iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 1:45 am
Click.
No, what I am most interested in are finding those willing to acknowledge that given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, we are all likely to go to the grave merely believing only what we do about all of this "in our head".
Then those who are willing to bring their own theoretical assessments and their own definitions out into the world of actual human social political and economic conflicts.
Other than that, I'm not really sure what your point really has to do with mine.
On the other hand...
God wrote:The Gap and Rummy's Rule are principles in poker, especially useful for players in Texas Hold'em and other competitive forms. Both of these rules help players make decisions on whether to enter a hand based on position and the current action on the table. Here’s a breakdown of each:
1. The Gap Concept
Definition: The Gap Concept states that a player needs a stronger hand to call a bet than to make a bet.
Reasoning: This is due to the psychology of poker: a player who raises often indicates strength, so to enter the hand against them, you need a stronger hand than the one they’re representing.
Practical Application: If an early position player raises, players in later positions should consider their hand carefully before calling, only proceeding with premium hands since they’re up against someone representing strength.
2. Rummy's Rule
Definition: Rummy's Rule advises that players should avoid playing hands with a large gap between the highest and lowest card. For example, a hand like 9-2 is less desirable than one like 9-8 or even 9-6.
Reasoning: The rule is based on the logic that hands with large gaps between cards are less likely to make straights and tend to have fewer opportunities to improve on the flop, turn, or river.
Practical Application: When evaluating starting hands, prefer hands that are closer in rank (e.g., suited connectors like 10♠-9♠ or close unsuited hands like 8♠-7♣) over hands with gaps like Q♠-6♣.
When to Apply These Rules
The Gap Concept is especially useful in late position, where players can more accurately judge the strength of the table.
Rummy's Rule is useful across positions, but particularly in early positions, where players should enter the pot only with hands that have strong potential for improvement.
Together, these rules provide a framework for making more disciplined decisions, helping players to fold weaker hands and only invest in hands with strategic advantages.
At this point I have no idea what you are referring to.
Over and over and over again in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, exchanges here are often full of reactions like this.
I haven't seen any here, don't know what you are talking about. Thinking that our definitions are absolutely correct would be some Age-level delusion. Nor would it have to do with me, do I look like other people to you?
Gasp! Another "failure to communicate". Really, in my view, from both our ends, over and again, it is like we are in two different exchanges.
Then stop talking to yourself, an exchange would require that we attempt to agree on definitions and proceed from there, but you seem to use your own special definitions and also don't reveal what they are.
What, her friend isn't also determined to have that discussion with her? A discussion also wholly in sync with the laws of matter. What's crucial for me is in imagining hundreds of men and women trying to talk with her about the abortion. All, in turn, wholly determined to say only what their brain compels them too.
But all in vain because the laws of nature left Mary with no other option. Jane is toast. But in a free will world, Jane might still be toast, but there is actually the possibility she wouldn't be.
That's what you get for using your own special definiton of determinism. Of course people would have talked her out of the abortion, if that's what would have been determined to happen. People are talked out of abortions all the time (given determinism), it just didn't happen with Mary. So who cares about your largely irrelevant up-in-the-clouds issue?
And here your up-in-the-clouds issue often infinitely backfires: those women who decide not to abort Jane in a determinisitic world,
only have the possibility to do abort Jane in a free will world. Do you want free will, so that many Janes who were determined to live, can be toast instead?
That's what I'm doing here, of course. Looking for arguments that might persuade me to reconsider my frame of mind. In other words, such that I am able to believe that I can come up out of it. Instead, by and large I keep bumping into those who either insist I'm wrong because they're right or who make me the issue instead.
But you created an incoherent frame of mind.
That's it for me. We are just wasting each other's time.
Well if you pretend that we don't have a special category of dreams called lucid dreams because of what I said, because there we can take wakefulness-like control, then you're wasting my time.
----------
Iambig says that his philosophy terrifies people, but I just see this as a somewhat cozy chat. Imo there are valid philosophical things at least three times more terrifying than determinisim and mortality in a godless world.
