| 2009 WSOP winners' gallery, Week 5... |
[03 Jul 2009|08:42am] |
...so, here it is, the final update before the big 'un starts today!
Bahador Ahmadi took Event 47's bracelet, a Mixed Hold-'em event (half limit, half no-limit). He beat John McGuinness heads-up. The rest of the final table included Ylon Schwartz, Karlo Lopez, Barry Greenstein, Matt Woodward, Randy Haddox, Hasan Habib, and Zachary Humphrey.
Event 48 was a Pot-Limit Omaha Hi-Lo event, and was very interesting as Brandon Cantu dominated from mid-day 1 to the final table, having as many as 5 or 6 times 2nd place and once having more chips than the final table combined. Then he took a lot of hits, but fought back through Lee Watkinson and took the bracelet. Also at the final table wer Mathieu Jacqmin, Ted Weinstock, Tommy Vedes, Steve Jelinek, Aaron Sias, Ronnie Hofman, and William McMahan.
Event 49 was the big $50,000 buy-in World Championship HORSE event. Taking the Chip Resse Memorial Trophy and one of three million-dollar paydays was David Bach, beating John Hanson in a 7-hour heads-up battle that lasted until 10:00 am the morning after. Also at this big final table were Erik Sagstrom, Vitaly Lunkin, Huck Seed, Ville Wahlbeck, Chau Giang, and Erik Seidel.
Event 50 was a Limit Hold'em Shootout. 571 played to 64, to a final 8, to Greg "FBT" Mueller winning his second bracelet of the Series, a fate that was inevitable since he played fellow '09 bracelet winner Marc Naalden heads up for the bracelet. Also at the final table were Millie Shiu, David Williams, Matt Sterling, Flaminio Malaguti, Joseph Van Den Bijgaart, and Jose Barbero (yet another notable Magic player...giving us two for this final table. I noted on Twitter when the FT was formed that there were three bracelets and one Magic Grand Prix titles among them...I was wrong. It was three bracelets and three Magic Grand Prix titles.)
Event 51 went to Carsten Joh, beating Andrew Chen heads up. David Walasinski, Steven Levy, Owen Crowe, Thibault Durand, Georgios Kapalas, Jason Helder, and Nathan Page round out this final table.
Event 52 was a "Triple Chance" No-Limit Hold'em event. Basically a two-rebuy event. Jorg Piesert took this bracelet, beating Jason Dewitt heads up. Ben Gilbert, Michael Noda, Jason Somerville, Michael Kats, Karga Holt, William Erickson, and Warren Watson were also final tablists.
David Halpern won Event 53, a Stud Hi-Lo event. William Kohler took 2nd, and Max Stern, Chad Brown, former WSOP tournament director Matt Savage, Zak Gilbert, Brian Swinford, and Allie Prescott made up the rest of the final table.
Tony Veckey defeated Jason Wheeler heads up to win Event 54's bracelet. Also at the final table were Joseph Chaplin, Sergey Konkin, Andrew Malott, Christopher Bonita, Christopher DeMaci, David Jaoui, and Miha Remic.
Event 55 was 2-7 Triple Draw Lowball. Abe Mosseri beat Masayoshi Tanaka heads up for the bracelet. Also at the final table were Julie Schneider (wife of Tom Schneider), John Juanda, Blair Rodman, Bradley Libson, Kristian Lord, and Herezel Zalewski.
And the final bracelet before the big 'un, a shorthanded No Limit Hold'em event, went to Matt Hawrilenko. He beat Josh Birkis heads up. Faraz Jaka, Sean Keeton, Jonas Wexler, and Matthew Waxman round out the final final table before the big 'un.
And the final check of the 2009 WSOP Player of the Year standings has Jeffrey Lisandro at the top. The only player who can catch him is Ville Wahlbeck, since he's the only one within 100 points of Lisandro. Other stats:
Most cashes (tie): Daniel Negreanu and David Baker (8)
Most POY pts without a bracelet: Daniel Negreanu (195)
Most money made (at least until the big 'un): Vitaly Lunkin ($2,696,305; off the strength of the $40k and two World Championship final tables)
Most money made by a single casher: John Hanson ($789,199 for the runner-up finish in the $50k HORSE event)
Multi-bracelet winners: Jeffrey Lisandro (3), Brock Parker, Phil Ivey, and Greg Mueller (2 each)
And now, the big 'un. We play down to 9, then wait 'till November for the final table.
|
|
| 2009 WSOP winners' gallery, Week 4... |
[26 Jun 2009|01:56pm] |
...so, it's time for the Week 4 results show from the WSOP!
We start this week with Event 35, a Pot-Limit Omaha event. Richard Austin took the bracelet, beating Sorel Mizzi heads up. The rest of this final table included Cliff Josephy, Dan Hindin, Rifat Palevic, Felipe Ramos, Van Marcus, Peter Jetten, and Samuel Ngai.
Jordan Smith beat Ken Lennaard heads-up to take Event 36's bracelet. Laurence Grondin, Joe Morneau, Anthony Roux, Pat Atchison, Almira Skripchenko, Andrew Seden, and Jonathan Plens round out the final table.
Event 37 was the World Championhsip Stud Hi-Lo event. Jeffrey Lisandro took his second bracelet of the Series, and third overall. He beat Farzad Rouhani in heads-up action not long after he finished off Mike Wattel. Also at the final table were Francis Mariani, Yan Chen, Abraham Mosseri, Doyle Brunson, and Justin Smith.
Mark Nalden took Event 38's limit hold'em bracelet, defeating Steve Cowley heads up. Ian Johns, Tommy Hang, Alex Keating, Danny Qutami, Jared O'Dell, Jameson Painter, and Rep Porter round out that final table.
Event 39 went to Ray Foley; he beat Brandon Cantu heads up. Also at this final table were Wei Mu, Alex Jacob (and the fro), Tyler Spalding, Jonathan Markham, Chairud Vangchailued, Richard Lutes, and Patrick O'Connor.
Event 40 was World Championship Pot Limit Omaha. Matthew Graham denied Vitaly Lunkin his second bracelet in winning this one. Also at the final: Van Marcus, Robin Keston, Ferit Gabriellson, Stefan Mattsson, Josh Arieh, Richard Austin, and Barry Greenstein.
Event 41 was a No-Limit Hold'em Shootout, and because of the number of entries, there were only five players at the final table. Peter Traply won the event, beating Andrew Lichtenberger heads-up. Maxim Lykov, Danny Wong, and Nasr el Nasr were also at this final table.
Event 42 was an 8 game mixed event. Jerrod Ankenman took the bracelet here, beating Sergey Altbregin heads up. Also final tabling: Chris Klodnicki, Jeff Tims, Jon Turner, Eric Crain, Layne Flack, and Dario Alioto.
