.25/.50 on Stars. I make it 1.50 to go with AA UTG. Main villain is pretty new to table but seems solid so far.

Only SB (shorty) and BB (main villain and full stacked) call. Flop comes 7d6d3c, kind of yucky for AA, I think, although I do have Ad.

SB bets 1.50 into pot of 4.50. BB calls. I raise to 8. SB folds, and now BB makes it 25. I think for a bit, then fold.

After the hand, I was kind of thinking he might have played a worse overpair that way, and there are a lot of them. But KK/QQ should at least often be re-raising PF, I would think (and those are the only ones that should have some degree of confidence about their hands after my raise). And then we have made straight possibly deciding it's time to take it down, sets, even 2 pair--maybe some draws, although at the 50s, I think most players would call with the draws.

Anyone want to continue with AA in this spot?

No to what?

If you're gonna post a one word answer it should at least be clear what it is.

FWIW I would call as most sets raise you on the flop and if he has 54 so be it. I

Well, one meaning is simply as the equal sign: The morning star is the planet Venus.

It gets more interesting in predicative situations. If you don't attribute some sort of ideal status to qualities (cf. Plato, Aristotle, Frege), then it can mean either that an individual is a member of a class (Socrates is a man) or that one class is a subclass of another (elephants are mammals).

Keep us posted on what you come up with! Are you studying philosophy at Berkeley?

yay! we have a philosopher in our midst! and i thought poker and philosophy seemed somewhat on opposing sides of the personal interest spectrum, with most people. not that they are contradictory or don't share similar things or anything (like logical reasoning, which is crucial for both, unless you dig hegel or like to tilt alot, lol), but not too many philosophers who play poker that I know of, anyway. not that it doesn't work the other way, i think most people like to philosophize.

hardcore analytic philosophy seems to hardly be a casual kind of an interest, you gotta be a little nuts to really get into kant's pure reason or frege's logic stuff and russell's math and set theory. like for example, i've spent over a year reading kant's pure reason and i'm only halfway through. that dude is fricking crazy. but i gotta be a little retarded to spend so much time on something like that, i think.

yeah, mostly my paper concerns 'is' in terms of identity, but also predication. mostly ignoring class inclusion and plain old existence claims (since frege and russell don't talk about it much in their shiet). i'm actually writing about russell's denoting phrases as being kinda ripped off of fregean functions, so it's getting pretty into phil of math. but i think that's inevitable if you really delve into phil of language, imo.

sorry for ranting, but five energy drinks and two papers due in a day, of which i'm only halfway done with one and not started the other, leads me to procrastinate and rant about philosophy in a poker forum, it seems. and yeah, i'm a student at berk. but i graduate in two months. and then i sell my soul to law school.

you seem to know your shiet, that's tight. are you a philosophy grad student or something? frege isn't really undergrad material. or the copula 'is'.

On the hand: He's getting awfully frisky here with anything that doesn't beat me. Only one I could see where I should be calling is 98d.

For me, I've raised after a small bet and a cold call. That's showing a lot of strength anyway. I can have overpair, set, 2 pair, straight, strong draw. Given that range and the fact that he didn't repop PF, it's hard for me to see what he's now raising back at me with that isn't ahead of AA. The only things I could come up with would be like QQ/KK, but I don't see him having that very often.

Philosophically: Kant's still my favorite, although I disagree with him on almost everything. First Critique rocks! One to come back to again and again.

Johnnie, you're way off on Rawls. He says a system with large discrepancies between the rich and poor is an improvement IFF it improves the status of the poor. Sounds like you're more along the lines of horrible Nozick.

Also, yeah, I did my M.A. in philosophy and taught for a while.