The family home of my youth features some sloped ceilings. In my bedroom, and in the hallway outside my room and my sister's room, tall people can inflict serious damage on themselves if they are not mindful. And as mindfulness is not a personal forte, inflict I did. You hear it before you feel it, then it starts to hurt and if it's a bad one you hear some ringing. Then you say 'fuck me'. Then you go to school, probably mildly concussed.
I do sometimes reflect on what I might have accomplished with my life if I hadn't killed a bushel of brain cells every other morning for years and years. I don't think I found Chris Elliott hilarious until I was tall enough to crack my head on that ceiling, so that tells you something right there.
Wanting my son to have every opportunity, I do endeavor to protect his noggin as much as possible. Especially now, you know, when he's got that baby soft skull thing going on. From friends who have kids, and from the interwebz, I've heard some scary stories of dropped babies, vicious falls, etc. And while I know bumps and bruises (and mild concussions) are ultimately inevitable, so far we've been pretty lucky.
I had my first incident a couple days ago. Henry and I were out shopping for our old ladies. I had him strapped to the front of me in the new fancy carrier that I don't really like (I still prefer the Baby Bjorn). I had bags in both my hands, and we were leaving the mall. Somebody half held the door for me, but not really, so we weren't going to make it through. As my hands were full, I instinctually turned my shoulder into the closing door. If I hadn't lost all those brain cells back in the day I likely would not have made this mistake, but in my diminished state it didn't dawn on me that what would hit the door first was Henry's tender head.
I'm not sure if it's the most sickening sound I've heard in my life, but it's gotta be Top Three. I felt nauseous, literally. But the boy, tough as nails, barely stirred. And reconstructing it I think my shoulder hit at the same time, so not all the pressure of the door was on him. But still. It sucked.
Not entirely unrelated, one bad thing about winter is I strap the son onto my front and then my big winter jacket goes all the way around him and gets zipped up over his head. So instead of people seeing that I'm carrying this impossibly cute little guy, it just looks like I've got a massive and extremely odd-shaped stomach. It's simply terrible for meeting chicks.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
In This Blog I Bitch About Tournaments
I think it must take a very specific temperament to play a ton of tournaments. The pain from beats in cash games is cumulative. Even the worst of beats, in the biggest of pots, are only really that painful if you're already having a terrible session. Or I guess if you're playing outside of your bankroll, but that's a different issue.
Tourneys, alternatively, can deliver beats that not only cost you money but render hours and hours of work futile. In one hand. One terrible card can ruin your life.
I played the Supernova Freeroll today. And before I complain, I will point out that part of the reason I had a big stack with only about 5% of the field remaining was because I gave someone a beat shortly after we made the money. A loose player had raised in fairly late position, and I had A2 OTB. I had him covered maybe 3 to 2, and I thought I had just tons of fold equity, so I decided to raise (there was not room to raise/fold, ftr, I was committed). He turned over AK, and a deuce was the first card out. He didn't improve. I know that's a painful way for him to go, because AK feels like such a strong hand and A2 feels like a joke. I don't think I played the hand wrong, but it had to sting.
So it's not about luck or fairness or anything. It's just the viciousness of poker. He felt it there, and I felt it later. On my first trouble hand I again had about a 3 to 2 chip edge over my combatant, and I had AK of hearts. It got all-in preflop, he had AT, and this time a ten is the first card out. By the turn I had a gutshot, plus my king was still live, plus a flush draw. So 15 outs. But no dice. I would have been chip leader, but instead I was reeling.
Couple hands later my AJ>Q4 AIPF (he had a straight by the turn) and I was done. I "should" have been chip leader after that AK hand, and instead I'm out in 90-something. Working your way through a 2500 person tournament just to have one lowly ten take away the potential huge cash (I still had an okay cash, especially considering it's a freeroll, but all the decent money's at the final table). I do love tournaments, but I really don't know how people can handle them being their main source of poker income. Maybe that's why Shaun Deeb retired?
Tourneys, alternatively, can deliver beats that not only cost you money but render hours and hours of work futile. In one hand. One terrible card can ruin your life.
I played the Supernova Freeroll today. And before I complain, I will point out that part of the reason I had a big stack with only about 5% of the field remaining was because I gave someone a beat shortly after we made the money. A loose player had raised in fairly late position, and I had A2 OTB. I had him covered maybe 3 to 2, and I thought I had just tons of fold equity, so I decided to raise (there was not room to raise/fold, ftr, I was committed). He turned over AK, and a deuce was the first card out. He didn't improve. I know that's a painful way for him to go, because AK feels like such a strong hand and A2 feels like a joke. I don't think I played the hand wrong, but it had to sting.
So it's not about luck or fairness or anything. It's just the viciousness of poker. He felt it there, and I felt it later. On my first trouble hand I again had about a 3 to 2 chip edge over my combatant, and I had AK of hearts. It got all-in preflop, he had AT, and this time a ten is the first card out. By the turn I had a gutshot, plus my king was still live, plus a flush draw. So 15 outs. But no dice. I would have been chip leader, but instead I was reeling.
Couple hands later my AJ>Q4 AIPF (he had a straight by the turn) and I was done. I "should" have been chip leader after that AK hand, and instead I'm out in 90-something. Working your way through a 2500 person tournament just to have one lowly ten take away the potential huge cash (I still had an okay cash, especially considering it's a freeroll, but all the decent money's at the final table). I do love tournaments, but I really don't know how people can handle them being their main source of poker income. Maybe that's why Shaun Deeb retired?
Rub One Out
Has that phrase been around forever? I swear I'd never heard it a year ago. And lately, it's everywhere. Pop culture references abound (Vera Farmiga suggests George Clooney do just that in "Up In The Air", for example). And my very own wife, the mother of my child, dropped the phrase casually just the other day.
Actually, I'm glad she used it. It's so much better than the alternatives. When I was growing up, you had your goofy inanities ("make the bald man cry", for example), or your violent vulgarities (any number of phrases ending with "off": jerk, whack, jack, beat). Neither camp boasts any enticing options. Rub one out, on the other hand, seems practically classy by comparison. So I'm all for it. I just wanna know when it came to be. Have I been living under a rock, oblivious to the latest trends in masturbatory terminology, or is it new?
Anyway. Happy Holidays.
