The sequels had their problems, but the first was fucking brilliant.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Thanks Mox. Who wants to be this guy?
The sequels had their problems, but the first was fucking brilliant.
Monday, January 23, 2006
More pictures: Poker Graphs
Graphs to accompany this post. Slightly updated to include play between this post and that one.
Each limit since June 05 (click images to enlarge)
$3/6 (0.77 BB/100)
This starts out mostly 4 tabling, then moves to 6. I expect my winrate drops as I add 2 more tables, but if it is 70% of my 4 table rate or better, I make a better hourly rate. Hard to draw any definite conclusions, but I think I might be better with 4 or 5.
$5/10 (1.35 BB/100)
You can see the downswing I've been moaning about recently in the fall from the peak at 20k hands. Looks like I've been coming out of it. There are a variety of multitable patterns over these hands, so its hard to analyze that variable.
$10/20 + $15/30 combined (0.53 BB/100)
In like a lion, out like a lamb. Not surprising is that in the lion phase I was playing mostly 1 or 2 tables at a time (and I actually have 11k more hands in my other database at $10/20 winning 2.1 BB/100). Pretty much exactly the time I moved to 3 or 4 tables is when the curve turns downward. Since that time, I think I've greatly improved my ability to play 4 tables, but I'm going to be very very conservative about expanding beyond 2 tables when I get back to these limits. I'll have to play more hours to make up for the lower hourly volume.
Each limit since June 05 (click images to enlarge)
$3/6 (0.77 BB/100)
This starts out mostly 4 tabling, then moves to 6. I expect my winrate drops as I add 2 more tables, but if it is 70% of my 4 table rate or better, I make a better hourly rate. Hard to draw any definite conclusions, but I think I might be better with 4 or 5.$5/10 (1.35 BB/100)
You can see the downswing I've been moaning about recently in the fall from the peak at 20k hands. Looks like I've been coming out of it. There are a variety of multitable patterns over these hands, so its hard to analyze that variable.
$10/20 + $15/30 combined (0.53 BB/100)
In like a lion, out like a lamb. Not surprising is that in the lion phase I was playing mostly 1 or 2 tables at a time (and I actually have 11k more hands in my other database at $10/20 winning 2.1 BB/100). Pretty much exactly the time I moved to 3 or 4 tables is when the curve turns downward. Since that time, I think I've greatly improved my ability to play 4 tables, but I'm going to be very very conservative about expanding beyond 2 tables when I get back to these limits. I'll have to play more hours to make up for the lower hourly volume.
Top 5 things that come in cans
I've been having too much fun with pictures lately. In an effort to control myself by inducing rock bottom, here are my top 5 favorite things that come in cans.
5. It is really hard to take a legitimate meal and make it taste good out of a can. Dinty Moore Beef Stew is by far the best at this nearly impossible task.
4. Soup isn't a legitimate meal, it can be an ingredient in some excellent cooking. Campbell's Condensed Cream of Chicken is easy to cook with and lays the groundwork for some awesome meals.
3. Beer comes in cans. Unfortunately the best beers come in bottles (I guess we could debate if a keg counts as a can), so 3 is the highest spot in the can hierarchy for beer. Coors Original is my favorite beer that is widely available in cans.
2. Soda is awesome. A cold cola is one of the most easily available simple pleasures in life. Cherry Pepsi is my favorite soda.
1. It isn't a legitimate meal for the exact same reason that Twinkies aren't a legitimate pastry, but I defy you to name anything that comes in a can that is better than Spaghetti-Os.
Ok there might be one thing better: Spaghetti Os with meatballs
5. It is really hard to take a legitimate meal and make it taste good out of a can. Dinty Moore Beef Stew is by far the best at this nearly impossible task.
4. Soup isn't a legitimate meal, it can be an ingredient in some excellent cooking. Campbell's Condensed Cream of Chicken is easy to cook with and lays the groundwork for some awesome meals.
3. Beer comes in cans. Unfortunately the best beers come in bottles (I guess we could debate if a keg counts as a can), so 3 is the highest spot in the can hierarchy for beer. Coors Original is my favorite beer that is widely available in cans.
2. Soda is awesome. A cold cola is one of the most easily available simple pleasures in life. Cherry Pepsi is my favorite soda.
1. It isn't a legitimate meal for the exact same reason that Twinkies aren't a legitimate pastry, but I defy you to name anything that comes in a can that is better than Spaghetti-Os.
Ok there might be one thing better: Spaghetti Os with meatballs
Sunday, January 22, 2006
I hate people... no I don't
I stumbled upon this page of quotes by Alexis de Tocqueville, who I had never previously heard of. He was French, but I won't hold that against him. Apparently he famously observed that it is easier for people to accept a simple lie than a complex truth; a full discussion of that concept would be worthy of a doctoral thesis.
Several quotes struck me, but for now I'll note this one:
When I see irrationality winning out over reason, I'm often tempted to think "I hate people." But I always hold back because I know that hating people is giving up on them, and giving up on myself. I'm not going to do that. Reason wins.
Several quotes struck me, but for now I'll note this one:
"Those that despise people will never get the best out of others and themselves."
When I see irrationality winning out over reason, I'm often tempted to think "I hate people." But I always hold back because I know that hating people is giving up on them, and giving up on myself. I'm not going to do that. Reason wins.
Wisdom of Stevie Wonder
When you believe in things that you don't understand
Then you suffer
Superstition ain't the way, hey hey hey.
Then you suffer
Superstition ain't the way, hey hey hey.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
running bad (i love variance)
Win Percentage, BB per hand
First pair is from 120,000 hands at a variety of limits and # of players. Winrate a spectacular 0.68BB/100 hands. Second pair is from 3,874 hands in the last 3 days. Winrate -4.31 BB/100.
AA: 81%, 2.08 / 64%, 0.10
KK: 75%, 1.92 / 72%, 0.94
QQ: 70%, 1.54 / 65%, 1.40
AKs: 65%, 1.02 / 58%, 0.93
AKo: 59%, 0.45 / 52%, -0.15
Tough to win when your biggest cashcows aren't pulling their share, especially when you can't pull that much to begin with.
In conclusion: woe is me, variance sucks, I suck.
First pair is from 120,000 hands at a variety of limits and # of players. Winrate a spectacular 0.68BB/100 hands. Second pair is from 3,874 hands in the last 3 days. Winrate -4.31 BB/100.
AA: 81%, 2.08 / 64%, 0.10
KK: 75%, 1.92 / 72%, 0.94
QQ: 70%, 1.54 / 65%, 1.40
AKs: 65%, 1.02 / 58%, 0.93
AKo: 59%, 0.45 / 52%, -0.15
Tough to win when your biggest cashcows aren't pulling their share, especially when you can't pull that much to begin with.
