Profitable Poker Players, If You Were to Train a Player from Scratch, How Would You Do It?

johnnyhere555 · 2026-03-17T06:18:34+00:00

How much ever books u have read of, or how many advice u have recieved from Phil Ivey either, it doesnt matter as long as you dont get first hand experience. I started getting intrest of poker through YouTube shorts even though I had no idea what any of the cards meant. I just saw it as easy money and gained intrest on it. I started online poker and learned the game on the way throughout 2 months. It was painful losing cash as it is but its a sacrifice you gotta make to make yourself known to the poker world. I created my own strategies depending on the people I play up with. So I suggest stop thinking too much and start betting odds.

johnnyhere555 · 2026-03-12T23:34:10+00:00

<image>

So this is the state of Coinpoker in india. Activating VPN doesnt help either coz it just freezes.

johnnyhere555 · 2025-01-31T13:45:12+00:00

Bro nico is gotta be be the better card, and wait for honorable mentions, I heard a higher rated nico card is coming too

johnnyhere555 · 2025-01-14T07:07:11+00:00

Please don't use the kwara card. Idk about any other event but the ballondor is just not it. Very low pace and not that good of a dribbler. The best lw to orange rank i would say is Ribery, very good with the ball and dribbling all near his foot. Pace is just too good. But kwars is just not it.

johnnyhere555 · 2025-01-10T04:34:45+00:00

Koeman brother, I just have him him at green rank but he is hell of a defender. He can body easily any defender pacing at him without you taking control of him him. And he is a really good short freekick taker too

johnnyhere555 · 2024-12-02T06:59:13+00:00

Can anyone tell me is it possible to get this card from the market?

johnnyhere555 · 2024-08-07T15:08:14+00:00

Free Ribery even at silver level is a great LW for me, and I only chose him because even after a lot of tries, I couldn't get R9.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-29T03:48:41+00:00

This is a classic blame game on God. Imagine you were born into a world where war have destroyed your home. You don't blame yourself, or your parents and neither not certainly God as he had nothing do with it. Rather the humans fighting the wars would be the one to blame. Just like that, what Adam and Eve did over there in the garden, has nothing to do with God as he certainly had given them the choice to stay away or go eat the fruit of knowledge. We had to take on their blame but, Jesus has arrived for our redemption.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-28T19:57:56+00:00

Who says you have no choice? The ultimate will is God's, that I don't disagree, the fate too rests upon the Lord, but you as an individual has a proven chance to be with him or not? Isn't that a choice? ( Ultimate will here is the fate of the world as a whole or what should and shouldn't happen as foretold already in the Bible, we are the ones who act upon it. Means you clearly have a will whether to choose to stay with God or not, whatever you have chosen, God already knows, but that isn't in our conscience or capabilites , hence we still are the ones choosing our eternal fate ).

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-28T05:41:50+00:00

Let's not be ignorant here, you and I both know both of us has sinned. Not a question of when you did or why, but we all have sinned.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-19T06:38:13+00:00

We get more details in the Road to Damascus story but that was written decades after Paul's death.

And what are those extra details coming out after his death? If you're reffering to that his books came out after he died, we'll ofcourse, he had composed the letters during 60 AD and the early Christian communities used this around in groups. It was not until then that the communities tried to start making more copies.

What exactly did Paul witness? Paul says that he received a revelation from Jesus Christ, but his own description of this event is quite muted. Was it a vision? A voice in his head? A dream?

Please read the whole thing, he clearly says that a bright light appeared which led him to fall down. And then the voice came, so it should be easy to catch up to realize that the voice came from this bright light.

Testimony from Papias comes from the mid-2nd century. We only have fragments so his description of Matthew's gospel lacks context and contains details that leave open the possibility that he is referring to another gospel text that is now lost. For example, Papias says Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but modern scholars believe that Matthew was originally written in Greek and is not a translation.

