PhantomSac

/Yes I know I am hurting my bridge career with that message. I know I am not playing the game. I know you all think I am insane and some of you even "pity me" (ok that last part is actually hard). I don't care. I don't want to be pitied. I want for a real change to be enacted. I don't want people to be scared. Scared to talk. To breathe. I want real change. The only CRAZY part of that is thinking that anything will matter. I am thinking totally clearly on this one, hopefully others will see what I am saying.

This is written to be not deleted (so I am censoring myself strategically): Things are going on that we know, or some of the naive of us don't know about. People who are mentally ill are tolerated if they are talented/good at something that people care about (talent is not a real thing). We are lucky: we have good support systems, we are cared about because we are good at something arbitrary, and even our "mental illness" happens to have a label. In reality we have won the genetic lottery; in my case I was born healthy and smart and to a good family with a lot going for it. That is a lot luckier than a lot of people. But I have been labeled with an identifiable "mental illness." I don't disagree with this label, despite my use of ", I simply think I buy into the label. Other people do not have labels for what concerns them and they are much less lucky than myself. It is easy to say that, it is hard to accept/think that during the bad times. It is crippling to imagine going forward and all that is available to think is that 99 % of people are less lucky than me, so I should go forward and not think that way. But it is hard during the worst 1 % of my time. But I do know it's true. It can be hard to continue moving forward, bridge is a great thing for me and I play my best when I am thinking this way (which is lol) but it is not exactly how the business model of a bridge pro works. It is literally CRIPPLING so think about how the poor or below average intelligence person or disadvantaged person thinks. Those people are not necessarily lazy or bad, some of them genuinely need help and we need to help them. ***** this "free market capitalism" thought process that makes it seem like they are not rational. Sure, they are not what economists would call rational, that is the point. We need to help those people. Those people need help, not because they are bad or lazy, but because it is hard for those people to help themselves. Sure, some of those people will choose to be homeless and alcoholics/drug addicts, but we don't need to lock them up either. We need to try to HELP people. As a society, we need to HELP our fellow people. And some will call that "handouts" but you know it helps you also, instead of locking people up (at a large cost) and excommunicating them, lets ingratiate them back into society. I am lucky with my advantages, I cannot imagine being born to even an average family with average talents, in todays society I would be CRUSHED if that were true. Even with my advantages I struggle. We need to help people. We do not need to be punitive. Some people are trying to be beneficial to society but are lost and having a hard time and have no one and nothing to turn to. Being punitive towards these people is not just terrible towards them, it is a net negative to our society. I know the demographic here is largely skewed towards the right but I also think those people are open to other points of view. I have also been totally a free market person. It builds wealth maximally, so that benefits society maximally right? Well, yeah, but society is not better overall. It is easy to fall into that viewpoint. Trying to lift up the people living in the margins is a net gain for society and it is also the right thing to do. True, some people will exploit this, and some people are just bad, but I believe that a lot of people are in the situation where they are not able to help themselves but would if given the opportuinity. I equate this to the justice system being based on "it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be convicted." Let's as a society try to help people. We live in such a litigious and punitive world and it is so sad and hard. I am not crying for myself, I am lucky. But I cannot imagine for the less fortunate mentally ill people how it is. They are LOCKED UP. In UNDERFUNDED ***** BRUTAL WORLDS. If you think that mental hospitals are at all reasonable then GL to you. They are not. They are horrible. They stop people from seeking help because they are like jail, maybe worse. And that is a private hospital. Again GL with a state hospital lol. I am crying for those who have no other options. Send them to jail over that *****. Or just ***** kill them, that would be a better option.

JOHN LEGEND LYRICS "All Of Me" [Verse 1:] What would I do without your smart mouth? Drawing me in, and you kicking me out You've got my head spinning, no kidding, I can't pin you down What's going on in that beautiful mind I'm on your magical mystery ride And I'm so dizzy, don't know what hit me, but I'll be alright [Pre-Chorus:] My head's under water But I'm breathing fine You're crazy and I'm out of my mind [Chorus:] 'Cause all of me Loves all of you Love your curves and all your edges All your perfect imperfections Give your all to me I'll give my all to you You're my end and my beginning Even when I lose I'm winning 'Cause I give you all of me And you give me all of you, oh oh [Verse 2:] How many times do I have to tell you Even when you're crying you're beautiful too The world is beating you down, I'm around through every mood You're my downfall, you're my muse My worst distraction, my rhythm and blues I can't stop singing, it's ringing, in my head for you [Pre-Chorus:] My head's under water But I'm breathing fine You're crazy and I'm out of my mind [Chorus:] 'Cause all of me Loves all of you Love your curves and all your edges All your perfect imperfections Give your all to me I'll give my all to you You're my end and my beginning Even when I lose I'm winning 'Cause I give you all of me And you give me all of you, oh oh [bridge:] Give me all of you Cards on the table, we're both showing hearts Risking it all, though it's hard [Chorus:] 'Cause all of me Loves all of you Love your curves and all your edges All your perfect imperfections Give your all to me I'll give my all to you You're my end and my beginning Even when I lose I'm winning 'Cause I give you all of me And you give me all of you I give you all of me And you give me all of you, oh oh