Michael Davis took Event 43, the Seniors world championship. He beat Scotty Buller heads up. Barry Bounds, Michael Joseph Morusty, Charles Simon, Dan Delatorre, Art Duncan, Richard McCall, and Robert Beck were also at the final table.
Event 44 was the ever-popular Razz event. Jeffrey Lisandro dominated the final table here and took home his third bracelet of the series, becoming the first to win three at a single series since Phil Ivey did it in '02. He beat Michael Craig heads-up to do it. Also at the final table were Ryan Fisler, Warwick Mirzikinian, Eric Rodawig, Kenna James, Steven Diano, and Allen Bari.
John Kabbaj took the World Championship Pot-Limit Hold'em bracelet in Event 45. He beat Kirill Gerasimov heads up. Eric Baldwin, Davidi Kitai, J.C. Alvarado, Jason Lester, Eugene Todd, Isaac Haxton, and Darryll Fish round out this final table.
And finally for this update, Derek Raymond took Event 46, Omaha Hi-Lo. He beat Mark Tenner heads-up. The rest of the final table included Scott Bohlman, Fabio Coppola, Josh Schlein, Sirous Jamshidi, Michael Keiner, Mark Gregorich, and Pat Poels.
POY Top 10:
1. Jeffrey Lisandro - 3 bracelets, 4 final tables, 6 cashes
2. Ville Wahlbeck - 1 bracelet, 3 final tables, 5 cashes
3. Phil Ivey - 2 bracelets, 2 final tables, 5 cashes
4. Brock Parker - 2 bracelets, 2 final tables, 5 cashes
5. James Van Alstyne - 1 bracelet, 3 final tables, 3 cashes
6. Roland De Wolfe - 1 bracelet, 2 final tables, 5 cashes
7. Vitaly Lunkin - 1 bracelet, 2 final tables, 3 cashes
8. Angel Guillen - 1 bracelet, 2 final tables, 3 cashes
9. Payanote "Pete the Greek" Vilandos - 1 bracelet, 2 final tables, 2 cashes
10. Daniel Negreanu - 2 final tables, 6 cashes
See you next week for the final batch of bracelets before the big 'un, including the $50k HORSE winner!
|
|
| 2009 WSOP winners' gallery, Week 3... |
[19 Jun 2009|05:03pm] |
...so, with that thanks out of the way, time for week 3 WSOP results!
In Event 22, the No-Limit Hold'em shootout, Jeff Carris beat Jason Somerville heads-up for the bracelet. The rest of the 10-man final table included Andrew Margolis, Chris Moore, Joseph Cutler, Brandon Wong, Eugene Katchalov, Michael McNeil, Joshua Tieman, and Mike Shannon.
Event 23 was the World Championship 2-7 lowball draw event. Nick Schulman held off bracelet winner Ville Wahlbeck for his first bracelet. The other final tablists were Steve Sung, John Juanda, Archie "the Greek" Karas, Vince Musso, David Benyamine, and Michael Binger.
After a runner-up finish to Sung earlier in the series, Payanote "Pete the Greek" Vilandos succeeded in getting his second bracelet in Event 24. He beat Andy Seth heads up. Also at the final table were Michael Greco, Glenn McCaffrey, Dean Hamrick, Alan Jaffray, David Lerman, Souvanh Vilayvanh, and Brian Fitzpatrick.
Event 25 was a Hi-Lo mixed event (Stud and Omaha). And it gave Phil Ivey his second bracelet of the series, and his seventh overall, tying him now with Billy Baxter for sixth all-time. He beat Ming Lee heads up and Carlos Mortensen, Dutch Boyd, Jon Turner, Eric Buchman, Thomas Koral, and Peter Gelencser at the final table.
Event 26, a limit hold-em event, went to Tomas Alenius, who beat Jason Tam heads-up. Other final tablists were Al Barbieri, Glenn Engelbert, Demetrios Arvenetes, Dominick Kulicki, Rep Porter, Kim-Phong Duong, and Cole Miller.
Roland de Wolfe wins Event 27, Omaha Hi-Lo, beating Brett Richey heads-up. The rest of the last 9 were Scott Clements, Robert Campbell, Alex Kravchenko, Andrew Black, John Racener, Armando Ruiz, and Anthony Lellouche.
Event 28 went to Mike Eise, beating Jeff Chang heads up. Adolfo Ramirez, Jason Potter, Barry Berger, Zachary Fritz, Avi Braz, Jose Franco, and Michael Zulker round out the final table.
Event 29 was the World Championship Heads Up No Limit Hold 'em Championship. Leo Wolpert beat John Duthie in the finals to take the bracelet. Jamin Stokes and Nathan Doudney were the semifinalists, and Johnny Chan, Dustin "Neverwin" Woolf, Stephen O'Dwyer, and Bryan Pellegrino round out the top 8.
Event 30 was a PLO event. J.C. Tran won his second WSOP bracelet, beating Jeff Kimber heads up. Also at the final table were Jean-Philipp Leandri, Ross Boatman, Dallas Flowers, Rami Boukai, Chad Layne, Theo Jorgensen, and John Juanda.
Event 31 was another HORSE tune up for the big $50k. James Van Alstyne beat out Tad Jurgens heads up for the bracelet, and Mitch Schock, Bryan Micon, Shannon Shorr, Brian Malcolm, Fabrice Soulier, and Ronald Schiffman round out the final table.
Another early event runner up snagged a bracelet in Event 32, as Angel Guillen beat Mika Paasonen heads-up for the NLHE bracelet. Jason Boyes, Steve Kohner, Eric Ladny, Daniel Makowsky, Christopher MacNeil, Antoine Amourette, and Clark Hamagami make up the rest of that final table.
Event 33 was the World Championship in Limit Hold'em. Greg "FBT" Mueller Sui'ed his way to the bracelet, beating Pat Pezzin heads-up. The rest of the final table included Chad Brown, Daniel Alaei, Matt Hawrilenko, Matt Glantz, Michiel Brummelhuis, Soheil Shamseddine, and Kenny Hsiung.
And finally for this week, Eric Baldwin took Event 34's bracelet, beating Jonas Klausen heads-up. James Taylor, Benjamin Scholl, Roland De Wolfe, Andrew Youngblood, Steven Bradbury, Martin Jacobson, and Eric DeFontes round out the top table.
And your updated POY top 10.