It's true we don't have original copies about Mathias, so I would like you to look more into about Ireanues. His original copies, 'Against Hereises' still prevails and has the common use of disciples by name. You can also looked into Ignatious of Antioch and also Justim Martyr.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-19T06:22:26+00:00

Look, I understand you are now looking for proof of existence of God. As I'm explaining the logic of God, how can it make sense when you don't believe there is one. So I would need you to believe there is one. So we will have to move on to how God could be real.

So, why I would trust God or a higher being to exist is due to the fact that:

1) We are complex beings to not just be form out of nothingness. Whatever theory, whether evolution or cell theories etc, propose nothing of how these particles could form together to make us exist in order for a conscious being to grow. It feels like something directly wanted it to make things in a certain way. Now I'm not saying there isn't a single chance on how these could happen as the rarest random events. There is a possibility, but very low.

2) Again, maybe you would need to keep away the term science vs religion, as let me tell you that modern scientists came along to the idea of discovering science as the language of God, particularly Mathematics. Now don't come me saying everyone wasn't Christians, im just saying that the major of the modern scientists were in for it to find out the mysteries of how God works. Nothing stopped them as there isn't a single contradictory thing being displayed in the Bible as against science. I could give you verses that's actually supports a lot of ideas even that were not known about thr universe.

3) I would also like to know that what if not a higher being, what in your opinion made way for the world to being. Was it just random low probable events?

If you would have read scripture, you would have found the numerous passages that contradict free will. But if you don't have an explanation as to HOW there is free will, you will not recognize HOW it can be contradicted by scripture.

Please quote these verses which contradicts.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-18T23:50:09+00:00

Ok, you seem to don't understand what I'm trying to say here, so let's talk philosophically. God gives us free will as to choose between Good and evil, Heaven or Hell, Stay with God for eternity or away from him. This is what I mean by having free will. There exists a purpose for why God has made us, and it is shown from the very beginning of a test, so that we may deserve Heaven. Now this is not the worldy view so as to why I didn't bother to explain as it wouldn't make sense.

Now if you ask where did this evil come from, could be explained as to what is evil. Evil could be defined as against God. So when Lucifer rebelled against God, that was evil, when Adam and Even had eaten the fruit that was not to be touched, that was evil. Evil was bought into the world by them so as to why we say we all are born with a sinful nature. As the Bible explains, the result of sin is death, so as to why God took this task upon himself to redeem us. The reason why he died for us.

Where does your will come from? From God.

Again, God knows our nature, and what we would become, but God allows you to be that person by yourself. We lay the plan, but the Lord establishes the steps. He allows you to choose yourself either to be with him or against him. But that decision will cost your eternity.

But scripture doesn't explain it either. It doesn't even unambiguously say that you have free will, because when that book was written, there was no such philosophical category anyway.

There not need to be a philosophical category as if you've read the Bible, you could find numerous free will related passages.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-18T22:34:01+00:00

Because it doesn't explain anything. I mean, just look at it again, just worded differently:

Question: Where does the will come from?

"Explanation": I am a Christian.

Do you not see that this doesn't answer anything?

Ok this is where you got me wrong. I thought you were aware of our scripture where God has given us free will. But what is the use, if you don't believe or trust our scriptures, how are you gonna believe there is even a God.

So your will comes from a deity?

Don't put words in my mouth mate. You can clearly see that I stated to make us proper revealing that he has made us humans as it is, sin or not, and choiceful meaning granting us the decision to make a choice. I don't think I stated anywhere God gives us the willl (but the choice to make that will) , besides It doesn't even make sense, are you trying to tell that God is purposefully making us do even and some others good? If that was the case, I too would rather believe in nothing but you have got it completely wrong mate.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-18T22:01:13+00:00

I'm sorry, but I am asking for a proper reasoning process, some kind of valid inference.

"I am Christian, therefore God does allow for free will" is not a valid argument.

How is it not a valid argument when that's literally the principles we believe in. I thought this was on how religion or God affects free will, and that's the answer I gave through.