In conclusion: woe is me, variance sucks, I suck.
Friday, January 20, 2006
"Don't blame religion for what evil people do"
Some great discussion in the comments of my recent entries, definitely worth checking the comments out if you haven't. Thanks to everyone for your thoughts.
I wanted to highlight my response to someone who basically said that I shouldn't blame religion for the terrible things that people have done, because they were just bad people using religion in a bad way.
"i am quite sure there is some corruption involved and its not automatically the relgion to blame."
Do you think we should give judges the power to seize anyone's assets without explaination or appeal? Lets call that the Donkey Power.
And there are lots of good reasons to use the Donkey Power - you could take everything a drug dealer has and give it to needy children. Only the corrupt judges would abuse that priveledge, so its not that there's anything wrong with the Donkey Power, only there's something wrong with anyone who uses it inappropriately. Right? Come on.
Any power granted to people can be used inappropriately. For that reason we should be very careful what powers we give and why.
I like many of the core social teachings of religions. I don't like the absolutes and eternal consequences that they use to blackmail people who can't think for themselves. Be good because you'll go to heaven? No, be good because we're all better off that way.
Some religious leaders teach heaven and hell to encourage people to do good. They're the judges who use the Donkey Power to steal from drug dealers and give to needy children.
Some religious leaders teach heaven and hell to get people to fly planes into buildings. They're the judges who use the Donkey Power to steal from you to buy themselves a new car.
And here's the other thing. Do you think that Osama sees himself as a bad person? Of course not. Not too many people wake up in the morning and think "I'm going to do some evil today." Osama probably genuinely believes that his god will reward him for what he's doing. Is his god wrong but yours is right? The answer of course is that there is no god. God is the Donkey Power that someone invented and that people use for good or bad like every other power.
If Osama didn't have his imaginary friend, would he be trying to kill Americans? Maybe he'd find another reason. But he'd have a tougher time recruiting his soliders, who'd rather try to find 1 virgin here on earth since they'd know they aren't getting 6 dozen of them when they die. They'd rather trade with the US and improve their own lives than kill themselves fighting a far superior military power.
"religion is just the vehicle used by some evil people."
And its a really fucking powerful vehicle, so why give it to anyone? Yeah the donkey power can be used to do good, but it can also be used to do bad. Why put the donkey power out there if we can fight crime and poverty in other ways? We don't need religion. We dont need to invent heaven and hell to have reason to do good. And we dont need to give evil people such a powerful weapon to manipulate people.
I wanted to highlight my response to someone who basically said that I shouldn't blame religion for the terrible things that people have done, because they were just bad people using religion in a bad way.
"i am quite sure there is some corruption involved and its not automatically the relgion to blame."
Do you think we should give judges the power to seize anyone's assets without explaination or appeal? Lets call that the Donkey Power.
And there are lots of good reasons to use the Donkey Power - you could take everything a drug dealer has and give it to needy children. Only the corrupt judges would abuse that priveledge, so its not that there's anything wrong with the Donkey Power, only there's something wrong with anyone who uses it inappropriately. Right? Come on.
Any power granted to people can be used inappropriately. For that reason we should be very careful what powers we give and why.
I like many of the core social teachings of religions. I don't like the absolutes and eternal consequences that they use to blackmail people who can't think for themselves. Be good because you'll go to heaven? No, be good because we're all better off that way.
Some religious leaders teach heaven and hell to encourage people to do good. They're the judges who use the Donkey Power to steal from drug dealers and give to needy children.
Some religious leaders teach heaven and hell to get people to fly planes into buildings. They're the judges who use the Donkey Power to steal from you to buy themselves a new car.
And here's the other thing. Do you think that Osama sees himself as a bad person? Of course not. Not too many people wake up in the morning and think "I'm going to do some evil today." Osama probably genuinely believes that his god will reward him for what he's doing. Is his god wrong but yours is right? The answer of course is that there is no god. God is the Donkey Power that someone invented and that people use for good or bad like every other power.
If Osama didn't have his imaginary friend, would he be trying to kill Americans? Maybe he'd find another reason. But he'd have a tougher time recruiting his soliders, who'd rather try to find 1 virgin here on earth since they'd know they aren't getting 6 dozen of them when they die. They'd rather trade with the US and improve their own lives than kill themselves fighting a far superior military power.
"religion is just the vehicle used by some evil people."
And its a really fucking powerful vehicle, so why give it to anyone? Yeah the donkey power can be used to do good, but it can also be used to do bad. Why put the donkey power out there if we can fight crime and poverty in other ways? We don't need religion. We dont need to invent heaven and hell to have reason to do good. And we dont need to give evil people such a powerful weapon to manipulate people.
my poker past and future
After a terrible evening, I decided to do some poker introspection. The following is semi-stream of consciousness.
Let's put tonight's loss in perspective.
At all levels since June 1, I've won 0.76 BB/100 in 120,000 hands.
$3/6: 0.77bb, 52k hands
$5/10: 1.27bb, 22k hands
$10/20: 0.49bb, 23k hands
$15/30: 0.56bb, 14k hands
If you're wondering why bothered with $15/30 when I haven't even shown much profitability at $3/6, here's the rough sequence of limits since June:
$10/20 ---> $15/30 hot at first, then very cold ---> retreat down to $10/20, frigidly cold --> retreat all the way down to $3/6, double from 2 to 4 tables and grind away, gradually go to 6 tables (which lowers my winrate) --> $5/10
So here I am at $5/10 and based on everything else, my 1.3 bb/100 here might be temporarily too high because I'm running hot. (1.3 would be 1.5bb if not for tonight. Shows you how volatile this stat is) Or maybe I've finally learned something and I'm improving a bit.
When I first move to a new game I'm very cautious about table selection, which probably helps me get off to a hot start. But when I'm being cautious, I'm not playing nearly as much because the higher stakes make it more emotional. Then I look at how little I'm playing and see that I've got a good winrate at first, and I start forcing myself to play more, sacrificing selectivity. Eventually I get sloppy, sit down without scouting it out, and play too many tables at a time. And then I start wondering what went wrong.
A better approach to moving to a new game would be to play it a bit here and there when the games look good, but then drop down and play the game I had been comfortable with before moving up. Or better yet, make damn sure I have a solid long-term win rate in a game before jumping up. Unfortunately financial constraints force me to try to maintain a minimum level of income, and laziness constraints limit the hours I play, so I tend to want to play higher than I probably should.
I've said this same shit so many times, and I keep having the same problem. This game is hard. It seeks out my weaknesses and exploits them. You can do the income math on the numbers above. Its not impressive at all. Luckily rakeback and bonuses more than double that number, otherwise I'd be employed by now. As it is, I'm just barely getting by month to month.
