Chess...or Poker?

:P

:D

Speaking of which, I was just playing Hold 'Em no limit online (and I was kicking ass) with a couple of Marines. They brought up "Unfit for Command" and started talking trash about Kerry.

I chimed in with some points of my own and destroyed them. And how did I do that?

By attacking the SHIT out of Bush- while at the same time talking up Kerry. I brought up the AWOL and contrasted that with Kerry being shot at, saving lives....Daddy getting Bush into the National Guard...Bush started wars where other's blood is shed, not his...and went on and on. They had nothing, truly.

And I always end confrontations like that with my trademarked phrase, "You know that guy is playing you, right? Unless, of course, you're a millionaire. He's playing off your prejudices to make money for himself and his rich buddies." That is usually responded to with DEAD silence. I've yet to get any response at all.

Sounds like you used the right words, the right language along with the right situation, to score very well. Believe it or not, they must have some respect for you and your skills or they would not be playing poker with you. Therefore the door is open a bit at least to actually HEARING your opinions. I am guessing what you had to say sank in.

Hey, if you're not a multimillionaire or a fundamentalist, these guys are laughing at you. They love you. Can hardly even keep a straight face when they see you, 'cuz you're actively destroying yourself for their benefit.

Oooh, they hate that. All they can do is feign that old Reagan-era masculinity crap and puff that they're doing great.

We just had a Texas Hold-em anniversary party at our house and invited our Sunday school class.

Everyone was told to bring 100 pennies and 50 more if they got wiped out. About 20 people, 4 tables. Every half hour count pennies and best five go to table 1, next five table 2, etc. That way the people taking it serious ended up on table one, the gabbers had a ball on table 4.

We had a great time.

It was a proud day when I could consistently out-peg my grandfather :)

Rules made up as you go along....

and other Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey events.

I'm an avid player, and have been for years. There's a definite relationship between lowball rules and political affiliation, and it holds pretty true: the more liberal a group is, the more they tend toward straights and flushes not counting against a low. What this does is give you the opportunity to go both ways more often and help make it a wilder and more changing game. REAL lefties also allow one to go both ways and win 3/4 of a pot on a tie one way, whereas more conservative types huff at the very idea; for them, one must win outright both ways or lose entirely. (That last one is interesting, and I'm a bit torn: I sort of like the pig to have to be really conclusive, and I enjoy staying in to sneak with a loser hand one way when I think someone's got the person beat the other. Then again, I like the free-for-all of the 3/4 rule.)

But I digress.

Okay, here's the puzzle: it's a hi-lo five-card stud game, and you're going low in competition with one other person, with a few other non-hands (unpaired) hanging around to sneak for the high. On the last round, you pair up on your aces and the other low pairs up on eights. The highs drop, and when the declare comes, you declare high and the other person goes low. At the reveal, you have a pair of aces and that person has the pair of eights. You win, right? I think so. A pair of aces high definitely beats the eights, and in lowball, a pair of aces is lower than the eights. Seems obvious as all hell to me, but I've met shocking amounts of resistance.

What do you say?

As a side point, the most conservative game I know of considers the ultimate low to be a 75, since they consider the idea of an ace being low something that would rock the foundations of all that's good and pure.