1. Ville Wahlbeck - 1 bracelet, 3 final tables, 4 cashes
2. Phil Ivey - 2 bracelets, 2 final tables, 4 cashes
3. Brock Parker - 2 bracelets, 2 final tables, 5 cashes
4. James Van Alstyne - 1 bracelet, 3 final tables, 3 cashes
5. Roland De Wolfe - 1 bracelet, 2 final tables, 5 cashes
6. Pete Vilandos - 1 bracelet, 2 final tables, 2 cashes
7. Angel Guillen - 1 bracelet, 2 final tables, 2 cashes
8. Daniel Alaei - 1 bracelet, 2 final tables, 3 cashes
9. Steve Sung - 1 bracelet, 2 final tables, 2 cashes
10. Daniel Negreanu - 2 final tables, 4 cashes.
So that's all for week 3. See you next week for week 4!
|
|
| An open letter to creationists who cant argue... |
[19 Jun 2009|04:36pm] |
...so, to those of you who like to stifle dissent, so that your opinions can be declared right by default...
...thank you.
For proving to us that you do not mean any of the sermons you spout.
For proving to us that you are nothing but hypocrites.
For proving to us that there are no Christians among you.
|
|
| The art of the uncivil debaters... |
[12 Jun 2009|02:18pm] |
...so, they say you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Well, for the Discovery Institute, that's true. They're recycling old and tired tactics to try and censor the evolution debate.
Recently, Casey Luskin of the DI appeared on F*X News to promote Intelligent Design. Of course, this being F*X News, Luskin basically had the floor to himself. A YouTuber by the name of DonExodus2 used this footage in a video that refutes Luskin's points (seen here in a mirror by fellow science defender AronRa).
Yesterday, that video was taken down by YouTube, by request of the Discovery Institute for violation of DMCA.
Three problems:
Problem the first: The Discovery Institute does not own that video. News Corp. does. They may agree that it should be taken down, but it is News Corp. that has to request it. Anyone else claiming to have a copyright for something they don't in an attempt to stifle discourse has committed a felony under the DMCA.
Problem the second: Even if the DI did own the footage, there's another niggling thing. It's called "fair use." This video was a non-commercial, educational video where the copyrighted work was used for criticism of the idea (which can't be copyrighted, though the actual expression is). The video clearly falls under fair use in U.S. copyright law.
Problem the third: DonExodus2 is a member of a larger YouTube community of evolution-backers who have dealt with this sort of thing twice before. First, when Creation Science Evangelism, Kent Hovind's operation, went after people who were using their videos for fair use. Thunderf00t pointed out that not only do his videos fall under fair use, but CSM released all of their videos into the public domain, as they stated themselves. Once you PD a work, you can't later claim copyright infringement on it, thus committing the same felony as the DI just did.
The second time they tangled with a false DMCA'er was the late, lamented VenomFangX. Who made two crucial mistakes. One, he claimed infringement on his YouTube videos. The YouTube TOS states that by posting your videos on YouTube, you give permission to all other YouTubers to use your videos as they like, as well. Second...he had someone else actually file the false DMCA's, thus having them commit the felony as well! His internets have been taken away by his parents.
Oh, yeah...the DI's done this before, too.
Folks, this is a crass and destructive attempt to stifle discourse by someone who doesn't know how to argue. See my rant on that down below, but Casey Luskin is of the "new school" of arguers that doesn't work, those that know their parents' arguments worked, but don't know why it worked. Who think that if you find a single chink in another guy's armor, you win by default, even if that chink's just a trick of the light. And when you can't win, you silence. 'Cuz if you're the only one talking, you win by default...even if you have to gag anyone who'd refute you.
|
|
| 2009 WSOP winners' gallery, Week 2... |
[12 Jun 2009|01:14pm] |
...so, for the non-Twitterers among you, here are the week 2 winners in the World Series of Poker.
We start with Event 9, a shorthanded No-Limit Hold 'em event. Ken Aldridge took the bracelet down, beating Carman Cavella heads up. The other final tablists were Peter Gould, Bryce Yockey, Charles Furey, and Manelic Minaya.
Event 10 was a pot limit 50/50 event (half Omaha, half Hold'em). Rami Boukai took the bracelet, beating Najib Bennani heads up. The rest of the final table included Ben Grundy, Cornel Cimpan, Daniel Makowsky, Paul Parker, Pawel Andrzejewski, John Kabbaj, and Sigi Stockinger.
Anthony Harb took event 11, a NLHE event. He beat Peter Rho heads up. 3-9 are Jim Geary, Adam Adler, John McGowan, Adrian Dresel-velasquez, Scott Hall (no, not that Scott Hall), Michael Dyer, and Brent Sheirbon.
Event 12 was a World Championship Mixed event, covering basically every game they've awarded a bracelet in. Ville Wahlbeck is crowned the king of diversity, beating David Chiu heads up. The rest of the final table included Scott Dorin, Mark Gregorich, Huck Seed, James Van Alstyne, Mike Wattel, and Todd Brunson.
Keven Stammen beat Angel Guillen heads up to win the No-Limit Hold 'em event 13. Shawn Glines, Bahador Ahmadi, Torrey Reily, Antoine Berube, Oktay Altinbas, Matthey Lynn, and Gregg Merkow also made the final table.
Brock Parker took Event 14, a shorthanded limit hold 'em event. He held off Daniel Negreanu heads-up to get it, and Tommi Horkko, Kevin Hong, Barry Shulman, and Kyle Ray at the final table.
Event 15 went to Brian Lemke, who beat Fabian Quoss heads up. Also at the final table were Thomas "Thunder" Keller, Mike Sowers, Liya Gerasimova, Danny Illingworth, Isaac Baron, Billy Kopp, and Christian Iacobellis.
Event 16 was a Stud event, and it gave Jeffrey Lisandro his second bracelet. He held off a final table of Rod Pardey, Steve Stencil, Nick Frangos, John Juanda, Eric Pardey (Rod's his uncle), Daniel Studer, and Mitch Schock.
The Ladies event went to Lisa Hamilton, beating Lori Bender heads up. The rest of the final table included Mari Lou Morelli, Angel Pedroza, Kimberly Cunningham, Kimberly Rios, Lisa Parsons, Dawn Thomas, and Lisa Santy.
Daniel Alaei won the World Championship Omaha Hi-Lo event, claiming his second bracelet. He beat Scott Clements heads-up. 3-9: Ben Boyd, Daniel Negreanu, John Monnette, Greg Jamison, Thomas Koral, Annie Duke, and Yuegi Zhu.
Event 19 was another shorthanded event, No Limit Hold 'em this time. And Brock Parker took this bracelet, giving him two bracelets in four days. This time he beat Joe Serock heads up, and Russell Crane, Jesse Rios, Alex Wilson, and Clayton Newman at the final table.
John-Paul Kelly won Event 20, Pot-Limit Hold'em. Marc Tschirch was his last victim. The rest of the final table included Jason Dewitt, Kyle Carlston, Aaron Virchis, Tony Steward, Erik Seidel, Andrew Radel, and Ravi Raghavan.
