So how long can a thread primarily concerned with cooking potatoes go on for then?   

[entertaining]

I think it will safely fall into the category of films that are entertaining without actually being any good

I made one in the microwave earlier and just covered it in a bit of kitchen tissue :-S

Kitchen roll works for me, but if I've got the time you can't beat the oven.

although Im reluctant to get involved in what could become a serious political debate, I would suggest that holding the current government responsible for the privitisation of the dental service is not exactly on the money.
It's a conservative ideal that you pay less tax but pay for health/education/retirement/etc and the socialist ideal that you pay higher tax but get the above paid for or subsidised (but Im sure evryone knows that). The Dentists are making a fortune out of private patients and are very reluctant to take NHS work.  bare this in mind when you vote blue.

This is true but as there is no socialist political party available to vote for which might form a government, we haven't really got an alternative.

well I'm in the book addiction club, I've 50000 at last count...

Blimey!

I've got no idea how many I've actually got, my place is so tiny that every now and again I just pack boxes full of books and store them at my Mum's house. This is in the possibly deluded hope that some day I might be able to afford somewhere larger with enough shelving space for them.

But, on the other hand all my DVD's are here and I don't know how many of them I've got because I can't be bothered to count them. So I probably still wouldn't know even if they were all on shelves. 

Dammit Jon - I was feeling all smug about not havinga gambling problem and you go and point out my serious book addiction!! 

Mind you it should have been clear when I actually cheered when my latest Amazon delivery arrived at my desk 

I score pretty badly on films as well - I've just got to face it, I must have an addictive personality. 

I think the Hendon Mob's beginners guide on their website is pretty good.

I scored 5 but if you change the questions to make them about reading or buying books: -

1  Did you ever lose time from work/school due to reading or buying books?

YES

2 Has reading or buying books ever made your home life unhappy?

NO

3 Did reading or buying books affect your reputation?

YES

4. Have you ever felt remorse after reading or buying books?

NO

5. Can't think of a good equivalent.

N/A

6. Did reading or buying books cause a decrease in your ambition/efficiency?

NO

7. After reading a bad book did you feel you must return asap to read a better one?

YES

8. After reading a good book do you have a strong urge to return and read another one?

YES

9 Did you buy books until your last dollar was gone?

YES

10 Did you ever borrow to finance your book buying?

YES

11 Have you ever sold anytihng to finance your book buying?

YES

12 Were you reluctant to use book buying money for everyday purchases?

NO

13 Did buying or reading books make you care of your/your family's welfare?

NO

14 Did you read books often longer than you had planned?

YES

15 Have you ever read a book or gone book shopping to escape worry or trouble?

YES

16 Have you ever committed an illegal act to finance book buying?

NO

17 Has reading a book caused you difficulty sleeping?

YES

18 Do arguments and disappointments create within you the urge to read a book?

YES

19 Did you ever celebrate good fortune by buying or reading a book?

YES

20 Has reading or buying a book ever led you to contemplate suicide?

NO

That's 12 - so I'm fine with gambling but I'm addicted to books 

The BB should have been sin binned for the initial harrasment, the sb did nothing wrong, even after the event I would say that the bb was out of order

You are completely naive if you thing the small blind did nothing wrong - he made a comment intended to give information or misinformation about his hand.  This should not be allowed in a tournament because of the possibility of collusion. A cash game is of course completely different.

The small blind did nothing wrong, all within the rules, why should he suffer?

 

And wouldn't removing the BB for 10 minutes also have diffused the situation and quietened it down?

[has]

To me this rule seems to be a confusion between players acting out of turn because someone is deliberately not acting to slow the game down,
and players acting out of turn because they haven't noticed that somebody has made an action but not completed it.

In the first instance the player slowing the game down is (arguably, but a different argument) in the wrong and gets penalised, in the second the players acting out of turn are in the wrong, but the turn player still gets penalised.

The rule may have been created to counter the former situation, but because of the way it is worded it will also penalise people in the second situation and if any concerns were addressed to the casino then maybe a clarification of this rule would perhaps be more appropriate than the suggestion that it should just be removed.

I would still stick with:

1. Deception by lying - crossing the line
2. Deception by implying - fine

Took me ages to come up with that   

[actually]

i really don't see what all the fuss is about - poker is a game of deception (amongst other things) and it's all part of the game imo.  I personally think you should be able to say whatever you want to win the hand (with exception of abuse), tell him your hand whether real or not, just chat away... makes it more fun!  I love that side of the game.  Otherwise, where exactly do you draw the line - you end up with situations like this where there can be no clear ruling...

I agree with this sentiment, but if the local rule is that you should not declare your hand then the small blind has broken this rule and in fact cheated.  He clearly indicated (there is no way his statement could be interpreted in any other way by an experienced opponent) that he had QQ and this was untrue.  I can certainly understand why the BB was annoyed.

Another point - in a tournament if a player states he has AA and another player folds - this obviously affects all other participants.

But he didn't actually declare his hand, another player should realise the difference and act accordingly, which in this case he did. The Aces were hit but the player implying he had QQ didn't stop the call in the first place.

I think Rivered has got it right. The SB hasn't done anything wrong, just used a bit of chat to influence the outcome, and abuse shouldn't be accepted so the BB is in the wrong.

[if]

Tank, he was in the middle of his action, it should be up to the dealer to stop people passing, as his action had not yet been completed.

I understand the raiser is in the middle of his action, and yes, it should be up to dealer, I entirely agree with that.

Dealers don't always catch everything though, and often daydream.

This rule puts a little onis on the player, to make sure if the dealer misses that he is in the middle of his action, then the raiser can't just wait for as much extra information as he can get.

Another guy goes all-in... "How much was your rasie sir?"

"Ooh, just 200 with 200....and I think I'll pass"

I think this highlights why it's such a ridiculous rule. If somebody does something wrong they should be the ones penalised. So if somebody acts out of turn and goes all in it's only right that they shouldn't gain as many chips as if they'd waited until they were meant to act.

Blessing Soke
Kleinwort Benson
David Coulibaly


Are these from the Chris Morris school of names?


p.s I love how David manages to change his name to Ralphael over a period of 20 lines.

Not sure about the other 2 but Kleinwort Benson are here - www.kbpb.co.uk