Actually, I'm glad she used it. It's so much better than the alternatives. When I was growing up, you had your goofy inanities ("make the bald man cry", for example), or your violent vulgarities (any number of phrases ending with "off": jerk, whack, jack, beat). Neither camp boasts any enticing options. Rub one out, on the other hand, seems practically classy by comparison. So I'm all for it. I just wanna know when it came to be. Have I been living under a rock, oblivious to the latest trends in masturbatory terminology, or is it new?
Anyway. Happy Holidays.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Best. Gift. Ever.
It's Rachel's 32nd birthday today. I'll always remember how old she was when we first started dating cause of this exchange I had with my banker. I don't know how, but my 'new' girlfriend came up. And the guy asked how old she was. And I said, "27". To which he replied, "niii-iiiice". And gave me a fist bump. It was kind of strange and inappropriate but greatly amusing.
We went to "Up In The Air" last week. Even though it opens most places Christmas Day, for some reason Vancouver got it a couple weeks early. And it's really quite good. But anyway, there's a scene where one character tells another that all life's best moments are shared, that you don't really have any favorite memories where you're alone. So I tried to think of my favorite moments and I realized that not only are they all shared, they are all shared with Rachel. Not just the Henry-centric ones, all kinds of 'em from pretty much every stage of our still relatively brief life together.
Not to overstate it, but it does feel like my days started when I met her. Or at the very least, started anew. When I try to think of favorite memories from before we met (most of which are centered around the band -- particularly great gigs, signing the record deal, making a big budget video) they feel more like scenes from a movie. Whereas when I think of time shared with Rachel, I can still feel the moments, I can relive them as opposed to just reviewing them.
Like this one time. Rachel, who has no music training, started surreptitiously taking guitar lessons. And, simultaneously, surreptitiously taking voice lessons. So that one day, while we were just sitting around she picked up my guitar, and with no preamble, without so much as a throat-clearing, sang and played for me the most beautiful song I ever heard, before or since.
At the time I was just stunned. I mean, partly because I knew she didn't play guitar or sing and yet here she was doing both exceedingly well (that's a WTF? moment if ever there was one). But mainly because this impossibly perfect moment had just arrived unannounced in my life.
Best gift I ever got, by far. There's nobody else who could have given it to me. There's no other woman that could have impacted me the way she did (and does). There's no other woman on God's green earth for me.
Oh, and this year, for her birthday, I got her a coat.
We went to "Up In The Air" last week. Even though it opens most places Christmas Day, for some reason Vancouver got it a couple weeks early. And it's really quite good. But anyway, there's a scene where one character tells another that all life's best moments are shared, that you don't really have any favorite memories where you're alone. So I tried to think of my favorite moments and I realized that not only are they all shared, they are all shared with Rachel. Not just the Henry-centric ones, all kinds of 'em from pretty much every stage of our still relatively brief life together.
Not to overstate it, but it does feel like my days started when I met her. Or at the very least, started anew. When I try to think of favorite memories from before we met (most of which are centered around the band -- particularly great gigs, signing the record deal, making a big budget video) they feel more like scenes from a movie. Whereas when I think of time shared with Rachel, I can still feel the moments, I can relive them as opposed to just reviewing them.
Like this one time. Rachel, who has no music training, started surreptitiously taking guitar lessons. And, simultaneously, surreptitiously taking voice lessons. So that one day, while we were just sitting around she picked up my guitar, and with no preamble, without so much as a throat-clearing, sang and played for me the most beautiful song I ever heard, before or since.
At the time I was just stunned. I mean, partly because I knew she didn't play guitar or sing and yet here she was doing both exceedingly well (that's a WTF? moment if ever there was one). But mainly because this impossibly perfect moment had just arrived unannounced in my life.
Best gift I ever got, by far. There's nobody else who could have given it to me. There's no other woman that could have impacted me the way she did (and does). There's no other woman on God's green earth for me.
Oh, and this year, for her birthday, I got her a coat.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Henry As Little Dictator
Don't let the fact he can bathe in a sink fool you. Henry Lawrence Jonat is large (well, for his age) and in charge. My sister, whose two children are both well past the up all night stage, was asking how things were going. And I was sort of explaining Henry's disruptive influence. She said something like, 'right, you have a little dictator living with you'. In a loving way. From experience, like.
And it's true. God bless him, he's the best thing that ever happened to me (only his mother even comes close), but he is running this household. It's always been a struggle for me, anyway, to create structure in my life. I rail against it at the same time as I crave it. But this is pretty nuts even for me. I can't even imagine what it's like for Rachel, who used to be about regular bed times and early morning workouts.
I'm not gonna give away too many of his secrets lest I embarrass him (although the bathing pic probably did that trick anyway). But while he's high maintenance, he's generally a pretty easily pleased young man. Epic fussiness generally only rears its head sometime between, say, 11pm and maybe 5am. Yes, it is happening big time as I write. Which means I better wrap it up and offer some assistance. See, now he's even affecting your lives, gentle readers. Little dictator indeed.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Tiger's Fall
It's the lead story on ESPN.com that Accenture just dropped its sponsorship of Tiger Woods. On NFL Sunday, even, that gets big play.
It's, of course, ridiculous that Tiger has gotten to be worth over a billion dollars just for being good at golf. But was any of that money really for being a good guy? There have certainly been enough grumbles from the PGA Tour to indicate he's probably a bit (or maybe a lot) of a prick. And nobody really cares cause he crushes on the course. But Accenture, which is the type of company that you could never explain to a child ('But what do they sell?' - 'Uh, like, they sell money-making, I think'), the type of company you expect Michael Moore to make a movie about, suddenly can't deign to be represented by an adulterer. Or, more accurately, a publicly-exposed adulterer.
Obviously I get it. It's about image, and he's pretty much a walking punch line right now. So you can't really blame Accenture. But the whole story is just rank with hypocrisy, from near every corner, going back well over 10 years. At least as long as 'Tiger Woods Inc.' has been around. And, in a broader sense, kind of like forever. I don't feel too bad for Tiger, per se, but I do think if we humans were less eager to pounce on each other when we falter, we'd be a little bit less of a cosmic joke.