And finally, Event 21, a HORSE event (though not the HORSE event), went to Zac Fellows, beating James Van Alstyne heads up. The rest of the final table included Timothy Finne, Michele Limongi, Chris Amaral, Martin Eiking, Gabriel Nassif (yes, that Gabriel Nassif), and Matthew Hawrilenko.
And here are the current Player of the Year Top 10:
1. Brock Parker - 2 bracelets, 2 final tables, 4 cashes.
2. Ville Wahlbeck - 1 bracelet, 2 final tables, 3 cashes.
3. Daniel Negreanu - 2 final tables, 4 cashes.
4. John Monnette - 2 final tables, 3 cashes.
5. Jeffrey Lisandro - 1 bracelet, 1 final table, 2 cashes.
6. Jason Mercier - 1 bracelet, 1 final table, 3 cashes.
7. James Van Alstyne - 2 final tables, 2 cashes.
8. Phil Ivey - 1 bracelet, 1 final table, 2 cashes.
9. Daniel Alaei - 1 bracelet, 1 final table, 2 cashes.
10. Vitaly Lunkin - 1 bracelet, 1 final table, 2 cashes.
See you next week for more updates!
|
|
| On the decline of the civil debate... |
[06 Jun 2009|12:32pm] |
...so, I've been putting this one off for a while, but with The Ferrett situation, I think I'll have a go at this.
The topic: The degeneration of the debate and the argument.
It seems to me, in the past 20 years, that civil debate has gone downhill. People don't know how to argue civilly anymore. Instead, they play blame games and so-and-so cards, talking points and put-downs, ad hominems and strawmen, completely forgetting the goal of a true debate, a true argument: to convince others, especially outsiders, that you know what you're talking about.
Instead, the goal has shifted. The goal of debate nowadays is to humiliate your opponent in the worst ways possible. It doesn't matter if you're right, so long as your opponent is defeated. Even better, if your opponent is defeated, your way is right by default. This is the tack of many Christianist apologetic movements, especially the "intelligent design" movement. If evolution is discredited, then the Bible is proven right. Even though they aren't even opposites.
And many people will assign blame for this...which is exactly the wrong tack to take. For it is exactly the kind of argument that one wants to avoid. Assigning blame is not, in fact, important. It only facilitates the "new" argument: If your opponent loses, you win by default. Even if your viewpoint is demonstrably wrong, it's right if no one trusts the other guy.
But to go around blaming this, that, and the other thing for an all-encompassing cultural phenomenon like the decline of debate is fruitless, because in the end, it takes a lot of different factors for this to happen. Factors like the internet, anonymous posting, and one-sided news reporting is not the "cause" of the debate failure; it exacerbates it a lot, but it's not the root. Being anonymous is freeing, of course; however, it's not the freedom that aids the decline. Most of these people have these thoughts in real life as well, but wouldn't have said as much...if they knew any other way. Many of these "anonymous" net users are, in fact, the children of maybe the most revolutionary generation in American...okay, in human history: The baby boomers. The Boomers went from a culture where only one person working could support a family of six or seven to one where two people working struggle to support a family of four. And part of that was thanks to them changing the culture of the debate. Instead of being civil, they got rowdy. Protests sprang up all over the place, loud and clear at their meaning. And a generation that didn't have to worry about protesting (thanks to the Great Depression and WWII) didn't know how to handle them anymore. So they took entirely the wrong tack themselves: Instead of being civil themselves, they shut the protesters out. Excised them from the "genteel" society that raised them.
But a funny thing happened: Those excised grew up. Not knowing, never being told "You're wrong, and here's why", they believed they had won the debate by shouting their heads off, getting on the evening news, getting Nixon to end Vietnam, getting LBJ and the Supreme Court to destroy segregation once and for all, their debate tactics worked. Which became the heart of the problem. For they then had their children, Generation X and/or Y, who were raised by the Baby Boomers who knew only their own debate tactics and not the "civil" tactics of their parents and their grandparents before them. Thus, you have Gen X/Y'ers who know that they should shout their heads off, but not why. They know their parents won debates by taking offense, but not how they took offense. So now, every slight, everything that could be construed as bad, is pounced upon, and the debate shifted from being able to prove you're right to being able to prove your opponent is wrong without needing to prove you're right.
Thus, now you have people claiming victory in arguments without being claimed right, people not being able to "agree to disagree", instead having to thoroughly humiliate the other party to protect their argument, people who can't say they're wrong about anything lest they be humiliated, cliquish behavior where anything that offends them is bad, and anyone who has a viewpoint who offends them is no longer a person. And the internet has helped exacerbate this behavior by the parties not even having to reveal who they are, or where they're from. And you have politicians who can't claim they're wrong, who claim "stay the course" is always right and "flip-flopping" is always wrong, even when the course goes off the edge of a cliff. And you have so many who are too stubborn to give any ground whatsoever, and so many who are too cynical to even try to take the ground from the stubborn, and you have what we have today...a debate forum where, unless you can destroy the other person, never mind their argument, you haven't truly won. And even "winning" is overemphasized; to the point where it's the only thing that matters, even if it's impossible. And it blows up in everyone's face eventually, leading to grudges, withdrawal, and even anger to the point of murder. All because, instead of defending one's argument, one has to feel the need to destroy the other person.
|
|
| 2009 WSOP winners' gallery, week 1... |
[05 Jun 2009|05:52am] |
...so, it's WSOP update time! If you haven't been following me on Twitter, here are the bracelet winners and final tables of the first week (or so):
We kicked off with the Casino Employees event. A $500 buy-in for anyone who works at any casino in the world. The bracelet is just as valid as any open event. Andrew Cohen takes this bracelet, beating Paul Peterson heads up. The rest of the final table, in finish order, are Casey Kohn, Grant Yasui, Dulay Elpidio, Robert Rooney, John Mcavoy, Ferdinand Boleski, and Sam Porter.
Event 2 was a special event for this 40th WSOP: A $40,000 buy-in no limit hold 'em event. 201 of the biggest (and richest) poker players on the planet converged on it, and Vitaly Lunkin came out on top with bracelet number two, beating Isaac Haxton heads-up. Greg "Fossilman" Raymer finished 3rd, Dani Stern 4th, Justin Bonomo 5th, Alec Torelli 6th, Alex Veldhuis (boyfriend of Evelyn Ng) 7th, Noah Schwartz 8th, and Ted Forrest 9th.
Thang Luu successfully defended his Omaha Hi-Lo 8-or-better bracelet, beating Ed Smith heads up. The final table also included Ming Reslock, Robert Price, Pascal Leyo, Jordan Rich, Jim Geary, Freddy Deeb (and the shirt!) and Senovio Ramirez.
