• Tougher Than Hell Poker Run Free
• Tougher Than Hell Poker Run Games
• Tougher Than Hell Poker Run
• Tougher Than Hell Poker Run 2019
• Tougher Than Hell Poker Run Movie

Free Republic Browse · Search

General/Chat Topics · Post Article

KC's Tougher Than Hell Poker Run is a charity motorcycle ride to benefit Camp Quality - raising funds to support children battling cancer and their families. We are having this ride again this year to benefit Camp Quality 'Letting kids with cancer be kids again' Tougher Than Hell Poker Run is a great time. Great band (Kaps and Stems) Harley Davidson giveaway, cash prizes. Register at wwww. Kctougherthanhell.com.Start at Blue Springs Harley 9 AM on the 27th of June. Dec 19, 2017 - The Biker Book for Charity: Helping to get the Voices of the motorcycle community heard to show the world the good side of riders. LIKE on Facebook for more motorcycle charity events.and post your Event, too!. See more ideas about Charity events, Motorcycle events, Charity.

Hells Angels MC Daly City, CA 17th Annual Poker Run June 27th, 2015 Check out the links for future events info https://ww. No tougher than you. She kept that thought to herself. She had an opportunity, and she wasn’t going to fail, even if it meant working too closely with him. “Have a good day.” Without another word, he strode away, his back rigid and his stride stiff. There went one unhappy guy.

Honest Opinions About Voting For A Female President
9/22/2020 Redheadedshannon

Posted on 09/22/2020 12:41:22 AM PDT by redheadedshannon

I wanted to create an open, honest & nonjudgemental thread about the possibility of a future conservative female candidate for president. I wonder what most males opinions are on the subject & how it might affect the vote for our side. I would like everybody to feel comfortable being totally honest. Everybody is entitled to their own preferences & I wouldn't assume anything bad about someone based on that opinion. In fact, often wondered what my own husbands opinion truly is on the topic.

Would you go so far as to say you would never vote for a female for president? Are you concerned that any woman would be weak & wouldn't uphold conservative principles? Would you have voted for Margaret Thatcher? If you were forced to choose any woman, who would she be?

I ask because, inevitably, a female might be nominated & I'd like to have an open & supportive discussion on our side about what people's feelings will be. Will it affect our vote? What might your concerns be? Or are you feelings that the gender is of the candidate is irrelevant- so long as they are conservative & stand by their beliefs.

TOPICS:Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS:gender; preference; votingNavigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82nextlast

Speaking for myself, I could care less about gender or race or so forth. All that matters is competency and politics.

I have no qualms voting for conservative women. I like what I see and hear of Kristi Noem, for example, and she seems to be an unwavering conservative. She’s one of my favorites for 2024. Ironically, I was never a big Palin fan, though. Not because she didn’t express strong conservative principles, it was more her grating voice and she seemed a bit of an airy personality. Maybe it was because she reminds me of my sister-in-law, lol.

policy POV is more important than gender in this job-

This is your vanity? It’s 2020. And donate $10... Go on The view. It sounds like you can have a good discussion there

She would like everyone to be totally comfortable answering this and you answered with a real response? I think people here are losing their minds. It’s a ridiculous vanity and it doesn’t deserve a answer.

How do you feel about voting for men? How absurd does that sound? Absurd question right?

Nonjudgmental?

This sounds like a beta thread.

You’ve asked for total honesty: since XIX this country has gone to hell in a handbasket.

(it may have done so anyway, as most nations do, but not so rapidly)

Tougher Than Hell Poker Run Free

Obviously depends on the female.

As Jordan Peterson has pointed out, there is generally more variability between members within a group than between groups.

That said, women are different from men ON AVERAGE in certain characteristics like agreeableness, they express aggression covertly as opposed to overtly ON AVERAGE and in general are going to be more community oriented.

However, one might see, for example, going to war, as an EXPRESSION of community if they see the scope of 'community' as not 'the global village'

So it really really really depends.

Women are certainly capable of just as much corruption, though may get a pass because societies are likely to take more time to see them as corrupt.

So to even answer the question ... you'd have to agree at the outset that we are talking about a guaranteed non-corrupt though of course imperfect character.

