Augusti offtopic

[ranka]

Teeks äkki ametliku autode kiitmise teema?

[TrvP]

Teeks äkki ametliku autode kiitmise teema?

+1 + üldine autode arutelu...

Tavaline 5-seeria mitte M5. Midagi väga kenat ei ole, aga üsna solid imo, kuigi algul kui välja tuli sai sitaks kriitikat.

E60 sai kriitikat, kuna väljanägemine oli niivõrd erinev vana mudeliga ning algul tundus suhteliselt "öäk" see disain, kuid nüüd on suhteliselt vastuvõetav. Eks auto puhul mängib rolli küll välimus, kuid sõiduomadused ja tehniline pool on ikkagi esiplaanil, muidugi oleneb ka inimesest...

[Jeebus]

OT

( Click to show/hide )

[jarlop]

Tavaline 5-seeria mitte M5. Midagi väga kenat ei ole, aga üsna solid imo, kuigi algul kui välja tuli sai sitaks kriitikat.

pildi panid m5-est ikka ju. Väga ilus auto ju!:)

[Loksutaja]

http://www.zurmat.com/2012/08/29/sam...-5-cent-coins/

[doublemint65]

chevrolet hhr

[rasmer]

http://www.zurmat.com/2012/08/29/sam...-5-cent-coins/

Fake.

[WeThePeople]

( Click to show/hide )

( Click to show/hide )

I’m so mean, I make medicine sick.

( Click to show/hide )

nuts

[imthcplant]

See Wax- Rosana on ikka üli nuts lugu! Aitäh et selle postitasite :D

[vonkartoffel]

Oleks korteris vaja lasta teha korralik suurpuhastus, keegi teab soovitada mingeid ettevõtteid ja mis sellise teenuse hinnad võiks olla? (80ruutu suhteliselt tühi pind)

[Provoker]

mis linnas?

[Provoker]

löö koristusteenus otsigusse ja saad päris palju vasteid. Kui midagi valid siis kindlasti googelda läbi enne.

[jrgn hell]

huvitavaid mõtteid:

grant_s

22 hours ago

Generally I avoid reading the postscript readers' comments that follow most online articles because of the usual issues: They're so often written by idiots whose grammatical flaws and heinous spelling make it all but impossible to give a whit of credibility to anything they say. Also, more often than not, their impaired literary skills are dwarfed by their glaring inability to grasp the issues at hand, or present anything that resembles a cohesive or interesting point. In this case, however, I decided to peruse all of the comments thus far because I assumed that a British audience would have superior literary skills to my embarrassingly stupid American countrymen, and also because I thought that poker players might just possess a little more sound logic than the general population.

That said, I am a fairly well-known American poker player that has resided in Las Vegas for over 17 years and I also played in the gigantic Los Angeles card rooms for many years prior to my move to the desert. 7-card stud was my specialty before the explosion of No-limit Hold-em, and I used to write the stud column in Card Player magazine about ten years ago. For those of you who may have figured out who I am, great. For those that have not, that's fine as well. Suffice it to say, it is a very fair statement that I have been around this racket for a mighty long time. At any rate, I will not belabor my poker pedigree further, and I will now address some of the comments I've seen here.

To the people that find this study to be intrinsically flawed, I concur wholeheartedly. Obviously, 60 hands played among 300 players is not merely a small sampling, it is absurdly so. Also, just who are these self-appointed expert German players? By what criteria was this determined? The study itself is a statistical and scientific joke, however I do happen to agree with some of its findings. Almost every poker player not only grossly overestimates his or her own personal skill, but also overestimates the role that skill plays in the game (yes, even in the long run too). Likewise, in life and business, luck and timing play a much greater role in our respective successes and destinies at large than most of us would care to admit. Think about it, surely we all know some people with whom we attended school that somehow managed to make great successes of their lives and we scratch our heads and rhetorically ask ourselves, "That idiot? Really?" On the other end of this spectrum, we know some people that were born with great intellectual gifts, yet somehow just could not catch a break or find their way and toil their entire lives in financial and personal anguish, and so much of this is simply due to not being in the right place at the right time or meeting that one person that could have catapulted their career forward, etc. For that matter, isn't the genetic lottery itself pure luck? We have zero control over whether or not we are born attractive or intelligent, or the quality of parenting that we may or may not receive in those formative years. These matters are all luck, but it's what we do with what we have that might influence the net outcome in life, and in poker. Of course, there are limitations to the amount that one can skew the outcome, given a particular set of circumstances. If you are terribly short, you probably will not be able to make a professional career in basketball no matter how dedicated you are or diligent in practice. In poker, if your opponent has the absolute nut hand, all the skill in the world will not get him to fold, will it? What I think this article tries to say is that while skill can influence outcome, it's the degree of which and limitations thereof, that most people cannot fathom.

