Last night I spent 5 hours playing the Imperial Palace Sunday night mixed game with Mrs. Lederer. I have found her to be an unusually pleasant person with whom to share time at a poker table, and I like her more every time she visits town. It's been over a year since I tried a mixed cash game, so the itch for doing something different combined with the chance to chat with Mrs. L. made for good incentive to sign up for the mixer.
They play a rotation of ten games, all $3/$6 limit, only three of which I play fairly regularly as part of the standard HORSE mix (Omaha/8, stud/8, and razz). There are several weird and baffling variants thrown in. As it turned out, those were the ones in which I made the most money. I don't mind admitting that it was pure luckboxing; I had no skill edge.
My biggest pot of the night came in what they call 3-2-1 Omaha. It's a high-only game in which you get three simultaneous flops, then two turns, then one river. You can mix and match any flop and turn, plus the river, to make your five-card board (but you have to take one of the flops as it is; you can't just pick any three cards from the nine), then combine that with your hole cards in the usual Omaha fashion, i.e., two from your hand and three from the board. I find this game extremely confusing, because you have to examine six different combinations of board cards in order to figure out what the best possible hands would be, then judge that list against your own holdings.
Well, on the second hand of this rotation, I started with QQxx, flopped a set, and made quads on the turn, which was the nuts. The river, however, put a possible straight flush out there; somebody holding the Ad-3d would have a steel wheel. I wasn't too worried about it. My lone opponent remaining at the river bet, I raised, she reraised. Still not worried. I raised again. (There is no cap when heads-up on the river, so we could keep going until we were all in if we chose to.) She rechecked her cards, reexamined the board, and raised me back. I figured she had a strong full house. She was the least experienced player at the table, and usually timid in her betting unless she had the stone cold nuts. So I was slightly worried, but not enough to stop me. I raised yet again. Again she looked at her hole cards and again she spent some time examining the board, before announcing "Raise." Holy crap. If I have quads beaten by a straight flush, I'm going to be seriously annoyed. But I just can't believe that this particular player would turn this aggressive with anything else, so this time I end the raising war with just a call, while simultaneously asking, with some incredulity in my voice, "Did you make the straight flush?" I was stunned when she said, "No, but I have the nut flush."
Whew! I showed my four queens and took in what may have been the biggest pot of the night. As she repeatedly explained, she just didn't see the two queens out there. When she was rechecking the board, it was specifically to see if there were any pairs that somebody could use to make a full house. Not seeing any, she concluded that her nut flush must be good. She was the only player at the table inexperienced enough to make that mistake after checking the board as many times as she did. But hey, poker is all about profiting from other people's mistakes, so I'm not feeling bad about it.
In the same game, I played a hand only for the amusement of Mrs. L. and myself (she folded, so I showed her my cards and let her sweat the hand with me), since I started with a 2-2-4-x on the button. (Top poker mathematicians at MIT are still working out whether the deuce-four combinations are always winners in 3-2-1 Omaha.) The bottom flop came 6-6-2, giving me a tiny full house. The only other player in this hand was Mark, on my left, a regular in this mixer, and by far the most experienced and aggressive mixed-game player at the table. I just check-called the flop and turn, fearing that he had a better full house. But when he checked the river, I figured I was good. I bet, he called with trips.
Only once did I screw up because of forgetting the rules or format of a game. It was the first hand of 4-Card Ocean Crazy Pineapple. You get four hole cards, betting round. Flop, betting round, discard one. Turn, betting round, discard one. River, betting round. Then finally an "ocean" (6th card on the board--the river flows into the ocean, you know), and another betting round. They said that somebody always forgets that an ocean is coming and exposes his hand after the river. Well, last night it was me. I announced that I had a full house. Mrs. L. called anyway, presumably hoping to improve to her own boat on the ocean. She didn't. At worst, I cost myself only one big bet with that gaffe.
Considering the complexity and unfamiliarity of most of the games, to play for 5 hours and make only that one technical error was something of a triumph. I never lost track of what game we were playing, whether the ace played for high or low, which of three draws we were on, or whether we were on a betting round versus a discard round, never misread my hand, never tried going for a low when no low scored, etc. (Pats self on back.)
I bluffed only once. The game was badugi. Mark and I both had strong 3-card starters, and were drawing one. It was just a contest to see who got there first. I had been playing it passively, letting him bet (as was his wont), and just check-calling. I knew that he knew that I tended to do that with him, and get aggressive only when I made something. I decided to use that knowledge against him. When the final draw didn't give me the suit I needed, I led out betting. I didn't think he would raise as a bluff, so the worst that would happen is he would raise and I'd fold, or he'd call and I'd lose. That is, at most I would lose one bet. But if he had missed, too, he might give me credit for having made it, fold the best three-card hand, and I'd win the whole pot. I thought (and still think) it was a smart play.
To my surprise, he thought long and hard about what to do. The longer he thought, the more it became clear that he did not have a badugi. With a strong badugi he would raise. With a weak one he would call instantly. I realized that he must have a pretty good three-card hand, or he wouldn't take so long to think it out. When he finally called, I said, "Well, I was bluffing, but now I think I might have been bluffing with the best hand." I showed my three-card 6. He winced and showed his three-card 7. Yes!