Men tend to occupy the ends of the bell curves when it comes to intelligence and aggression. Yet both of those things can be deployed for good or for bad.

It's hard to imagine anyone other than a Trump, with strong masculine-ness, kicking the dems' asses they way Trump has. Could a woman have done this? From my experience, I doubt it, but can a woman kick serious ass? Surely ... more often less overtly.

The right woman for the right time will come along (Also maybe the wrong one will).

My sense is that for most rational conservatives, just as with blacks, nobody really cares. Show me the times, show the man or woman ... and because there is more variability within groups than between ... ... ... you make the decision then and there.

Before I know Condi Rice's true politics ... that is, having nothing to do with her being female or black -> when I thought she was conservative (which it turned out she isn't) ... I would have had no problem voting for her. I THINK that's mostly true for most conservatives.

In general though I am sympathetic to the argument that women never should have been given the vote NOT because 'they are too weak or too stupid' or some bigotty argument ... but because too much feminine energy leads to too much community orientation leads to too much socialism. I would allow women the vote but first I would go back in time and put in even more clarity about the limits of government.

Out of concern for community and security ... I believe the en masse, women voting leads to more pressure against freedom and individualism, which would be fine had the Constitution been prepared for it.

THAT SAID, weak charactered men, long before women got the vote, were certainly doing their best to eat away at the Constitution ... so anyone who argues that women are destroying the country with too much collectivism are not looking hard enough at men.

Anyway that's more than you asked for. Speaking for myself, I'd vote for whoever I predicted was most likely to strengthen freedom and destroy collectivism. If that's a 23 armed black muslim tranny ... well ... IF that would result in stronger liberty and weaker collectivism ... then if later in the campaign cycle I even found out it was a leper penguin from the moon, then I could look past all that.

We conservatives, I THINK, look at the president as more of a servant, janitor, employee who must be able to lead, but isn't primarily 'my leader.' In that sense, I'll hire whoever will simply git 'er done, just as I would hire a construction contractor or software engineer.

There's nothing virtuous in that by the way, I'm not 'pro woman' ... it's incidental that I'd vote for a woman if the woman happened to be the one I predicted would get it done.

Finally, if Trump revealed to us that all this time he was actually born a woman, I'd say fine, don't care, so long as you don't push any agenda other than more liberty and less government.

Only if she’s super hot. Dumb question.

I don’t think we should have gave women the vote let alone elect one president.

Ever since we have given them the vote the country has been going down hill.

No thanks.

Using the Biblical Standard, Women were to lead ONLY when a Male leader could not be found.

At risk of promoting a stereotype, most women mix too much of their emotions in with their “morality” and/or policy positions.

For me, it would have to be someone like Kristi Noem, or Sarah Palin, etc. Someone I had no fear would buckle under to an emotional argument or what was popular or fashionable even. Shoot, we see too much of this with men, for example those who make the supreme court with Roberts being the latest example.

The problem with women in politics did not begin with the suffrage movement. It began when we started lettin’ ‘em wear shoes.

Good post

Well, it’s like a poker game.

You can watch but, we ain’t gonna let you play...

Seriously, I voted for Sarah Palin’s dad, based on the actuarial table Matt Damon discussed and though she would be a terrific president and a PILF
I don’t care if you are a woman. Build your qualifiers and ideas then run.

The integrity of your , character, strength of your ideas and ability to persuade others are some things I consider.

You libs and your 19th Amendment.

Sheeze!

It began when we started lettin’ ‘em wear shoes.

And who's the idiot that let 'em drive?

That guy needs a good talking to.

I agree, And we should repeal the 19th. The problem is for ever woma. Who can lead and be competent at it theres 10,000 who aren’t.And they are far far worse thenen when it comes to back stabbing and changing their minds. I recommend going and sitting thru divorce court or talking to a few lawyers who want to be blunt about their clients. Women are the more vicious sex and hold grudges lomger, much longer. Al. Of this is “AS A WHOLE OR GROUP”.

Tougher Than Hell Poker Run Games

Margeret Thatcher was so much better and tougher than the Brit “Conservatives” that came before and after her. She was a dynamic gem. I’ll always vote for the most conservative.

