Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp
You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.
There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.
The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.
Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
Thanks
What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
Has the lockdown brought enough fish back to online poker to make it worthwhile playing?
More importantly, have they got rid of all the bots and multiple accounts that make it anything but a fair game?
So about 7% said Cummings had an effect on their behaviour
That is much lower than many on here forecast, much lower
Maybe people are not quite as stupid as some would like to make out. Perhaps some dickhead ignoring the rules for his own convenience is not an excuse to take risks and expose your family after all. Who would have thought?
Sunderland voted Labour at the last general election but the UK voted Tory on a Tory manifesto commitment to leave the EU, single market and customs union.
If the EU will not do a FTA that respects that there will be no extension of the transition period
There are two certainties. FM will end on 1st Jan 2021. There will not be a WTO Brexit.
We must wait to see how that circle will be squared.
I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.
Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
It is obviously not impossible but traditonally people queue differently (and closer together) for a pint. Changing that culture is harder when people have been drinking.
A takeout pint can be passed through a window or from a screen - assuming the pub can afford the cost of the screens with an 80% drop in revenue. But people do not go to the pub to stand 2 metres apart from the people they meet there if that happens revenue is so low the venue is unviable and/or people don’t go because the rules destroy the whole point of the venue.
These rules do not aid opening. They destroy the essence of the activity. The government may as well close such places down permanently.
I think the Black Lion in Hammersmith is taking in more than it does in normal times. I reckon it's turnover now is about £10,000 a day on sunny days. About 2,000 pints of lager or Pimms looking at the permanent queues and rate of serving. Only problem. No loos.
No doubt. In London.
Here the police are preventing pubs from selling takeaway beers at all or insisting that food must be supplied. Why? No reason. It’s as if the authorities are determined to make it as difficult as possible for those trying to keep their businesses open.
And how many people are going to queue outside when it is cold and rainy?
Has your daughter thought to write to the local paper, outlining the differences in attitude by local authorities to off-sales?
Yes. She has thought about it. But frankly she is single-handedly trying to save her business so letter-writing is not at the top of her To Do list right now. I am making up for it - even at the risk of boring you all senseless!
Nor does she want to annoy the authorities in the middle of her application for an off-licence.
Her local MP, TrudinHarrison, is worse than useless, having remained utterly silent on the issue, unlike Tim Farron, in the next constituency along.
The sense of “one law for them, one law for us” doesn’t just apply to stuff like Cummings. Her fear and that of many around here is that the government will bring in rules which work for the likes of big chains like Wetherspoons and which will be death to everyone else, partly because they don’t care, partly because they simply don’t know the realities of such places and partly because they have a stupid “one size fits all” approach. And when local MPs do nothing, that is exacerbated.
I agree completely and this is why I think it's good MPs voting from home has been abolished. They should see and feel how their advice is making people like your daughter's business act. If they think themselves having to go through all this is inconvenient hopefully it'll make them appreciate more what they're asking of others!
Not everyone can run their lives from a computer at home.
I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.
Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
It is obviously not impossible but traditonally people queue differently (and closer together) for a pint. Changing that culture is harder when people have been drinking.
A takeout pint can be passed through a window or from a screen - assuming the pub can afford the cost of the screens with an 80% drop in revenue. But people do not go to the pub to stand 2 metres apart from the people they meet there if that happens revenue is so low the venue is unviable and/or people don’t go because the rules destroy the whole point of the venue.
These rules do not aid opening. They destroy the essence of the activity. The government may as well close such places down permanently.
I think the Black Lion in Hammersmith is taking in more than it does in normal times. I reckon it's turnover now is about £10,000 a day on sunny days. About 2,000 pints of lager or Pimms looking at the permanent queues and rate of serving. Only problem. No loos.
No doubt. In London.
Here the police are preventing pubs from selling takeaway beers at all or insisting that food must be supplied. Why? No reason. It’s as if the authorities are determined to make it as difficult as possible for those trying to keep their businesses open.
And how many people are going to queue outside when it is cold and rainy?
I have some sympathy with the pubs but also sympathy for people who worry about the impact on public health. We returned from a family walk the other weekend, and a local pub (a great pub which I was known to frequent in days past) was doing off sales out of a window. It was a hot day and they were doing a great trade. There was a disorderly queue, more like a crowd, spread across both pavements and the middle of the road. Zero social distancing. People getting quite rowdy and noisy in a residential street. It was impossible to walk past the crowd at a 2m distance. Personally I didn't think it was appropriate at all. The only positive was that they didn't seem to be serving Pimm's, but I think you might get decked for drinking that in South London, and rightly so.
Indeed. On a residential street that is inappropriate and a nuisance for other residents. When a pub is on a village green with houses some distance away, imposing onerous conditions more appropriate to an inner city is absurd. That is why trading conditions should be appropriate for the area and type of venue, if you want them to have a chance of survival.
If you don’t care about that of course, impose a “one size fits all” approach. But don’t then complain that the venue was unable to adapt because it was their fault when the reality is that the conditions were designed to ensure failure.
I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.
Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
It is obviously not impossible but traditonally people queue differently (and closer together) for a pint. Changing that culture is harder when people have been drinking.
A takeout pint can be passed through a window or from a screen - assuming the pub can afford the cost of the screens with an 80% drop in revenue. But people do not go to the pub to stand 2 metres apart from the people they meet there if that happens revenue is so low the venue is unviable and/or people don’t go because the rules destroy the whole point of the venue.
These rules do not aid opening. They destroy the essence of the activity. The government may as well close such places down permanently.
I think the Black Lion in Hammersmith is taking in more than it does in normal times. I reckon it's turnover now is about £10,000 a day on sunny days. About 2,000 pints of lager or Pimms looking at the permanent queues and rate of serving. Only problem. No loos.
No doubt. In London.
Here the police are preventing pubs from selling takeaway beers at all or insisting that food must be supplied. Why? No reason. It’s as if the authorities are determined to make it as difficult as possible for those trying to keep their businesses open.
And how many people are going to queue outside when it is cold and rainy?
Has your daughter thought to write to the local paper, outlining the differences in attitude by local authorities to off-sales? She should try and get a local campaign started.
Mate of mine (tm) runs a pub with a large and social distanceable beer garden. Council wasn't having any of his customers eating their takeaways "on the premises" ie in the garden. So he asked them if he could ask the neighbouring farmer if he could use some of the adjacent lawns belonging to the farmer to put his tables on to which the answer was yes.
He is also, as it turns out, the neighbouring farmer.
Bewildering. Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
It really is terrible advice.
A very big mistake and hard to lay at the door of Boris or the First Ministers
Time the media turned their attention to those making this advice
Good on John Rentoul for tweeting it
It seems like not that bewildering for the 22nd of January (although Taiwan introduced checks from the end of December). A month later I think it would be terrible advice.
In general there is a big problem with keeping things secret and then selectively releasing bits much later, nobody can examine the advice until it's much too late to point out possible mistakes.
The ongoing advice is important and those minutes will be very interesting
Did Sage at anytime change their advice on this issue ?
Sunderland voted Labour at the last general election but the UK voted Tory on a Tory manifesto commitment to leave the EU, single market and customs union.
If the EU will not do a FTA that respects that there will be no extension of the transition period
I think you miss the point; its not just about Sunderland and how its local economy fares after Brexit.
The Nissan plant has become totemic of the entire UK's prospects after Brexit because Nissan leaving demonstrates that businesses which wish to trade into the EU will now NOT chose the UK as their base.
Therefore one of the central tenets of Brexit, that the trading abilities of the UK would not be harmed or diminished but only strengthened, is shown to be a pipe dream.
This is the point I made yesterday. The argument has been "won" and the cockpit has been given over to the leavers, that it has been "proven" and that the UK will land somewhere worth travelling to has not.
Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp
You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.
There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.
The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.
Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
Thanks
What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
Has the lockdown brought enough fish back to online poker to make it worthwhile playing?
Not really, I am only profitable in <$10 tournaments now and only clearly so at <$3 whereas 12 years ago would have been winning at the level I do in $3 in $50 tournaments.
Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp
You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.
There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.
The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.
Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
Thanks
What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
Has the lockdown brought enough fish back to online poker to make it worthwhile playing?
Bewildering. Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
Fair enough on the dates but the principle is the same. They were discussing people coming from Wuhan. Had they agreed that they should be quarantined the same would have applied to the other hot spots as they developed. Pretty much everyone else in the world thought this was a good idea with differing levels of severity. In June we are still talking about it. It remains bewildering.
You (and many others) are rewriting history. There was no demand for stopping flights or quarantine in January at all. There was some demand in February. It only became a mainstream call about a week before it effectively happened in March with a 99% fall in passenger numbers.
I've removed my red on Trump. At 2.3 he might not be value yet but he is getting there. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like the current unrest might help his chances. At the least it gets coronavirus off the news for a bit.
Has anyone seen anything on how US pollsters have updated their models after their miss in 2016?
I think the instinctive view that social unrest helps wannabe "Strongman" Trump is wrong. It's just another crisis for him to mishandle. Another high viz opportunity to demonstrate his almost comical incompetence. My advice to punters thinking of backing him for re-election is to hold off until the week before the election when you will be able to get at least 4/1. And then save your money and pass.
Net disapproval of Trump has grown markedly over the last few days so I think you're right. He seems to be turning into a caricature of Mussolini a century on, constrained only because of the greater checks on US presidential power. He'll be hoping that the violent element of the protests will grow but thankfully it seems to be ebbing in favour of responsible peaceful protest. What Trump is doing is firing up the Democratic base to new heights in a way that only he can. That's in marked contrast to 2016 when H Clinton was a wholly uninspiring figure.
