Thanks George. Good fun.

Wp Tom.

Wp me too (brag post) - I just won a Monte Carlo seat in the 80 euro online sat whilst reading all this.

my t 5 jam wasnt too great then lol

another 2nd for me

Bad timing, that's all Paul.

I was looking forward to the heads up. You wished me luck and pushed all in - straight into my AQ and it was all over. Unlucky.

Thanks George. Good fun.

Wp Tom.

Wp me too (brag post) - I just won a Monte Carlo seat in the 80 euro online sat whilst reading all this.

NH Alex

"I asked Shaun what he has "a big pair", and I reply, "so have I" and he says that he's got me beat"

This statement definitely sounds confident and implies he had aces.

Wow - great start. Wp.

stato_1 wins by 15 seconds.

Sigh pretty sick. I deserve credit for putting 2 answers and using full sentences including using the correct names of who wrote them. Imhooc.

Bad "exam technique" Alex. One answer was sufficient. You probably lost by taking longer to write an unnecessarily complete answer 

Mike used to be a regular at the Empire in London. I worked nearby at the time and would often pop in for an hour at lunch time or a couple of hours early evening after work.

Whenever I saw Mike there he would always have a big stack. Its a 24/7 venue and he'd often have played through the night and for up to 24 hours at a stretch, so I always assumed the big stack was a result of big wins, especially as The Empire has max buy -in limits rather than uncapped. I never saw him lose. I lost a big pot to him once with QQ v JJ on a J high board.

I understood that Mike travelled over from the US for a week at a time specifically to play at the Empire and he'd win more than enough in a week to cover his air fare and hotel to make the trip profitable. I'd say he was there about one week a month. I believe he stayed in a cheapish hotel 40 minutes outside of London to keep the cost down. He wasn't well liked at The Empire and had a reputation for being rude to waiting staff and never tipped. He had a rock like image and also seemed quite petty at times. For example, he'd often leave the table as his big blind was approaching and return shortly after. There were no penalties for this and he did it quite often. When the casino outside was running a promotion (e.g. a free £1 spin on wheel of fortune), Mike would be the one to leave the poker table for his free £1, even though he might have £2-3k in front of him at the time.

I wasn't there when it happened but I understand Mike was eventually banned from The Empire after a dispute led to a ruling he didn't agree with. I've not seen him at The Empire since and it sounds as though he's transferred to DTD.

Money transferred today for 2%

[balla italia]

Sigh, month was plodding along nicely, no big swings, winning little bits each day, now done off pretty much all my monthly profit in 2 nights, gg'd 1100 last night in the 2/5 game. Feel like I'm burning myself out trying to get this cash game bonus, and my win-rate or loss-rate more accurately is suffering. Not playing great and not running great either. Nevermind, everything outside of poker is going well.

Had a great date night with Hannah last night, went to see In Time starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried (eye candy for both of us). It was a pretty cool concept - nobody ages past 25, and the currency is time. You buy and sell goods and services by giving up or receiving minutes, hours even years of your life. The rich live forever and the poor die young. Justin is a poor lad from the ghetto, who meets Amanda, a princess in the tower type girl, who has centuries to live but hates her life. Together they try to restore the balance. Very enjoyable.

We ate at balla italia where I hardly ever go but was lovely and has the best menu out of all the Italian chains imo, even if it's not the best cooking.

On Monday, Ged who aside from playing poker, runs and organises random club nights for students. This one was in Birmingham and he'd filled this bar with a nice mix of 80/20 girl/boy ratio. Of course Mitch and I went along for some moral support and made good use of the free bar as well. Good night.

All booked and sorted for Prague, leaving on the 5th, gonna be fkn epic! Staying in a much nicer hotel this time, so excited!

Taking part in the Las Vegas Team challenge, part of team bedi with stato and claypole, high hopes! Would be so sick to bink a package cos I'm slightly worried about going to Vegas and doing my absolute nuts cos that's what everyone seems to do!

Is that a Freudian slip for the one most of us call "Bella Italia?"   

Will take 2% please.  Will settle by bank transfer.

awesome. how can they possibly make it zero? making it 1 is an understandable mistake, zero however is distinctly worrying especially for an FD

I assume accountants use excel all the time, tell them to stick 40+40*0+1 into a cell and see what happens

It displays 40+40*0+1   

That's the easiest way - the more precise ways involve things like



which are a little harder to explain

Way out of my depth with those equations!  I don't buy your previous example though.

Say x = 0.9999

10x = 9.999

9x = 8.9991 so x =0.9999 (i.e. no change)


Your "proof" works because you're effectively adding one extra 9 to the answer you get for 10x

Keeping the numbers small and manageable you're effectively saying

Say x = 0.9999

10x = 9.9999

Then 9x = 9, so x =1 (but to achieve this you've had to add an extra 9 to the 10x answer. If 0.999 was truly recurring you could never actually add an extra 9 as both numbers would go on infinitely).

Speaking of maths...
                                                                    

...as we were, I learnt something new today.

0.999999999999999 (recurring) = 1

See now I believe you, but I don't understand it.

I've seen some of the so called proof of this but I'll always believe that  0.99999999 (recurring) will always be less than 1 by an amount that is 0.00000001 (recurring). For every nine you add to the infinite number of recurring  nines, we can add another 0 to the recurring zeros but there will always be an infinitesimal difference  between 0.99999999 (recurring)  and 1.

yes but 0.99999999 (recurring) +  0.00000001 (recurring) is > than 1

Maybe the way I wrote it, but with an infinite numnber of 0's and 9's?

Speaking of maths...
                                                                    

...as we were, I learnt something new today.

0.999999999999999 (recurring) = 1

See now I believe you, but I don't understand it.

I've seen some of the so called proof of this but I'll always believe that  0.99999999 (recurring) will always be less than 1 by an amount that is 0.00000001 (recurring). For every nine you add to the infinite number of recurring  nines, we can add another 0 to the recurring zeros but there will always be an infinitesimal difference  between 0.99999999 (recurring)  and 1.

What time does the Sunday £150 usually finish?

"A man who commented on every hand whilst telling some of the worst jokes I have ever heard in my life".

It sounds as though Howard Plant is in town.

I guess we all know someone who fits this description. It made me think of Luton's Trevor Webber.