My typical day

[nsdjoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Great discussion here. Can we talk about religion, abortion, and tipping wait staff next!

[/ QUOTE ]

Never tip! <g>

[TrueBritt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But what if our poor player is so bad that there are no + or neutral EV 5-10 (let's say) games for him? What should he do? Drop down a level or two, of course! But he doesn't. If he did, he would no longer be a losing 5-10 player, but an even or winning player at some lower level. That's not who we are talking about.

Why doesn't he move down? Because the 3-6 game doesn't have high enough stakes to get him excited. So he stays in a -EV game despite the fact that he is destined to lose in it. He is choosing a -EV game because he wants excitement. In other words, he is, consciously or unconsciously, buying entertainment.

He had a choice to move to a + or neutral EV game, and he chose not to. He must now accept the consequences of that choice.


[/ QUOTE ]


My reaction, though, is that there is no reason why the higher stakes game has to be -EV. Were there no pros, the fish would simply inhabit every level, their choice depending on their bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that would be an ideal world for the fish, just as it would be ideal if we could buy other forms of entertainment for free. However, that is not the reality. The reality is that the fish attract the sharks, and the higher the stakes, the more sharks there are.

[ QUOTE ]

Sure, it's exciting to play higher stakes. But you don't need to sacrifice expectation to play higher stakes, or at least, not by definition. To continue the casino analogy, the EV of a roulette table is the same whether you're playing at the $5 or the $100 tables. The excitement comes from moving up to stakes that are meaningful for the bettor, but the casino doesn't start paying out 30-1 on the numbers just because the stakes are higher, as if that's the higher stakes "fee" gamblers have to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where your analogy breaks down. It's true that the expectation at the higher-stakes roulette table is the same as the expectation at the lower stakes table, but that isn't true in poker. The higher the stakes, the lower the expectation (in bb/100). For example, our fish's expectation at different levels might look like this:
.5-1: 2 bb/100
1-2: 1 "
2-4: .5 "
3-6: .25 "
5-10: -.5 bb/100
10-20: -2 bb/100
20-40: -3 bb/100
30-60: -4 bb/100
etc.

That is much more realistic than the idea that he would have the same expectation at all levels.


[ QUOTE ]

That the higher stakes games are -EV is not what makes the game exciting, it's an unfortunate trade-off for the excitement that the fish would rather do without.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And as I said before, in their ideal world that -EV would not be there. But in the world as it actually is, the -EV is real.

[ QUOTE ]

It's not "exciting" to be playing against better players: some TAG who lurks to your left, folds for 20 hands, raises to isolate you, and then grinds you down with aggressive play doesn't make the game fun. The stakes can be fun, but they will be considerably more fun if everyone is there to gamble and enjoy themselves. Someone who is there to suck up their money diminishes the experience considerably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. And so the logical response to the presence of the TAG is to move down a level or two. If the fish chooses not to do that, then he is choosing the entertainment of higher stakes over the profitability of lower stakes. There will be financial consequences for that choice.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
"Maybe when stay-at-home parents see day-cared kids speaking, reading, etc. at a level far beyond their own kids "

Site your source or be gone. I believe not a word of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since this is all off-topic and since I've gotten the distinct impression that I'm arguing about child rearing with a collection of childless, unmarried college students, this will be my last post in this thread. But anyway here's a link to get you started. As always, google is your friend.

http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/01new...are010418.html

[FlFishOn]

That study offers no causation only correlation and to me looks like garbage.

It also is not a study similatr to what you state, hme raised v day care but good day care v sh+t day care.

Your case remains suspect.

I'm guessing you have kids in day care. My child went to day care for a time as well. I will forever regret my decision. You will too.