Because of that it also seems quite possible that the polls will be favouring Trump too much by filtering out too many Democrat supporters deemed unlikely to vote based on past precedent. It's very clear still that Trump does markedly less badly in the "likely voter" polling than in the "registered voter" or "all" polling, and you wonder if that is because the likely voter models are now overly weighted towards Trump. We saw something similar happen in the UK in the way that the Labour vote share was too heavily downgraded through turnout adjustments in 2017 on the back of the 2015 election loss by the uninspiring Miliband.
The only caveat that I would place is that, unlike the UK, the US has significant elections between presidential general elections, so if the polling corrections for 2016 had been overdoing it then that might already have been picked up and adjusted for further. However, what we have seen this year alone is truly remarkable so whatever effect the events of 2020 will have on turnout won't be picked up prior to November.
I think you miss the point; its not just about Sunderland and how its local economy fares after Brexit.
The Nissan plant has become totemic of the entire UK's prospects after Brexit because Nissan leaving demonstrates that businesses which wish to trade into the EU will now NOT chose the UK as their base.
Therefore one of the central tenets of Brexit, that the trading abilities of the UK would not be harmed or diminished but only strengthened, is shown to be a pipe dream.
This is the point I made yesterday. The argument has been "won" and the cockpit has been given over to the leavers, that it has been "proven" and that the UK will land somewhere worth travelling to has not.
Bewildering. Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
Fair enough on the dates but the principle is the same. They were discussing people coming from Wuhan. Had they agreed that they should be quarantined the same would have applied to the other hot spots as they developed. Pretty much everyone else in the world thought this was a good idea with differing levels of severity. In June we are still talking about it. It remains bewildering.
You (and many others) are rewriting history. There was no demand for stopping flights or quarantine in January at all. There was some demand in February. It only became a mainstream call about a week before it effectively happened in March with a 99% fall in passenger numbers.
Net disapproval of Trump has grown markedly over the last few days so I think you're right. He seems to be turning into a caricature of Mussolini a century on, constrained only because of the greater checks on US presidential power. He'll be hoping that the violent element of the protests will grow but thankfully it seems to be ebbing in favour of responsible peaceful protest. What Trump is doing is firing up the Democratic base to new heights in a way that only he can. That's in marked contrast to 2016 when H Clinton was a wholly uninspiring figure.
Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp
You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.
There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.
The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.
Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
Thanks
What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
Has the lockdown brought enough fish back to online poker to make it worthwhile playing?
Not really, I am only profitable in <$10 tournaments now and only clearly so at <$3 whereas 12 years ago would have been winning at the level I do in $3 in $50 tournaments. </p>
Pardon my ignorance, but what's stopping you feeding the data into an algorithm whilst playing? Or is that the point - the only way to win is to be better at reading the players?
It's a big issue in e.g. online chess (which, admittedly, rarely involves cash).
Bewildering. Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
Fair enough on the dates but the principle is the same. They were discussing people coming from Wuhan. Had they agreed that they should be quarantined the same would have applied to the other hot spots as they developed. Pretty much everyone else in the world thought this was a good idea with differing levels of severity. In June we are still talking about it. It remains bewildering.
You (and many others) are rewriting history. There was no demand for stopping flights or quarantine in January at all. There was some demand in February. It only became a mainstream call about a week before it effectively happened in March with a 99% fall in passenger numbers.
And therefore did Sage change their advice
There are 34 sets of minutes of SAGE meetings, pls forgive for not reading them all, they are here if you really want to find out.
Bewildering. Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
Fair enough on the dates but the principle is the same. They were discussing people coming from Wuhan. Had they agreed that they should be quarantined the same would have applied to the other hot spots as they developed. Pretty much everyone else in the world thought this was a good idea with differing levels of severity. In June we are still talking about it. It remains bewildering.
You (and many others) are rewriting history. There was no demand for stopping flights or quarantine in January at all. There was some demand in February. It only became a mainstream call about a week before it effectively happened in March with a 99% fall in passenger numbers.
It hasn't happened. In June it has not happened.
Given there's been a 99% drop in passengers it has happened de facto even if not de jure.
There's also a world of difference between isolating a couple of dozen people specifically flown in from a rescue flight versus doing so for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or more travelling by themselves in normal conditions. The two questions were not the same.
Bewildering. Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
Fair enough on the dates but the principle is the same. They were discussing people coming from Wuhan. Had they agreed that they should be quarantined the same would have applied to the other hot spots as they developed. Pretty much everyone else in the world thought this was a good idea with differing levels of severity. In June we are still talking about it. It remains bewildering.
You (and many others) are rewriting history. There was no demand for stopping flights or quarantine in January at all. There was some demand in February. It only became a mainstream call about a week before it effectively happened in March with a 99% fall in passenger numbers.
It hasn't happened. In June it has not happened.
99% of passengers didnt arrive at all so have been stopped from transimitting it. Of the remaining 1% everyone has been in a lockdown which has widespread adherance so the number of people who are not effectively quarantined is trivial.
And we have more of it here than elsewhere. We should be encouraging air travel to get rid of the infectious and replace them with healthy types!
Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp
You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.
There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.
The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.
Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
Thanks
What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
Has the lockdown brought enough fish back to online poker to make it worthwhile playing?
Not really, I am only profitable in <$10 tournaments now and only clearly so at <$3 whereas 12 years ago would have been winning at the level I do in $3 in $50 tournaments. </p>
Pardon my ignorance, but what's stopping you feeding the data into an algorithm whilst playing? Or is that the point - the only way to win is to be better at reading the players?
It's a big issue in e.g. online chess (which, admittedly, rarely involves cash).
It's a big issue in the larger stakes games of poker too, or certainly used to be when I stopped playing a few years ago.
There were times when you were absolutely certain that the five people you were playing against were five programmed computers in front of one person, who could see all the cards.
Net disapproval of Trump has grown markedly over the last few days so I think you're right. He seems to be turning into a caricature of Mussolini a century on, constrained only because of the greater checks on US presidential power. He'll be hoping that the violent element of the protests will grow but thankfully it seems to be ebbing in favour of responsible peaceful protest. What Trump is doing is firing up the Democratic base to new heights in a way that only he can. That's in marked contrast to 2016 when H Clinton was a wholly uninspiring figure.
Bewildering. Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
Fair enough on the dates but the principle is the same. They were discussing people coming from Wuhan. Had they agreed that they should be quarantined the same would have applied to the other hot spots as they developed. Pretty much everyone else in the world thought this was a good idea with differing levels of severity. In June we are still talking about it. It remains bewildering.
You (and many others) are rewriting history. There was no demand for stopping flights or quarantine in January at all. There was some demand in February. It only became a mainstream call about a week before it effectively happened in March with a 99% fall in passenger numbers.
And therefore did Sage change their advice
There are 34 sets of minutes of SAGE meetings, pls forgive for not reading them all, they are here if you really want to find out.
I've removed my red on Trump. At 2.3 he might not be value yet but he is getting there. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like the current unrest might help his chances. At the least it gets coronavirus off the news for a bit.
Has anyone seen anything on how US pollsters have updated their models after their miss in 2016?
I think the instinctive view that social unrest helps wannabe "Strongman" Trump is wrong. It's just another crisis for him to mishandle. Another high viz opportunity to demonstrate his almost comical incompetence. My advice to punters thinking of backing him for re-election is to hold off until the week before the election when you will be able to get at least 4/1. And then save your money and pass.
He’s a very competent demagogue.
Yes. He is skilled at pushing the buttons marked "fear" and "hatred". This plus simply being the Republican candidate in a partisan and divided country means he is nailed on to win some states.
Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp
You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.
There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.
The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.
Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
Thanks
What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
Has the lockdown brought enough fish back to online poker to make it worthwhile playing?
Not really, I am only profitable in <$10 tournaments now and only clearly so at <$3 whereas 12 years ago would have been winning at the level I do in $3 in $50 tournaments. </p>
Pardon my ignorance, but what's stopping you feeding the data into an algorithm whilst playing? Or is that the point - the only way to win is to be better at reading the players?
It's a big issue in e.g. online chess (which, admittedly, rarely involves cash).
The better sites like PokerStars do a lot to prevent that and are pretty advanced in finding it but its still a big problem, and part of the reason it is harder to win now, as is collusion and sharing hand data. Playing a table with 8-10 players helps as its harder for both colluders and bots. And "zoom" poker where you get new players after each hand has taken off significantly, that pretty much removes collusion, and decreases the value of bots, but also decreases the value of legitimate player skills as well.
* Zoom poker is nothing to do with the zoom chat app, just what they called the format.
I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.
Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
It is obviously not impossible but traditonally people queue differently (and closer together) for a pint. Changing that culture is harder when people have been drinking.
A takeout pint can be passed through a window or from a screen - assuming the pub can afford the cost of the screens with an 80% drop in revenue. But people do not go to the pub to stand 2 metres apart from the people they meet there if that happens revenue is so low the venue is unviable and/or people don’t go because the rules destroy the whole point of the venue.
These rules do not aid opening. They destroy the essence of the activity. The government may as well close such places down permanently.
I think the Black Lion in Hammersmith is taking in more than it does in normal times. I reckon it's turnover now is about £10,000 a day on sunny days. About 2,000 pints of lager or Pimms looking at the permanent queues and rate of serving. Only problem. No loos.
No doubt. In London.
Here the police are preventing pubs from selling takeaway beers at all or insisting that food must be supplied. Why? No reason. It’s as if the authorities are determined to make it as difficult as possible for those trying to keep their businesses open.
And how many people are going to queue outside when it is cold and rainy?
I've removed my red on Trump. At 2.3 he might not be value yet but he is getting there. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like the current unrest might help his chances. At the least it gets coronavirus off the news for a bit.
Has anyone seen anything on how US pollsters have updated their models after their miss in 2016?