It's, of course, ridiculous that Tiger has gotten to be worth over a billion dollars just for being good at golf. But was any of that money really for being a good guy? There have certainly been enough grumbles from the PGA Tour to indicate he's probably a bit (or maybe a lot) of a prick. And nobody really cares cause he crushes on the course. But Accenture, which is the type of company that you could never explain to a child ('But what do they sell?' - 'Uh, like, they sell money-making, I think'), the type of company you expect Michael Moore to make a movie about, suddenly can't deign to be represented by an adulterer. Or, more accurately, a publicly-exposed adulterer.
Obviously I get it. It's about image, and he's pretty much a walking punch line right now. So you can't really blame Accenture. But the whole story is just rank with hypocrisy, from near every corner, going back well over 10 years. At least as long as 'Tiger Woods Inc.' has been around. And, in a broader sense, kind of like forever. I don't feel too bad for Tiger, per se, but I do think if we humans were less eager to pounce on each other when we falter, we'd be a little bit less of a cosmic joke.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Preview Review III
Been to a couple movies lately. Henry's at an age where you can just have him along. If he gets upset, either you or your wife get up and take him to (worst case) the lobby or (best case) the entrance area of the theater and calm his baby ass down. People tell us to take advantage of this because it won't be long before he's too old/active to just view him as an accessory. Soon enough I won't even be able to watch my favorite television shows while he's awake. I shudder to think of it. But while that day may be fast approaching, it is not yet nigh. So I'll just put it out of mind for the time being.
Before I get to the trailers, let me tell you quickly about the two features. They were definitive proof of the 'it's best to go to a movie expecting it to be shit' theorem.
"Men Who Stare At Goats", which looked tremendously promising, was dull and self-conscious (yes, we get it, you used the word Jedi and Ewan MacGregor was in Star Wars). The highlight of the whole movie was when Rachel recognized that one of the guys was 'Ron' from 'Parks And Recreation'. Nice catch, honey! Speaking of which, that show is finding it's stride. Give it a second chance.
And tonight we went to the new installment of that "Twilight" thing, and while Edward might be the most fey hero in the history of motion pictures, the whole thing was entertaining enough. I think if I had not expected it to suck, I would have thought it did. But as I did, I didn't.
Now onto the previews. Scores are for the trailer's ability to conceal decent amounts of plot (Secret Score -- SS) and for whether it seems like the movie itself might be any good (Upside Score -- US). There's a bunch of 'em cause they're from two different trips to the cinema. I'll try to be brief.
Up In The Air -- George Clooney movies often look like they'll be great, and most of the time they end up being just kinda cute. The best ones are generally the ones where Clooney wears a suit (like 'Michael Clayton', and 'Good Night And Good Luck'). As he is frequently besuited throughout the trailer, I have high hopes. SS 5. US 8.
Avatar -- Man, that was a long trailer. Totally not my type of movie, but it does look epic. SS 3. US 6.
Extraordinary Measures -- Brendan Fraser is a Dad whose kids are sick. Harrison Ford is the eccentric genius who might have a cure. Honestly, I don't think there will be a scene in this thing you can't imagine right now if you think it through for a sec. Still, looks well-enough done, so if you're looking for tears of sadness followed by tears of joy, you're probably in luck. SS 4. US 3.
Valentine's Day -- All-star cast. One of those 'Love Actually' style things where seemingly unrelated stories have some kind of link (the girl from Story A is the guy from Story B's sister, and he dated the girl from Story C in College, and she works for the couple in Story D). This is the type of movie that's enjoyable and you like it but you never think of it for a minute before or after seeing it. And then later you meet somebody and they tell you it's their favorite movie of all time. And you are dumbfounded. You really just cannot fathom it. SS 5. US 5.
Invictus -- How did Clint Eastwood get so good? Honestly, he's probably the number one 'must see' director going right now. People forget how recently he was making crap (as an actor). What was that one where Jeff Bridges was the bad guy. Really? Jeff Bridges? But suddenly he can't make a misstep. This thing looks awesome (uh oh, high expectations). SS 5 US 9.
Leap Year -- Amy Adams is charming and fun but if this movie is as bad as it looks that's going to be two strikes (Julie & Julia being the first -- the movie wasn't that bad, just she was). She might want to get some help script reading or something. SS 3. US 2.
When In Rome -- Some actors with decent track records for being funny didn't come close to saving this trailer. Hopefully they do more for the actual movie. SS 2. US 1.
The Morgans -- Not sure about the whole title, something about the Morgans. Looks like it could be a career nadir for both Sarah Jessica Parker and Hugh Grant. Speaking of Sarah, remember her in LA Story? She looked like she was going to be a breakout star, and I guess she was, but really only because of Sex & The City (which, imo, is good in spite of her). SS 3. US 1.
Letters To Juliet -- This actually looks halfway decent, as far as movies for girls go, but it's the worst preview I've ever seen for giving away the whole damn thing. SS 1 US 5.
Remember Me -- The Twilight guy looking at least somewhat less fey, an edgy Pierce Brosnan (who can be good), and the always great Chris Cooper. Looks promising. SS 5. US 7.
Before I get to the trailers, let me tell you quickly about the two features. They were definitive proof of the 'it's best to go to a movie expecting it to be shit' theorem.
"Men Who Stare At Goats", which looked tremendously promising, was dull and self-conscious (yes, we get it, you used the word Jedi and Ewan MacGregor was in Star Wars). The highlight of the whole movie was when Rachel recognized that one of the guys was 'Ron' from 'Parks And Recreation'. Nice catch, honey! Speaking of which, that show is finding it's stride. Give it a second chance.
And tonight we went to the new installment of that "Twilight" thing, and while Edward might be the most fey hero in the history of motion pictures, the whole thing was entertaining enough. I think if I had not expected it to suck, I would have thought it did. But as I did, I didn't.
Now onto the previews. Scores are for the trailer's ability to conceal decent amounts of plot (Secret Score -- SS) and for whether it seems like the movie itself might be any good (Upside Score -- US). There's a bunch of 'em cause they're from two different trips to the cinema. I'll try to be brief.
Up In The Air -- George Clooney movies often look like they'll be great, and most of the time they end up being just kinda cute. The best ones are generally the ones where Clooney wears a suit (like 'Michael Clayton', and 'Good Night And Good Luck'). As he is frequently besuited throughout the trailer, I have high hopes. SS 5. US 8.