I always try to make these kind of entries have a positive spin. "If I do this or that, I have reason to be optimistic... blah blah..." Should I really be optimistic?
I think it is pretty clear by now that given my skill level, expenses, and endurance, I'm going to struggle to build a bankroll and move up to higher limits. But I'm clearly a proven winner at this point, albeit a marginal winner.
But then would I probably be a marginal winner at the next level? Say I can win 1.2 bb/100 at $5/10. That's $12 per 100 hands. Could I expect to win 0.8bb/100 at $10/20? That seems like a reasonable assumption. That's $16 per 100 hands with the same skill level. Plus then I'd be playing against better competition and hopefully learning from them and improving.
Is it insane to think I'd be better off playing higher when I haven't even been able to build a bankroll to afford higher stakes? This is part of the reason I think selling my house would be a good idea. I could live someplace cheaper that lowers my monthly expenses, increasing the amount of my winnings that I can reinvest in my bankroll. Hell if I had no expenses the last 6 months, I'd have a very nice bankroll. Plus I could use some of the cash infusion from the equity gain to pad my bankroll and possibly move to higher stakes.
Another weird possibility would be having someone stake me. I've never really seriously considered such an arrangement, but it might be a good fit here if someone with money to risk buys into the idea that I'd probably be a winner at a higher level. I'm not sure if playing with someone else's money would make me feel less pressure or more, although I suspect less since I'm a selfish bastard (luckily in this case that works to the advantage of my theoretical backer).
Maybe the Vegas trip I have planned for April would be a good test-run for a staking deal. From what I hear about the $20/40 and 30/60 games out there, I probably have the skill but not the bankroll to beat them. If anyone wants to invest in a mediocre poker player, let me know. (Yes, someone asking to borrow money is a huge warning sign that they'd be a bad investment. That's why this isn't really me asking. It is more like me letting you know about a lukewarm opportunity that we could consider. I expect the offers to now come flooding in.)
Anyway, the fact that my prospects for advancing are based more on capital infusions than hard work or skill is probably an indication that I won't be a professional poker player in 5 years. I've been thinking of other things I might like to do, but most of them will take some time to get started, so I think I'll be doing this for at least another year if I can make it. I still really enjoy poker, and I imagine it will be a great hobby and supplemental income source for the rest of my life.
Let's put tonight's loss in perspective.
At all levels since June 1, I've won 0.76 BB/100 in 120,000 hands.
$3/6: 0.77bb, 52k hands
$5/10: 1.27bb, 22k hands
$10/20: 0.49bb, 23k hands
$15/30: 0.56bb, 14k hands
If you're wondering why bothered with $15/30 when I haven't even shown much profitability at $3/6, here's the rough sequence of limits since June:
$10/20 ---> $15/30 hot at first, then very cold ---> retreat down to $10/20, frigidly cold --> retreat all the way down to $3/6, double from 2 to 4 tables and grind away, gradually go to 6 tables (which lowers my winrate) --> $5/10
So here I am at $5/10 and based on everything else, my 1.3 bb/100 here might be temporarily too high because I'm running hot. (1.3 would be 1.5bb if not for tonight. Shows you how volatile this stat is) Or maybe I've finally learned something and I'm improving a bit.
When I first move to a new game I'm very cautious about table selection, which probably helps me get off to a hot start. But when I'm being cautious, I'm not playing nearly as much because the higher stakes make it more emotional. Then I look at how little I'm playing and see that I've got a good winrate at first, and I start forcing myself to play more, sacrificing selectivity. Eventually I get sloppy, sit down without scouting it out, and play too many tables at a time. And then I start wondering what went wrong.
A better approach to moving to a new game would be to play it a bit here and there when the games look good, but then drop down and play the game I had been comfortable with before moving up. Or better yet, make damn sure I have a solid long-term win rate in a game before jumping up. Unfortunately financial constraints force me to try to maintain a minimum level of income, and laziness constraints limit the hours I play, so I tend to want to play higher than I probably should.
I've said this same shit so many times, and I keep having the same problem. This game is hard. It seeks out my weaknesses and exploits them. You can do the income math on the numbers above. Its not impressive at all. Luckily rakeback and bonuses more than double that number, otherwise I'd be employed by now. As it is, I'm just barely getting by month to month.
I always try to make these kind of entries have a positive spin. "If I do this or that, I have reason to be optimistic... blah blah..." Should I really be optimistic?
I think it is pretty clear by now that given my skill level, expenses, and endurance, I'm going to struggle to build a bankroll and move up to higher limits. But I'm clearly a proven winner at this point, albeit a marginal winner.
But then would I probably be a marginal winner at the next level? Say I can win 1.2 bb/100 at $5/10. That's $12 per 100 hands. Could I expect to win 0.8bb/100 at $10/20? That seems like a reasonable assumption. That's $16 per 100 hands with the same skill level. Plus then I'd be playing against better competition and hopefully learning from them and improving.
Is it insane to think I'd be better off playing higher when I haven't even been able to build a bankroll to afford higher stakes? This is part of the reason I think selling my house would be a good idea. I could live someplace cheaper that lowers my monthly expenses, increasing the amount of my winnings that I can reinvest in my bankroll. Hell if I had no expenses the last 6 months, I'd have a very nice bankroll. Plus I could use some of the cash infusion from the equity gain to pad my bankroll and possibly move to higher stakes.
Another weird possibility would be having someone stake me. I've never really seriously considered such an arrangement, but it might be a good fit here if someone with money to risk buys into the idea that I'd probably be a winner at a higher level. I'm not sure if playing with someone else's money would make me feel less pressure or more, although I suspect less since I'm a selfish bastard (luckily in this case that works to the advantage of my theoretical backer).
Maybe the Vegas trip I have planned for April would be a good test-run for a staking deal. From what I hear about the $20/40 and 30/60 games out there, I probably have the skill but not the bankroll to beat them. If anyone wants to invest in a mediocre poker player, let me know. (Yes, someone asking to borrow money is a huge warning sign that they'd be a bad investment. That's why this isn't really me asking. It is more like me letting you know about a lukewarm opportunity that we could consider. I expect the offers to now come flooding in.)
Anyway, the fact that my prospects for advancing are based more on capital infusions than hard work or skill is probably an indication that I won't be a professional poker player in 5 years. I've been thinking of other things I might like to do, but most of them will take some time to get started, so I think I'll be doing this for at least another year if I can make it. I still really enjoy poker, and I imagine it will be a great hobby and supplemental income source for the rest of my life.
terrible poker post, DO NOT READ
seriously I can't imagine anyone would want to read this. fair warning. halfway down there's a list of reason to read it. i'll highlight it in red. if any of those apply to you, maybe give the rest of it a read.