I think the instinctive view that social unrest helps wannabe "Strongman" Trump is wrong. It's just another crisis for him to mishandle. Another high viz opportunity to demonstrate his almost comical incompetence. My advice to punters thinking of backing him for re-election is to hold off until the week before the election when you will be able to get at least 4/1. And then save your money and pass.
On COVID I felt confident that people don't think Trump is the man for the job. On social unrest? Unsure. At the least it riles up his base (and presumably Trump will soon start blaming protestors for the second wave).
Net disapproval of Trump has grown markedly over the last few days so I think you're right. He seems to be turning into a caricature of Mussolini a century on, constrained only because of the greater checks on US presidential power. He'll be hoping that the violent element of the protests will grow but thankfully it seems to be ebbing in favour of responsible peaceful protest. What Trump is doing is firing up the Democratic base to new heights in a way that only he can. That's in marked contrast to 2016 when H Clinton was a wholly uninspiring figure.
Sunderland voted Labour at the last general election but the UK voted Tory on a Tory manifesto commitment to leave the EU, single market and customs union.
If the EU will not do a FTA that respects that there will be no extension of the transition period
No FTA and Nissan closes Sunderland with manufacturing moved to Renault factories with excess capacity. Why would the EU accept a FTA when currently they will see UK manufacturing moving into the EU...
Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp
You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.
There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.
The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.
Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
Thanks
What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
Has the lockdown brought enough fish back to online poker to make it worthwhile playing?
Not really, I am only profitable in <$10 tournaments now and only clearly so at <$3 whereas 12 years ago would have been winning at the level I do in $3 in $50 tournaments. </p>
Pardon my ignorance, but what's stopping you feeding the data into an algorithm whilst playing? Or is that the point - the only way to win is to be better at reading the players?
It's a big issue in e.g. online chess (which, admittedly, rarely involves cash).
It's a big issue in the larger stakes games of poker too, or certainly used to be when I stopped playing a few years ago.
There were times when you were absolutely certain that the five people you were playing against were five programmed computers in front of one person, who could see all the cards.
Ah of course!
I couldn't understand how bots etc can make such a massive difference compared to a skilled player but that makes total sense.
If there's six players on a table and you're playing five of them so you know ten cards rather than two that makes all the difference.
Bewildering. Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
Fair enough on the dates but the principle is the same. They were discussing people coming from Wuhan. Had they agreed that they should be quarantined the same would have applied to the other hot spots as they developed. Pretty much everyone else in the world thought this was a good idea with differing levels of severity. In June we are still talking about it. It remains bewildering.
You (and many others) are rewriting history. There was no demand for stopping flights or quarantine in January at all. There was some demand in February. It only became a mainstream call about a week before it effectively happened in March with a 99% fall in passenger numbers.
It hasn't happened. In June it has not happened.
Given there's been a 99% drop in passengers it has happened de facto even if not de jure.
There's also a world of difference between isolating a couple of dozen people specifically flown in from a rescue flight versus doing so for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or more travelling by themselves in normal conditions. The two questions were not the same.
For once I totally disagree with you Philip. The fact that there has been a massive fall in numbers makes quarantine easier, not harder. The existence of quarantine would be a serious disincentive to non essential air travel now. We need this if we are to loosen our domestic restrictions and keep infections on a downward trend. There has been a lot of special pleading by the air industry here and it has been given far too much weight.
We needed to bring in a total travel ban in the first week of February, after that there were enough community infections from various sources to make an outbreak inevitable. Politically impossible.
Problem is, at the time the science didn't think the outbreak would be as bad.
I don't know who will win the 2020 US Presidential election.
President Trump is a great campaigner and he likes nothing more than stumping from arena to arena and giving long self aggrandising speeches. The recent riots in the US play into his hands, and probably help get his core vote out.
Against that, I think CV-19 pain in the US is likely to worsen. In Arizona, Saturday and Sunday were the worst two days for new cases. In Georgia, the new case count continues to climb. North Carolina is also seeing CV-19 cases running at all time highs.
Almost a third of the world's CV-19 cases are now in the US.
We could well see another New York situation somewhere else in America between now and polling day.
Rioting in cities - and bear in mind that 99.9% of Americans will see nothing more than is on Fox or CNN - actually affects very few people. Granny dying of CV-19 while you mother-in-law is hospitalised could affect 100x as many people.
You said the riots pretty much guarantee Trumpton’s re-election the other day. A shift in view?
I think that view likely to be proved wrong, in any event.
I think any enquiry will show that throughout January to April the Government followed the advice of its scientific experts at all times.
That may well be true but it is not an excuse, it is an abrogation of responsibility and leadership. Who, if anyone, was asking the hard questions of the scientists? Who was asking them to justify where their conclusions were different from most of the rest of the planet? Why was the consequences of the steps not thought through with a much earlier emphasis on testing capacity, PPE and the ability to trace?
So following the advice of esteemed epidemiologists will be seen as acting irresponsibly? I can't see that.
Mr. Eek, possible, and it's certainly the case that different UK Governments have not covered themselves in glory.
However, that doesn't change the fact that the EU offered a Canadian-style FTA for years and then withdrew the offer the moment it was deemed acceptable by the UK.
Selfishly most of us out in Spain are not keen on the borders being opened to the UK whilst the levels of infection remain relatively high in the UK. Our lockdown was more brutal than that of the UK and most of us don’t want to throw the gains away. Given that the community is 90% over 65 if the virus took hold it could reek havoc. Even someone knowingly free of the virus whilst in the UK has to pass through two airports and sit on a plane to get here.
When your down to 200 or so new cases a day then that’s the time to start traveling.
Which is why our planned drive down to see the family in Alicante has been scrapped. I don't think we would be welcome. And all we need is a spike whilst there and we find that we can't leave Spain / transit France / arrive quarantine-free into the UK
We needed to bring in a total travel ban in the first week of February, after that there were enough community infections from various sources to make an outbreak inevitable.
I concur that is what would have worked. Any later it, including now, it wont achieve much, any earlier wasnt at all plausible.
My question would be how would we have known to do it in early Feb, but avoided doing it for SERs, MERS, Zeka, Ebola?
Or should we be doing this every few years? What will the public reaction be if it hadnt taken off in Europe and uniquely Brits lost all their holidays and business flights and the rest of the world was fine?
Given no European country was even close to implementing such a policy in the first week of Feb, I think this is just governing with hindsight.
If and when we get our numbers down another 80-90% then Id support a travel ban from countries with a high infection rate, like ours currently is.
Bewildering. Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
It really is terrible advice.
A very big mistake and hard to lay at the door of Boris or the First Ministers
Time the media turned their attention to those making this advice
Good on John Rentoul for tweeting it
It seems like not that bewildering for the 22nd of January (although Taiwan introduced checks from the end of December). A month later I think it would be terrible advice.
In general there is a big problem with keeping things secret and then selectively releasing bits much later, nobody can examine the advice until it's much too late to point out possible mistakes.
The concept of having a scientific group meeting in private and not publish their advice, so that it open to challenge, is antithetical to good science.
I've removed my red on Trump. At 2.3 he might not be value yet but he is getting there. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like the current unrest might help his chances. At the least it gets coronavirus off the news for a bit.
Has anyone seen anything on how US pollsters have updated their models after their miss in 2016?
I think the instinctive view that social unrest helps wannabe "Strongman" Trump is wrong. It's just another crisis for him to mishandle. Another high viz opportunity to demonstrate his almost comical incompetence. My advice to punters thinking of backing him for re-election is to hold off until the week before the election when you will be able to get at least 4/1. And then save your money and pass.
He’s a very competent demagogue.
Yes. He is skilled at pushing the buttons marked "fear" and "hatred". This plus simply being the Republican candidate in a partisan and divided country means he is nailed on to win some states.
Trump is in trouble. Even Ben Sasse of Nebraska is slamming him for using the Bible as a prop, which wouldn't be important in itself, except that he's a classic Republican weathervane whose loyalty is tied to Trump's popularity, and thus must have some fairly devastating polling in his possession.
Though as I've said, what will really do Trump in is the economy. With perhaps 40 million unemployed, and a lot of those losing the health insurance tied to their previous job, there will be a lot of people unmotivated to support him, and motivated to get him out.
I've removed my red on Trump. At 2.3 he might not be value yet but he is getting there. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like the current unrest might help his chances. At the least it gets coronavirus off the news for a bit.
Has anyone seen anything on how US pollsters have updated their models after their miss in 2016?
I think the instinctive view that social unrest helps wannabe "Strongman" Trump is wrong. It's just another crisis for him to mishandle. Another high viz opportunity to demonstrate his almost comical incompetence. My advice to punters thinking of backing him for re-election is to hold off until the week before the election when you will be able to get at least 4/1. And then save your money and pass.
Net disapproval of Trump has grown markedly over the last few days so I think you're right. He seems to be turning into a caricature of Mussolini a century on, constrained only because of the greater checks on US presidential power. He'll be hoping that the violent element of the protests will grow but thankfully it seems to be ebbing in favour of responsible peaceful protest. What Trump is doing is firing up the Democratic base to new heights in a way that only he can. That's in marked contrast to 2016 when H Clinton was a wholly uninspiring figure.
Because of that it also seems quite possible that the polls will be favouring Trump too much by filtering out too many Democrat supporters deemed unlikely to vote based on past precedent. It's very clear still that Trump does markedly less badly in the "likely voter" polling than in the "registered voter" or "all" polling, and you wonder if that is because the likely voter models are now overly weighted towards Trump. We saw something similar happen in the UK in the way that the Labour vote share was too heavily downgraded through turnout adjustments in 2017 on the back of the 2015 election loss by the uninspiring Miliband.
The only caveat that I would place is that, unlike the UK, the US has significant elections between presidential general elections, so if the polling corrections for 2016 had been overdoing it then that might already have been picked up and adjusted for further. However, what we have seen this year alone is truly remarkable so whatever effect the events of 2020 will have on turnout won't be picked up prior to November.