Avatar -- Man, that was a long trailer. Totally not my type of movie, but it does look epic. SS 3. US 6.
Extraordinary Measures -- Brendan Fraser is a Dad whose kids are sick. Harrison Ford is the eccentric genius who might have a cure. Honestly, I don't think there will be a scene in this thing you can't imagine right now if you think it through for a sec. Still, looks well-enough done, so if you're looking for tears of sadness followed by tears of joy, you're probably in luck. SS 4. US 3.
Valentine's Day -- All-star cast. One of those 'Love Actually' style things where seemingly unrelated stories have some kind of link (the girl from Story A is the guy from Story B's sister, and he dated the girl from Story C in College, and she works for the couple in Story D). This is the type of movie that's enjoyable and you like it but you never think of it for a minute before or after seeing it. And then later you meet somebody and they tell you it's their favorite movie of all time. And you are dumbfounded. You really just cannot fathom it. SS 5. US 5.
Invictus -- How did Clint Eastwood get so good? Honestly, he's probably the number one 'must see' director going right now. People forget how recently he was making crap (as an actor). What was that one where Jeff Bridges was the bad guy. Really? Jeff Bridges? But suddenly he can't make a misstep. This thing looks awesome (uh oh, high expectations). SS 5 US 9.
Leap Year -- Amy Adams is charming and fun but if this movie is as bad as it looks that's going to be two strikes (Julie & Julia being the first -- the movie wasn't that bad, just she was). She might want to get some help script reading or something. SS 3. US 2.
When In Rome -- Some actors with decent track records for being funny didn't come close to saving this trailer. Hopefully they do more for the actual movie. SS 2. US 1.
The Morgans -- Not sure about the whole title, something about the Morgans. Looks like it could be a career nadir for both Sarah Jessica Parker and Hugh Grant. Speaking of Sarah, remember her in LA Story? She looked like she was going to be a breakout star, and I guess she was, but really only because of Sex & The City (which, imo, is good in spite of her). SS 3. US 1.
Letters To Juliet -- This actually looks halfway decent, as far as movies for girls go, but it's the worst preview I've ever seen for giving away the whole damn thing. SS 1 US 5.
Remember Me -- The Twilight guy looking at least somewhat less fey, an edgy Pierce Brosnan (who can be good), and the always great Chris Cooper. Looks promising. SS 5. US 7.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
You Don't Know Swings
Isildur, the recent arrival on the highstakes poker scene (besides the fact that he's from Sweden, nobody seems to know anything about him -- not even his real name) lost 4.2 million dollars in a heads up session with Brian Hastings this evening.
Since he arrived on the scene, or more specifically since he took about $5 million off Durrrr and then redistributed it amongst other high stakes player, it's been almost impossible to follow the high stakes action. Just too much of it. The thread at 2+2 that posts HH's (amidst totally inane comments and petty bickering between posters) can have 1000 new posts within a few hours. I love that thread, but I can't give it that kind of time. So mainly now I only indulge the poker fanboy in me by checking the 'last 24 hours' results at highstakesdb once or twice a day.
http://www.highstakesdb.com/live-results.aspx
Most people who make the list tend to be up or down five figures, but the true degen's come up with some sick numbers. Today I checked it in the afternoon and Isildur was up about $1,000,000. Checked later tonight, and he's down over $3,000,000. I don't know what he's worth, but I'm fairly confident that represents a majority of it.
It's hard to understand how people who are so great at poker are still willing to put themselves in spots where a bad run of luck can wipe them out. In one fucking session! I know people will say you have to have that gamble in you to be among the greats, but that's just not true. You gotta have some gamble, of course, but you can have common sense too.
The poker internerds are predictably going nuts for Isildur. Like they think the fact he has lost all the money he took off Durrrr (and then some) somehow increases his poker greatness. What a moronic thing to think.
Since he arrived on the scene, or more specifically since he took about $5 million off Durrrr and then redistributed it amongst other high stakes player, it's been almost impossible to follow the high stakes action. Just too much of it. The thread at 2+2 that posts HH's (amidst totally inane comments and petty bickering between posters) can have 1000 new posts within a few hours. I love that thread, but I can't give it that kind of time. So mainly now I only indulge the poker fanboy in me by checking the 'last 24 hours' results at highstakesdb once or twice a day.
http://www.highstakesdb.com/live-results.aspx
Most people who make the list tend to be up or down five figures, but the true degen's come up with some sick numbers. Today I checked it in the afternoon and Isildur was up about $1,000,000. Checked later tonight, and he's down over $3,000,000. I don't know what he's worth, but I'm fairly confident that represents a majority of it.
It's hard to understand how people who are so great at poker are still willing to put themselves in spots where a bad run of luck can wipe them out. In one fucking session! I know people will say you have to have that gamble in you to be among the greats, but that's just not true. You gotta have some gamble, of course, but you can have common sense too.
The poker internerds are predictably going nuts for Isildur. Like they think the fact he has lost all the money he took off Durrrr (and then some) somehow increases his poker greatness. What a moronic thing to think.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Leonard Cohen
I listened to him all day today while grinding. Listening to him even now. Man, he's got some great songs. Like a lot of singular artists, when you're listening to him you think, 'man, this is all I want to listen to, every day, for the rest of my life'. Then after a while, suddenly, you're done, and you don't feel like listening to him for about three months.
But anyway, today I definitely felt like hearing Leonard Cohen. It's funny how his voice changed over the years. On the early records he sings just kind of plainly, I guess maybe a little earnestly, but really kinda flat (not tonally, although sometimes that too). Then he slowly shifts towards where he ends up, which is that low croak thing he does now. That voice transformation is one of many ways he's a lot like Dylan. How they both started out as fairly normal singers and moved towards something that would undeniably be considered 'worse', in an American Idol sense. Although Dylan didn't get lower-pitched, he just got more and more, uh, Dylanesque. But they both moved decidedly away from melody. Strange.