Late in the evening, there was one remarkable hand of badugi. Playing four-handed, three of us made strong badugis. I made an 8-7, Mrs. L. made a 7-6, and Mark made the nuts, a 4. I'll wait here while you go figure out the odds of that happening.
I twice made a #1 (the nuts) in 2-7 triple draw. I haz mad drawing skillz.
A little after midnight, I was finally too tired to continue, and cashed out with $66 more than I had bought in for. I'm not sure, but I think that is the first time I have ended winner in a mixed game. On top of that, I had a great time. The other players were friendly, smart, funny people that were just plain enjoyable to be with. All of us except Mark, I think it's fair to say, had to struggle to keep straight all the rules and mechanics of each game. It's not like we were playing deep, third-level, mind-game poker. I mean, go ahead--just try triple-range-merging your Double-Flop Omaha hands while everybody else at the table is just trying to remember how many cards from their hands they have to use and whether low gets half the pot. Fat lotta good it'll do ya.
I don't think I'll exactly become a weekly fixture in that game, but I do think that I should pay it a visit more often than I have been doing.
This picture under the number 1589
In our site was founded: Dark poker, chiggers omaha, omaha system.
+ To your attention : Tribal poker, o omaha, poker impossible.
Breaking Casino News:
Your Portal to the World of Online Casino Sites - Free casino games. Best online casinos bonus, free casino chips. Free Bingo bonus
...
Caci omaha
World Poker:
Special Party Poker bonus code PW50FREE and $50 FREE - NO DEPOSIT free bonus is yours.
...
Images from part 278
With us you can find: Playboy omaha, poker anymore, freerolls discounts.
It might be interesting for you: Dmk omaha, steven1976 poker, adm omaha.
News of casino:
1 Jan 2011 Quechan Casino Resort 525 Algodones Road Winterhaven California 92283. USA Phone : (877) 783-2426. No Images Available
...
Acknowledged as the poker bible for 25 years, Doyle Brunson's Super System-A Course In Power Poker, brings the proven strategy and wisdom of twice-world
...
This photo from search by keyword # 637
You found here: Lovers rakeback, poker chips, freerolls easy.
It might be interesting for you: Poker ferguson, omaha hollard, casinodipoker favorite.
News of casino:
8 Nov 2011 Steps for parents or caregivers to help decide which school to enrol your child in.
...
Enterra poker
Poker News:
What do you do with an unfinished jigsaw puzzle when you want to eat at your dining room table or play poker at your card table? Put your puzzle together on
...
Images from part 496
You found here: Zigmund poker, electronic poker, liipoker liipoker.
+ To your attention : Museums omaha, vip pointpoker, freerolls easy.
Latest Casino News:
UK Online Casino Directory lists only the best UK casinos that are 100% in British Pound Sterling.
...
In our gallery this image under # 1407
Poker keywords: Money omaha, largest poker, poker fundamental.
This is for you: Pokerstars bel, ioof poker, perpetuumpoker features.
Casino News for the player:
Illustration of Casino gambling card, illustration vector art, clipart and
...
Here Is a reasonable Example of God vs non God Ethics - Page 2 - Religion, God, and Theology - Religion and Spirituality Forum
Malter
from: Oneida, WI Post #9602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardball47
The idea of god is intimately linked to religion - that's the point.
So The idea of special robes is also intimately linked to religion--but that doesn't make me think that they are relevant to morality.
Padraig
from: Clarendon, NY Post #7047
Seems like most of you are not getting my point. Not Ready likes to point out that morals without God are in some sense irrational or inconsistent. Atheists like to say that you don't need God to reach the same moral conclusions that nicer religions tend to reach. I believe the example I threw up shows where the two would diverge. Because if human life, regardless of the circumstances, is not automatically "precious" in the way that religions say it is, I don't believe you can justify saving the severly retarded human in this scenario.
Note. Some of you might say that the abortion debate is another example. But the issues are not analogous because the embryo can be expected to become a normally conscious human.
Kailee
from: Freeland, MI Post #6059
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Furthermore I think that an awful lot of atheist would not only save the human but try to claim that their agreement with the theists make sense even without God. Both Not Ready and I claim that such atheists are fooling themselves.
Are you trying to imply with your example that atheists should inherently only value the lives of the young and the intelligent
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
What your scenario overlooks DS is that religion isn't going to be controlling people in this situation as much as man made law. It's almost certain you're more liable to be prosecuted for letting a man die than letting a dog if only because of the thinking on this question that has been historically instilled in people.
OP clearly stipulates that "Whatever you do, no one will ever find out about it."
Edit: Just because a religion says, "Human life is precious," it does not follow that someone who doesn't follow religion, should therefore act as if human life is not precious. Not murdering people is a pretty commonly accepted societal law, and moral rule. This holds true whether or not someone also reads this rule in an ancient text.
edit edit: Wouldn't a better example of "god vs. non-god ethics" be in relation to a god-prescribed ethic that non-followers of god often disagree with Such as "being gay is evil and wrong"
Marcie
from: Clifton, ID Post #8011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
Well a religion would say it because religion is interpreted by men and theology dominates religious people's thinking a lot. That doesn't mean all theology is always God's thinking.