I've been sitting at a table for close to two hours now, with a huge fish directly on my right. He played almost 90% of his hands, and calls til the river with any hand. He'll bet, raise or check-raise only when he has a huge hand, 3 of a kind or better. Nobody else at the table has been better than mediocre.
I have nothing to show for this. Having position on this guy I've been raising quite frequently (27% of my hands) to isolate, and only 1 other player seems aware that I'm doing this. But the fish has made enough miracle hands against me that I've only managed to break even. It is getting pretty frustrating, especially since I got beat up tonight on a couple other tables and this one should be helping make up for those..
This is just a stupid bad beat story. Nobody wants to read it but writing it has theraputic properties. I've been on a terrible run lately so I need whatever edge I can get. In fact since I started writing it, things have turned around a bit. Nope, nevermind, some idiot just called with pocket deuces til the river and spiked a set. Woohoo!
If you're still reading there's an excellent chance that one of the following applies to you:
[note: it gets a lot worse from here]
The idiot has now lost 67 big bets at this table, I'm sitting on his right, and I've lost 4. Awesome. This is pathetic. I am terrible at this game.
Yay he just check-called to the river w/A5 on a 678T5 board against my K9. Now I'm only down 1 bet. I just flopped a set of Kings now. Turn made a flush, sweet. Yup, I lose to 8-2 suited. Fuck me. Great the next hand some guy bet-3bet the Q52 flop with T7 and turned a T to beat my A4 flush draw. Thanks to the river 4 for making me call.
Oh boy here is AA. T7 guy 3bet me, fish calls, I cap. Board KJ6Q6 I put in lots of bets Fish boy bet the river with T9. I guess I should have folded. T7 guy mucked. Dear fucking god.
I don't really know when to stop in these situations. I've lost so much money tonight, but this is such a good table. How can I leave this seat? The fish has now lost 85 BBs, and I've lost 17 here, plus another 40 on other tables. I might as well just get a job.
There's my top 2 pair KJ losing to T4, who raised preflop. Awesome.
KJ again. Isolate! Some guy cold-calls and then raises the flop! Fold! Lose!
Alright fuck it. Nothing good will come of keeping playing. Wow what a terrible night. 67 big bets lost tonight, and 160 big bets in under 48 hours, erasing everything I had won in January so far. Seriously, anyone want to hire me?
I've been sitting at a table for close to two hours now, with a huge fish directly on my right. He played almost 90% of his hands, and calls til the river with any hand. He'll bet, raise or check-raise only when he has a huge hand, 3 of a kind or better. Nobody else at the table has been better than mediocre.
I have nothing to show for this. Having position on this guy I've been raising quite frequently (27% of my hands) to isolate, and only 1 other player seems aware that I'm doing this. But the fish has made enough miracle hands against me that I've only managed to break even. It is getting pretty frustrating, especially since I got beat up tonight on a couple other tables and this one should be helping make up for those..
This is just a stupid bad beat story. Nobody wants to read it but writing it has theraputic properties. I've been on a terrible run lately so I need whatever edge I can get. In fact since I started writing it, things have turned around a bit. Nope, nevermind, some idiot just called with pocket deuces til the river and spiked a set. Woohoo!
If you're still reading there's an excellent chance that one of the following applies to you:
- excessive gay love for me
- hate me cause of the bad things I said about God and want to bask in my misery like a good Christian
- really really bored at work
- computer is frozen and you are glued to your chair
- you just really love bad beat stories
[note: it gets a lot worse from here]
The idiot has now lost 67 big bets at this table, I'm sitting on his right, and I've lost 4. Awesome. This is pathetic. I am terrible at this game.
Yay he just check-called to the river w/A5 on a 678T5 board against my K9. Now I'm only down 1 bet. I just flopped a set of Kings now. Turn made a flush, sweet. Yup, I lose to 8-2 suited. Fuck me. Great the next hand some guy bet-3bet the Q52 flop with T7 and turned a T to beat my A4 flush draw. Thanks to the river 4 for making me call.
Oh boy here is AA. T7 guy 3bet me, fish calls, I cap. Board KJ6Q6 I put in lots of bets Fish boy bet the river with T9. I guess I should have folded. T7 guy mucked. Dear fucking god.
I don't really know when to stop in these situations. I've lost so much money tonight, but this is such a good table. How can I leave this seat? The fish has now lost 85 BBs, and I've lost 17 here, plus another 40 on other tables. I might as well just get a job.
There's my top 2 pair KJ losing to T4, who raised preflop. Awesome.
KJ again. Isolate! Some guy cold-calls and then raises the flop! Fold! Lose!
Alright fuck it. Nothing good will come of keeping playing. Wow what a terrible night. 67 big bets lost tonight, and 160 big bets in under 48 hours, erasing everything I had won in January so far. Seriously, anyone want to hire me?
Thursday, January 19, 2006
I like the prison analogy by the way
I'm planning to keep working with that for future discussion. Obviously the question of guilt or innocence will be used to correspond to the question of the existence of god, although that wasn't its purpose in the context of the honesty illustration.
Am I better than you? and the value of dishonesty
In a comment on the previous post, Brian asked several questions that I might respond to in future posts. But what I want to address now is this question:
"why are you so certain you are so much better than others because you base your entire life on logic and reason?"
The notion of one person being better than another is meaningless to me. I don't think I'm better than anyone. I don't think anyone is better than anyone.
"Better" only makes sense to me in relation to goals. Which is a better car: a minivan or a Porshe? Well it depends if you need to get 1 person someplace in a hurry or 6 people someplace by noon.
When I say that acting rationally is better than acting irrationally, I mean that it is more likely to result in health, happiness, achievement of goals, or any other measure of commonly accepted positive aspects of life. I also think that an individual who behaves rationally is better for his community than one who acts irrationally, with the same positive results being the measure.
(I know that something like "happiness" or "positive aspect of life" are a fuzzy concepts that are difficult to measure. That doesn't make my contention wrong or unprovable, it just makes it more difficult to prove.)
I want to note that believing non-truth can in some ways appear to be advantageous to your health, happiness, and achievement of goals. This is why I also throw in that honesty is important.
As an example here's a scenario.
Assumptions:
In some ways, it would be better if you believed the lie. You wouldn't wrestle with your lack of memory and wonder if it really happened. You'd never consider escape, so you'd live 50 more years in prison. You'd accept your misdeed and you might be able to achieve happiness knowing that you are fairly paying the price of your crime. You could enjoy reading books and lifting weights and make the best of the situation. Dishonesty has some appeal here.