I remember watching the Juno's, must be at least fifteen years ago, with my Dad. And Leonard Cohen sang his great song "Closing Time". The vocal performance was suitably terrible. And then just moments later, he was awarded the Juno for best Male vocalist. And my Dad laughed and laughed. I mean, he really laughed. I got it, obviously. Here was this guy who had just barely croaked his way through a monotone song winning an award for being the best singer in the country. Okay, it's funny. But I love Leonard Cohen, I loved that song, I was endeared of the performance, and I was proud that he had won. I remember the Grammy's had been just a bit earlier, and Meatloaf had won the corresponding award, and while Mr. Loaf is obviously the better vocalist, I still felt kinda happy I lived in a country that would rather bestow awards on Leonard Cohen than Meatloaf (who was, by the way, excellent in Fight Club and ought to do more acting).
Leonard Cohen's had an amazing life, obviously. The accomplishments, the wealth, the adulation and respect, the famous womanizing. I mean, for a folk troubadour, he really lived the rock and roll dream. But his business manager took all his money. And his voice isn't what it was, and if he's still writing good songs nobody really knows about them. And he's gotten old. He's older than my Dad. If he doesn't have the kind of health problems my Dad has, he will soon enough (unless he dies first).
I dunno. Is this getting morbid? Listening to Leonard Cohen all day can do that to a guy. (Plus, my wife and kid are in Seattle for the day, which is a mini-downer too). Bottom line is, my Dad and Leonard Cohen are a couple of old men. I would definitely have more to talk about at coffee with Leonard (ignoring the celebrity factor, just life stuff). And it's irritating that my Dad laughed at Leonard Cohen. But if Leonard Cohen laughed at my Dad? I'd punch him in the mouth. You know, figuratively.
But anyway, today I definitely felt like hearing Leonard Cohen. It's funny how his voice changed over the years. On the early records he sings just kind of plainly, I guess maybe a little earnestly, but really kinda flat (not tonally, although sometimes that too). Then he slowly shifts towards where he ends up, which is that low croak thing he does now. That voice transformation is one of many ways he's a lot like Dylan. How they both started out as fairly normal singers and moved towards something that would undeniably be considered 'worse', in an American Idol sense. Although Dylan didn't get lower-pitched, he just got more and more, uh, Dylanesque. But they both moved decidedly away from melody. Strange.
I remember watching the Juno's, must be at least fifteen years ago, with my Dad. And Leonard Cohen sang his great song "Closing Time". The vocal performance was suitably terrible. And then just moments later, he was awarded the Juno for best Male vocalist. And my Dad laughed and laughed. I mean, he really laughed. I got it, obviously. Here was this guy who had just barely croaked his way through a monotone song winning an award for being the best singer in the country. Okay, it's funny. But I love Leonard Cohen, I loved that song, I was endeared of the performance, and I was proud that he had won. I remember the Grammy's had been just a bit earlier, and Meatloaf had won the corresponding award, and while Mr. Loaf is obviously the better vocalist, I still felt kinda happy I lived in a country that would rather bestow awards on Leonard Cohen than Meatloaf (who was, by the way, excellent in Fight Club and ought to do more acting).
Leonard Cohen's had an amazing life, obviously. The accomplishments, the wealth, the adulation and respect, the famous womanizing. I mean, for a folk troubadour, he really lived the rock and roll dream. But his business manager took all his money. And his voice isn't what it was, and if he's still writing good songs nobody really knows about them. And he's gotten old. He's older than my Dad. If he doesn't have the kind of health problems my Dad has, he will soon enough (unless he dies first).
I dunno. Is this getting morbid? Listening to Leonard Cohen all day can do that to a guy. (Plus, my wife and kid are in Seattle for the day, which is a mini-downer too). Bottom line is, my Dad and Leonard Cohen are a couple of old men. I would definitely have more to talk about at coffee with Leonard (ignoring the celebrity factor, just life stuff). And it's irritating that my Dad laughed at Leonard Cohen. But if Leonard Cohen laughed at my Dad? I'd punch him in the mouth. You know, figuratively.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Henry As Baby Dragon
There are so many surprising things about having a newborn around the place that it's hard to say any one of them tops the list. But a definite contender is the amazing array of noises that the little man produces. Sometimes he sounds like a goose, or a dog. Sometimes it sounds like he's talking. Sometimes he sounds like a crying cartoon baby. But my favorite has got to be his regular impression of a dragon. Normally around feeding time (which is, like, always).
Rachel and I look at each other, and one of us will say something like, "who let a dragon in here?" And then we'll laugh uproariously.
Okay, I made up the uproariously part. It's just normal laughing. But the rest of it was true.
Rachel and I look at each other, and one of us will say something like, "who let a dragon in here?" And then we'll laugh uproariously.
Okay, I made up the uproariously part. It's just normal laughing. But the rest of it was true.
Henry As Good Luck Charm
So the only tournament I've played since musing about whether my 'just try to survive and hope to get hit by the deck later' strategy was ultimately pointless (a blog or two ago), was a late night one a couple nights back. Henry has definitely turned things upside down around here (day is night, quite literally) so I grind the poker different times every day. I started this day around 10pm, had a bunch of cash games fired up and joined one tourney, one of the myriad Stars $33 ones.
A couple hours later Henry was quite fussy. Like most people, he often just wants to be held. He'll sleep in your arms, but if you put him down he's upset again within a minute or two. Even if you just fall asleep while holding him. I don't know how he knows, in his sleep, that you've drifted off. He's like a ninja.
Anyway, his poor mother was approaching a sleep deprivation breaking point, so I shut down all the cash games and held my son while the tourney went on. Thanks to auto hot key programs, it's pretty easy to hold a baby and play an online poker tournament, so we just sat in my office.
At the time we started, I was just about into the money, having followed my extremely tight/survival mode strategy from the original ~500 runners to inside 100. We crossed into the money at number 70 or so, and then the mythical 'hit by the deck' actually happened. There weren't very many suckouts or coolers, or much of interest at all really. I just kept getting good hands. Over and over and over. Actually, the only big suckout I rememberwas this guy in the BB had a VPIP of under 5, and I was in the SB and had been raising him every single time. And once he got under 7 or 8 bb's I just raised him all-in and he just kept folding. And the hand in question I open shipped Q20 and he woke up with KK. Flop comes Q-x-2, naturally.
So anyway, I hit the final table with about twice as many chips as second place. The only drawback to things was it was a double stack tournament, and it seemed the structure was kinda slow for a small entry online tourney too. So when we hit 4-handed it was 6am. That was not the plan!