Thanks. Good analysis. If you like you may join me and @Alistair and @Stocky as a full member of the TrumpToast club. We have a nice tranquil reading room and a cosy little bar officially exempt from lockdown.
So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
If Nixon had been assassinated just after the 72 election he'd have been (even with Watergate as it was then known about) regarded as one of the all time greats. Like JFK or Lincoln.
There is a Red Dwarf episode (of all things) that looks at what would have happened if Kennedy had not been assassinated. Lots of things would not have gone well is the general conclusion.
LOL indeed I was thinking about that and hadn't read your reply yet when I mentioned it just a moment ago!
It was one of the cleverest episodes they ever did in my opinion.
I've defended the government's early handling of the pandemic, but I have to say that in the last few weeks, and especially the last few days, it seems to have completely lost multiple plots:
- Cummings. 'Nuff said on that.
- The quarantine proposals. They are bonkers however you look at them.
- The lockdown relaxation: jerky, inconsistent, badly communicated, illogical.
- Test'n'Trace. What a mess.
- Needless spats with the UK Statistics Authority over dodgy figures (particularly daft as the real figures are quite good).
- Insufficient consideration of sector-specific problems with the proposals to taper furlough support
- Bizarre scenes of MPs snake-voting, for no discernible reason whatsoever
- And of course the looming self-inflicted disaster of the Brexit negotiations.
I'm struggling to think of when a government was so chaotic on multiple fronts in such a short time. Maybe Theresa May at her worst managed a similarly bad record at some periods of her premiership, but she had the excuse of no majority.
Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp
You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.
There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.
The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.
Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
Thanks
What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
Has the lockdown brought enough fish back to online poker to make it worthwhile playing?
Not really, I am only profitable in <$10 tournaments now and only clearly so at <$3 whereas 12 years ago would have been winning at the level I do in $3 in $50 tournaments. </p>
Pardon my ignorance, but what's stopping you feeding the data into an algorithm whilst playing? Or is that the point - the only way to win is to be better at reading the players?
It's a big issue in e.g. online chess (which, admittedly, rarely involves cash).
It's a big issue in the larger stakes games of poker too, or certainly used to be when I stopped playing a few years ago.
There were times when you were absolutely certain that the five people you were playing against were five programmed computers in front of one person, who could see all the cards.
Ah of course!
I couldn't understand how bots etc can make such a massive difference compared to a skilled player but that makes total sense.
If there's six players on a table and you're playing five of them so you know ten cards rather than two that makes all the difference.
The bots play perfectly to the cards they can see, so they have the edge over pretty much any human over time. If they can see more than one player's hand, then clearly they have a massive advantage!
Bewildering. Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
Fair enough on the dates but the principle is the same. They were discussing people coming from Wuhan. Had they agreed that they should be quarantined the same would have applied to the other hot spots as they developed. Pretty much everyone else in the world thought this was a good idea with differing levels of severity. In June we are still talking about it. It remains bewildering.
You (and many others) are rewriting history. There was no demand for stopping flights or quarantine in January at all. There was some demand in February. It only became a mainstream call about a week before it effectively happened in March with a 99% fall in passenger numbers.
It hasn't happened. In June it has not happened.
Given there's been a 99% drop in passengers it has happened de facto even if not de jure.
There's also a world of difference between isolating a couple of dozen people specifically flown in from a rescue flight versus doing so for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or more travelling by themselves in normal conditions. The two questions were not the same.
For once I totally disagree with you Philip. The fact that there has been a massive fall in numbers makes quarantine easier, not harder. The existence of quarantine would be a serious disincentive to non essential air travel now. We need this if we are to loosen our domestic restrictions and keep infections on a downward trend. There has been a lot of special pleading by the air industry here and it has been given far too much weight.
I have no qualms about implementing quarantine now and agree that it makes quarantine easier but I also think it's moot as it stands but won't be in the future.
How much non essential air travel is happening now? And given the 1% who do travel are put into lockdown when they get here what meaningful difference would it make?
I think you miss the point; its not just about Sunderland and how its local economy fares after Brexit.
The Nissan plant has become totemic of the entire UK's prospects after Brexit because Nissan leaving demonstrates that businesses which wish to trade into the EU will now NOT chose the UK as their base.
Therefore one of the central tenets of Brexit, that the trading abilities of the UK would not be harmed or diminished but only strengthened, is shown to be a pipe dream.
This is the point I made yesterday. The argument has been "won" and the cockpit has been given over to the leavers, that it has been "proven" and that the UK will land somewhere worth travelling to has not.
This is the type of shit anti-EU polemicists wrote for years. It never had any basis in reality. Now we have one of those fantasist polemicists as PM. They need to be constantly reminded of the crap that they wrote.
Sunderland voted Labour at the last general election but the UK voted Tory on a Tory manifesto commitment to leave the EU, single market and customs union.
If the EU will not do a FTA that respects that there will be no extension of the transition period
You understand literally nothing. People have been told that Brexit will make their lives better. They don't know properly what the EU does what the Customs Union does what a FTA is. The government don't know what the WTO is or how Dover Calais works and keep insisting that GATT24 is something the head of the WTO confirms is not.
People in the North East voted for Brexit. Many then voted Tory to Get Brexit Done. They were promised a better future and the voted to ensure that better future arrives. If Nissan and the supporting businesses close that makes for a worse future. The opposite of what they voted for. They aren't going to thank the Tories for not only destroying their communities (again) and knackering the lives of their family but also destroying the Hope that was Brexit. They aren't going to blame the EU. They are going to blame you.
I know you don't know or care about up here. How we live. What matters to people. So I have a request. Please please please come up here and knock on doors in your Tory rosette and tell people to their face what you post on here. You personally through your dogmatic zealotry and profound stupidity will demolish the Tories in the North East.
Every door you knock on. Every door slammed in your face. Every expletive hurled at you. You'll probably be threatened with violence and dogs when you tell the people whose lives you have destroyed that its to their benefit. Please. Come up here and knock on doors.
Net disapproval of Trump has grown markedly over the last few days so I think you're right. He seems to be turning into a caricature of Mussolini a century on, constrained only because of the greater checks on US presidential power. He'll be hoping that the violent element of the protests will grow but thankfully it seems to be ebbing in favour of responsible peaceful protest. What Trump is doing is firing up the Democratic base to new heights in a way that only he can. That's in marked contrast to 2016 when H Clinton was a wholly uninspiring figure.
What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
Has the lockdown brought enough fish back to online poker to make it worthwhile playing?
Not really, I am only profitable in <$10 tournaments now and only clearly so at <$3 whereas 12 years ago would have been winning at the level I do in $3 in $50 tournaments. </p>
Pardon my ignorance, but what's stopping you feeding the data into an algorithm whilst playing? Or is that the point - the only way to win is to be better at reading the players?
It's a big issue in e.g. online chess (which, admittedly, rarely involves cash).
It's a big issue in the larger stakes games of poker too, or certainly used to be when I stopped playing a few years ago.
There were times when you were absolutely certain that the five people you were playing against were five programmed computers in front of one person, who could see all the cards.
Ah of course!
I couldn't understand how bots etc can make such a massive difference compared to a skilled player but that makes total sense.
If there's six players on a table and you're playing five of them so you know ten cards rather than two that makes all the difference.
The bots play perfectly to the cards they can see, so they have the edge over pretty much any human over time. If they can see more than one player's hand, then clearly they have a massive advantage!
I must admit I was naive enough not to even consider collusion between "players"!
I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.
Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
It is obviously not impossible but traditonally people queue differently (and closer together) for a pint. Changing that culture is harder when people have been drinking.
A takeout pint can be passed through a window or from a screen - assuming the pub can afford the cost of the screens with an 80% drop in revenue. But people do not go to the pub to stand 2 metres apart from the people they meet there if that happens revenue is so low the venue is unviable and/or people don’t go because the rules destroy the whole point of the venue.
These rules do not aid opening. They destroy the essence of the activity. The government may as well close such places down permanently.
I think the Black Lion in Hammersmith is taking in more than it does in normal times. I reckon it's turnover now is about £10,000 a day on sunny days. About 2,000 pints of lager or Pimms looking at the permanent queues and rate of serving. Only problem. No loos.
No doubt. In London.
Here the police are preventing pubs from selling takeaway beers at all or insisting that food must be supplied. Why? No reason. It’s as if the authorities are determined to make it as difficult as possible for those trying to keep their businesses open.
And how many people are going to queue outside when it is cold and rainy?
Have you lobbied your MP ?
Here is my local MP’s website - https://www.trudyharrison.co.uk/. You will search long and hard for any mention at all of tourism and hospitality.
Tim Farron, by contrast, has been very vocal and active on behalf of the hospitality industry.
Yes - we can write. But frankly it seems a waste of time. Trudi lives very close by. She has attended and held events at the local pub. She is local. She knows the area well. If she couldn’t be bothered to say anything up to now, a few letters - however eloquent - aren’t going to make a difference. People are losing hope that there is any sort of understanding, any sort of strategy.
Bewildering. Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
Fair enough on the dates but the principle is the same. They were discussing people coming from Wuhan. Had they agreed that they should be quarantined the same would have applied to the other hot spots as they developed. Pretty much everyone else in the world thought this was a good idea with differing levels of severity. In June we are still talking about it. It remains bewildering.
You (and many others) are rewriting history. There was no demand for stopping flights or quarantine in January at all. There was some demand in February. It only became a mainstream call about a week before it effectively happened in March with a 99% fall in passenger numbers.
It hasn't happened. In June it has not happened.
Given there's been a 99% drop in passengers it has happened de facto even if not de jure.