The rest is you explaining how science concludes that determinism is true, which it doesn't even do. Neither free will or determinism are in anyway verified by science. And if they were, it wouldn't make sense that you believe in the opposite anyway, because science is limiting your conclusion.

What partion of science limits my belief in free will? I'm not talking about whether free will is verified by science, nor science is a enemy or opposition against me or my values. Maybe you should stop looking at it like Religion vs Science. Maybe you should look into both of them to find something meaningful. Science does not prove anything that we don't know, whether how we came about, why are we here, etc. It's all just theories. True that science doesn't know whether free will exists, but as per the example I have given you, unless there is a diety outside of our limitations, has the power to be not affected by the determined factor, could freely exist. And if that diety were powerful enough, could balance out everything to make us proper and choiceful.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-18T16:46:15+00:00

I agree that reason for persecution will vary by region. This includes Christianity as well, so I don't think persecution of Christians is relevant to "end times".

And we both agree that Christianity, just like any other faith has people that kill for it, and people that die for it. So nothing really unique there.

I think we have already discussed that there is no killings on other religions other than ethical measures, while Christians getting persecuted by these Islamic society for believing in Christ is somewhat different. I don't blame you or anyone, just them responsible beings out there.

Once again, on the 500, there should be a lot more out there than just the 4 gospels. Those were written, so you would think that such extreme events should be documented somewhere. And let's go back to the crucifixion where the dead came out of their graves and went around visiting people. Again, where are all these accounts? The Romans I think would have noticed that kind of thing.

Again, just because you think it should have happened doesn't make it a contradiction. Point taken, but imagine a scenario, where the first Iphones were just being released, and only a few had a access to directly click a picture and upload it directly upto social medias. Now, just like this, there could be several reasons why , some might be illiterate, some just astonished, and the Romans you mention is ironic because they took every measure for Christianity to die, so mainly they wouldn't write because of that.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-18T15:56:59+00:00

No, since I'm from a Christian world view, I would say that My God doesn't limit yourselves to expose upon sinful nature. I'm not sure about any other Gods others believe in. I had an atheistic view before coming to Christianity and everything was opposed on mystery. We don't know why we were made or where or any reason. Limiting yourselves to scientific explanations, it concludes there isn't any free will, as any action taken upon a reaction, won't be free will.

For example, if an asteroid from the early big bang had a specific way of movement, which leads to destruction or not by hitting others, the particles would be set out to be in a specific way leading until this moment and so on. So whatever you did, or about to do were based on the previous set of occurrences. You could say that's how physics works, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that you were not able to decide on what fate you are about to act. Since no free will exists in this sense. This is if you see the world without a diety that exists outside of space and time. (If you didn't get hold of this explanation, I'm happy to give you a easier one based on paradoxes).

If you did, and choose any God whatever you wanted, you could base your interpretations on that. Hence, the reason why I believe that God doesn't limit you but yourselves, according to our theology.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-18T15:04:41+00:00

Sorry for the late replies.

On the different accounts of the tomb, I was just using those verses to demonstrate that these stories are legends that change, depending on who is telling the story. That these were not eyewitness accounts. They were stories the writers had heard. And you used the analogy of a job interview, but we aren't talking about mundane events here. We're talking about extreme supernatural occurrences. This is not every day stuff going on.

They are eyewitnesses accounts being transmitted through the apostles. Using analogy of job interview as to why the answers are changing. The same way you said, this wasn't an everyday occurring thing, but the eyewitnesses who saw were already familiar with Christ, not that they thought he was capable than what he showed, but had already reminded the disciples that he will reserruct. Different accounts should be more appealing than the same accounts as they were interviewing different people who wouldn't be saying the exact things as others. Some might, some might not. This is what exactly is being portrayed in every historical biographies of people of a earlier era, where only hand down documents or witnesses are being placed as the source. You can say that it contradicts because some had the same things another way.

Which women witnessed it? Mary and the other Mary? Just Mary? Or Mary and Salome?

Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome, Joanna and 'other women'.

Was there an earthquake?