But I'd sure want to know that I was innocent. Then I could make a choice about escaping. I'd have to decide if a high risk of death is worth my freedom, and I'd probably conclude that it is. I value honesty.
"why are you so certain you are so much better than others because you base your entire life on logic and reason?"
The notion of one person being better than another is meaningless to me. I don't think I'm better than anyone. I don't think anyone is better than anyone.
"Better" only makes sense to me in relation to goals. Which is a better car: a minivan or a Porshe? Well it depends if you need to get 1 person someplace in a hurry or 6 people someplace by noon.
When I say that acting rationally is better than acting irrationally, I mean that it is more likely to result in health, happiness, achievement of goals, or any other measure of commonly accepted positive aspects of life. I also think that an individual who behaves rationally is better for his community than one who acts irrationally, with the same positive results being the measure.
(I know that something like "happiness" or "positive aspect of life" are a fuzzy concepts that are difficult to measure. That doesn't make my contention wrong or unprovable, it just makes it more difficult to prove.)
I want to note that believing non-truth can in some ways appear to be advantageous to your health, happiness, and achievement of goals. This is why I also throw in that honesty is important.
As an example here's a scenario.
Assumptions:
- You wake up in prison, with no memory of what happened for the last week. You are told that you committed a crime and have been sentenced to life in prison. There is no appeal.
- You strongly believe that someone who committed the crime you are charged with deserves life in prison.
- The truth is that you had done nothing wrong, but you don't know it.
- Someone your age in good health can expect to live 50 more years.
- If you try to escape from prison, you have a 90% chance of being killed in the escape and a 10% chance of escaping and going on to live a normal life outside.
In some ways, it would be better if you believed the lie. You wouldn't wrestle with your lack of memory and wonder if it really happened. You'd never consider escape, so you'd live 50 more years in prison. You'd accept your misdeed and you might be able to achieve happiness knowing that you are fairly paying the price of your crime. You could enjoy reading books and lifting weights and make the best of the situation. Dishonesty has some appeal here.
But I'd sure want to know that I was innocent. Then I could make a choice about escaping. I'd have to decide if a high risk of death is worth my freedom, and I'd probably conclude that it is. I value honesty.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Is believing in God stupid?
I've been told that another reason I'm so arrogant is that I seem to think that everyone who believes in god is stupid. I've been contemplating this matter, and I keep thinking about Bill O'Reilly.
I'm mentioned a few times on here that I've occasionally listened to his radio show and I like a lot of what he has to say. I like his approach of being fair-minded and objective, and his willingness to fight for what he believes in. I think he's a brilliant guy, and I know that he is a devoted Catholic.
If he believes in god with absolute certainty, then it is because he doesn't apply the same fair-minded objective standard to his religious thought. In establishing political, historical or scientific claims, he would demand supporting evidence that passes fair tests of logic, objectivity, and reproducibility. No reasons that he or anyone else believe in god would meet those standards of proof.
Is he stupid for believing in god? No. He just hasn't decided to apply those standards to every part of his life.
Is it stupid not to apply such standards to every part of his life? Ah, this is a better question. I think it probably is stupid not to consistently apply standards of proof to all aspects of belief, but I'm not as sure about this. To answer that question, we need to determine the good and bad consequences of that decision. If the bad outweighs the good, belief without adequate evidence is stupid.
Belief in god, or choosing to follow a certain faith has certainly been a very positive thing for many people. The good side of religious faith is well documented, and I don't think I need to elaborate here. Some parts of the bad side of religious faith have also been well documented - people commit all kinds of unspeakable atrocities in the name of god.
But what about Bill O'Reilly? He's not advocating killing all the non-believers, so there isn't that bad consequence of his decision not to apply rigorous standards of proof to his religious faith. But a point I've touched on before from the Atheist Manifesto is that widespread acceptance of religious thinking encourages people to accept false certainties. Just because he doesn't choose to take drastic actions based on his beliefs doesn't mean that other people won't.
If Bill O'Reilly, who demands proof for almost everything, believes in his idea of god without proof, why can't radical Muslim terrorists do the same:
So I think an important downside of Mr. O'Reilly's religious beliefs is that it adds to societal acceptance of irrational conclusions.
No, I don't think Bill O'Reilly is stupid for believing in God. But I suspect it does more harm than good, a suspicion based on my belief that honesty is better than dishonesty. Obviously this entry isn't a full analysis of the harm and the good, it is just to illustrate the kind of approach needed to answer the questions asked.
I'm open to the possibility that full analysis might show that religion does more direct good than harm. But I'm not sure than goodness built on irrational belief is the way I'd like the world to be running. Maybe my valuing honesty is naive.
I'm mentioned a few times on here that I've occasionally listened to his radio show and I like a lot of what he has to say. I like his approach of being fair-minded and objective, and his willingness to fight for what he believes in. I think he's a brilliant guy, and I know that he is a devoted Catholic.
If he believes in god with absolute certainty, then it is because he doesn't apply the same fair-minded objective standard to his religious thought. In establishing political, historical or scientific claims, he would demand supporting evidence that passes fair tests of logic, objectivity, and reproducibility. No reasons that he or anyone else believe in god would meet those standards of proof.
Is he stupid for believing in god? No. He just hasn't decided to apply those standards to every part of his life.
Is it stupid not to apply such standards to every part of his life? Ah, this is a better question. I think it probably is stupid not to consistently apply standards of proof to all aspects of belief, but I'm not as sure about this. To answer that question, we need to determine the good and bad consequences of that decision. If the bad outweighs the good, belief without adequate evidence is stupid.
Belief in god, or choosing to follow a certain faith has certainly been a very positive thing for many people. The good side of religious faith is well documented, and I don't think I need to elaborate here. Some parts of the bad side of religious faith have also been well documented - people commit all kinds of unspeakable atrocities in the name of god.
But what about Bill O'Reilly? He's not advocating killing all the non-believers, so there isn't that bad consequence of his decision not to apply rigorous standards of proof to his religious faith. But a point I've touched on before from the Atheist Manifesto is that widespread acceptance of religious thinking encourages people to accept false certainties. Just because he doesn't choose to take drastic actions based on his beliefs doesn't mean that other people won't.
If Bill O'Reilly, who demands proof for almost everything, believes in his idea of god without proof, why can't radical Muslim terrorists do the same:
A person can be so well educated that he can build a nuclear bomb while still believing that he will get 72 virgins in Paradise. Such is the ease with which the human mind can be partitioned by faith, and such is the degree to which our intellectual discourse still patiently accommodates religious delusion.
So I think an important downside of Mr. O'Reilly's religious beliefs is that it adds to societal acceptance of irrational conclusions.