What your scenario overlooks DS is that religion isn't going to be controlling people in this situation as much as man made law. It's almost certain you're more liable to be prosecuted for letting a man die than letting a dog if only because of the thinking on this question that has been historically instilled in people.
Neither of these paragraphs addresses my point. It doesn't matter if theology is not always God's thinking unless in this particular example you think God would favor saving the dog. You don't think that do you As for being prosecuted, the stipulation was that no one would ever know. Please read more carefully.
Scarboro
from: Doyline, LA Post #6261
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Because if human life is not "precious" in the way that religions say it is, I don't believe you can justify saving the severly retarded human in this scenario.
So what does this say about those people who believe human life is precious in the way that religions say it is but not because they follow any of these religions That is, are you actually suggesting that we only value human life over that of other species because of religion
Zea
from: Windfall, IN Post #8785
You might get different answers if the question was about a man who was dying of some disease, in a long-term coma, or clinically brain-dead. As it is, it sounds like you're just asking people if they'd choose a dog over an old retarded man, which I'm not sure is as compelling a choice as you're making it out to be.
Menace
from: Mathews, VA Post #5688
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Neither of these paragraphs addresses my point. It doesn't matter if theology is not always God's thinking unless in this particular example you think God would favor saving the dog. You don't think that do you As for being prosecuted, the stipulation was that no one would ever know. Please read more carefully.
I do think God would favor the human because humans were elevated over animals as stewards showing human priority and after the flood vegetarianism was rescinded.
Still God has to cut us some slack for our finite minds if we make a mistake though he could take our motives and intent into consideration when judging our actions. Some people are deliberately perverse in their moral dealings with others.
Instead of thinking of your scenario as an isolated incident it makes me think of the extension of biblical ideas across time. They have an impact on culture across longer swathes of time than people tend to realize in their minds. According to the bible, God often seems to move across longer time spans than just days or one lifetime. Like when he planned to bring the Israelites out of Egypt...he waited around 400+ years to do it.
Noel
from: Merritt Island, FL Post #6098
Quote:
Originally Posted by weaselgirl
You might get different answers if the question was about a man who was dying of some disease, in a long-term coma, or clinically brain-dead. As it is, it sounds like you're just asking people if they'd choose a dog over an old retarded man, which I'm not sure is as compelling a choice as you're making it out to be.
Yeah - move the example slightly and I'll choose the dog but not as it is currently.
Of course, any religious person with a pet they feed in lieu of increasing their aid to the starving of the world is making a similar choice anyway, they're just not thinking about it much. The existence of God doesn't make morality any easier.
My choice to save the man in the hypothetical isn't because of some "soul" consideration. Why can't an atheist adopt the same position as me
Dustin
from: Sunfield, MI Post #9296
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganstaman
So what does this say about those people who believe human life is precious in the way that religions say it is but not because they follow any of these religions That is, are you actually suggesting that we only value human life over that of other species because of religion
These posts make me pull my hair out. The post is suggesting that atheists value severely mentally retarded humans who have no one who loves them over intelligent species who are making a lot of humans happy, because of religion (even if in the case of atheists it is a subconscious gut religious reaction.)
Gisela
from: Orange Lake, FL Post #7907
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
These posts make me pull my hair out. The post is suggesting that we value severely mentally retarded humans who have no one who loves them over intelligent species who are making a lot of humans happy, because of religion (even if in the case of atheists it is a subconscious gut religious reaction.)
I don't think it's due to religion, I think it's because we're irrational.
Kimberlee
from: Rescue, VA Post #8368
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunny
I don't think it's due to religion, I think it's because we're irrational.
You are not really disagreeing with me and Not Ready.
Cherise
from: Big Bar, CA Post #9227
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
These posts make me pull my hair out. The post is suggesting that we value severely mentally retarded humans who have no one who loves them over intelligent species who are making a lot of humans happy, because of religion (even if in the case of atheists it is a subconscious gut religious reaction.)
A dog isn't made in the image of God and can't be a recipient of a measure of his Spirit.
Danae
from: Goreville, IL Post #6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
You are not really disagreeing with me and Not Ready.
Perhaps not, though you think this example demonstrates a difference between the religious and the non-religious. I don't think religious people make ethical decisions in any substantively different way from atheists.
Emiliano
from: Ravenswood, WV Post #6449
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunny
My choice to save the man in the hypothetical isn't because of some "soul" consideration.
Even given all the human patients you made miserable Not Ready, me, and actually you too, all agree that is irrational.
Noelia
from: Ironton, MO Post #5298
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunny
Perhaps not, though you think this example demonstrates a difference between the religious and the non-religious. I don't think religious people make ethical decisions in any substantively different way from atheists.
I think they do depending on their level of religious education and personal zealousness though there could be other factors that impact those two.