I like easts pass of 2C, the range is just too wide/impossible for partner if we are raising with this.

I don't see why this must be true. It is perfectly normal to me to bid 1N with a 4 card major, and to overcall 1D with hands that contain a 4 card major, and to sometimes miss a 4-4 major suit fit and play 1N.

If you haven't watched newsroom I'd give it a shot. Very good show that basically tackles this issue.

One last thing: Line is now Dallas -1. Depending where you look so far 63-68 % of the money has been on Carolina, yet from the opening line it has moved from pk to dallas being favored. This strongly suggests sharp money on Dallas. Clearly the books are not trying to get equal action when they are moving away from where the public is betting heavily on. They are trying to set an accurate line. Some links: http://www2.kusports.com/news/2012/jan/25/no-place-home-vegas-oddsmaker-talks-kus-advantage-/?mens_basketball http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-news/gambling911com-exposes-%E2%80%98-myth-bookmaker%E2%80%99-092012.html http://www.intensegambling.com/sports-betting/online/the-evolution-of-sports-betting/ Of course you will find more links on the internet perpetuating the myth of "casinos want equal action on both sides and just collect the vig" so I doubt links will do much for you. I think casinos try to push this myth also, it incentivises more people to bet (no you are not trying to beat very very smart people who are setting a line and also taking odds (vig) on it, you are just trying to beat the public! Our lines have nothing to do with reality we just want equal action on each side so it's easy to be a winning sports bettor!).

They don't "want" to have a deep position on Dallas. Sometimes the line is just much different than the public would think it should be. Like if the line opened at Car -3, I'm sure that most square bettors would still want to bet on carolina, they are 10-0, dallas is 3-7, carolina is coming off a game where cam threw his fifth touchdown of the game in like the first few minutes of the 2nd half! They look great and are improving. The media/espn narrative loves carolina right now blah blah. So why wouldn't they open the line at Car -3? There are many reasons. For starters, if the correct line is really supposed to be pick em, then that is a massive edge for people who know that. The sharps are going to bet way more money than usual because the line is so bad. True there are far more squares but the people who are professional sports bettors are going to bet way more money if the line is that bad. No problem, you can just move the line right? Well if you move it to pick em you're going to get people arbing and betting both sides. Also, lets say the books were actually shading the opening line based on public opinion, it wouldn't take a genius to just figure out what public opinion is on a certain line and bet the other way and be profitable. So now you're going to get people doing that. The point is you cannot control getting 50/50 action on a side. You cannot control how people bet, and the worse your line is the more you are exposing yourself to being exploited. The best way to be "50/50" is to make a line that is as close to a coinflip as possible. True you may have positions on the game if it does not reflect how the public would think (as here), but in the long run as long as you don't have too big of a position where you might go broke you are going to make the most money by doing that. It is far easier to make a line that is 50/50 than to try to shade the line and hope that sharps don't come in and kill you. Edit: Forgot one more important point. If you decide to make a shaded line, that does not mean other books will. Vegas casinos could collude (since one company makes the line for almost all of them), but offshore books are a different story. Pinnacle in particular. If your lines are significantly different than offshore books, again you will get people who just bet the side that is different from pinnacle or betfair etc. If your line is consistently the one that is bad (it will be if you're shading it), you have a new group of people who are just going to beat you. And FWIW when pinnacle first started I believe this happened.

