#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: That which we shall not speak of - or shall we?
"Thus, "that we shall not speak of" is not only probable, it is a certainty. It HAS to happen to me, you, and everybody. It's just a matter of time..."
Wrong. There is the chance someone will never experience a decent losing streak in their life. Would be very close to 100% for a regular player, but it is not a certainty. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: That which we shall not speak of - or shall we?
I'll be the first one to validate everything discussed today. I got home from work. Read the posts. Went out totally focused and proceeded to drop 50 BB in one hour of limit. So I just imagined 50 BB spread over a lifetime of play and laughed. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: That which we shall not speak of - or shall we?
Daliman is the 2+2 pioneer of speaking in the third person. Daliman used to do it all the time, but it is not the easiest thing to keep up.
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: That which we shall not speak of - or shall we?
Could it be you were "Jimmy" on Seinfeld, or is that just a wild rumor?
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: That which we shall not speak of - or shall we?
[ QUOTE ]
I asked my father, a distinguished professor, how can he explain what happened. "There is a saying, son": " It is impossible that the improbable should never happen !!"". This can be proved mathematically, he explained. [/ QUOTE ] Clearly you are talkin about the "Infinte Improbability Drive" here. For those of you that don't know it, here is a quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: [ QUOTE ] This, briefly, is the story of its discovery. The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 sub-meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea) were of course well understood - and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molicules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy. Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this - partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties. Another thing they couldn't stand was the perpetual failure they encountered in trying to construct a machine which could generate the infinite improbability field needed to flip a spaceship across the mind-paralysing distances between the furthest stars, and in the end they grumpily announced that such a machine was virtually imposssible. Then, one day, a student who had been left to sweep up the lab after a particulary unsuccessful party found himself reasoning this way: If, he thought to himself, such amachine is a virtual impossibility, then it must logically be a finite improbability. So all I have to do in order to make one, is to work out exactly how improbable it is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea ... and turn it on! He did this, and was rather startled to discover that he had managed to create the long sought after golden Infinite Improbability generater out of thin air. It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynced by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smartass. [/ QUOTE ] |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: That which we shall not speak of - or shall we?
Which head decided to post this? You should know better than to talk about the IID here. Pretty soon everyone will have one and it will kill online poker.
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: That which we shall not speak of - or shall we?
Nice. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: That which we shall not speak of - or shall we?
i was in a multi and my 1st 4 hands were 23o, mucked it all 4 times, and it would have won all 4.
|
|
|