No, I don't think Bill O'Reilly is stupid for believing in God. But I suspect it does more harm than good, a suspicion based on my belief that honesty is better than dishonesty. Obviously this entry isn't a full analysis of the harm and the good, it is just to illustrate the kind of approach needed to answer the questions asked.
I'm open to the possibility that full analysis might show that religion does more direct good than harm. But I'm not sure than goodness built on irrational belief is the way I'd like the world to be running. Maybe my valuing honesty is naive.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Atheism under fire
I was confronted today by a very close family member who heard that I wrote that I'm an atheist. It was clear that there was not going to be a discussion, just a very emotional expression of disapproval and an accusation of arrogance. I probably am an arrogant bastard, however it boggles my mind that an otherwise very smart person can think an expression of my (dis)beliefs arrogant.
Such is the preposterous infallibility of the believer; their belief is unassailable, and anyone who dares question it is to be ridiculed and shamed. Is that not the definition of arrogance? We overlook the boundless arrogance of the faithful every day*, mostly because those of us who recognize it would rather try to ignore it than call them out on it and face their self-righteous indignation.
Neither of us expect to be able to change the other's mind. However, because this is someone that I love, I plan to try to explain why my atheism doesn't make me a bad guy.
The claim of arrogance against me was explained by a comment "the vast majority of people, and so many brilliant people believe in God." So the idea is that I'm arrogant for thinking I know better than them.
I'm sure I could spend hours documenting hundreds of stupid things that lots of people believe. I could theorize why people tend to believe dumb things, and tell the story about the Emperor's new clothes. I'll save myself the effort and skip to the bottom line: if a million people believe a stupid idea, it is still a stupid idea.
But I think there is a fair point - learn from smart people. A problem with this is that I could probably also provide plenty of examples of people known for their brilliance in one area who have ridiculous beliefs in other areas. Hitler, Osama, The Unabomber, Sadaam... intelligent people with bad ideas. Some people use their intelligence to cleverly argue the case for a belief they chose irrationally, kind of like brilliant lawyers defending obviously guilty clients.
So the smart people I look to are scientists. The scientific method trains you to remove sources of bias and rely on evidence. Science is open to disagreement, constructive criticism, and falsification of theories. Master the scientific method, and you master the best path we have to discovering truth.
From Natalie Angier's Confessions of a Lonely Atheist:
So here are the stats** on belief in God:
American Public: over 90%
General Scientists: 40%
Elite Scientists: 7%
Scientists are overwhelmingly less likely to believe in God than people with little scientific expertise. I don't even think it is arrogant to profess a belief in God, thus rejecting the disbelief of the people who understand how best to search for and discover truth. But I do think it is arrogant to have all that information and still think less of someone for their atheism.
* Sam Harris: "Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs."
** I didn't go to the trouble of checking those stats, because I'm lazy. I've seen similar stats before, and I doubt anyone would seriously dispute the contention that atheism is much more common among elite scientists than in the general population, which is all I need to make my point. The inevitable comic result is that some religious zealot will provide stats that show the opposite, I'll criticize their survey methodology, and they'll say the results bias my evaluation. Of course the scientific approach has solved this dilemma - simply have someone review the methodology before they know the results. Religion has also solved this dilemma - simply form your beliefs regardless of evidence, and ignore anyone who questions you.
Such is the preposterous infallibility of the believer; their belief is unassailable, and anyone who dares question it is to be ridiculed and shamed. Is that not the definition of arrogance? We overlook the boundless arrogance of the faithful every day*, mostly because those of us who recognize it would rather try to ignore it than call them out on it and face their self-righteous indignation.
Neither of us expect to be able to change the other's mind. However, because this is someone that I love, I plan to try to explain why my atheism doesn't make me a bad guy.
The claim of arrogance against me was explained by a comment "the vast majority of people, and so many brilliant people believe in God." So the idea is that I'm arrogant for thinking I know better than them.
I'm sure I could spend hours documenting hundreds of stupid things that lots of people believe. I could theorize why people tend to believe dumb things, and tell the story about the Emperor's new clothes. I'll save myself the effort and skip to the bottom line: if a million people believe a stupid idea, it is still a stupid idea.
But I think there is a fair point - learn from smart people. A problem with this is that I could probably also provide plenty of examples of people known for their brilliance in one area who have ridiculous beliefs in other areas. Hitler, Osama, The Unabomber, Sadaam... intelligent people with bad ideas. Some people use their intelligence to cleverly argue the case for a belief they chose irrationally, kind of like brilliant lawyers defending obviously guilty clients.
So the smart people I look to are scientists. The scientific method trains you to remove sources of bias and rely on evidence. Science is open to disagreement, constructive criticism, and falsification of theories. Master the scientific method, and you master the best path we have to discovering truth.
From Natalie Angier's Confessions of a Lonely Atheist:
Recently, Edward J. Larson, a science historian at the University of Georgia, and Larry Witham, a writer, polled scientists listed in American Men and Women of Science on their religious beliefs. Among this general group, a reasonably high proportion, 40 percent, claimed to believe in a "personal God" who would listen to their prayers. But when the researchers next targeted members of the National Academy of Sciences, an elite coterie if ever there was one, belief in a personal God was 7 percent, the flip of the American public at large. This is not to say that intelligence and atheism are in any way linked, but to suggest that immersion in the scientific method, and success in the profession, tend to influence its practitioners.
So here are the stats** on belief in God:
American Public: over 90%
General Scientists: 40%
Elite Scientists: 7%
Scientists are overwhelmingly less likely to believe in God than people with little scientific expertise. I don't even think it is arrogant to profess a belief in God, thus rejecting the disbelief of the people who understand how best to search for and discover truth. But I do think it is arrogant to have all that information and still think less of someone for their atheism.
* Sam Harris: "Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs."
** I didn't go to the trouble of checking those stats, because I'm lazy. I've seen similar stats before, and I doubt anyone would seriously dispute the contention that atheism is much more common among elite scientists than in the general population, which is all I need to make my point. The inevitable comic result is that some religious zealot will provide stats that show the opposite, I'll criticize their survey methodology, and they'll say the results bias my evaluation. Of course the scientific approach has solved this dilemma - simply have someone review the methodology before they know the results. Religion has also solved this dilemma - simply form your beliefs regardless of evidence, and ignore anyone who questions you.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
For my poker-starved readers
Here's some rare poker content.
