resourceone.info Technology Kill Everyone Pdf

KILL EVERYONE PDF

Tuesday, April 30, 2019


Tri Nguyen - The No-Limit Holdem Workbook - Exploiting resourceone.info Winning Poker Tournaments One. Winning Poker Tournaments - One Hand at a Time Vol.2 by Eric Lynch, Jon Van Fleet and Jon Turner. 年9月4日 Download link: Click Here Kill Everyone took th for No-Limit Hold 'em Poker Tournaments and Sit-n-Go's (Poker Books PDF free download). Editorial Reviews. Review. Kill Phil was a breakthrough book and everyone with an interest in tournament no-limit hold 'em ought to read it. Kill Everyone is as.


Kill Everyone Pdf

Author:SVETLANA FIELDING
Language:English, Spanish, Dutch
Country:Albania
Genre:Health & Fitness
Pages:405
Published (Last):01.02.2016
ISBN:611-2-77700-783-7
ePub File Size:19.63 MB
PDF File Size:11.40 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Downloads:33323
Uploaded by: IRENA

For cash games, some of the best books are Small Stakes No Limit Hold 'em ( There is no PDF as far as I'm aware, so I bought it off Amazon). Download Kill Everyone Advanced Strategies for No Limit Holde'Em. Don't bet so small that your opponent has odds to call with everything, but don't bet so big so that you're risking too much when you're bluffing.

That approach, based on extrinsic motivation, will indeed get him out of the maze. But the solution that arises from the process is likely to be unimaginative. Another person might have a different approach to the maze. She might actually find the process of wandering around the different paths—the challenge and exploration itself—fun and intriguing. No doubt, this journey will take longer and include mistakes, because any maze—any truly complex problem—has many more dead ends than exits.

But when the intrinsically motivated person finally does find a way out of the maze—a solution—it very likely will be more interesting than the rote algorithm. It will be more creative. There is abundant evidence of strong intrinsic motivation in the stories of widely recognized creative people.

The most successful scientists often are not the most talented, but the ones who are just impelled by curiosity. Creative people are rarely superstars like Michael Jordan. Indeed, most of the creative work done in the business world today gets done by people whose names will never be recorded in history books. They are people with expertise, good creative-thinking skills, and high levels of intrinsic motivation.

And just as important, they work in organizations where managers consciously build environments that support these characteristics instead of destroying them.

Managing Creativity Managers can influence all three components of creativity: expertise, creative-thinking skills, and motivation.

Poker Video Blog

But the fact is that the first two are more difficult and time consuming to influence than motivation. And training in brainstorming, problem solving, and so-called lateral thinking might give her some new tools to use in tackling the job. But the time and money involved in broadening her knowledge and expanding her creative-thinking skills would be great. That is not to say that managers should give up on improving expertise and creative-thinking skills.

But when it comes to pulling levers, they should know that those that affect intrinsic motivation will yield more immediate results. More specifically, then, what managerial practices affect creativity? They fall into six general categories: challenge, freedom, resources, work-group features, supervisory encouragement, and organizational support.

These categories have emerged from more than two decades of research focused primarily on one question: What are the links between work environment and creativity? We have used three methodologies: experiments, interviews, and surveys. While controlled experiments allowed us to identify causal links, the interviews and surveys gave us insight into the richness and complexity of creativity within business organizations.

We have studied dozens of companies and, within those, hundreds of individuals and teams. In each research initiative, our goal has been to identify which managerial practices are definitively linked to positive creative outcomes and which are not.

You might also like: KILLING PABLO MARK BOWDEN PDF

For instance, in one project, we interviewed dozens of employees from a wide variety of companies and industries and asked them to describe in detail the most and least creative events in their careers. We then closely studied the transcripts of those interviews, noting the managerial practices—or other patterns—that appeared repeatedly in the successful creativity stories and, conversely, in those that were unsuccessful. Our research has also been bolstered by a quantitative survey instrument called KEYS.

Kill everyone PDF

Again, it is important to note that creativity-killing practices are seldom the work of lone managers. Such practices usually are systemic—so widespread that they are rarely questioned. Of all the things managers can do to stimulate creativity, perhaps the most efficacious is the deceptively simple task of matching people with the right assignments. Managers can match people with jobs that play to their expertise and their skills in creative thinking, and ignite intrinsic motivation.

The amount of stretch, however, is crucial: not so little that they feel bored but not so much that they feel overwhelmed and threatened by a loss of control. Making a good match requires that managers possess rich and detailed information about their employees and the available assignments. Such information is often difficult and time consuming to gather.

