Loose. A Loose player is somebody who tends to play a lot of hands, who tends to Raise a lot, tends to get involved in every pot. You can never be sure if a Loose player is bluffing or if they have a big hand. If a Loose player plays every hand generally though, they are running into somebody with a really big hand who will take them down; Loose players. They can win or lose a lot of money very very quickly. In the Muck https://www.casinoslots.co.nz/first-deposit.
That means when you decide to discard your hand, throw it away and surrender in the hand. I'll show you how to Muck a hand. The Dealer here, Small Blind has placed his chip here, the Big Blind behind. He's Raised and he's bet another hundred.
This player here has looked at his cards, he's gone "Oh dear, I haven't got very much here, I don't wanna play." What they do, they throw their cards into the middle into the Muck, they're out of the hand. In this case, they've Mucked their cards without even spending a Dime, a Penny, a Cent in the hand. A Muck is when you throw your hand in and give up. An Out. An Out is your chance to catch up, catch up on the last card in the hand.
Let's see if there's any Outs for the players here. Let's have a look at our two hands, player here with the Ace-Jack, he's got a Pair already, he's in the lead. The player looking for Outs is the player here with the Ace and the King. What are his Outs then?
Let's work them out. If the last card was an Ace, he'd have a pair of Aces, he'd win. If the last card was a King, he'd have a pair of Kings, he'd beat the pair of Jacks. One more potential win over him actually is the Queen as well.
We'd have 10, Jack, Queen, King, Ace, a Straight. So the player in this scenario got a few Outs. He's got three different Outs, three ways of catching up at the last minute. The more Outs you have, the more chance you've got in the hand. If you can work out you've got lots of Outs, maybe it's a better idea to stay in the hand.
If you've got very few Outs, maybe the wisest manoeuvre would be to give up the hand, throw it in the Muck and of course in this occasion, the Ace comes, the Out has come in, they've caught up, it's been a lucky catch on the River. That's an Out.
Poison Study was the book that I borrowed ages ago and sat in my library book pile for weeks, long after I had finished everything else. I don’t know why, but it just sat there and I didn’t want to read it. That is, until yesterday because the loan date expires tomorrow and I need to return it. I don’t like returning a library book without reading it since you’re wasting everyone who wants to read it’s time, as well as space in your house.
Once I started reading, I was surprised at how quickly I became deeply absorbed. After so much procrastination of not reading it, I half expected it to be horrible and distasteful, but it was quite the opposite! Then I received a rather nice surprise, and decided to keep going full steam ahead. I liked Poison Study in various aspects – the plot was rather original. I remember reading about food tasters in books before, but they would play really minor roles and appear in about two sentences of the entire book. For the main character to be the food taster, well, that’s something new!
Yelena’s training and her activity was fun to read about – she was active, her responses were interesting, and it reminded me of The Ranger’s Apprentice and Will’s training (which I much enjoyed in the past). Since I can’t ever get enough of action packed full of surprises in my reading, Poison Study was an exhilarating ride. The characters were really well built up and their personalities strong, you could really interact with them, truly!
I have to say though, I’m relatively unimpressed with the romance in this book. The way that it’s slow progressing leading up to a ‘finale’ isn’t a new concept, but not only that is it unimpressive. I just found that it wasn’t very well written – and by this I’m not saying that I’d much rather read a full report on their romantic actions – but I think it could be a little more described. I recall it says somewhere along the lines of “and we kissed” or something like that. There were few words which I found was a bit too short, but some can argue that it’s enough to get the idea across.
The writing was pretty good – I could see the settings really clearly. It’s the type of book that while I read, the ‘movie’ would unwind in my head almost in high definition. Some puzzles I cracked way earlier on, some I didn’t fully understand. I don’t really mind that much, as long as it all made sense in the end (which it did) and without any obvious flaws that I could pick up.
As you got to the last few chapters, the book gave off a vibe that yelled cliffhanger, or sequel.