I logged on to Absolute Poker in the wee hours of the morning to play my usual $5/10 6-max hold'em game. I was disappointed to see there were only 2 tables going on a Friday night, and that neither of them looked particularly easy. I was just about to head over to Party Poker, when I decided to check out the $10/20 action. I noticed a pair of 6-max games that looked pretty soft, so I decided to take a shot at that limit. I learned that I'm not ready to stomach the swings of this game on a regular basis, but I was able to book a nice win. Here were a few highlight hands, with very little commentary.
Hand 1: I think you're bullshit!
6 handed $10/20 hold'em.
4 folds to me in the small blind with 2♥2♣
I raise to $20 and the big blind calls.
flop ($40): 3♦ A♦ J♠
I bet $10, he raises to $20, I call.
turn ($80): A♠
I check, he bets $20, I call.
river ($120): 7♥
I check, he bets $20, I call.
He shows K♦8♦
I win $157.
Comments: Don't know my opponent, so I assume he plays like the generic 6-max player. I thought if he had an Ace, he'd have reraised preflop or waited til the turn to raise. And if he had a Jack or another pocket pair he'd have either raised preflop or just called all the way. So I figured a flush draw was his most likely hand.
Hand 2: Value bets or bluffs?
4 handed $10/20 hold'em.
1 fold, button raises to $20, small blind folds, I call in big blind with K♥9♥
flop ($45): 8♣ Q♣ 9♦
I bet $10, he raises to $20, I call.
turn ($85): 5♣
I bet $20, he raises to $40, I raise to $60, he calls.
river ($205): Q♦
I bet $20, he folds. I take down $203.
Comments: I suck at reading hands, so I just put lots of bets in and hope it works. This time it did. Opponent in this hand is very good, so I assumed he was capable of folding a decent made hand or semibluffing (betting/raising with a strong draw). My assumption must have been right, since he obviously he did one of those things.
Hand 3: Nice turn card.
6 handed $10/20 hold'em
UTG calls $10, next guy calls $10, fold, I raise to $20, small blind calls, big blind folds, 2 more callers. I have A♦J♦
flop ($90): 8♥ 7♠ 5♠
Small blind bets $10. 3 callers.
turn ($130): J♥
Small blind bets $20, big blind calls, next guy raises to $40, I raise to $60, small blind caps it to $80, big blind folds, 2 callers.
river ($390): 4♥
Small blind bets $20, 2 callers.
Small blind has J♠6♠ (an 8-high straight)
next guy has J♣9♠ (a pair of Jacks with 9-kicker)
Small blind wins $447
Comment: Small blind was the reason I was in this game. He saw the flop almost every hand, bet and raised often with no hand or on draws, and check/called with his strong hands. The guy with J9 was also loose and weird. My flop call I thought was a no-brainer, even without a backdoor flush draw. Given how bad both players are, I couldn't fold top pair top kicker on the turn, so I figured 3betting was the best play. It turned out I was a 52% favorite to win the hand, so my 3bet (and small blind's cap) was very profitable for me with 2 callers. Too bad I couldn't just claim 52% of the $390 that was in the pot before the river.
I logged on to Absolute Poker in the wee hours of the morning to play my usual $5/10 6-max hold'em game. I was disappointed to see there were only 2 tables going on a Friday night, and that neither of them looked particularly easy. I was just about to head over to Party Poker, when I decided to check out the $10/20 action. I noticed a pair of 6-max games that looked pretty soft, so I decided to take a shot at that limit. I learned that I'm not ready to stomach the swings of this game on a regular basis, but I was able to book a nice win. Here were a few highlight hands, with very little commentary.
Hand 1: I think you're bullshit!
6 handed $10/20 hold'em.
4 folds to me in the small blind with 2♥2♣
I raise to $20 and the big blind calls.
flop ($40): 3♦ A♦ J♠
I bet $10, he raises to $20, I call.
turn ($80): A♠
I check, he bets $20, I call.
river ($120): 7♥
I check, he bets $20, I call.
He shows K♦8♦
I win $157.
Comments: Don't know my opponent, so I assume he plays like the generic 6-max player. I thought if he had an Ace, he'd have reraised preflop or waited til the turn to raise. And if he had a Jack or another pocket pair he'd have either raised preflop or just called all the way. So I figured a flush draw was his most likely hand.
Hand 2: Value bets or bluffs?
4 handed $10/20 hold'em.
1 fold, button raises to $20, small blind folds, I call in big blind with K♥9♥
flop ($45): 8♣ Q♣ 9♦
I bet $10, he raises to $20, I call.
turn ($85): 5♣
I bet $20, he raises to $40, I raise to $60, he calls.
river ($205): Q♦
I bet $20, he folds. I take down $203.
Comments: I suck at reading hands, so I just put lots of bets in and hope it works. This time it did. Opponent in this hand is very good, so I assumed he was capable of folding a decent made hand or semibluffing (betting/raising with a strong draw). My assumption must have been right, since he obviously he did one of those things.
Hand 3: Nice turn card.
6 handed $10/20 hold'em
UTG calls $10, next guy calls $10, fold, I raise to $20, small blind calls, big blind folds, 2 more callers. I have A♦J♦
flop ($90): 8♥ 7♠ 5♠
Small blind bets $10. 3 callers.
turn ($130): J♥
Small blind bets $20, big blind calls, next guy raises to $40, I raise to $60, small blind caps it to $80, big blind folds, 2 callers.
river ($390): 4♥
Small blind bets $20, 2 callers.
Small blind has J♠6♠ (an 8-high straight)
next guy has J♣9♠ (a pair of Jacks with 9-kicker)
Small blind wins $447
Comment: Small blind was the reason I was in this game. He saw the flop almost every hand, bet and raised often with no hand or on draws, and check/called with his strong hands. The guy with J9 was also loose and weird. My flop call I thought was a no-brainer, even without a backdoor flush draw. Given how bad both players are, I couldn't fold top pair top kicker on the turn, so I figured 3betting was the best play. It turned out I was a 52% favorite to win the hand, so my 3bet (and small blind's cap) was very profitable for me with 2 callers. Too bad I couldn't just claim 52% of the $390 that was in the pot before the river.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
FAQ
When you see FAQ, for example here, does the voice in your head spell it out like "eff-ay-kyoo" or pronounce it like the word "fax" or "fac" or something along those lines?
I'm seriously curious, please post a comment with your answer. If the voices in your head tell you other things, I'd like to hear about them as well.
I'm seriously curious, please post a comment with your answer. If the voices in your head tell you other things, I'd like to hear about them as well.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
0.9999... = 1
Pretty funny thread on 2+2. Somebody posted a poll: Does 0.999... = 1?
It is funny because 0.99999... (where "..." means infinite more 9s) is equal to 1. But several people vehemently disagree about this mathematical fact.
Some of my favorites:
A.
B.
C.