I took the 5:55am break as a chance to give Henry back to his mother, and when play resumed I was from chip leader to busto in like five minutes. I blame the departure of my Good Luck charm for certain, although it could also have been that it was 6am and I was barely keeping my eyes open and couldn't summon enough concern for the $1500 jump from 4th to 1st. I would like to be able to start up again from 4-handed, but overall I'm stoked with the result and it definitely has me continuing to wonder if this tourney strategy is really not so bad.
Now I just gotta figure out how to smuggle Henry into live tourneys...
A couple hours later Henry was quite fussy. Like most people, he often just wants to be held. He'll sleep in your arms, but if you put him down he's upset again within a minute or two. Even if you just fall asleep while holding him. I don't know how he knows, in his sleep, that you've drifted off. He's like a ninja.
Anyway, his poor mother was approaching a sleep deprivation breaking point, so I shut down all the cash games and held my son while the tourney went on. Thanks to auto hot key programs, it's pretty easy to hold a baby and play an online poker tournament, so we just sat in my office.
At the time we started, I was just about into the money, having followed my extremely tight/survival mode strategy from the original ~500 runners to inside 100. We crossed into the money at number 70 or so, and then the mythical 'hit by the deck' actually happened. There weren't very many suckouts or coolers, or much of interest at all really. I just kept getting good hands. Over and over and over. Actually, the only big suckout I rememberwas this guy in the BB had a VPIP of under 5, and I was in the SB and had been raising him every single time. And once he got under 7 or 8 bb's I just raised him all-in and he just kept folding. And the hand in question I open shipped Q20 and he woke up with KK. Flop comes Q-x-2, naturally.
So anyway, I hit the final table with about twice as many chips as second place. The only drawback to things was it was a double stack tournament, and it seemed the structure was kinda slow for a small entry online tourney too. So when we hit 4-handed it was 6am. That was not the plan!
I took the 5:55am break as a chance to give Henry back to his mother, and when play resumed I was from chip leader to busto in like five minutes. I blame the departure of my Good Luck charm for certain, although it could also have been that it was 6am and I was barely keeping my eyes open and couldn't summon enough concern for the $1500 jump from 4th to 1st. I would like to be able to start up again from 4-handed, but overall I'm stoked with the result and it definitely has me continuing to wonder if this tourney strategy is really not so bad.
Now I just gotta figure out how to smuggle Henry into live tourneys...
Saturday, November 14, 2009
First Freeroll Cash
I sensed your expressions of chagrin as you read yesterday's blog, when I wrote I will be blogging less about poker. So to assuage your frustrations, I'll give you a recap of today's tourney min-cash. It was the Supernova Weekly Freeroll, where Stars puts up $75k and anyone who is supernova can enter for free (along with some Platinum and Gold players who enter qualifying tourneys with FPP's). They had 2200 runners today, with a first prize of around $11k.
I was strangely pumped about making it into the money, and considering that it was worth all of $52.50 (or, more accurately, $26.25 to me, $26.25 to the staker) I don't think it was really about the $. I guess just feeling like I'm getting value out of the whole Supernova thing, feeling like the freerolls aren't a waste of time (this was my third one, failed to cash the other two). Obviously the dream target is to make it into the top ten or so, get a decent payday and if you get hit by the deck maybe a five figure one. But the min cash makes for a decent hourly (and you can obviously grind cash games the whole time), so that's the realistic goal.
Anyway, I basically folded my way to the money. I was only all-in three times the whole tourney. First time was within about ten or fifteen minutes of start, I still had my t1500 starting stack. UTG opened, and I was UTG+1 with JJ. I actually wasn't sure what to do. I mean, it's a freeroll, who cares if you bust? But I had no read of note on UTG, and I wouldn't feel great about it getting in here. So I just called without a real plan (which is kinda the cardinal poker sin, you should always have a plan, but whatevs). Folded around to BB who shoved, UTG folded. BB had been incredibly active already, so it was a snap call for me. He tabled 22 and didn't improve, I doubled up.
Then spent about 90 minutes folding and stealing blinds, never deviating more than about 10% from the t3000 stack. Until suddenly blinds were high enough (it's not a real slow structure) that I was already in shove or fold mode preflop, and I shoved on the button with KJs. I got looked up by a tight player in the blinds, who I had barely covered, with K6o. Pretty bad call, if you ask me. He still had an M of like 6 or 7. Anyway, board ran out 10-10-4 x 4. At least a 6 didn't hit, I guess, but it was pretty annoying. I would have had a pretty healthy stack, just about average, but instead I was still grinding my short stack.
A lot more folding/bit more stealing and we were down to within about 20 of the money. I folded a whole orbit and a half with no attempts at stealing, bringing my stack all the way to like t1700. It's not like I wouldn't have gone with a decent hand, but I knew I could fold into the money so I wasn't going to take any unnecessary risks. (I mean, I wasn't going to fold QQ just to get my $52.50, but I wasn't going to steal with 76s either).
We hit the money with 396 left, and were almost instantly down to about 350 when a tight player open shoved. I had an M of about 1.25 and 66. Obviously not crazy about the spot, but I got close to the best I could hope for (obv 22-55 would have been better, but short of that) when he showed K6s. K in the window, game over.
So I got it in three times as a heavy favorite, and went 1-1-1. In general I have taken to playing tourneys very passively, sort of in survival mode, which is okay I guess but does end up in a lot of min-cashes. The logic is, the min-cashes pay for the entries, and if once every twenty times or something I get hit by the deck I can make a deeper run. But truthfully I probably need to get more aggressive. Most of the time I'm playing a lot of cash games at the same time and not really giving the tournament much attention, so I guess it will be different when I finally get back to live tourneys. Hoping to play the ME in 2010, should probably try to get some live tourney practice before then...
I was strangely pumped about making it into the money, and considering that it was worth all of $52.50 (or, more accurately, $26.25 to me, $26.25 to the staker) I don't think it was really about the $. I guess just feeling like I'm getting value out of the whole Supernova thing, feeling like the freerolls aren't a waste of time (this was my third one, failed to cash the other two). Obviously the dream target is to make it into the top ten or so, get a decent payday and if you get hit by the deck maybe a five figure one. But the min cash makes for a decent hourly (and you can obviously grind cash games the whole time), so that's the realistic goal.