In fact, one of the most common ways managers kill creativity is by not trying to obtain the information necessary to make good connections between people and jobs.

Instead, something of a shotgun wedding occurs. The most eligible employee is wed to the most eligible—that is, the most urgent and open—assignment. Often, the results are predictably unsatisfactory for all involved. When it comes to granting freedom, the key to creativity is giving people autonomy concerning the means—that is, concerning process—but not necessarily the ends. People will be more creative, in other words, if you give them freedom to decide how to climb a particular mountain.

But they should understand that inclusion in those discussions will not necessarily enhance creative output and certainly will not be sufficient to do so.

It is far more important that whoever sets the goals also makes them clear to the organization and that these goals remain stable for a meaningful period of time. It is difficult, if not impossible, to work creatively toward a target if it keeps moving.

Autonomy around process fosters creativity because giving people freedom in how they approach their work heightens their intrinsic motivation and sense of ownership. Freedom about process also allows people to approach problems in ways that make the most of their expertise and their creative-thinking skills.

The task may end up being a stretch for them, but they can use their strengths to meet the challenge. How do executives mismanage freedom? There are two common ways. First, managers tend to change goals frequently or fail to define them clearly.

Poker Videos

And second, some managers fall short on this dimension by granting autonomy in name only. Employees diverge at their own risk. The two main resources that affect creativity are time and money.

Managers need to allot these resources carefully. Like matching people with the right assignments, deciding how much time and money to give to a team or project is a sophisticated judgment call that can either support or kill creativity. Deciding how much time and money to give to a team or project is a judgment call that can either support or kill creativity. Consider time. Under some circumstances, time pressure can heighten creativity. Say, for instance, that a competitor is about to launch a great product at a lower price than your offering or that society faces a serious problem and desperately needs a solution—such as an AIDS vaccine.

In such situations, both the time crunch and the importance of the work legitimately make people feel that they must rush. Indeed, cases like these would be apt to increase intrinsic motivation by increasing the sense of challenge.

(PDF Download) Kill Everyone: Advanced Strategies for No-limit Hold ‘em Poker Tournaments and

Organizations routinely kill creativity with fake deadlines or impossibly tight ones. The former create distrust and the latter cause burnout. In either case, people feel overcontrolled and unfulfilled—which invariably damages motivation.

Moreover, creativity often takes time. It can be slow going to explore new concepts, put together unique solutions, and wander through the maze. Managers who do not allow time for exploration or do not schedule in incubation periods are unwittingly standing in the way of the creative process.

When it comes to project resources, again managers must make a fit. They must determine the funding, people, and other resources that a team legitimately needs to complete an assignment—and they must know how much the organization can legitimately afford to allocate to the assignment.

Then they must strike a compromise. Below that threshold, however, a restriction of resources can dampen creativity. They keep resources tight, which pushes people to channel their creativity into finding additional resources, not in actually developing new products or services. Another resource that is misunderstood when it comes to creativity is physical space. It is almost conventional wisdom that creative teams need open, comfortable offices.

Work-Group Features. If you want to build teams that come up with creative ideas, you must pay careful attention to the design of such teams. That is, you must create mutually supportive groups with a diversity of perspectives and backgrounds. Because when teams comprise people with various intellectual foundations and approaches to work—that is, different expertise and creative thinking styles—ideas often combine and combust in exciting and useful ways. Diversity, however, is only a starting point.

Managers must also make sure that the teams they put together have three other features. Second, members must display a willingness to help their teammates through difficult periods and setbacks. And third, every member must recognize the unique knowledge and perspective that other members bring to the table. These factors enhance not only intrinsic motivation but also expertise and creative-thinking skills.

Again, creating such teams requires managers to have a deep understanding of their people. They must be able to assess them not just for their knowledge but for their attitudes about potential fellow team members and the collaborative process, for their problem-solving styles, and for their motivational hot buttons. Putting together a team with just the right chemistry—just the right level of diversity and supportiveness—can be difficult, but our research shows how powerful it can be.

It follows, then, that one common way managers kill creativity is by assembling homogeneous teams. The lure to do so is great. These teams often report high morale, too. But homogeneous teams do little to enhance expertise and creative thinking. Everyone comes to the table with a similar mind-set. They leave with the same.

Supervisory Encouragement. Most managers are extremely busy. They are under pressure for results. It is therefore easy for them to let praise for creative efforts—not just creative successes but unsuccessful efforts, too—fall by the wayside.

Last edited by SlippryJack; at Originally Posted by SlippryJack. I agree http: I use it along with Harrington's odds and probabilities section on pushing.