Event 4 was a special "stimulus" No Limit Hold-'em event. At $1,000, it's the lowest buy-in of any open event this year. Over 6,000 players spread over 2 day 1's (the first time that's happened in a non-big 'un event). And coming out on top is Steve Sung, beating Panayote "Pete the Greek" Vilandos to win the bracelet. James Matz III was 3rd, Larry Sidebotham 4th, Nathaniel Mullen 5th, Dan Heimiller 6th, Jeffrey Oakes 7th, Phong Huynh 8th, and Danny Fuhs 9th.
A special Champions Invitational brought together all 20 of the living WSOP big 'un champions to battle for the first Binion Cup and a 1970 Chevy Corvette. Though there was no bracelet at stake, the bragging rights of beating 19 other champions was coveted. And those bragging rights went to Tom McEvoy, the '83 champion, besting the '02 champ Robert Varkonyi heads-up. One of the better scenes was Greg Raymer running back and forth between this one and the 40k final table he was at at the same time.
Back to the bracelet events, and Event 5, Pot-Limit Omaha, gave up-and-coming pro Jason Mercier his first bracelet. He beat Steven Burkholder heads up. Other final table participants include Kevin Iacofano, Matt Giannetti, Chris Biondino, Jonathan Tare, Dario Alioto, An Tran, and Vic Park.
The first World Championship in the books was Event 6, Seven-card Stud. The winner there was Freddie Ellis, besting Eric Drache heads-up for the bracelet. Also in the final group were Eric Drache, Ville Wahlbeck, Max Pescatori, Hasan Habib, Ivan Schertzer, Greg "FBT" Mueller, and Tim Phan.
Event 7, the first plain 'ol run of the mill NLHE event, was won by Travis Johnson, beating Steven Karp heads up. Also final tabling were Mark Salinaro, Mike Ciotola, Craig McConville, Brian McInnis, Walter Wright, James McClaine, and Kam Low.
And finally, the big news out of yesterday, the winner of Event 8, the 2-7 Lowball Draw event: Phil Ivey, picking up bracelet number 6, after a hard-fought battle with John Monnette heads-up. The rest of the final table included Yan Chen, Eric Kesselman, Rodeen Talebi, Raphael Zimmerman, and Elia Ahmadian.
So, there ya have it, the week 1 winners. Stay tuned next week for week 2...or just follow my tweets!
|
|
| Like a breadcrumb to a starving man... |
[31 May 2009|06:22am] |
...so, a sort of interesting exchange with the subject of Senta Moses occurred on Twitter yesterday, all spurred by my innocent comment about the dropped "Kate's embezzling from her own company" storyline on General Hospital:
@IlGreven: @WubsNet Seems that dropped stories are a habit around Spixie these days...
The Wubqueen then ReTweeted my post and added, "And WINNIE! grr." She knows that Senta's pretty much the only reason I watch GH...and now don't. I only heard about the Kate s/l through her tweet about it.
Robin from GHOFS then chimed in with this:
@GHOFS: @WubsNet I miss Winnie! Tried to find out from Senta M if she was gone a little while back, she didn't give details.
...hmm. Not giving details. Which means a coupla things: Either she is not gone, and isn't talking 'cuz she's afraid she might actually be gone, or she is gone, and isn't talking 'cuz she's hoping she'll be back. Or, maybe she's just rather busy and didn't have time for a long reply, which could be the case.
And if she's really busy, that means she's probably working on something big.
Thing is, the lack of news about anything about that is rather frustrating. Google has been pretty much dry the last two weeks. So for right now, the only things I have to look forward to are Boiler Maker (whenever it comes out, and if it comes out around here, the probabilities of that are fairly low), Ten Years Later (if that ever emerges from development hell, and also carries with it the same ifs as Boiler Maker when it does), and that Hallmark Movie "Wishing Well" (which hopefully won't disappoint me like "Bla...er, "The Kidnapping" did...). I would say "Ronna and Beverly", but Showtime didn't pick that one up, and Senta was just a guest star in that one anyway, so...
Of course, she might be negotiating to get back on Greek, which I've heard is now filming Chapter 5, which comes out in August...right around the same time the Chapter 3 DVD comes out.
But anyway, here's to hoping for more news...
EDIT UPDATE: Ask and ye shall receive! Robin was nice enough to pester a few answers out of Senta today. She has about as much of a clue about whether Winnie will be back as I do. Other stuff: Apparently, she has a Facebook, which I would not know because I don't have one, and FB is remarkably closed for a social networking site. Anyhoo, other stuff..."Boiler Maker" does have a distribution license, which means it'll come out in theaters, but whether it makes it to the boonies remains to be seen; "Ten Years Later" did make it to Cannes, but doesn't have a distribution license yet; and apparently "Grown-Up Clubhouse" is being shopped around. And she says she'd love to come back to "Greek" (which means right now she isn't). Thank you Robin...and Senta!
|
|
| Poker? POKER!... |
[28 May 2009|09:08pm] |
...so, it creeped up on me, but the World Series of Poker is underway! Today started a special 40th anniversary event...the opening No-Limit Hold 'em event? $40,000 buy-in. Yikes. 201 players bought in, and as of this moment, your chip leader is Antonio Esfandiari, with Justin Bonomo and Matt Glantz in the $300K range. David Williams (Twittering at @dwpoker) is already out.
Also, there are currently 21 players still in the Casino Employees event, moved back to the beginning of the Series, as it should be.
And by the way, the WSOP is no longer presented by Milwaukee's Be(a)st Light, but is now presented by Jack Link's Beef Jerky. Plan your boycott accordingly.
See y'all later.
|
|
| Performance-based issues... |
[22 May 2009|07:54pm] |
...so, we're getting reports in Cleveland that Eric Mangini is rubbing players the wrong way. Before the draft, it was Shaun Rogers. Now Josh Cribbs, and even Phil Dawson, the only Brown that's been there from the expansion era, are speaking up about being unhappy with their contracts.
What does this Cleveland Browns fan think of players not being totally comfortable with Mangini?
They shouldn't be. They should fear for their jobs. They should be living every moment knowing that if they slip, there's someone better waiting to take their job.
And about the players who want new contracts: Help the team win a game, then we'll talk. No, scratch that. Help the team score a fucking offensive touchdown, and maybe we'll talk. Not your department? Don't care, Phil, and MAKE IT YOUR DEPARTMENT, Josh. The primary reason they got two wideouts in the draft is because you've never been more than a kick returner and gadget back. If you'd've made catching passes your business, rather than razzle-dazzling every kick return, which, if you haven't noticed, you have a lot of chances to do since the offense is so horrible and the D is tired enough to hemorrhage points, maybe you'd have an argument about deserving a raise. 'Till then, keep your head down and work. 'Cuz there is no reason why you deserve a new contract. Hell, they could cut you tomorrow and no one who wants the Browns to win would flinch. Because this team needs a shakeup. Much like a nation whose policies caused a recession, the status quo is bad. It's what got us here in the first place. If you're uncomfortable with that, there are plenty of free agents who'd love your slot, and if you were here last year, chances are those players are better than you are.
|
|
| The Alara Reborn Constructed 10... |
[08 May 2009|09:22pm] |
...so, here are the 10 cards from Alara Reborn I think will most affect constructed formats.
