The Fish

so is a wank...

basically, that she is so frail a strong gust of wind would snap her leg off like a dry twig in a gale.

Taxi

to be honest I was only going to take this for a year to get some cash, but it's more and more tempting to forget the course entirely and just stick at this. but come 6 months time I might be sick to the back teeth of the job and in that case I'll continue the course. and you're right Jimbo, it was a bit crass to brag about how much I might make, sorry. I just got a bit excited, normally ( as Gemmil intimated) a gap year job would be more in the region of £28 not £28k .. Iguess I've done it again, haven't I? sorry...

I was never arguing that sponge was wrong just that the reason I gave the answer I did was because it was the way I'd been taught. I said pages ago that Sponge might be right, but my argument was no longer about the example and was instead defending my reply. If Sponge had said "Whey that's fair enough if you've been taught that way bu tghe offical line is X" but he didn't, he just kept having a dig at me and declaring that he was right. I don't mind admitting that the way I learnt is probably not the official way. it doesn't change the fact that "I'm wrong" but it does defend Why. Yes DB I am Arrogant and am not a fan of admitting when I'm wrong, but in this case I did accept that my way was not the official way and that Sponge's is. The reason this thing trolled on for 5 pages is Sponge wanted to lord it over me instead of being gracious and I found that objectionable. I don't give a crap if this thread makes me look stubborn as a mule, end of the day I was asked a question answered it using the best information I had at the time, when someone came along and challenged it, I replied to his counter and only got arsey when his desperation to hear me say "I'm wrong" got the better of me.

had a drink there Jonny?

still ... 74 my mam had her aunt round today and the old dear is 79 about a lively as a sea lettuce in the Gobi... A strong gust of wind would halve her shoe shopping budget if you know what I mean? if you are 74 then I raise my glass to you if you're not and are on a wind up then I raise my glass cos you had me

look you've been taught one way and in your suprising arrogance you decide to dictate that your way is right and mine wrong. Well I never professed to be an expert and only gave my opinion as best I could. I never said "I'm right you're wrong." I only said "I'm pretty sure I'm right" and in fact said that your war could in fact be right. You chose to continue this "debate" despite dismissing my explanations out of hand and basically being a twat. you call me a troll and an idiot, but face facts. The way I was taught mean less split pots and did not in anyway change the "General" rules (that you posted) of texas hold em poker. so quite frankly, get off your fucking high horse and accept that perhaps the way I've been taught isn't "wrong" but just different. I never once claimed it was a definitive answer, just the way I was taught.

Hey Dude-Kula Shaker

AAAKK Q3 Q2? best hand doesn't ahve anything to do with your pocket cards. this is the way I've been taught

where the best possible hand is not purely from the board. AAA109 Q5 Q3 Q5 wins because he takes the trip Ace, plus the Queen and 5 in his pocket if the board read AAAQ10 and the players had 95 93, then it's a split pot. The best possible hand has nowt to do with the pocket cards. Like I've been saying for fucking years (but you merrily ignore in your quest to be able to say "I was right and you were wrong" in a marvellous example of arrogance, beyond even what is expected from me) this is the way I've been taught, and have been taught this to reduce the saplit pots because split pots run against the idea of Poker.

I really enjoy proper debates. get a grip man

.. fucks sake it's not hard to understand in exactly the same way as it's not hard to unsderstand that it not the idea of poker to have split pots. if their is a fair and obivous method to reduce the frequency of split pots then it should be employed. I've been taught that IN THIS PARTICULAR AND RARE INSTANCE, you take the pocket cards of the final two players into consideration.

Whereas I am saying I am right and you are wrong because ... I am right and you are wrong. 100% 176206[/snapback] ... and I'm the arrogant one?

in that case you're playing a full house on the board, which is different to the situation that was first described. but how about KKKJ10 you hold A7 he holds A6 the best possible hand is KKKAJ for both parties, however in the way I've been taught... you have in your pocket a better hand than your opponent. As such you win. can you see the logic in the way I've been taught? 176199[/snapback] Split pot again. 176205[/snapback] can you see the logic in the way I've been taught?

is it because you pronounce it Colour and not color, through and not thru and leisure and not leisure

in that case you're playing a full house on the board, which is different to the situation that was first described. but how about KKKJ10 you hold A7 he holds A6 the best possible hand is KKKAJ for both parties, however in the way I've been taught... you have in your pocket a better hand than your opponent. As such you win. can you see the logic in the way I've been taught? 176199[/snapback] There is absolutely no logic in that. Q3 is better than Q2 so Q2 should win by your logic 176203[/snapback] ... read the example which caused this furor, then read your example.... if you can't see the difference I can't be arsed to argue.

seriously man, I'm not saying "you're wrong I'm right" I'm saying that the way I've been taught reduces split pots which is in-keeping with the idea of the game. your way might be right, but as I've said pretty much throughout this thread I'm "pretty sure" which incidently does not mean "I'm 100% sure" tell a man black is white his whole life he'll believe it to be true.

in that case you're playing a full house on the board, which is different to the situation that was first described. but how about KKKJ10 you hold A7 he holds A6 the best possible hand is KKKAJ for both parties, however in the way I've been taught... you have in your pocket a better hand than your opponent. As such you win. can you see the logic in the way I've been taught?

your point - " the object is to win the other guys money, nothing more" my point "Split pot doesn't win you the other guys money" I KNOW that you make the best five card hand from the 7 available cards, but I'm sure that I was taught that in that particular sitatuion described (where the best hand is identical for two players unless they use both cards in their pocket.) it's not a split pot and instead both players play their pocket cards. if this is a subtle difference in the way we've been taught then that's fine, but I'm so arrogant in this regard to say that you're 100% wrong and I'm !00% right. but rather that I'm pretty certain that the way I've described reduces the number of split pots and therefore stays more true to the idea of Poker... the point you make " the object is to win the other guys money, nothing more" The way I've been taught you win the guys money, your way you split the pot with the other guy.

no, this is something far worse....

did you actually see my point fly by you as you launched into that brash staement?

that and "to be sure to be sure"

put the mouse back in the house Brockles