The guy in quote A is willing to draw a line between "math" and "reality." In other words "I don't care what all the experts who understand this issue say, my ignorant opinion is going to govern my reality."
The guy in quote B might have just proved to himself that he can never actually reach any destination.
The guy in quote C is so confident that his wrong answer is right that he actually looks down on people that understand the right answer to the question.
People's confusion on this matter stems from a flawed understanding of the decimal system, difficulty with the concept of infinity and poor math education. They cling to their sense of intuition which is good for concepts like 1, 2, or 10, but is woefully lacking when dealing with complex concepts like infinity. They even dismiss examples that appeal to intuition, like 1/3 = 0.333..., so 3/3 = 0.9999... = 1. Each intuitive step leads to an counterintuitive conclusion, so they ignore it.
Sometimes when people disagree, there is no right answer. Sometimes there is. Flawed reasoning is everywhere because proper reasoning isn't as easy as it seems. Sometimes sound reasoning results in a startling conclusion that defies intuition or conventional wisdom.
When your stance is different than a consensus of experts, maybe you ought to take another look at your stance. We'd all be better off if we were more open to the possibility that we're wrong.
It is funny because 0.99999... (where "..." means infinite more 9s) is equal to 1. But several people vehemently disagree about this mathematical fact.
Some of my favorites:
A.
You can show (using calculus or other methods) that with a large
enough number of 9s in the expansion, you can get arbitrarily close to
1.
SO in Math it does = 1 , however in reality it doesn't but its accepted that it is. So is the accepted answer its 1 , then yes, is it really no.
B.
They are not equal except in practical terms. It is similar to the question if I travel half the distance to my destination, then half again, on adinfinitum, will I ever reach my destination - no.
C.
I doesn't matter how many 9's there are in the .99999. The number you end up with is still some tiny tiny amount less than 1. That should be obvious but sadly looking at the results of the poll it isn't.
The guy in quote A is willing to draw a line between "math" and "reality." In other words "I don't care what all the experts who understand this issue say, my ignorant opinion is going to govern my reality."
The guy in quote B might have just proved to himself that he can never actually reach any destination.
The guy in quote C is so confident that his wrong answer is right that he actually looks down on people that understand the right answer to the question.
People's confusion on this matter stems from a flawed understanding of the decimal system, difficulty with the concept of infinity and poor math education. They cling to their sense of intuition which is good for concepts like 1, 2, or 10, but is woefully lacking when dealing with complex concepts like infinity. They even dismiss examples that appeal to intuition, like 1/3 = 0.333..., so 3/3 = 0.9999... = 1. Each intuitive step leads to an counterintuitive conclusion, so they ignore it.
Sometimes when people disagree, there is no right answer. Sometimes there is. Flawed reasoning is everywhere because proper reasoning isn't as easy as it seems. Sometimes sound reasoning results in a startling conclusion that defies intuition or conventional wisdom.
When your stance is different than a consensus of experts, maybe you ought to take another look at your stance. We'd all be better off if we were more open to the possibility that we're wrong.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Small victories
I have trouble playing longer than an hour, too often let myself get frustrated, and tend to quit when I'm emotional. I just overcame all of that, and karma rewarded me with a nice come-from-behind win. My name is Earl.After about 50 minutes I was down 30BBs, frustrated at a string of bad beats, and nearly convinced myself to quit. But I realized that the people I was playing against were total morons and figured I should stick around a bit longer. After another half hour I had recovered all of my losses and more.
I shouldn't be having these kinds of problems. Usually I don't, but Party 6max games have a mysterious power over me. Plus I'm riding a 150BB downswing at Absolute $5/10, so maybe I'm on edge more than normal. Or I just suck.
Also, I slept from midnight to 4pm last night. It was great.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Thursday, January 05, 2006
How to pay less for your Comcast
Recent words of support reminded me that I meant to add this information to the Businesses that I hate.
When I called to cancel my Comcast account, they asked for a reason. I told them bad customer service. Then said they'd hate to lose my business, would I be willing to stay if they reduced their monthly fee?
I urge everyone to quit giving Comcast your money. But if you stick with them, at least call up and bluff that you're leaving, and they'll almost certainly give you a discount. The worst that can happen is they don't offer you a discount, and then you can say you changed your mind about switching to DirecTV.
Use the extra money I helped you save to fund an account at one of the poker sites I advertise.
Or use it to buy tickets on Fandango. Fucker.
When I called to cancel my Comcast account, they asked for a reason. I told them bad customer service. Then said they'd hate to lose my business, would I be willing to stay if they reduced their monthly fee?
I urge everyone to quit giving Comcast your money. But if you stick with them, at least call up and bluff that you're leaving, and they'll almost certainly give you a discount. The worst that can happen is they don't offer you a discount, and then you can say you changed your mind about switching to DirecTV.
Use the extra money I helped you save to fund an account at one of the poker sites I advertise.
Or use it to buy tickets on Fandango. Fucker.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
followup
If you object to what Bush did because you believe strongly in checks and balances, and think the harm of his actions in those political terms outweighs their good in national security, that is a good basis for an argument. But there's way too much bullshit out there because everyone has their own little agendas.
Paul's latest.
Basically says that he used to do illegal stuff that he doesn't think should be illegal, so he objects to domestic spying because it might lead to more people like him getting busted. I assume his past crimes were drug related. It comes across like he has more interest in protecting people's secret illegal drug habits than increasing our ability to thwart terrorists.
And here I was concerned that too many people are raising hell about the wiretaps just because they don't like Bush.
To be fair, the reason he cites for his objection is the reasonable idea that if you give someone a power with the understanding they'll use it for good, eventually they'll use it for bad. He brings up the drug issue as the reason why he cares so much - the drugs so near and dear to him are the obvious next target for domestic spying.
I'm open to discussion about legalizing drugs. But given that they're illegal now, I guess those of us with nothing to hide should be put at greater risk so Paul can keep smoking up without fear of big brother.
Paul's latest.
Basically says that he used to do illegal stuff that he doesn't think should be illegal, so he objects to domestic spying because it might lead to more people like him getting busted. I assume his past crimes were drug related. It comes across like he has more interest in protecting people's secret illegal drug habits than increasing our ability to thwart terrorists.
And here I was concerned that too many people are raising hell about the wiretaps just because they don't like Bush.
To be fair, the reason he cites for his objection is the reasonable idea that if you give someone a power with the understanding they'll use it for good, eventually they'll use it for bad. He brings up the drug issue as the reason why he cares so much - the drugs so near and dear to him are the obvious next target for domestic spying.
I'm open to discussion about legalizing drugs. But given that they're illegal now, I guess those of us with nothing to hide should be put at greater risk so Paul can keep smoking up without fear of big brother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)