[theben]

no way. this is great stuff. take care of the kids and play some poker on the side to earn a little extra spending cash. this way, you get to spend the mazimum time with your family and still earn a little extra money to help out

[JayCo]

[ QUOTE ]
I will forever regret my decision. You will too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, not only are you so omnicient as to know what is best for this (and every other) woman's child, now you can perfectly predict the emotional state of 2+2 posters far into the future. You sound more than a little arrogant, self-important, and intolerant in this thread, even to someone who agrees with much of what you are saying. I personally tend to agree with your premise that 40 hours of day care is, for most toddlers, not likely to be as beneficial long-term as being home with Mom and/or Dad most of the time with some daycare a small fraction of the week (say 2 or 3 days per week or a few hours per day).

However, the black-and-white opinions essentially stating daycare = Selfish Evil parenting, Mom at home = Good smacks of being a judgemental holier-than-thou know-it-all. None of the posters on this board know what's best for every family, do you think you might want to tone down the judgmental attitude that only a Beaver Cleaver model of family life is correct and tone up the tolerance and understanding a notch?

[FlFishOn]

"tone down the judgmental attitude that only a Beaver Cleaver model of family life is correct and tone up the tolerance and understanding a notch? "

That model is not 'correct' but superior in most every situation where it is possible.

I don't tolerate the touchy-feely, can't we all understand garbage. 90% of what a current student learns WRT family and society is junk. Not just wrong, but hurtful.

Some day when I type faster i'll be more supportive of my positions. As it is I'm hitting the high points only.

[ QUOTE ]
" Out of a lot of "random strangers" the laws of probability suggest that some should be rather adept at taking care of children. "

Some will also be pedophiles.


Enjoy!

[/ QUOTE ]

So will grandparents, uncles, teachers, pastors, brothers and cousins. The majority of abused people I have met in my life were abused by family members. Most of them religious btw. Pedophilia and anitsocial disorders are not advertised. It is probably less likely to happen in a structured environment. Do research on your day care and this will not be an issue. Most adults are not left alone with children, some daycare's stream video online so you can always check what is going on.

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]

the guy who told you to play after your kids go to sleep and sleep 5 hours a night is a boob.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, that would be me. Except I never told her to sleep 5 hours a night. I told her what my wife and I were doing in our situation. I said several times that she should try to play at night but never said that sleeping 5 or 6hours was a good idea. I also told her that she was free to do as she chooses and that I didn't think she was a bad mom or anything, but I disagree with her use of daycare.

Bottom line : she asked for input and got some (both in support and opposed to her current plan).

I also think that at the end of our posts to one another there was a general sense of respect between the two of us. I could be wrong.

A large portion of the vitriol (from both sides by the way) came during the night shift.

FishNChips

[JayCo]

[ QUOTE ]

That model is not 'correct' but superior in most every situation where it is possible.


[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, that explains it. You weren't saying your way of raising kids is more "correct", just "superior". Guess I need to retract my statement that you're being arrogant and intolerant.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't tolerate the touchy-feely, can't we all understand garbage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently "touchy-feely garbage" encompasses other people's life perspectives, feelings, opinions, or points of view. One of your posts implied that you are a religious person- last time I checked tolerance is a fairly standard Judeo-Christian value. Might even be good for your kids to see you excercise that skill, too.

[ QUOTE ]

90% of what a current student learns WRT family and society is junk. Not just wrong, but hurtful.


[/ QUOTE ]
Let's extend your logic a bit. Since 90% of what kids learn in schools or daycare about family/society is "wrong" and "hurtful" to them, then if you choose to put your kids in any school instead of home schooling them, does that make you a selfish, unloving parent too?

"90%"? Was that number up your arse long before you pulled it out?

That is of course, preposterous. Most, not all, MOST, teachers and day care providers are caring individuals who chose as their life's work to try to support, teach, and instill caring tolerant values in the kids they work with. Perhaps you weren't exposed to enough of these types of adults growing up.

[ QUOTE ]

Some day when I type faster i'll be more supportive of my positions. As it is I'm hitting the high points only.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some day when you can read, hear, and absorb ideas and opinions other than your own, rather than repeatedly spew forth concrete pre-formed spite-filled absolute "truths", maybe I'll take you off my ignore list.