Anyway, I basically folded my way to the money. I was only all-in three times the whole tourney. First time was within about ten or fifteen minutes of start, I still had my t1500 starting stack. UTG opened, and I was UTG+1 with JJ. I actually wasn't sure what to do. I mean, it's a freeroll, who cares if you bust? But I had no read of note on UTG, and I wouldn't feel great about it getting in here. So I just called without a real plan (which is kinda the cardinal poker sin, you should always have a plan, but whatevs). Folded around to BB who shoved, UTG folded. BB had been incredibly active already, so it was a snap call for me. He tabled 22 and didn't improve, I doubled up.
Then spent about 90 minutes folding and stealing blinds, never deviating more than about 10% from the t3000 stack. Until suddenly blinds were high enough (it's not a real slow structure) that I was already in shove or fold mode preflop, and I shoved on the button with KJs. I got looked up by a tight player in the blinds, who I had barely covered, with K6o. Pretty bad call, if you ask me. He still had an M of like 6 or 7. Anyway, board ran out 10-10-4 x 4. At least a 6 didn't hit, I guess, but it was pretty annoying. I would have had a pretty healthy stack, just about average, but instead I was still grinding my short stack.
A lot more folding/bit more stealing and we were down to within about 20 of the money. I folded a whole orbit and a half with no attempts at stealing, bringing my stack all the way to like t1700. It's not like I wouldn't have gone with a decent hand, but I knew I could fold into the money so I wasn't going to take any unnecessary risks. (I mean, I wasn't going to fold QQ just to get my $52.50, but I wasn't going to steal with 76s either).
We hit the money with 396 left, and were almost instantly down to about 350 when a tight player open shoved. I had an M of about 1.25 and 66. Obviously not crazy about the spot, but I got close to the best I could hope for (obv 22-55 would have been better, but short of that) when he showed K6s. K in the window, game over.
So I got it in three times as a heavy favorite, and went 1-1-1. In general I have taken to playing tourneys very passively, sort of in survival mode, which is okay I guess but does end up in a lot of min-cashes. The logic is, the min-cashes pay for the entries, and if once every twenty times or something I get hit by the deck I can make a deeper run. But truthfully I probably need to get more aggressive. Most of the time I'm playing a lot of cash games at the same time and not really giving the tournament much attention, so I guess it will be different when I finally get back to live tourneys. Hoping to play the ME in 2010, should probably try to get some live tourney practice before then...
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Staked!
So it's official. For the first time ever, I'm playing teh pokerz on someone else's dime. It's kinda weird cause I'm not busto, I don't need the stake in terms of $, so I'm sure it doesn't make sense to some people. But at the end of the day it felt like a no-brainer. It's mainly, for me, about the coaching/mentoring/whatever, and the more we talked the better I felt about it. The only nagging thing in the back of my head is I've been on such a terrible run of luck that I wonder a bit if I would have felt quite differently about things a couple months ago. And truthfully, I'm sure it would have been a tougher decision. But I still think I would have done it.
I won't get into a lot of details, in part because I actually signed a confidentiality agreement with my staker. I'm the first person he's staked and he's giving me a ton of information (makes it seem, at least, like a lot of those video training coaches and whatnot do hold stuff back). But it's a standard staking agreement (he takes all the financial risk, we split proceeds 50/50) and it's tied to volume (as opposed to $ or time). So how long it lasts totally depends on how much I play.
Anyway, because I'm gonna be working closely with him, and because he wants me to keep a lot of the concepts on the down low, I won't have as much poker content in the blog. It won't be none, but I was pretty tired of my whining anyway, so it'll definitely be less. Sorry for any disappointment caused.
I won't get into a lot of details, in part because I actually signed a confidentiality agreement with my staker. I'm the first person he's staked and he's giving me a ton of information (makes it seem, at least, like a lot of those video training coaches and whatnot do hold stuff back). But it's a standard staking agreement (he takes all the financial risk, we split proceeds 50/50) and it's tied to volume (as opposed to $ or time). So how long it lasts totally depends on how much I play.
Anyway, because I'm gonna be working closely with him, and because he wants me to keep a lot of the concepts on the down low, I won't have as much poker content in the blog. It won't be none, but I was pretty tired of my whining anyway, so it'll definitely be less. Sorry for any disappointment caused.
Friday, November 6, 2009
It Might Get Loud
Have been looking forward to seeing this movie since I saw the scintillating trailer a few months ago. Not surprisingly, it didn't get a wide release. But it is showing once a day, at 2:30pm, at something called the Denman Discount Theater.
So the basic premise is Jimmy Page, The Edge, and Jack White get together and talk shop, jam a little, whatever. On paper I thought it was an inspired choice, as they're all great guitar players with unique styles (distinct voices, in the parlance they would undoubtedly prefer). But in the end, it was the casting that undid the film.
Even though (maybe because) he generally carries himself like he's doing an impression of Johnny Depp acting as Jack White, White is arguably the star of the movie (the filmmakers would probably argue that the guitar is the film's true star, but they'd be deluded). He comes across as almost an idiot savant, making fierce and inspired music when he's not spouting inanities. Like, how he likes his guitars to be out of tune, so he has to 'conquer' them. In his quest to illustrate how he challenges himself to create, he gives the example (this is a paraphrase): "if it's three steps over to the organ to play a part in a song, what if i move it farther away so it's four steps away, so I have to rush over"? He doesn't answer his rhetorical question (which he manages to pose straight-faced). But one's still left to wonder what fresh genius might ensue if the roadie were to take that organ all the way up to five steps away. It's a positively Spinal Tap-esque moment, which brings to mind another scene.
The Edge is talking about when U2 were starting out, and how what they did (and what others were doing at the time) was in part a reaction to the self-indulgence of 70's rock. He cites 15 minute drum and guitar solos as basically atrocities, and while he is talking we're shown images from This Is Spinal Tap. It could have just as easily been Led Zeppelin footage, of course. The Edge then continues, "When I saw Spinal Tap, I didn't laugh. I wept. Cause it was that close to the truth". I mean, if you're Jimmy Page watching this, how do you not say "ouch". The irony is driven home (presumably unintentionally) later when Jimmy displays his famous double-neck guitar, and The Edge smiles wanly in deference to the most iconic of instruments of an era he so thoroughly dismissed a few scenes previous.