This would be true if their opening line was always a coin flip no matter which way you bet (in other words, if it was always absolutely correct). And indeed I think they would never move the line unless it was a huge game like the superbowl where they get so much action that they need to hedge even if it sacrifices EV for them. The amount of money casinos have versus how much is bet on a normal NFL game is so high it would be dumb of them to hedge if they know their line is exactly right, even in a sport like NFL where there are relatively few games. In reality their opening line might be off, indeed that is why winning sports bettors exist despite vig (though I'd be skeptical of anyone who is not well known telling you they are a winning NFL spread bettor, those are generally the sharpest lines). They are moving the line because if they think sharp money is hammering a line then the line is probably wrong, so they are willing to move it some (but ofc not enough to get middled). Obviously they cannot be totally sure which money is sharp (but they do watch this a lot, which is why sharp bettors use runners to get action down for them, it is really an interesting cat and mouse game... for instance if you bet a lot on a game they will always demand your players card or ID. If they see a group of people always betting the same side of a line, they are probably runners for a sharp, whether they are winning or losing short term, etc) so if almost all money is going to one side of the line they are likely to adjust the line for fear that they are being exploited. But again, going from pk to -1 is not a huge adjustment, it just means that if carolina wins by 1 then the bet is a push not a win. Everything else is the same (well I guess LOL TIE). And they moved it back which would suggest to me that they decided sharp money was coming in on dallas after the line moved to CAR -1, and in fact it was just square money who was pounding car to begin with.

And...back to pk.

Ace of clubs club to the jack. As my father once taught me "when in doubt always try to make all the tricks in MP." Not sure about the soundness of that rule but I still use it lol. Important is that if there is Tx of clubs onside we can still make 5 by crossing in trumps after winning the SA and unblocking the C9 and crossing in trumps.

Injured O-line, injured edelman, amendola, dobson at WR, injured lewis at RB. Elite D-line and D coach getting pressure on brady all day. Gronk a non factor. Result: Score 20 points and win.

At least he tried to make up for it by ruling that the catch counted (whistle was before the catch), and adding a BS 15 yard penalty on the bills for interfering LOL. It's like he knew he screwed the pats so badly that the least he could do was give them 29 yards instead of a do over. In fairness the fans might have rioted if it was a do over.

Yeah that was great. BB trolls Rex so hard.

It's actually the opposite, public money was obv gonna be all over carolina and they knew that. It is a myth that they set the line in order to try and get equal action on each side, not sure why that became what people think. They often end up having positions on games because they try to set the best line possible. Line has already moved to car -1, I assume almost all square money is on carolina at that line also, AMERICAS TEAM bias included.

♣

I would always return a club so I looked up the real hand to see why a club shift was losing, it's pretty epic what the winning play is and why. I think even in a JEC match almost no one would find the winning play :P

The 10-0 panthers, coming off a crushing win, are underdogs* to the 3-7 COWBOYS. ROMO for MVP. *barely

It doesn't seem very risky to protect here, I assume that neither opponent will have a 4 card major so even if I bid 2H instead of doubling now (I would double though) worst case is partner has only 3 and they're 3-3. And I don't see how I will ever get doubled. I guess you could check with the opps to make sure that both opps have generally denied a 4 card major. I mean even if LHO might have a 4 card major I assume they have to be like (24)34 in which case we have a fit in the other major.

He actually said he would go for it in a non clear spot last week, I almost had a heart attack.

Haha yeah my last friend who got into go ended up quitting bridge. DON'T DO IT CLEE!!!!!!!!!!

I would never reopen with the east hand but east made a hugely winning bid on this hand...

Yeah man I don't know how anyone managed to respond to the question with that crucial error. It's on par with responding to a 12 card hand!

Very next drive GB goes for it on 4th and 1 from min 30. LOL vikings. edit: In fairness, Vikes jumped so GB ran a free play. Def possible that they were not going for it and were gonna waste a t/o so LOL GB if so.

It depends on the coach and depends on the commentator. The VIKINGS just punted on 4th and 2 from the packers 41. With the best running back in the game. Incredible lol. Many commentators would criticize that also fwiw. Guess maybe Garrett has gotten smarter. FOX went for it down 8 on like 4th and goal from 3 or 4 with not that much time left. They didnt get it, then KUBIAK ended up punting from 4th and 1 at the 40 instead of trying to win the game right there. Chicago drove it down and scored, but missed the 2. I think FOX was regretting not going for a field goal before, sigh. But yeah coaches and commentators have always been hopeless, it has gotten a lot better in the last 5 years though, I see many coaches going for it around midfield and at the opponents 1 yard line etc. And some commentators criticizing them when they don't. But I guess generally commentators are worse than coaches.