Because I really liked it all the way up to that point, I was glad that there would be more. The first chapter preview from the next series (as shown at the end of the book) was not as good as I had hoped. It was different to what I had expected and didn’t join up with the end of the first book very well. It just didn’t seem right, and so because of that I think I’d rather it be a standalone. I would’ve been quite contempt with making up little parts of my own sequel ideas, but nope, it continues. I’ll have to wait and see how that will go.
Overall it was a good book with nice ideas and a fun plot. You should definitely read this if you like action, or fantasy, or adventure, or pretty much anything else! One more word though – I didn’t realise it would be magic-related until about halfway through the book when it is revealed… no more spoilers now!
I rate this book four and a half out of five stars!
Writing a book review is a common assignment in college and even beyond if you decide to have a career in this profession. We can help you to write essay about your favorite book. Read Edusson essay editors summary!
Book Review: The Year of the Flooden.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Year_of_the_Flood was an amazing book. Not only did it surpass my (rather high) expectations, but it also went far beyond. Margaret Atwood obviously knows her craft, and although I didn't read the first book in the trilogy (this is the second), I think this book is fabulous as a standalone dystopian.
The format of this book is quite unique. There are poems or hymns from the God's Gardener's Handbook (or something or the other) at the beginning of each part in the book, and a speech by Adam One, the leader of God's Gardeners, a religious group that is central to the plot development of the story. These and the beautifully-narrated chapters of the book combine together to create a fabulous blend of world-building, and without even having to read the first chapter, we are already shown the setting and what sort of a world these characters live in. I think that you truly need to be practiced at writing to be able to tell and show so much in a few stanzas.
If you're looking for a very unique dystopian, you're looking in the wrong place. Margaret Atwood seems to have taken a few leaves out of Lois Lowry's plots, added a few adult elements to it, and created a new story altogether.
Toby and Ren, the main characters, both end up with the God's Gardeners out of their own free will. And while the life of the 'pleebos', the street children who shoplift and live out in the open, might seem extremely unstable and very undesirable, the life of a God's Gardener isn't so great either. God's Gardeners are a bizarre blend of extreme peace and Christianity, as well as obsessive health freaks and vegetarians. At first sight (I must admit, Margaret Atwood makes them sound more appealing than I do, but then again, I'm biased after reading the book), their lives seem Utopian, with no materialistic values and almost total equality and peace, but after a while, readers realise that this religious group is, in fact, rather dystopian. I won't reveal much more here, but that seems lifted out of The Giver to me.
However, the speculative nature of the book really appealed to me, since I'm currently reading Matched by Allie Condie and comparing it constantly to The Year of the Flood--I think Margaret Atwood's book is so much more thoughtful and has more of a social commentary than Matched. I often read dystopias for the political conflicts and the totalitarian aspects more than anything else, and in this aspect, The Year of the Flood was far more sophisticated and developed than Matched. Or maybe that's just my opinion, since heaps of people seem to have loved Matched.
The characters were also marvelously well-developed, and the chapters with Ren and Toby's backstories and how they ended up with the Gardners were ones that I tore through. I love it when authors add aspects of a character's history to the book--it creates a new dimension for the character, and it makes them so much more real and relatable.
Finally, I've been reading a lot of YA recently (more so than before), and I found this book a very refreshing break from the constant romance/boy-girl tension so prevalent in young adult books. The Year of the Flood went a lot deeper than what I usually read, and it's the sort of book that I'll be thinking about and craving years from now.
Overview: I loved The Year of the Flood. The social commentary and characters were both marvelous, and Margaret Atwood's writing, as expected, was fabulous. The lack of overly-heavy romance was very refreshing, and while The Year of the Flood wasn't the most original dystopian I've come across, nor is the plot extremely complicated, it made me think a lot and question many things in my own life. Four and a half stars.
Had a brief career deploying puppets in Libya. Spent 2002-2009 creating marketing channels for ice cream in Naples, FL. Was quite successful at promoting cellos in Suffolk, NY.