To the person that touted 7-card stud as "chess with cards", I say kudos to you, because stud poker is a vastly more complex and interesting form of the game than any flop-based version could ever hope to be. It is sad and unfortunate that it has been dying out over the past decade. Trends are funny things, so one never knows - perhaps stud will make a comeback at some point in the future.

To the persons that say poker is nothing more than a 100% luck-based game of chance, I can only shake my head in amusement at your ignorance. You are obviously either engaging in the time-honored tradition of talking out of your posterior region, or you are one of the overwhelming majority of long-term losing players who cannot objectively divorce themselves from their ego, and reconcile that their long-term losses derive from a lack of proficiency, and as such, must bitterly attribute it to their ridiculously skewed perception of what constitutes "bad luck". One person said it was about "trading flukes", and this is nothing short of preposterous.

Conversely, to the folks that think it is all about skill, this too is an exceptionally naive viewpoint. While it is true that highly skilled players will prevail over the course of a lifetime, a common misconception is that over the "long run" (whatever that really is), the cards should "break even", and only the skill will determine who will die with a box full of cash and chips and who will expire penniless. This is hogwash and a myth that I admit I once believed in myself. The real truth is that pretty much everything that can be quantified in a statistical format will wind up with results that form the classic graphed shape - the bell curve. As such, there will be a large number of people for whom the cards will break even, albeit roughly, but there are folks who will be in the right and left portions of that bell curve. In other words, some players' results will absolutely outpace their skill, and there will be a fairly equal number whose results will fall short of what their skills should yield. C'mon, you've seen them if you're a regular player - the guys who seem to make their flushes just a wee bit more often than they should and always seem to have just the right opponent facing them who is willing lose all of their money with that set of flopped trips that does not evolve into a full house. Are they necessarily bad players? Of course not, but do they seem to win a bit more than they rightfully should? Absolutely.

Tournaments, by their very nature, have a much greater luck-to-skill ratio than the long haul of cash games. Absolute donkeys have won major tournaments, even the "big one" at the World Series of Poker. That is not to say that tournament poker does not require skill to be a repeat winner, because it does, and it is a different skill set than cash games to be sure. There are many well known tournament players that manage to wind up at the final table or at least in-the-money a great deal of the time, yet these same folks are widely held to be suckers in the cash games, especially at the upper levels.

In the end, poker, much like life, is a mixture of luck and skill, and I don't need a study, particularly one so poorly conceived, to tell me that the amount of luck vs. skill is so often mistaken. I witness it every single day at the tables, first hand.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...eat-big-bluff/

[jrgn hell]

see oli ka päris huvitav:

… Baxter's income was derived entirely from his personal services and that the capital he used to finance his poker playing was merely a “tool of the trade.” The money, once bet, would have produced no income without the application of Baxter's skills. As discussed previously, it was Baxter's extraordinary poker skills which generated his substantial gaming income, not the intrinsic value of the money he bet.

http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/04...rk-or.html?m=1

[kjmrc]

Ülinuts on hommikut alata Metroo einesaiaga.. mjäu

[Mr_Kenny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaYNN...ayer_embedded#! Kellelgi OOs pole sellist nalja juhtunud? :D

[imthcplant]

Ülinuts on hommikut alata Metroo einesaiaga.. mjäu

Saada üks siia Oslo suunas ka teele :D (vahele kõike peale oliivide) Kastmed metroo ja chilli :D

[kjmrc]

:D Krt, polnud pikka aega söönud seda, ülihea tundus kuidagi täna :) Igati hinda väärt ost.

[Codecci]

13. oktoober Jose Aldo vs. Frankie Edgar!

[Ints]

rajuga samal päeval