Trent Steele wrote:Bucky wrote:Bakestar wrote:Trent Steele wrote:Example. Last night I had $400 down. Dealer had 7; I had 6-4. Double down, pull a King, sitting on 20 with $800. on the table. Some freaking moron in the 3 spot stands on 13. STANDS. YOU IDIOT. Next guy hits on 15 pulls a 4. Dealer's down card was a 5. Dealer draws a 9 for 21 every one loses. First card in next deal is 5; dealer would have had 17. $1600 swing.
This is in the high limit room where its a $100 min. Unreal. While usually calm in these situations. I cashed in after the next hand, looked at the dude and said "Thanks you $#@! idiot, you just cost me $1600."
In this situation, yes, it sucked for you, but assuming a random distribution of cards, isn't the outcome basically a matter of chance? It could have just as easily paid off for you.
Undeniably true; it could have worked out for me because of his decision(although that was less likely because of the composition of the remaining cards in the shoe based on what had already been dealt). So, my anger was result-oriented, for sure. That said, it didn't work out because of an irrational decision. Although I'm not superstitious at the tables (I dont care who cuts cards, don't care if people drop out of the shoe), it irritates when I lose because of a stupid decision.
I would analogize it to the following situation, although its hardly HAMELS. 1st and 2nd with 1 out, 5-3 game. Base hit to RF. The RF has a 35% chance of throwing out the runner at home. RF misses the cutoff man, runner goes to 3rd, 5-4. Next batter nubs a grounder between the pitcher's mound and 3B. Only play is at 1B, runner scores. 5-5. Next batter pops up.
In many ways, the infield single is even more a matter of chance than the blackjack table, assuming a BABIP of .300 or so (i.e. the dealer's draw card). But the infield GO becomes a non-event of the RF had not made an irrational decision to throw home (standing on 13).
phuturephillies wrote:Turkey Hill Diet Iced Tea = greatest thing ever
TenuredVulture wrote:I've been staring at this stack of papers for almost two weeks, and they still haven't graded themselves.
1 wrote:TenuredVulture wrote:I've been staring at this stack of papers for almost two weeks, and they still haven't graded themselves.
i've got around 110 excel projects to grade; wanna trade?