There's also a world of difference between isolating a couple of dozen people specifically flown in from a rescue flight versus doing so for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or more travelling by themselves in normal conditions. The two questions were not the same.
For once I totally disagree with you Philip. The fact that there has been a massive fall in numbers makes quarantine easier, not harder. The existence of quarantine would be a serious disincentive to non essential air travel now. We need this if we are to loosen our domestic restrictions and keep infections on a downward trend. There has been a lot of special pleading by the air industry here and it has been given far too much weight.
I have no qualms about implementing quarantine now and agree that it makes quarantine easier but I also think it's moot as it stands but won't be in the future.
How much non essential air travel is happening now? And given the 1% who do travel are put into lockdown when they get here what meaningful difference would it make?
The issue is a small but influential group of people, who can't quite believe that, after all they've been through in the past few months*, won't be able to take their summer holiday as usual this year.
*mostly in middle-class media jobs, completely insulated from the economic issues and managing to save money at the moment.
Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp
You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.
There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.
The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.
Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
Thanks
What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
Has the lockdown brought enough fish back to online poker to make it worthwhile playing?
Not really, I am only profitable in <$10 tournaments now and only clearly so at <$3 whereas 12 years ago would have been winning at the level I do in $3 in $50 tournaments. </p>
Pardon my ignorance, but what's stopping you feeding the data into an algorithm whilst playing? Or is that the point - the only way to win is to be better at reading the players?
It's a big issue in e.g. online chess (which, admittedly, rarely involves cash).
It's a big issue in the larger stakes games of poker too, or certainly used to be when I stopped playing a few years ago.
There were times when you were absolutely certain that the five people you were playing against were five programmed computers in front of one person, who could see all the cards.
Ah of course!
I couldn't understand how bots etc can make such a massive difference compared to a skilled player but that makes total sense.
If there's six players on a table and you're playing five of them so you know ten cards rather than two that makes all the difference.
The bots play perfectly to the cards they can see, so they have the edge over pretty much any human over time. If they can see more than one player's hand, then clearly they have a massive advantage!
Nevertheless the one or two best sites are largely free of such direct threats. The problems were (I gave up when it ceased being profitable) the quality of the regulars once the fish had swam away, and the relentlessness of the rake in frittering away any edge you did manage to get.
There is also the legitimate player tracking software, which for a while I used to use - that monitors how the other players are playing and gives you an onscreen readout of their statistics. It can be very useful but needs very regular play to build up a database on enough players, and I didn't find the game sufficiently interesting to make the effort.
I'm struggling to think of when a government was so chaotic on multiple fronts in such a short time. Maybe Theresa May at her worst managed a similarly bad record.
I was thinking about the May premiership which always seemed chaotic, and came to the conclusion that May always did what she felt was ultimately the right thing for the country even to her own or the Tories' detriment - (WA, Social care reform, early GE) all fall into this basket.
Because of that it also seems quite possible that the polls will be favouring Trump too much by filtering out too many Democrat supporters deemed unlikely to vote based on past precedent. It's very clear still that Trump does markedly less badly in the "likely voter" polling than in the "registered voter" or "all" polling, and you wonder if that is because the likely voter models are now overly weighted towards Trump. We saw something similar happen in the UK in the way that the Labour vote share was too heavily downgraded through turnout adjustments in 2017 on the back of the 2015 election loss by the uninspiring Miliband.
Here is quinipacc's voter screen.
"Did you vote in the last presidential election?" If yes continue If no then hang up.
Obama 2008,2012, Stay at home 2016 wont appear in their polling.
A depressing interpretation might be that no one cares about lies anymore as long as they support one's world view. Not that Bailey's got a scooby, mind.
Bewildering. Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
Fair enough on the dates but the principle is the same. They were discussing people coming from Wuhan. Had they agreed that they should be quarantined the same would have applied to the other hot spots as they developed. Pretty much everyone else in the world thought this was a good idea with differing levels of severity. In June we are still talking about it. It remains bewildering.
You (and many others) are rewriting history. There was no demand for stopping flights or quarantine in January at all. There was some demand in February. It only became a mainstream call about a week before it effectively happened in March with a 99% fall in passenger numbers.
It hasn't happened. In June it has not happened.
Given there's been a 99% drop in passengers it has happened de facto even if not de jure.
There's also a world of difference between isolating a couple of dozen people specifically flown in from a rescue flight versus doing so for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or more travelling by themselves in normal conditions. The two questions were not the same.
For once I totally disagree with you Philip. The fact that there has been a massive fall in numbers makes quarantine easier, not harder. The existence of quarantine would be a serious disincentive to non essential air travel now. We need this if we are to loosen our domestic restrictions and keep infections on a downward trend. There has been a lot of special pleading by the air industry here and it has been given far too much weight.
I have no qualms about implementing quarantine now and agree that it makes quarantine easier but I also think it's moot as it stands but won't be in the future.
How much non essential air travel is happening now? And given the 1% who do travel are put into lockdown when they get here what meaningful difference would it make?
It's going to be yet another policy that the government fiddles about with and then abandons.
Sunderland voted Labour at the last general election but the UK voted Tory on a Tory manifesto commitment to leave the EU, single market and customs union.
If the EU will not do a FTA that respects that there will be no extension of the transition period
You do realise plenty of people who live in the Tory “red wall” seats work at the Nissan factory in Washington, or its supply chain.
Love how you’re happy to throw them under the bus immediately though.
I suspect even if the EU offered everything we wanted the Government will turn it down because it's not good enough.
This is the ideological gimp suit into which the government have zipped themselves. No agreement with the EU is going to possible because anything to which the EU would agree must, axiomatically, be wrong.
30 BAME deaths in political custody per year in the UK is appalling. One death is too many.
Do we know the overall figures, including for whites in custody, and whether they are disproportionate?
Also, how many of these are suicides or drug overdoses? (Still very bad due to neglect but not quite the same as enforced trauma or brutality, which might otherwise be the assumption)
In the 18/19 year (for some reason the report on this runs to the financial year) there were about 275 deaths in custody or following police contact. They are only recorded if there is an investigation but they do include (and this is not an exhaustive list): People killed in traffic incidents involving police cars (a surprisingly high number); People who were taken ill while in custody or being arrested; People who committed suicide within two days of release from arrest; People shot (three, one of whom was black); People who died while being restrained (eight, four of which were BAME). I linked to the report on this at the end of the last thread if you want to see the full breakdown.
Edit: I should have said that about 30 of the dead were BAME.
I've defended the government's early handling of the pandemic, but I have to say that in the last few weeks, and especially the last few days, it seems to have completely lost multiple plots:
- Cummings. 'Nuff said on that.
- The quarantine proposals. They are bonkers however you look at them.
- The lockdown relaxation: jerky, inconsistent, badly communicated, illogical.
- Test'n'Trace. What a mess.
- Needless spats with the UK Statistics Authority over dodgy figures (particularly daft as the real figures are quite good).
- Insufficient consideration of sector-specific problems with the proposals to taper furlough support
- Bizarre scenes of MPs snake-voting, for no discernible reason whatsoever
- And of course the looming self-inflicted disaster of the Brexit negotiations.
I'm struggling to think of when a government was so chaotic on multiple fronts in such a short time. Maybe Theresa May at her worst managed a similarly bad record at some periods of her premiership, but she had the excuse of no majority.
People get found out. From the get go, it was obvious that Theresa May would get found out as her whole MO was not up to that required of a PM and indeed she was found out (not in 24-hr rolling news time but eventually, and entirely as predicted).
Boris is as we are seeing manifestly unsuited to the job of PM. He simply isn't interested enough, nor has the attention should anything of any particular moment occur. This was so obvious that I am amazed that people are amazed at it all.
Richard did you seriously think that a government led by Boris Johnson would not fuck up? Seriously? You thought he might be competent, in a zen, Daoist hands off let the government run itself kind of way?
I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.
Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
It is obviously not impossible but traditonally people queue differently (and closer together) for a pint. Changing that culture is harder when people have been drinking.
A takeout pint can be passed through a window or from a screen - assuming the pub can afford the cost of the screens with an 80% drop in revenue. But people do not go to the pub to stand 2 metres apart from the people they meet there if that happens revenue is so low the venue is unviable and/or people don’t go because the rules destroy the whole point of the venue.
These rules do not aid opening. They destroy the essence of the activity. The government may as well close such places down permanently.
I think the Black Lion in Hammersmith is taking in more than it does in normal times. I reckon it's turnover now is about £10,000 a day on sunny days. About 2,000 pints of lager or Pimms looking at the permanent queues and rate of serving. Only problem. No loos.
No doubt. In London.
Here the police are preventing pubs from selling takeaway beers at all or insisting that food must be supplied. Why? No reason. It’s as if the authorities are determined to make it as difficult as possible for those trying to keep their businesses open.
And how many people are going to queue outside when it is cold and rainy?
Have you lobbied your MP ?
Here is my local MP’s website - https://www.trudyharrison.co.uk/. You will search long and hard for any mention at all of tourism and hospitality.
Tim Farron, by contrast, has been very vocal and active on behalf of the hospitality industry.
Yes - we can write. But frankly it seems a waste of time. Trudi lives very close by. She has attended and held events at the local pub. She is local. She knows the area well. If she couldn’t be bothered to say anything up to now, a few letters - however eloquent - aren’t going to make a difference. People are losing hope that there is any sort of understanding, any sort of strategy.
Yes, apologies - I saw your earlier post only after asking the question.
Net disapproval of Trump has grown markedly over the last few days so I think you're right. He seems to be turning into a caricature of Mussolini a century on, constrained only because of the greater checks on US presidential power. He'll be hoping that the violent element of the protests will grow but thankfully it seems to be ebbing in favour of responsible peaceful protest. What Trump is doing is firing up the Democratic base to new heights in a way that only he can. That's in marked contrast to 2016 when H Clinton was a wholly uninspiring figure.