10. Identity Crisis: It's already started to see play; it'll be a pretty big sideboard card for the big BW Aggro decks. And it looks like it's going to completely replace Mind Shatter in the boards of most of them.
9. Bloodbraid Elf. A lot of people have this higher on the list, and I'm sure a lot of aggro and ramp decks will make use of its Cascade ability. But I don't think it's going to be the biggest cascade card, but it will probably be a staple of the aggro deck.
8. Anathemancer. Up until the rotation, this is a borderline maindeck card and a four-of sideboard in any Red-Black deck. Even after the rotation, I imagine the M10 duals will keep this one clearly in the 'board of most decks.
7. Lord of Extinction. Remember, two years ago a lot of people poo-pooed Tarmogoyf, but it didn't take long to reveal its power. I don't think the Lord will get to Tarmogoyf's heights in Standard, but it should definitely take its place alongside the Goyf and the Knight of the Reliquary in Extended decks for years to come.
6. Terminate. Who isn't psyched about one of the better two-mana removal spells coming back for a return appearance?
5. Zealous Persecution. Shards brought us Infest, and Conflux brought us Volcanic Fallout, so it seems only fair that Reborn brings us this great sweeper twist. Not quite as rawly powerful as either of the other two, but in combat, it's just as good as one, and even better because it's more of a one-sided Infest.
4. Bituminous Blast. Now, we all see how powerful this is in Limited. But not as many see its Constructed potential. If you play BR, though, you'll immediately see its potential. Taking out nearly any 4 toughness creature (damn you, Chameleon Colossus), then bring out a Terminate, Anathemancer, Thought Hemorrhage, any of the big boy Red or black spells from Shadowmoor (Blasting into a Gouger or a Ram-gang seems especially evil).
3. The Borderposts. Some players are of the opinion that the Borderposts can actually take the place of lands in the deck. I agree with them to a point, but they're still very, very powerful. And give you your multicolored permanent to trigger a Jund Hackblade (just missed the list), or a Veinfire or Mistvein being a black permanent to turn your Dark Temper into a red Terminate (take that, Colossus!)
2. Maelstrom Pulse. It's not Vindicate, but very few are. What white got in Path to Exile, the other big removal colors got in this. This is death to most token producers, including Bitterblossom. It is the biggest of the big-money Reborn rares, but not the best. That goes to...
1. Thought Hemmorhage. A black-red player gets to four mana, and can now once again take out pesky hosers. No more Forge-Tenders, no more Celestial Purges, and if they're lucky, no more Cryptic Commands. And, again if you're lucky, trauma to the dome. This is as worthy a successor to Cranial Extraction as Cranial Extraction was to Lobotomy.
|
|
| We'll be "personally responsible" when you are... |
[08 May 2009|03:50pm] |
...so, a little mini-rant on "personal responsibility" that I posted on Fark the other day.
If I bought something at IKEA, followed the instructions to the letter, and came out with a piece of shiat that's nonfunctional, I would loudly complain to IKEA about them. Some "hardcore" IKEA shoppers (who either eschew the instructions entirely, or get someone else to do it for them) might say "you did this and this wrong", but the big thing is, this and this being wrong was touted in the instructions as being right.
Now, picture the economic "rules" as those instructions. And picture me as someone who did absolutely everything right the last decade. And look at the piece of unserviceable shit that turned out as my mortgage that I can't pay, even though I did absolutely everything right. And then picture every economist on CNBC, F*X News, the WSJ, Bloomberg, etc. as those "hardcore" IKEA users...who make their money not off the stock market, but by being employed by CNBC, F*X News, the WSJ, or Bloomberg. People who've never had to worry about living paycheck to paycheck in their lives because they've been able to bullshit high muck-a-mucks into believing they've got some insight into the market...are telling me, who went strictly by the book, who played strictly by their rules, that I have to take "personal responsibility" for playing their game.
...I say, fuck you and your "rulebook". It's time we made some new rules. That's what I would call personal responsibility.
|
|
| On Corporatism, and why it's worse than socialism... |
[06 May 2009|05:14pm] |
...so, in my last post (a rather long time ago), I mentioned the phenomenon of corporatism. I mentioned how it's different than socialism and capitalism, but combines the absolute worst of both. Now I'm going to give a broader definition of corporatism. If capitalism is all about competition driving innovation, and socialism is about a central body driving the well-being of the people, then corporatism is about one thing, and one thing only:
Profit.
That's the only thing corporatists are concerned about. They don't care how. If people have to be ruined to achieve max profit, so be it. If people have to die...well, corporatism has been around a long, long time, improperly taking the guise of the economic process with the most mass-appeal at the time (for, of course, more people buying stuff=more profit). But that's not to say corporatism necessarily car about what the people think, that's a difference between corporatism and capitalism: in capitalism, sellers compete for the consumers. In corporatism, consumers don't matter...because they have them all.
Yes, monopolies and trusts are how corporatists corrupt capitalism.
And I'll give you the racket that's the most monopolistic of them: The cable television companies. They'll tout how they're better than satellite companies (who they do compete against, but that doesn't make them any less of a trust), but who do you not hear how they're better than? The other cable companies. And, of course, the reason is obvious: You can't get another cable company. If you're in Time-Warner Cable land, TWC is all you can get. If you're in a Charter area, you ain't getting TWC. And if you're in Comcast...well, you know the drill.
This is corporatism writ large. Why do the cable companies do this? Of course...profit uber alles. They may put up the competition fight against satellite, but they also know one of the turn offs against them is a big installation of a satellite dish...and they know, because of simple physics, that a good portion of Americans can't get satellite. Thus, they're screwed into taking whichever cable company is in their area. And if they don't like it? Too bad.
This is something the government, if they're really into capitalism, must address. Because the corporatists have successfully snowed most of the public into believing corporatism is the exact same as capitalism, when, in fact, their end goals are incredibly different. In fact, choice is the core of capitalism: If you don't like a certain company the product or service, you go elsewhere for it. If you can't go elsewhere for a particular product or service, you don't have capitalism. You have either socialism (if the company you want to get away from is the federal government) or corporatism (if it's a private company). And the difference between those two schools of thought is basically the same as the one between capitalism and corporatism: Socialism is ostensibly for the people, where corporatism is definitely for the profit.
