|
Originally Posted by rpm
assuming no poker background whatsoever, what do you think is currently the most beatable format of poker in the online world? by most beatable i mean the game which would provide the most favourable dollars:time invested ratio (including studying, grinding, preparing for sessions, whatever else)
Let me start to answer your question with this: With what I'd consider tight/aggressive play, both seven card stud and five card draw (fixed-limit or pot-limit, to a high) are both fairly easy to beat at low stakes. Razz is easy to beat at low stakes as well, and though seven stud hi/lo is a bit complicated for some players, it may be the single classic game with the weakest player pool because it's full of people who have studied for five minutes and think they have a winning strategy based completely around playing for the low. Fixed-limit Omaha variations are really tough to beat at low stakes because of the rake, and pot-limit versions have a fairly high variance that can be problematic. Badugi and triple draw are both really easy to beat at low stakes as well as long as you learn some basic strategy and play with the standard winning tight/aggressive style.
So to answer your question more specifically, I think mixed games are the most beatable format available as long as you become proficient at all of the games. Even if you break even in big bet games, you'll still have plenty of opportunities to crush your opponents in everything else.
Honorable Mention: NL 2-7 Single Draw is an amazing game, and you can play it well with 20-big blind stacks. The only problem is that to get past the beginner levels of strategy, you have to jump into some math/game theory rather quickly.
Originally Posted by rpm
what % of the opinions you express in the commune do you consider be true and clear reflections of your beliefs/personality vs trolling or just being provocative for the sake of being provocative
I tend to help generate discussion in the commune by posting what could be considered outrageous representations of my own opinions. There are three good examples that are fairly recent, and I'll provide easy-verifiable facts to back my opinions for each.
Example 1: Feminism. If you go by the original definition, then feminism is a belief in the equality for opportunities for males and females. In practice today, it's the advancement of female interests only and by any means necessary. Many feminist leaders of the past decades have rallied against what feminism has become today because the notion has been hijacked, and they have been attacked and protested against by modern, third-wave "feminists."
The notion of seeking equality is often used to push a pro-female agenda. You're seeing plenty of programs towards pushing more women into STEM fields, for example, because they say women are under-represented there. Why don't you see plenty of programs towards pushing more women into prison (or feminists pushing hard for fewer men in prison, same point) because women are vastly under-represented there? Why no feminist push towards fair proceedings in family court (where men are at a drastic disadvantage)? Why no feminist push towards the male suicide rate? Why no feminist push to end male circumcision?
Men and women are not equal, and feminism was never about men and women being equal. Instead, it was about giving men and women access to the same opportunities to prove themselves. There are some things that men are always going to be better at on average, and there are some things that women are always going to be better at on average. People who deny this are just like people who deny evolution because they want to ignore reality and stick to some fairy tale world instead.
Example 2: Rape. Rape is the only crime in which you can falsely accuse someone and rest assured that you will not be punished for it. A statistic that makes the rounds a lot is that "one in five women will be raped in college," and it's complete horseshit. The actual report that it's drawn from itself puts it at less than two percent. Not-so-fun-fact: Just as many men are raped in the United States as women. This ties into example #1, but you'll never see feminists at a rally against a movie that depicts a male rape scene.
Example 3: Ferguson. People are looting, rioting and doing all kinds of dumb shit to rally against the idea of cops killing people without accountability. I have two major problems with this.
Problem 1: There were no major protests against the thousands of black men killed in 2014 in gang violence, as an example. They also weren't protesting people who died in Iraq. The logic here would dictate that lives only matter to these protestors under certain circumstances. This means that the idea that they are doing this because a young man was killed is out the window. So then you have to ask yourself, "What were the real reasons?"
Problem 2: If that real reason is police violence, then they picked the wrong case to go nuts over. Darren Wilson, the cop in the Ferguson shooting, did his job in a major way. The facts of the case (and people should actually go read the facts of the case instead of just skimming over news stories) show that it's super clear that Wilson was in the right every single step of the way. Every bit of evidence that would suggest otherwise has been proven incorrect, and there is no doubt whatsoever on this for thinking people.
The case they should be going nuts over is the Eric Garner case. They have the guy on video being killed by a cop who was not following the right procedure or anything that would have to do with common sense. The NYC medical examiner's office say that he died from what the cop did. The cop wasn't supposed to do that. It's on video. That's fucking murder. And the cop gets cleared by a grand jury. The difference with this and the Ferguson case is that the evidence clearly proves the NYC choking situation being straight-up murder while the evidence clearly points to the Ferguson situation being justifiable homicide.
In summary, Michael Brown forced Darren Wilson into killing him, plain and simple. Eric Garner, on the other hand, was more or less murdered for selling loose cigarettes.
|