Regarding the comments on the housing market above, local anecdote: converted chapel down the hill from us, (Yorkshire Dales/Forest of Bowland border)... previously on the market for nearly a year in 2016/17 before selling... back on the market last Friday at 15% higher price, sold (stc) by Sunday!
It helps that it has the Gigabit broadband we installed as a community five years ago despite being miles from the nearest BT cabinet.
You think Obama was a good President? Or are you just putting that because he wasn't white?
He was pretty crap, frankly.
So Obama was worse than Trump?
Probably not leftwing enough for noted lefty Mysticrose who is very leftwing.
If you noticed I praised Reagan as a great President and likewise Clinton, who was hardly a socialist.
The problem with Obama was that although he may seem a perfectly pleasant person, he was ineffective. A really dribbling and drifting incumbency which promised much and delivered very little. Brits tend to love him. Many in America don't. It's a shame.
I’m not sure how much some southerners who know nothing about the North East like @HYUFD realise how important Nissan is to region, not just to “Sunderland”. It funds college courses for young people across Wearside and Tyneside, it employs people from Amble to Barnard Castle, it provides for a vast supply chain and many ancillary services.
The effect on the job market and the unemployment rate in the North East, already one of England’s poorest regions, if Nissan was to close does not bear thinking about.
I’m not making any comment about “Brexit” in this comment. I’m just stating reality, Brexit or no Brexit.
The Governor of the Bank of England has just told banks to prepare for a No Deal Brexit.
I no longer care. I'm beginning to enjoy the spectacle of the US and UK disappearing down every conceivable plughole. Serves us right, frankly. Elect idiots like Trump and Johnson and you get what you deserve.
The Governor of the Bank of England has just told banks to prepare for a No Deal Brexit.
I no longer care. I'm beginning to enjoy the spectacle of the US and UK disappearing down every conceivable plughole. Serves us right, frankly. Elect idiots like Trump and Johnson and you get what you deserve.
That's all very good - but why, in mid-March, when the rest of the planet was imposing quarantines and travel bans were the governmentS of the UK countrieS not asking SAGE "why them and not us"?
Westminster retains responsibility for border control, but I would hope the devolved administrations were asking the question too. It's out of character to go along with everything Westminster says.
Almost no one has done point of entry screening (you let through far too many asymptomatic) - almost everyone has done some form of quarantining or bans on entry. Britain truly has been "exceptional" in this regard.
I suspect even if the EU offered everything we wanted the Government will turn it down because it's not good enough.
This is the ideological gimp suit into which the government have zipped themselves. No agreement with the EU is going to possible because anything to which the EU would agree must, axiomatically, be wrong.
I disagree. I think they'd give quite a lot of cash provided the public could see an end in sight. In other areas (fish) there is no wriggle room (tee hee) and rightly so.
We needed to bring in a total travel ban in the first week of February, after that there were enough community infections from various sources to make an outbreak inevitable.
I concur that is what would have worked. Any later it, including now, it wont achieve much, any earlier wasnt at all plausible.
My question would be how would we have known to do it in early Feb, but avoided doing it for SERs, MERS, Zeka, Ebola?
Or should we be doing this every few years? What will the public reaction be if it hadnt taken off in Europe and uniquely Brits lost all their holidays and business flights and the rest of the world was fine?
Given no European country was even close to implementing such a policy in the first week of Feb, I think this is just governing with hindsight.
If and when we get our numbers down another 80-90% then Id support a travel ban from countries with a high infection rate, like ours currently is.
Just to be clear, I wouldn't support a travel ban except for extreme cases. People need to take precautions, but many have good reasons wanting to travel.
When Italy imposed its regional lock down it was pretty unique in Europe postwar and didn't work well, so they had to escalate.
Just as when we didn't impose quarantine, let alone a travel ban, we had millions moving across our borders every week and millions more families going on half term hols.
Either shutting everything down or imposing autocracy over night wasn't going to be accepted for another minor outbreak.
The decisions made earlier in the year were based on the information at the time. What we know now is, as you say, very much governing with hindsight.
What we will think in the autumn when we head indoors (if there is no vaccine or effective treatment) will be different again.
What we think when Trump is re-inaugurated in the middle of a second wave, who knows where to start with that?
I've defended the government's early handling of the pandemic, but I have to say that in the last few weeks, and especially the last few days, it seems to have completely lost multiple plots:
- Cummings. 'Nuff said on that.
- The quarantine proposals. They are bonkers however you look at them.
- The lockdown relaxation: jerky, inconsistent, badly communicated, illogical.
- Test'n'Trace. What a mess.
- Needless spats with the UK Statistics Authority over dodgy figures (particularly daft as the real figures are quite good).
- Insufficient consideration of sector-specific problems with the proposals to taper furlough support
- Bizarre scenes of MPs snake-voting, for no discernible reason whatsoever
- And of course the looming self-inflicted disaster of the Brexit negotiations.
I'm struggling to think of when a government was so chaotic on multiple fronts in such a short time. Maybe Theresa May at her worst managed a similarly bad record at some periods of her premiership, but she had the excuse of no majority.
People get found out. From the get go, it was obvious that Theresa May would get found out as her whole MO was not up to that required of a PM and indeed she was found out (not in 24-hr rolling news time but eventually, and entirely as predicted).
Boris is as we are seeing manifestly unsuited to the job of PM. He simply isn't interested enough, nor has the attention should anything of any particular moment occur. This was so obvious that I am amazed that people are amazed at it all.
Richard did you seriously think that a government led by Boris Johnson would not fuck up? Seriously? You thought he might be competent, in a zen, Daoist hands off let the government run itself kind of way?
Any chance of that was scuppered when he announced a cabinet of dim wits and proven liars.
People get found out. From the get go, it was obvious that Theresa May would get found out as her whole MO was not up to that required of a PM and indeed she was found out (not in 24-hr rolling news time but eventually, and entirely as predicted).
Boris is as we are seeing manifestly unsuited to the job of PM. He simply isn't interested enough, nor has the attention should anything of any particular moment occur. This was so obvious that I am amazed that people are amazed at it all.
Richard did you seriously think that a government led by Boris Johnson would not fuck up? Seriously? You thought he might be competent, in a zen, Daoist hands off let the government run itself kind of way?
Leaving aside Brexit - which admittedly is so ideologically toxic that it taints everything the government does or says - there might once have been a possible view that Boris would be an OK PM, doing a harmless front-man act whilst he left the grown-ups to run the country, in much in the way that he behaved as Mayor. But of course the grown-ups have nearly all been hounded out of the government and party.
I think part of the problem now though is not so much that he's lazy as that he likes to tell people what they want to hear. So he flips around depending on which complaint gets his attention. This crisis is one where that is particularly damaging, since what is needed above all is a methodical approach balancing all of the risks simultaneously.
Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp
Has the lockdown brought enough fish back to online poker to make it worthwhile playing?
Not really, I am only profitable in <$10 tournaments now and only clearly so at <$3 whereas 12 years ago would have been winning at the level I do in $3 in $50 tournaments. </p>
Pardon my ignorance, but what's stopping you feeding the data into an algorithm whilst playing? Or is that the point - the only way to win is to be better at reading the players?
It's a big issue in e.g. online chess (which, admittedly, rarely involves cash).
It's a big issue in the larger stakes games of poker too, or certainly used to be when I stopped playing a few years ago.
There were times when you were absolutely certain that the five people you were playing against were five programmed computers in front of one person, who could see all the cards.
Ah of course!
I couldn't understand how bots etc can make such a massive difference compared to a skilled player but that makes total sense.
If there's six players on a table and you're playing five of them so you know ten cards rather than two that makes all the difference.
The bots play perfectly to the cards they can see, so they have the edge over pretty much any human over time. If they can see more than one player's hand, then clearly they have a massive advantage!
Nevertheless the one or two best sites are largely free of such direct threats. The problems were (I gave up when it ceased being profitable) the quality of the regulars once the fish had swam away, and the relentlessness of the rake in frittering away any edge you did manage to get.
There is also the legitimate player tracking software, which for a while I used to use - that monitors how the other players are playing and gives you an onscreen readout of their statistics. It can be very useful but needs very regular play to build up a database on enough players, and I didn't find the game sufficiently interesting to make the effort.
Good to hear that some sites have sorted out the cheating issues - so now the problem is that everyone left is basically doing it at least semi-professionally!
Someone needs to find a way to set up a keen amateurs game. Maybe only allow a single user a set number of hours per week, so I can play against others doing it for fun and not a bunch of pro sharks!
So a complete nothing story then? Even in the worst case, only 7% were stupid enough to follow lockdown less strictly because of Cummings!
That is, as I hope you will realise when you draw breath and stop to think, a non sequitur.
Consider that some of those 7% will be lying and using Cummings as an excuse for something they were going to do anyway, then take into account the 2% who are now following lockdown _more_ strictly, and I'm afraid it very much sequitur
The story was unmitigated horseshit from beginning to end, and its real-world effect comically small, not the world-ending meteor impact the media hysteria led some people to believe.
I’m not sure how much some southerners who know nothing about the North East like @HYUFD realise how important Nissan is to region, not just to “Sunderland”. It funds college courses for young people across Wearside and Tyneside, it employs people from Amble to Barnard Castle, it provides for a vast supply chain and many ancillary services.
The effect on the job market and the unemployment rate in the North East, already one of England’s poorest regions, if Nissan was to close does not bear thinking about.
I’m not making any comment about “Brexit” in this comment. I’m just stating reality, Brexit or no Brexit.