There are people who would say, in their best libertarian apologetic contrition, "Now, I'm not saying people shouldn't make money..." Not only am I not saying that, I'm saying the exact opposite. There are times when people shouldn't make excessive amounts of money...and there are times when corporations should rein in their greed. But most corporations don't see it, and those people who are taking seven-figure golden parachutes after squelching the life-savings of millions of people don't see it. Neither did the robber barons of the turn of the century see it until the Pullman Strike and Teddy Roosevelt forced them to see it. Neither did the plantation owners of the mid-19th century see it until it was basically beaten into them by the abolitionists and the North (and many of their descendants don't see it today). There are limits to profiteering, and there should be limits to corporatism. But as long as the bigwigs are lobbying Washington to try and make the law appeal to the corporatists, slowly changing it to something that would be even worse than if everything was owned by the government, I still feel comfortable in saying I fear corporatism more than I fear socialism.
|
|
| On voicing your opinion vs. having the soapbox to do so... |
[18 Apr 2009|03:59pm] |
...so, I've got a few issues with censorship and/or copyright that I'm going to talk about right now.
The first is a re-iteration of my wangst about whoever over at the Spinelli group decided that Winifred was verboten. And I'll counter with this: Obviously, she's a non-threat. Since she's not been on in three weeks and, apparently, won't be on again, ever (that's the only explanation I have for her not being on the last three weeks and having zero spoilers for the next two), what's the harm? What are you afraid of?
...which segues into topic 2: What is YouTube afraid of? Apparently, people who speak out against religion. That's the only reason I have for them banning someone like cozmikzen. A simple vlogger...who happens to talk bad about religion and science. It is quite apparent now that it's not just the creationists going after the scientists and atheists...it's YouTube. Sure, they can't go after the big fish like PotHoler54, Thunderf00t, and TheAmazingAtheist without losing more subscriber base than they know what to do with, but CozmikZen was a relatively smaller fish. And, of course, there's the "Then they came for the trade unionists", etc. This, exactly, is why I fear corporatism more than socialism. Because you did not vote for the Google executives. And they are free, under law, to do anything they want with voices they don't approve of. People will cry censorship, but enough dumbasses who don't know history will defend the rich...again...just like they did at the little teabag soirees on tax day...they keep defending the status quo, when the status quo is exactly what got us where we are today...and still they rationalize it as "See? Those commie corps Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are ebil!" No, what's evil is that your corporatist friends in the banking system still own more debt than the nations of the world combined. And yes, we are including the $10 trillion owned by the U.S. in that equation. And when those who have truly been silenced rise up...they ain't bringin' tea, my friends.
But...but...topic 3 pertains to the balance between censorship and copyright. And, in Sweden's eyes, The Pirate Bay has crossed that line...for too long. The proprietors will serve a year in Swedish prison for their crimes. Now, Swedish law is different from U.S. law...even with U.S. law being heavily friendly to the copyright owners and their lobbyists in the RIAA, the MPAA, and the AMPTP, they can't go after any site that doesn't have any actual content. In Sweden, they can and did. But the rest of Europe is far less kind to the bigwig producers, and thus a burgeoning pirate community is still there...and there are mirrors of The Pirate Bay up there. As I said in a previous post, both sides are very guilty of false logic, but here, I think TPB is clearly in the wrong, and they were clearly defiant about it. Which, I believe, is why they're branded as the heroes in this: they break the law not because they believe the act is wrong, but because they believe the law is wrong. And laws are not immutable, folks: Even our vaunted Constitution has been amended 27 times, and will likely be amended more before it's done.
But, much like the censorship issue above, these laws are backed by the same corporatism that permeates most of our daily lives. Most people are either oblivious to it, or defend it as necessary. But then, there were many proponents of the corporatist movement started by Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Morgan, and exemplified by people like George Pullman, who believed in Profit Uber Alles, including the law, if it had to. But, thanks to the corporatist movement's urging, they often didn't have to. Their money talked louder than anyone in their employ, until presidents like Grover Cleveland (who, despite this, sent in federal troops to break up the Pullman strike only because it hindered mail delivery), William McKinley, and especially Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft made the inroads to curb corporatism while maintaining the freedoms of both the corporate leaders and their employees. However, the anti-trust, anti-corporatist movement pretty much died with WWI, and was revived with the Great Depression. This anti-corporatist yet pro-capitalist philosophy held pretty much until Richard Nixon in the '70s. And now, we're back to where we were at the turn of last century: Profit Uber Alles, including censoring dissent and squeezing every last dime out of the little people. And, despite the fact that we've crashed back to the baseline that we had before the Republicans re-took Congress in '94, the corporatist changes made within remain. And combined with Reaganomic corporatists aids (the largest tax cut in history (which, by the way, was followed by the largest tax increase in history) being the chief among them), makes for the corporatist juggernaut you see today. And that endangers your rights as much as anything the "socialist" President Obama can do, which is why I say again that I fear corporatism more than socialism.
|
|
A message to ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) spinelli_gh... |
[15 Apr 2009|08:23pm] |
...so, I know I said I was done with GH people, but the guys and girls over at the Spinelli LJ are at the very least inviting...
...except that I decided to be playfully subversive with a missive to mention who you want on the show (and the missive not to mention those you don't want on the show, including a certain geek girl)...and now I see said entry has had its comments deleted and locked.
I don't know whether it was the entry's author or the proprietor, but either way, it's bad, bad form. I don't care if you don't like Winifred, ladies. But you cross the line when you try to silence those who do. You're better than that. Stop it.
|
|
| Defanging the nonvenomous... |
[13 Apr 2009|01:23am] |
...so, today I'd like to refute the YouTube user known as VenomFangX. Specifically, his little computer ditty known as "There's only one scientific Evolution."
I'm not linking to any of his videos, because he doesn't deserve the views. If you think differently, just search him up there. But here are his arguments against the five (or six) meanings of evolution.
1. Cosmic evolution: The big bang. His refutation: We weren't there when it supposedly happened, therefore it's impossible. Thus, by his reasoning, it's impossible to believe George Washington existed, or that the Declaration of Independence was written, because no one alive today was there when Washington was alive or the Declaration was written. Even funnier, it refutes the central tenet of Christianity: That Jesus was born, died, and was resurrected. Becuase...wait for it...none of us were there when he was alive. In point of fact, many, many historians actually do dispute whether Jesus existed, as there is very little actual evidence for his existence outside the Bible and the Apocrypha.
2. Chemical evolution. His definition of such is the formation of new elements. His refutation: Well, clearly hydrogen can't form higher elements, it's been lab proven; therefore, it's also impossible. A sixth-grade science student can refute this: Hydrogen forming higher elements...is what makes the sun go. Indeed, if hydrogen couldn't form higher elements, we wouldn't be here right now, because after the Big Bang, the universe was nothing but hydrogen. So, clearly, hydrogen can form higher elements. Just because we can't survive in the conditions for which it can doesn't mean it can't (this is a recurring theme in VfX's "refutations").