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82nextlast

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic Browse · Search

General/Chat Topics · Post Article

This article was born as an answer to @Levi1117’s question in our Discord server. He asked about the ideal numbers regarding EVbb/100.

Let me start with a surprising fact: statistics on large samples, in different stables clearly revealed that early stage winrate in tournaments has surprisingly little correlation with the actual ROI of the player. Real moneymaker decisions occur close to the bubble and in the late stages, where a carefully selected resteal, a skillfully played limped pot or even an openfold can earn you significant amount of dollars (thanks to the chance of other players colliding).

So your primary goal should be to get to the late stages as often as possible.

You can argue that early stage moves lead to bigger stack, allowing you to pressure your opponents. This may be a valid point in high-stakes tournaments, where the fields are small and the bubble/final table bubble may go on for dozens of hands.
However, low-stakes tournaments are different:

• the fields are usually huge –> bubble bursts very quickly –> not much to gain from your big stack
• lots of wild, fun players you cannot put real ICM pressure on
• average player is not capable of big folds –> you mainly want to play a patient game, going for value
• if you happen to get to the final table with short or medium stack, your opponents will not make your life hell as if it was a high-stakes tourney
• collision effect is much higher than in high-stakes (big stacks often punt against each other)

So contrary to the common sense I believe that THE LOWER STAKES YOU PLAY, THE MORE CAUTIOUS YOU SHOULD BE IN THE EARLY STAGES, even at the cost of usually having medium/small stacks in the later stages.

There is rarely discussed topic related to the early stages: the effect of rake. It’s a 5-12% extra price you have to pay for each tournament you enter, which you have to compensate for with superior decisions. It is a significant factor and you have to be conscious how you want to approach this challenge.
Strangely enough I’ve only heard direct discussions on this topic from heads-up sit&go experts, although i think this is a crucial concept for tournaments as well.
As mentioned, increasing your early stage bb/100 will not earn you the rake money –> Your primary goal should be to keep your early finish low! If you just blindly follow GTO, your bb/100 may be higher as you may find a lot of spots to make slightly profitable big moves, but those moves will also lead to high early finish rate, meaning you failed to make moves with real impact on your winrate.

Collecting some extra chips in the early stages will add very little to your profitability. Frequently busting early will inevitably ruin your winrate.

Tougher Than Hell Poker Run

This is especially true for low- and mid-stakes, where players make gigantic mistakes – so if you give up on the marginal spots and stay patient, you can risk your stack with much better chances. Simply put: the opportunity cost of a borderline move is huge.

Tougher Than Hell Poker Run 2019

I’m aware that this concept sounds lame for most of you, as we all want to be the table captain, making life miserable for all the opponents, but still, if your goal is to make the most out of your buyin you have to be able to adjust to your opponents. And in low-stakes avoiding marginal clashes is a crucial skill.

This being said, early stages can still be great opportunity to collect chips, but let me give you 2 advices:

1. Before entering a tournament, check and evaluate the blind structure vs rake! If the blind levels are designed solely in order to force reentries and reach the guarantee, it’s usually a rake-trap you can hardly compensate for, so your best choice is to skip or max late reg, even if your opponents look fairly weak! If it’s a phase tournament you should handle it as if it was 5x-10x bigger than the original buyin (all pros will make day2 –> field will be much tougher than the similar stage of a normal freezout of the same buyin)
2. Consider applying some small strategic changes, mainly focusing on delaying the agression to later streets, so you don’t have to play huge pots that often + you can commit your chips with much more certainty. With careful study you can find a ton of spots where you barely give up EV by building up slightly more polar ranges on the early streets.

Tougher Than Hell Poker Run Movie

To continue answering the original question about the winrates: mid and late stage EVbb/100 numbers tell you a bit more about what you can expect on the long run.
You should probably check a stack size report. Winrates for my last 1M hand looked like this:

I’m not saying these numbers are fantastic, but may be a good point of reference for massive multitablers (I usually played 15-20 tables).

Summary:

Being absolutely spot on with ICM and with short stack game are clearly the most important skills in tournament poker. Don’t waste time on 100bb PIO sims until you are a master of these areas!

‘Have a big stack or bust’ attitude is incorrect, especially in low-stakes tournaments!