To follow on from this comment, if as I expect we do end up on “WTO terms” and if Nissan does subsequently have to close (although even if this happens, I do not expect it to happen immediately), I hope the Government has learnt from what happened to the old pit villages and puts in place retraining, reeducation, and stimulus measures in order to prevent half the North East crumbling into dust again.
Fwiw I will pay no attention whatsoever to 'rules' on quarantine and self-isolation when they are delivered by people who stubbornly refuse to wear face masks.
I take the view of Monsignor Quixote to another hypocritical and sanctimonious person in authority:
Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp
Has the lockdown brought enough fish back to online poker to make it worthwhile playing?
Not really, I am only profitable in <$10 tournaments now and only clearly so at <$3 whereas 12 years ago would have been winning at the level I do in $3 in $50 tournaments. </p>
Pardon my ignorance, but what's stopping you feeding the data into an algorithm whilst playing? Or is that the point - the only way to win is to be better at reading the players?
It's a big issue in e.g. online chess (which, admittedly, rarely involves cash).
It's a big issue in the larger stakes games of poker too, or certainly used to be when I stopped playing a few years ago.
There were times when you were absolutely certain that the five people you were playing against were five programmed computers in front of one person, who could see all the cards.
Ah of course!
I couldn't understand how bots etc can make such a massive difference compared to a skilled player but that makes total sense.
If there's six players on a table and you're playing five of them so you know ten cards rather than two that makes all the difference.
The bots play perfectly to the cards they can see, so they have the edge over pretty much any human over time. If they can see more than one player's hand, then clearly they have a massive advantage!
Nevertheless the one or two best sites are largely free of such direct threats. The problems were (I gave up when it ceased being profitable) the quality of the regulars once the fish had swam away, and the relentlessness of the rake in frittering away any edge you did manage to get.
There is also the legitimate player tracking software, which for a while I used to use - that monitors how the other players are playing and gives you an onscreen readout of their statistics. It can be very useful but needs very regular play to build up a database on enough players, and I didn't find the game sufficiently interesting to make the effort.
Good to hear that some sites have sorted out the cheating issues - so now the problem is that everyone left is basically doing it at least semi-professionally!
Someone needs to find a way to set up a keen amateurs game. Maybe only allow a single user a set number of hours per week, so I can play against others doing it for fun and not a bunch of pro sharks!
So a complete nothing story then? Even in the worst case, only 7% were stupid enough to follow lockdown less strictly because of Cummings!
That is, as I hope you will realise when you draw breath and stop to think, a non sequitur.
Consider that some of those 7% will be lying and using Cummings as an excuse for something they were going to do anyway, then take into account the 2% who are now following lockdown _more_ strictly, and I'm afraid it very much sequitur
The story was unmitigated horseshit from beginning to end, and its real-world effect comically small, not the world-ending meteor impact the media hysteria led some people to believe.
No it wasn't. It has seen a catastrophic fall in support for your tories. I know many Conservative friends who are still fuming about it and for whom the scales have tumbled from their eyes. If you don't agree with this or believe it you will not enjoy the opinion polls. Johnson's approval ratings have dumped (feels a better word than slumped under the circs.) and the opinion polls are moving to crossover. A spectacular blunder. One of the most remarkable I have ever seen in 50 years of studying politics.
Your non sequitur is to assume that just because people all (70%) know that Cummings did the wrong thing, this means that everyone else will suddenly join him on the road to perdition and danger.
I've removed my red on Trump. At 2.3 he might not be value yet but he is getting there. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like the current unrest might help his chances. At the least it gets coronavirus off the news for a bit.
Has anyone seen anything on how US pollsters have updated their models after their miss in 2016?
I think the instinctive view that social unrest helps wannabe "Strongman" Trump is wrong. It's just another crisis for him to mishandle. Another high viz opportunity to demonstrate his almost comical incompetence. My advice to punters thinking of backing him for re-election is to hold off until the week before the election when you will be able to get at least 4/1. And then save your money and pass.
On COVID I felt confident that people don't think Trump is the man for the job. On social unrest? Unsure. At the least it riles up his base (and presumably Trump will soon start blaming protestors for the second wave).
The Covid crisis could have been bespoke designed to expose him. This current crisis less so, I agree, because it does give him opportunities - albeit imo outweighed by the negatives for him.
Here's my nutshell -
In 2016, running as an insurgent "not a politician" against an unpopular and complacent Dem candidate, he lost the PV and scraped home in the EC by dint of a freakish sequence of razor edge wins in the Rust Belt.
2020. The electorate have seen him in the job for 4 years. Those who went for him reluctantly, hoping he would be at least a competent president, have the evidence to reassess. Many will not vote for him again. He has virtually no achievements in office to point to. Economy in a mess and the public finances ruined. Demonstrably weak response to Covid. Country at war with itself. And then his behaviour. Increasingly becoming a joke figure in the eyes of the world.
So (November) he keeps his "base" and the "always republican" voters - and there is overlap here so this is not additive - and that's about it. It's not nearly enough. Especially when so many will be motivated to get out and vote against him. Biden does not repel as many as Clinton. He has the black vote. There is no complacency.
Conclusion. I give Trump almost no chance of re-election. My one and only worry is about Biden. Does he have the mental stamina for the campaign? So long as he can get through it I am sure that he wins and wins easily.
People get found out. From the get go, it was obvious that Theresa May would get found out as her whole MO was not up to that required of a PM and indeed she was found out (not in 24-hr rolling news time but eventually, and entirely as predicted).
Boris is as we are seeing manifestly unsuited to the job of PM. He simply isn't interested enough, nor has the attention should anything of any particular moment occur. This was so obvious that I am amazed that people are amazed at it all.
Richard did you seriously think that a government led by Boris Johnson would not fuck up? Seriously? You thought he might be competent, in a zen, Daoist hands off let the government run itself kind of way?
Leaving aside Brexit - which admittedly is so ideologically toxic that it taints everything the government does or says - there might once have been a possible view that Boris would be an OK PM, doing a harmless front-man act whilst he left the grown-ups to run the country, in much in the way that he behaved as Mayor. But of course the grown-ups have nearly all been hounded out of the government and party.
I think part of the problem now though is not so much that he's lazy as that he likes to tell people what they want to hear. So he flips around depending on which complaint gets his attention. This crisis is one where that is particularly damaging, since what is needed above all is a methodical approach balancing all of the risks simultaneously.
In those characteristics, he is very similar to Cameron.
So a complete nothing story then? Even in the worst case, only 7% were stupid enough to follow lockdown less strictly because of Cummings!
That conclusion doesn't follow at all, because you're making two assumptions: 1) That the story only matters to the extent that Cummings inspired other people to break the rules, and 2) that 4 million people (7% of the UK population) breaking the rules isn't a big deal.
If, for example, Keir Starmer had shot somebody in the face, and then the next week 4 million other people went out and shot somebody in the face as a result, I'm sure you wouldn't be saying "A mere 7%? What a non-story!"
I’m not sure how much some southerners who know nothing about the North East like @HYUFD realise how important Nissan is to region, not just to “Sunderland”. It funds college courses for young people across Wearside and Tyneside, it employs people from Amble to Barnard Castle, it provides for a vast supply chain and many ancillary services.
The effect on the job market and the unemployment rate in the North East, already one of England’s poorest regions, if Nissan was to close does not bear thinking about.
I’m not making any comment about “Brexit” in this comment. I’m just stating reality, Brexit or no Brexit.
To follow on from this comment, if as I expect we do end up on “WTO terms” and if Nissan does subsequently have to close (although even if this happens, I do not expect it to happen immediately), I hope the Government has learnt from what happened to the old pit villages and puts in place retraining, reeducation, and stimulus measures in order to prevent half the North East crumbling into dust again.
No no no. Think about the benefits of WTO. We shut a fabulously efficient factory which exports most of its output around the globe. We don't want that kind of industry, its forced upon us by our membership of the EEA. We go No Deal, and get to import things more. Then we sign a few FTAs and get to open up an assembly plant making knock down cars out of imported parts (much as Hitachi builds trains) based around someone else's standards. That will definitely be much Better for Britain.
The Governor of the Bank of England has just told banks to prepare for a No Deal Brexit.
I no longer care. I'm beginning to enjoy the spectacle of the US and UK disappearing down every conceivable plughole. Serves us right, frankly. Elect idiots like Trump and Johnson and you get what you deserve.
Comments
We must wait to see how that circle will be squared.
Not everyone can run their lives from a computer at home.
If you don’t care about that of course, impose a “one size fits all” approach. But don’t then complain that the venue was unable to adapt because it was their fault when the reality is that the conditions were designed to ensure failure.
He is also, as it turns out, the neighbouring farmer.
Did Sage at anytime change their advice on this issue ?
The Nissan plant has become totemic of the entire UK's prospects after Brexit because Nissan leaving demonstrates that businesses which wish to trade into the EU will now NOT chose the UK as their base.
Therefore one of the central tenets of Brexit, that the trading abilities of the UK would not be harmed or diminished but only strengthened, is shown to be a pipe dream.
This is the point I made yesterday. The argument has been "won" and the cockpit has been given over to the leavers, that it has been "proven" and that the UK will land somewhere worth travelling to has not.
Because of that it also seems quite possible that the polls will be favouring Trump too much by filtering out too many Democrat supporters deemed unlikely to vote based on past precedent. It's very clear still that Trump does markedly less badly in the "likely voter" polling than in the "registered voter" or "all" polling, and you wonder if that is because the likely voter models are now overly weighted towards Trump. We saw something similar happen in the UK in the way that the Labour vote share was too heavily downgraded through turnout adjustments in 2017 on the back of the 2015 election loss by the uninspiring Miliband.
The only caveat that I would place is that, unlike the UK, the US has significant elections between presidential general elections, so if the polling corrections for 2016 had been overdoing it then that might already have been picked up and adjusted for further. However, what we have seen this year alone is truly remarkable so whatever effect the events of 2020 will have on turnout won't be picked up prior to November.