Side note: Entropy. VfX, like many creationists, is an abuser of Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics does not state that a system moves towards chaos. It states that a closed system cannot gain useful energy. The creationists also say that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics because evolution "decreases chaos"; or, decreases useful energy. Problem: The Earth is not a closed system. We gain energy every day from the Sun and cosmic radiation. In point of fact, the only true "closed system" is the entire universe, which is, in fact, moving towards this entropy. We know this, because the "nothing but hydrogen" universe was the universe at its highest energetic state. Living beings here on Earth are more entropic than the original universe.
3. Stellar evolution. Again, his refutation of stars and planets forming is that we haven't seen them, therefore, they can't happen. Not can this be refuted by the same method that we refuted his refutation to Cosmic Evolution, we can refute it by saying it's false: We have seen stars form. They're called supernovae. After one star explodes, the remains from it coalesce from gravity. There are two ways this can end: The gravity is greater than the pressure of the remnants, ending with what we call a black hole; or, the pressure of the remnants is greater than gravity, in which a star is formed, usually much smaller and much colder than the parent star. Creationists would probably say, "Well, this is the same star!" Except it's not, in the same way that a baby of a mother that died in childbirth is not the same person.
4. Organic evolution. AKA Abiogenesis, how life came from non-life. Except this isn't "organic" evolution, because you don't necessarily need carbon for life to form. But because carbon is the most stable solid element, it's the most likely to give rise to life. But, since spontaneous generation was proven false, this is impossible. At least, that's what VfX told us. Because someone proved that maggots don't come from spoiled meat, there's absolutely no way that life can come from non-life. A creationist video gave us the same argument in the form of a jar of peanut butter. Since nothing can come from peanut butter, life can't come from non-life. Which, of course, is a completely absurd jump. Much like saying, since no one has been observed surviving 18 G's, no one can survive 18 G's. Except a scientist refuted this...by surviving 35 G's himself...and living to the ripe old age of 89. Google John Paul Stapp if you don't believe me there. Again, VfX is falling into the fallacy of because we can't do it, or didn't see it, it can't possibly be done. This is the third time in four "refutations" he's fallen into this fallacy, though the first time he's fallen into the age-old version of it that basically sets up the creationist movement, translated as such: "We don't know how it's done, so God must have done it."
5. Macro-evolution. A species changing to another species. This is the same refutation as #3: That we've never seen speciation; therefore it can't happen, is flat out wrong. (Oh, and make that 4 out of 5 refutations). Of course, he says the only proof would be a monkey giving birth to a man, etc. etc. Again, speciation doesn't work that way. It doesn't go over 1 generation, it goes over thousands of generations. And, in fact, speciation has been observed. Except not the speciation that the creationists demand. Newsflash, creationists: You don't get to set the boundaries of our experiments. Our experiments define speciation as the point in which two types of animals cannot interbreed. A kid with Down's syndrome has undergone evolution. He has not undergone speciation. Anyway, the proof comes with species that can go through many generations in a year: Fruit flies. Sure, they're flies. But then, so are horseflies, houseflies, and mosquitoes. But you wouldn't presume that they can all interbreed, right? And when certain breeds of fruit flies can't interbreed, they are officially different species. It may be that the parent species has "died out" and produced two species that are completely different, or that an offshoot species can't breed with the original species. Either way, it's a new species, and therefore, your "macro-evolution".
6. Micro-evolution. This is the "evolution" that VfX claims to be the only real evolution: Small changes over a small period of time. He of course, believes micro-evolution without believing macro-evolution. Or, as many have pointed out, believes you can take a single step in Boston, but can't walk to Los Angeles. The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is time.
So, there you have it. "Evolution refuted" refuted. And even if they're not to your satisfaction, refutation of an opposing view does not make yours plausible without evidence...which creationists have never, ever produced.
|
|
| Jax the Oracle?... |
[06 Apr 2009|10:02pm] |
...so, I just love it when one of my throwaway predictions comes true...
Barack Obama just has the better policy. And don't start on "Oh, what policy?" That canard has been refuted numerous times; in fact, Hillary herself has given less of her policy than Obama has. What he has is what look like sound policies to put social systems in place, and help massage the economy (though I have no illusions that he'll be able to fix it before it crashes and burns, which might happen right around October...)
...and that I noticed it months after the fact proves just how throwaway it was...
|
|
| The birth of a new Alara... |
[03 Apr 2009|04:03am] |
...so, Alara Reborn is starting to get spoiled. First off, it's an all-gold set. All 145 cards are multicolored. Second off, quite a few cards have already been spoiled, but I'll keep this thing spoiler-free. Here's what I'm going to extrapolate from the current set specifics:
SPECULATION BEGINS HERE.
There will be 16 cards of each allied color pair in the set, with a 7-4-4-1 rarity distribution: 7 commons, 4 uncommons, 4 rares, and 1 mythic rare. This will include the "Borderposts", which some have thought will be mana fixing, but I believe will be something like "Spells you play cost GW less to play." Thus, they'll be costed in the 4-5 CMC range, and that will make up for the possible fact that there'll be no one-drops in the set. So, 16 cards in the allied color pairs: 80 cards.
There will be 5 cards of each enemy color pair, in a 2-2-1 rarity distribution. 25 cards from that gives us 105 cards so far.
There will be 5 cards of each "shard" tri-color pair, and no cards of each "arrow" tri-color pair. Again, these will be in the 2-2-1 rarity distribution. That gives us 25 more cards, and 130 cards in the set.
Now we get interesting. There will be 10 cards that will be costed XHC, where X is any amount of colorless, H is a hybrid mana symbol, and C is a single colored mana symbol. Got that? There will be 2 cards for each "fixed" color, with the hybrid mana the other cards making up its main shard. So you'll see 2 cards each of (G/U)W, (W/B)U, (U/R)B, (B/G)R, and (R/W)G. One of each will be uncommon, and one of each will be rare. 10 more cards gives us 140 cards in the set.
The last five cards will all be five-color, and will all be mythic rares. Thus, 145 cards: 55 common, 45 uncommon, 35 rare, 10 mythic. For reference, Conflux is 60-40-35-10.
The cards' collector number will be ordered in the above way, starting with white-blue (Ardent Plea number 1) and going around the wheel with the allied colors; then starting with white-black and going around the wheel with the enemy colors. The tri-colors will start at Bant, going around the wheel, and the XHC cards are ordered by the "fixed" color. Finally, the five color cards are the last five collector numbers in the set.
SPECULATION ENDS HERE.
So, that's just my thought of what's coming in a few weeks...
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
ilgreven's journal