didn't get involved with in the end, because I could see both sides of it. IMO it is unprofessional to drink to excess during a poker festival, because it does affect your mental strength for days afterwards. Unless you're already an alcoholic :-). Then again I'm not the professional police and much worse liberties have been taken with sponsors' money. I do think Barny would have been better off saying either "So What" or "Yes but it didn't affect my performance" than trying to make out his comments were jocular, because they clearly weren't. Although I do have a history of missing the joke on there.
As usual, I derive my own entertainment from wherever I can. I find it amusing that if you want to criticise Barny's play, you have to be there, but if you want to kiss his arse, you can do that from anywhere :-). Sounds like the creationists again. Shaun Hayes once said to me "You talk a lot of shit on that forum, but at least you're objective". I still think that's quite a compliment.
3 Comments:
Sorry to make this about me, but you started it. I'm nothing like the creationists. I'm open to persuasion on most things.
Several years ago, I thought that the Islamic world hated us because of Israel and that Bush was a religious fanatic of low IQ. I was gutted when he won in 2000. Then I learned much, much more about the issues and came to alternative conclusions. I do get annoyed when people tell me that I never see the other person's point of view when I used to HAVE the other person's point of view.
More to the point - we all have core beliefs which cannot be questioned. You too, though you may not realise it. Take the famous lines from the US constitution: "We hold these things to be self evident ... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Notice that no proof is offered; these rights are held to be self-evident. I share this belief, but I can't 'prove' it. Does that make these beliefs wrong? Should I decline to believe in human rights until a 'proof' can be found?
Please answer this.
DY
You've said this before, that you have changed your mind to reach your current position. However, as someone pointed out, always in the wrong direction !
I do have core beliefs but I treat them as such. Beliefs. I don't try to convince others to agree using selective and misleading arguments.
It is my personal opinion that there are pronounced similarities in the style you use to defend neo-Conservatism against all comers and the way creationists argue their case. This amuses me no end. That's about it really.
Andy.
'if you want to criticise Barny's play, you have to be there, but if you want to kiss his arse, you can do that from anywhere :-).'
Andy, you're wasted here...
Isn't that just what the mob forum is these days...an ass licking contest?
Post a Comment
<< Home