It's a big issue in e.g. online chess (which, admittedly, rarely involves cash).
https://www.gov.uk/search/transparency-and-freedom-of-information-releases?organisations[]=scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies&parent=scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies
There's also a world of difference between isolating a couple of dozen people specifically flown in from a rescue flight versus doing so for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or more travelling by themselves in normal conditions. The two questions were not the same.
https://twitter.com/AmiHorowitz/status/1267908030206816259
Of the remaining 1% everyone has been in a lockdown which has widespread adherance so the number of people who are not effectively quarantined is trivial.
And we have more of it here than elsewhere. We should be encouraging air travel to get rid of the infectious and replace them with healthy types!
There were times when you were absolutely certain that the five people you were playing against were five programmed computers in front of one person, who could see all the cards.
That said I wish that there was more evidence of a once honourable party turning on the turd.
* Zoom poker is nothing to do with the zoom chat app, just what they called the format.
On social unrest? Unsure. At the least it riles up his base (and presumably Trump will soon start blaming protestors for the second wave).
I couldn't understand how bots etc can make such a massive difference compared to a skilled player but that makes total sense.
If there's six players on a table and you're playing five of them so you know ten cards rather than two that makes all the difference.
But I jest, of course.
After all there would be 3 years to make merry before an election occurred.
Problem is, at the time the science didn't think the outbreak would be as bad.
However, that doesn't change the fact that the EU offered a Canadian-style FTA for years and then withdrew the offer the moment it was deemed acceptable by the UK.
My question would be how would we have known to do it in early Feb, but avoided doing it for SERs, MERS, Zeka, Ebola?
Or should we be doing this every few years? What will the public reaction be if it hadnt taken off in Europe and uniquely Brits lost all their holidays and business flights and the rest of the world was fine?
Given no European country was even close to implementing such a policy in the first week of Feb, I think this is just governing with hindsight.
If and when we get our numbers down another 80-90% then Id support a travel ban from countries with a high infection rate, like ours currently is.
Though as I've said, what will really do Trump in is the economy. With perhaps 40 million unemployed, and a lot of those losing the health insurance tied to their previous job, there will be a lot of people unmotivated to support him, and motivated to get him out.
https://twitter.com/consequence/status/1267671294365126656?s=20
- Cummings. 'Nuff said on that.
- The quarantine proposals. They are bonkers however you look at them.
- The lockdown relaxation: jerky, inconsistent, badly communicated, illogical.
- Test'n'Trace. What a mess.
- Needless spats with the UK Statistics Authority over dodgy figures (particularly daft as the real figures are quite good).
- Insufficient consideration of sector-specific problems with the proposals to taper furlough support
- Bizarre scenes of MPs snake-voting, for no discernible reason whatsoever
- And of course the looming self-inflicted disaster of the Brexit negotiations.
I'm struggling to think of when a government was so chaotic on multiple fronts in such a short time. Maybe Theresa May at her worst managed a similarly bad record at some periods of her premiership, but she had the excuse of no majority.
How much non essential air travel is happening now? And given the 1% who do travel are put into lockdown when they get here what meaningful difference would it make?
People in the North East voted for Brexit. Many then voted Tory to Get Brexit Done. They were promised a better future and the voted to ensure that better future arrives. If Nissan and the supporting businesses close that makes for a worse future. The opposite of what they voted for. They aren't going to thank the Tories for not only destroying their communities (again) and knackering the lives of their family but also destroying the Hope that was Brexit. They aren't going to blame the EU. They are going to blame you.
I know you don't know or care about up here. How we live. What matters to people. So I have a request. Please please please come up here and knock on doors in your Tory rosette and tell people to their face what you post on here. You personally through your dogmatic zealotry and profound stupidity will demolish the Tories in the North East.
Every door you knock on. Every door slammed in your face. Every expletive hurled at you. You'll probably be threatened with violence and dogs when you tell the people whose lives you have destroyed that its to their benefit. Please. Come up here and knock on doors.
https://twitter.com/HKrassenstein/status/1267972990253359107
Tim Farron, by contrast, has been very vocal and active on behalf of the hospitality industry.
Yes - we can write. But frankly it seems a waste of time. Trudi lives very close by. She has attended and held events at the local pub. She is local. She knows the area well. If she couldn’t be bothered to say anything up to now, a few letters - however eloquent - aren’t going to make a difference. People are losing hope that there is any sort of understanding, any sort of strategy.
*mostly in middle-class media jobs, completely insulated from the economic issues and managing to save money at the moment.
There is also the legitimate player tracking software, which for a while I used to use - that monitors how the other players are playing and gives you an onscreen readout of their statistics. It can be very useful but needs very regular play to build up a database on enough players, and I didn't find the game sufficiently interesting to make the effort.
"Did you vote in the last presidential election?"
If yes continue
If no then hang up.
Obama 2008,2012, Stay at home 2016 wont appear in their polling.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1268111326502625283?s=20
Love how you’re happy to throw them under the bus immediately though.
This is the ideological gimp suit into which the government have zipped themselves. No agreement with the EU is going to possible because anything to which the EU would agree must, axiomatically, be wrong.
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1268066590035251200
cheers. missed this FPT.
Boris is as we are seeing manifestly unsuited to the job of PM. He simply isn't interested enough, nor has the attention should anything of any particular moment occur. This was so obvious that I am amazed that people are amazed at it all.
Richard did you seriously think that a government led by Boris Johnson would not fuck up? Seriously? You thought he might be competent, in a zen, Daoist hands off let the government run itself kind of way?
For those unaware, Yellowstone's home to a supervolcano overdue for an eruption.
https://twitter.com/BBopTop/status/1268006831248547847
It helps that it has the Gigabit broadband we installed as a community five years ago despite being miles from the nearest BT cabinet.
The problem with Obama was that although he may seem a perfectly pleasant person, he was ineffective. A really dribbling and drifting incumbency which promised much and delivered very little. Brits tend to love him. Many in America don't. It's a shame.
The effect on the job market and the unemployment rate in the North East, already one of England’s poorest regions, if Nissan was to close does not bear thinking about.
I’m not making any comment about “Brexit” in this comment. I’m just stating reality, Brexit or no Brexit.
I no longer care. I'm beginning to enjoy the spectacle of the US and UK disappearing down every conceivable plughole. Serves us right, frankly. Elect idiots like Trump and Johnson and you get what you deserve.
https://news.sky.com/story/boe-governor-bailey-tells-bank-chiefs-to-step-up-plans-for-wto-brexit-11999578
Westminster retains responsibility for border control, but I would hope the devolved administrations were asking the question too. It's out of character to go along with everything Westminster says.
Almost no one has done point of entry screening (you let through far too many asymptomatic) - almost everyone has done some form of quarantining or bans on entry. Britain truly has been "exceptional" in this regard.
So why should it be
You and I should
Get along so awfully
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzGnX-MbYE4
When Italy imposed its regional lock down it was pretty unique in Europe postwar and didn't work well, so they had to escalate.
Just as when we didn't impose quarantine, let alone a travel ban, we had millions moving across our borders every week and millions more families going on half term hols.
Either shutting everything down or imposing autocracy over night wasn't going to be accepted for another minor outbreak.
The decisions made earlier in the year were based on the information at the time. What we know now is, as you say, very much governing with hindsight.
What we will think in the autumn when we head indoors (if there is no vaccine or effective treatment) will be different again.
What we think when Trump is re-inaugurated in the middle of a second wave, who knows where to start with that?
I think part of the problem now though is not so much that he's lazy as that he likes to tell people what they want to hear. So he flips around depending on which complaint gets his attention. This crisis is one where that is particularly damaging, since what is needed above all is a methodical approach balancing all of the risks simultaneously.
Someone needs to find a way to set up a keen amateurs game. Maybe only allow a single user a set number of hours per week, so I can play against others doing it for fun and not a bunch of pro sharks!
The story was unmitigated horseshit from beginning to end, and its real-world effect comically small, not the world-ending meteor impact the media hysteria led some people to believe.
An admirable trait. In a spaniel. Or a whore.
I take the view of Monsignor Quixote to another hypocritical and sanctimonious person in authority:
'Que le den por el saco al obispo'
Your non sequitur is to assume that just because people all (70%) know that Cummings did the wrong thing, this means that everyone else will suddenly join him on the road to perdition and danger.
Think.
Here's my nutshell -
In 2016, running as an insurgent "not a politician" against an unpopular and complacent Dem candidate, he lost the PV and scraped home in the EC by dint of a freakish sequence of razor edge wins in the Rust Belt.
2020. The electorate have seen him in the job for 4 years. Those who went for him reluctantly, hoping he would be at least a competent president, have the evidence to reassess. Many will not vote for him again. He has virtually no achievements in office to point to. Economy in a mess and the public finances ruined. Demonstrably weak response to Covid. Country at war with itself. And then his behaviour. Increasingly becoming a joke figure in the eyes of the world.
So (November) he keeps his "base" and the "always republican" voters - and there is overlap here so this is not additive - and that's about it. It's not nearly enough. Especially when so many will be motivated to get out and vote against him. Biden does not repel as many as Clinton. He has the black vote. There is no complacency.
Conclusion. I give Trump almost no chance of re-election. My one and only worry is about Biden. Does he have the mental stamina for the campaign? So long as he can get through it I am sure that he wins and wins easily.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1268117537012822018
If, for example, Keir Starmer had shot somebody in the face, and then the next week 4 million other people went out and shot somebody in the face as a result, I'm sure you wouldn't be saying "A mere 7%? What a non-story!"
Chaos next winter here we come. If combined with a 2nd wave it will be merry hell.
Tories out of office for a generation after this.