Why wouldn't you shove it if shoving is unexploitable? The Kill Everyone tables are for the situation when you are far from the money, but if you're close to the money or in the money, I suppose that the difference is that you have to shove more and call less. This might be getting too complex for my little brain, but I think there is a difference between optimal strategies and unexploitable strategies. Unexploitable such as SAGE for heads-up play means that your opponent cannot counter your strategy with a more effective strategy - your play is correct no matter what your opponent does.

As far as I understand it, optimal means your play is correct within the constraints of certain assumptions e. Optimal depends on your assumptions, while unexploitable is independent of any assumptions. I'm not sure what I'm saying is correct either.

But as you said unexploitable is that no matter what your opponent does, you gain money. Optimal means that if you take advantadge of bad play from your opponents you win the most possible money, but I'm not concerned with this here.

So my point is that if shoving KJ is really unexploitable and that seems to be the case from the charts in KE , it makes you win money, while folding does not make you win money. Still, I'd like to know the mathematical proofs of these things, and whether or not shoving KJ in this case, for instance, is also unexploitable when we are close to the money or in the money.

But this statement conflicts with the concept of unexploitable play. If a shoving range is unexploitable, then it doesn't matter how your opponents are playing.

If they fold, they're wrong; if they call, they're wrong. If the ev of the shoving range depends on your opponents' playing tendencies, then the ranges are optimal, not unexploitable.

I don't think I understood what you said either. In one post you describe the Kill Everyone ranges as unexploitable, but then in the post I just quoted you describe them as equilibrium ranges if your opponents are playing optimally.

Doesn't it have to be one or the other? Wait, I think I might be getting it. The ranges in the book are unexploitable in that your opponents will be making a mistake no matter how tight or loose their calling range is. So you'll make money using the recommended ranges, but you should make more money if you can accurately adapt them. If your opponents call too tightly, you can widen the range; if your opponents call too loosely, you should tighten the range.

Is that it? Let me try and explain this to you guys.

Unexploitable means that say you are in the small blind with an M of 10 and your opponents calling range is only AA,KK extreme example I know shoving any two cards is unexploitable because in long run you will still make money from shoving. However the optimal play in this example would be raising any two cards and folding when he re-raises you considering he is only re-raising you with AA-KK you can avoid the times you bust by folding to his re-raise.

Another example would be you have AA from any position with an M of whatever you want,shoving it pre-flop with an M of 50 is unexploitable but is not optimal as you can make more money from raising. Last edited by Sorrybadbeat; at Can someone post again the push-fold charts please?

Thanks in advance. BB code is On. Smilies are On. Forum Rules. All times are GMT It is thus fully understandable that people might prefer this option to taking their own lives unassisted.

A few jurisdictions currently permit assisted suicide or euthanasia, but most do not. Some of the former jurisdictions restrict assisted suicide or euthanasia to their own citizens or residents, but Switzerland allows foreigners to make use of its life-ending facilities. The problem, of course, is that a trip to Switzerland imposes many obstacles for people suffering elsewhere. Some might be too sick to make the trip.

Others might lack the resources to get to Switzerland. Even those who could access the Swiss facilities might have to travel and die alone because any family member who accompanies them could be charged in their home country with assisting in a suicide. And even in the absence of that jeopardy, patients have to travel, often great distances, to die in a foreign place rather than in familiar surroundings.

For those reasons, the fact that assistance in dying is available somewhere is not an excuse for not making it available everywhere. Quality of life can fall to abysmal levels.

While there can be reasonable disagreement about how poor the quality must be before life is not worth continuing, it is an indecent imposition on people—an unconscionable violation of their liberty—to force them to endure a life that they have reasonably judged to be unacceptable.

Accordingly, it is incumbent on liberty-respecting states to allow assisted suicide or euthanasia for those whose lives have become a burden to themselves a.

Footnotes aFor more detailed arguments, see: Benatar D. Suicide: a qualified defence. In: Taylor JS, ed. New York: Oxford University Press; [in press]. Benatar D.

Assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia, and the right to life.Any other advice on using these charts? Send a private message to poloplaya While there can be reasonable disagreement about how poor the quality must be before life is not worth continuing, it is an indecent imposition on people—an unconscionable violation of their liberty—to force them to endure a life that they have reasonably judged to be unacceptable.

Some of the former jurisdictions restrict assisted suicide or euthanasia to their own citizens or residents, but Switzerland allows foreigners to make use of its life-ending facilities. This makes it much easier to read your post and understand the situation, which will help get you better feedback. Footnotes aFor more detailed arguments, see: Benatar D. Some might ask why assistance is necessary. Employees diverge at their own risk. View Public Profile.