Poker Musings, Vol. 3 - Gracious but Vindictive in Defeat

I have no intention of turning this into a bad beat diary. But seriously...I Run Beautiful...

PokerStars Game #1875xxxxxxx: Tournament #95xxxxxx, $10+$1 Hold'em No Limit - Level II (15/30)
Seat #5 is the button

Seat 1: MAXBOOM (1580 in chips)
Seat 2:(1080 in chips)
Seat 3:(1710 in chips)
Seat 4:(540 in chips)
Seat 5:(2830 in chips)
Seat 6:(1480 in chips)
Seat 9: Lescelleur (4280 in chips)
Seat 6: posts small blind 15
Lescelleur: posts big blind 30
*** HOLE CARDS ***

Dealt to MAXBOOM [8d Ad]
MAXBOOM: calls 30 [Loose, to be sure, but the table was virginally tight except for Mr. Les, who was being the table bully and raising everything very big and was also in the big blind.]
seat 3: folds
seat 4: folds
seat 5: folds
seat 6: folds
seat 7: calls 15
Lescelleur: raises 90 to 120 [we hoped for this! Nay! We orchestrated this cheap ass move from the big blind. Sorry, Les, in this world, you get outed]
MAXBOOM: raises 1460 to 1580 and is all-in
seat 7: folds
Lescelleur: calls 1460
*** FLOP *** [7h Kc Kd]
*** TURN *** [7h Kc Kd] [7s]
*** RIVER *** [7h Kc Kd 7s] [Jc]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Lescelleur: shows [8s 7c] (a full house, Sevens full of Kings)
MAXBOOM: shows [8d Ad] (two pair, Kings and Sevens)
MAXBOOM said, "gg" [Gracious, even in defeat.]
Lescelleur said, "wow" [You forgot to type the rest, so I'll complete... "wow, I suck."]

The case could be made that his range was broad. My observation was he didn't play his monster hands this way (a 2 monster hand sample, admittedly not a lot of intel.) He could have had AA. Or a number of hands that had me beat. I thought my hand was a favorite over his range to make that particular bet in his own big blind. I also thought that absent a monster he could fold. I was right. And wrong.

I made a parallel judgement--

Largest junk = best broad. See Ms. Fire for confirmation.

Largest cards = best hand. See Game #1875xxxxxxx for rebuttal.

Some skills aren't absolute.

Deep breath... we play this game until infinity. Eventually, proper play will be a positive investment... Proper junk is still reaping rewards.

Ugh.

Voting

McCain will give all the money to the rich! Obama will tax you to death!
Well, at least the constitution gives me the right to decide. Constitutionaly, and all.
Sorry, just got 3rd out of 17 in the weekly poker tourney and am a bit on tilt.
Wrong.
You have no right to vote for el presidente...
You have no right to vote for the president of this here U S of A. The more savvy of you will no doubt point out that I'm d-r-u-n=k. Fair entougn. The rest will just read in blissful... bliss. Forget the electoral college for a minuet and bear with e. UR SMRT, if you figured out that you can't vote for the pres and can only get soemone to voet for you. BUT YOURE STILL WRONG.
After some research, it would appear that no one in the country has a constitutional right to vote for the members of the electoral college. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments (circa 1865-1880 passing) are the first real stab at providing equal rights for citizens, and by citizens I mean men. The 13th outlawed slavery. The 14th defined citizenship and said that being a slave in the past did not disqualify you from citizenship. The 15th said that the right to vote could not be assigned in a discriminatory manner.
You have no constitutional right to vote.
The decision of who gets to vote for president/VP is left up to the states. Specifically its legistlatures. If tomorrow the state legislature said it didn't want the popu;lace voting, it's well within their right.
Since 1776, states have creatively found ways to keep certain people from not voting. Literacy, land ownership or "the grandfather clause" i.e. if your grandfather voted, you could (to allow illiterate white people to vote), were all used to keep blacks from voting even after the 15th amendment passed.
These are men, mind you. Women weren't included under the anti-discrimination umbrella until the 19th amendment in 1920.

What's interesting though is that states were finding ways to discriminate all the way up to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which sought to end the practices altogether. Ironically, that still has to be ratified every so many years. The last extension was in 2006, for 25 more years.

I propose we change it.
To what, I don't know.
To steal a couple of Heinlein ideas, we could say you have to serve in the military to vote. Or you have to pay the cost of an ounce of gold (or pick the benchmark) to take a civics test-- if you pass the test, you get your money back and vote-- fail, and the horn goes off in the local library, you get exposed as a dupe and you fail and lose your right to cast the ballot.
I've been overserved on myh way to 3rd out of 17 in my weekly poker tourney. Happy Friday.
There's your history lesson for today.