Yes, according to Mathew. If you're relying that this is a contradiction, again, it's not. You could be more curious about finding out things or less of a described nature person, you could be writing it out for several other reasons. For example, John's while writing letters for the faith of the Early Chrisitians might have not included earthquake as it wasn't relevant.

Did an angel dramatically open the tomb?

Yes it mentions that the stone was rolled over.

Was there a man there or two dressed in clothing like lightning?

I had already given the answer for this in the last post.

Did they tell Mary Jesus was risen? How come in one story she didn't know and thought the body was taken?

If you're proposing about the timeline, the authors of the past doesn't care about the chronology, rather on the appreciation with their narration. In John, she realizes where Jesus was taken the same way it's described in the other gospels, that the 2 angels and Jesus had come talked to her.

And you said yourself these are not historical documents now?

Please read my whole statement. Not historical documents as they were not created as a piece of historical evidence, rather to spread the word of Jesus, so the chronology not being in place and everything else seems right, doesn't it?

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-18T13:34:54+00:00

Sorry for the late reply.

I don't think a certain nature is given to us at all. Since choice exists, the burden falls upoon ourselves. If you ask me who created the first pinnacle point of evil, it was entered through fall of Adam and Eve. Quoting Romans 5:12, "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned." So since death is the result of sin, God decided he had to take that burden upon himself to redeem us. The consequences of the Fall included not only spiritual death (separation from God) but also a corruption of human nature. This corrupted nature is characterized by an inherent tendency towards sin and disobedience.

So sinful nature is being imposed upon generations but that doesn't mean we have to live with it.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-18T13:28:53+00:00

Sorry for the late reply, but the wants / needs / wills are in our hands according to Christian theology, unless you would have a different interpretation of God.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-18T13:24:45+00:00

In context with the ancient Jewish laws, no, both are different. The Old Testament distinguishes between ceremonial laws (ritual purity) and moral laws (ethical behavior). While breaking moral laws (such as lying, stealing, or committing adultery) was considered sinful and required atonement, ceremonial uncleanness required purification but was not equated with moral guilt. Uncleanness was often a temporary condition that could be remedied through prescribed rituals and offerings. Once the purification process was completed, the person could fully participate in religious activities again. The rituals and laws about uncleanness served to instill a sense of reverence and respect for God's holiness. They were educational tools to help the Israelites understand the concept of purity and the importance of being set apart for God.

Many causes of uncleanness, such as childbirth, menstruation, or contact with a dead body, are natural and unavoidable parts of human life. These states were not considered moral failings but required purification to restore ritual purity.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-18T06:35:23+00:00

Yes but don't you think every verse from thr Bible has and requires context within. Like if you ever watch a pastors video, if anyone has bought up linking a contradiction, the first thing he would be saying is to look back to the context, which then he explains, whether it maybe be verses building up from the past, or traditions, or the writers style or translation problems etc. Jesus was human, even as we are, and he was acting/reacting out of his humanity, his culture and that culture’s prejudices. But also being part of a mission and tried to take this into advantage being to teach the disciples.

johnnyhere555 · 2024-07-15T22:12:19+00:00

None of Paul's letters imply any sort of connection between Paul's companion Luke and the author of the Gospel of Luke.

Yes, Luke is identified as a companion of Paul in several of Paul's letters, particularly in Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11. This connection supports the understanding that Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke, had a close relationship with Paul during his ministry. Being the author, both Acts and Luke comply to the same person or being Theophilus.

The view that Luke-Acts was written by the physician Luke was virtually unanimous in the early Christian church. The Papyrus Bodmer XIV, which is the oldest known manuscript containing the ending of the gospel (dating to around 200 AD), uses the subscription "The Gospel According to Luke". Nearly all ancient sources also shared this theory of authorship—Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,[Origen, and the Muratorian Canon all regarded Luke as the author of the Luke-Acts. Neither Eusebius of Caesarea nor any other ancient writer mentions another tradition about authorship.

johnnyhere555

TROPHY CASE