The Edge doesn't just give it, tho, he catches some too. After long and loving scenes of The Edge detailing and displaying his extensive collection of effects and processors, White goes off on a mini-tangent about how technology is the enemy of creativity. Ouch again.
To be clear, these disses are not intentional. At least not from the artists, who make their statements during extensive interviews in their homes obviously not thinking about their co-stars specifically. And probably not from the filmmakers, as it definitely does not build excitement for the 'summit', where the three greats meet, axes a-blazing, for a chat and shred session. Not that it matters in the end, cause the summit positively fizzles.
The first playing they do together has The Edge showing the other two the changes to 'I Will Follow'. They pick it up, they play it for about 15 seconds, and that's it. What? Really? Okay, just a teaser. It's gonna get cooking soon, right? Wrong. I guess it does pick up a little. During 'In My Time Of Dying', it at least seems like everybody's trying (although it plays much less to The Edge's strengths than the other's, and he kinda looks like he knows it). But it never gets anything close to inspired, and the closing "The Weight" is definitely no better than anything that happened at Trevor's bachelor party. The multiple clips of all three guys playing with the bands that made them famous are all more invigorating than the summit, and it's not even close.
Still, for all this complaining, if they came out with a ten-hour DVD version of this thing, I'd definitely buy it. Watching supremely talented and accomplished musicians talk about their craft, show their tricks, relive their paths to success, doesn't really get old. To be sure, much of "It Might Get Loud" is pure gold.
But the main hook, the Meeting Of The Masters, as it were, fails pretty much completely.
So the basic premise is Jimmy Page, The Edge, and Jack White get together and talk shop, jam a little, whatever. On paper I thought it was an inspired choice, as they're all great guitar players with unique styles (distinct voices, in the parlance they would undoubtedly prefer). But in the end, it was the casting that undid the film.
Even though (maybe because) he generally carries himself like he's doing an impression of Johnny Depp acting as Jack White, White is arguably the star of the movie (the filmmakers would probably argue that the guitar is the film's true star, but they'd be deluded). He comes across as almost an idiot savant, making fierce and inspired music when he's not spouting inanities. Like, how he likes his guitars to be out of tune, so he has to 'conquer' them. In his quest to illustrate how he challenges himself to create, he gives the example (this is a paraphrase): "if it's three steps over to the organ to play a part in a song, what if i move it farther away so it's four steps away, so I have to rush over"? He doesn't answer his rhetorical question (which he manages to pose straight-faced). But one's still left to wonder what fresh genius might ensue if the roadie were to take that organ all the way up to five steps away. It's a positively Spinal Tap-esque moment, which brings to mind another scene.
The Edge is talking about when U2 were starting out, and how what they did (and what others were doing at the time) was in part a reaction to the self-indulgence of 70's rock. He cites 15 minute drum and guitar solos as basically atrocities, and while he is talking we're shown images from This Is Spinal Tap. It could have just as easily been Led Zeppelin footage, of course. The Edge then continues, "When I saw Spinal Tap, I didn't laugh. I wept. Cause it was that close to the truth". I mean, if you're Jimmy Page watching this, how do you not say "ouch". The irony is driven home (presumably unintentionally) later when Jimmy displays his famous double-neck guitar, and The Edge smiles wanly in deference to the most iconic of instruments of an era he so thoroughly dismissed a few scenes previous.
The Edge doesn't just give it, tho, he catches some too. After long and loving scenes of The Edge detailing and displaying his extensive collection of effects and processors, White goes off on a mini-tangent about how technology is the enemy of creativity. Ouch again.
To be clear, these disses are not intentional. At least not from the artists, who make their statements during extensive interviews in their homes obviously not thinking about their co-stars specifically. And probably not from the filmmakers, as it definitely does not build excitement for the 'summit', where the three greats meet, axes a-blazing, for a chat and shred session. Not that it matters in the end, cause the summit positively fizzles.
The first playing they do together has The Edge showing the other two the changes to 'I Will Follow'. They pick it up, they play it for about 15 seconds, and that's it. What? Really? Okay, just a teaser. It's gonna get cooking soon, right? Wrong. I guess it does pick up a little. During 'In My Time Of Dying', it at least seems like everybody's trying (although it plays much less to The Edge's strengths than the other's, and he kinda looks like he knows it). But it never gets anything close to inspired, and the closing "The Weight" is definitely no better than anything that happened at Trevor's bachelor party. The multiple clips of all three guys playing with the bands that made them famous are all more invigorating than the summit, and it's not even close.
Still, for all this complaining, if they came out with a ten-hour DVD version of this thing, I'd definitely buy it. Watching supremely talented and accomplished musicians talk about their craft, show their tricks, relive their paths to success, doesn't really get old. To be sure, much of "It Might Get Loud" is pure gold.
But the main hook, the Meeting Of The Masters, as it were, fails pretty much completely.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Good Game
Went to the hockey game with my Old Man tonight. Because my dad has been in the hospital, we haven't been able to take Henry to see him. So Rachel walked down with me to GM Place tonight and the little guy finally got to meet his Grandpa, and my Dad finally got to meet his namesake (Henry's middle name, Lawrence, is my Dad's name).
Whatever you think about the fisticuffs in hockey, it's hard to argue that they weren't good for the game tonight. First two periods were pretty boring, then early in the third a major scrum broke out. It happened during a line change, so there were ten guys on the ice for each team, and it got crazy heated. I mean, a lot of those hockey fights are kinda posturing, guys 'doing their jobs' and they pat each other on the ass when it's over. This was not that. These guys were pissed at each other, and it threatened to spiral out of control like in the olden days. Broad Street Bullies and all that. When it finally subsided, it was an entirely different game. Both teams, and the crowd, were totally energized. Playoff-type hockey. Plus, the beloved home team prevailed 4-1. Everyone went home happy. Except the grumpy Glen Sather I walked past on the way home, either coming or going from a town car (I couldn't tell) and fully ignoring myriad autograph seekers (to be fair, I was just walking by, he may well have signed before or after).
When I got home my wife and son were sound asleep. They normally fall asleep before I do, and they look so impossibly cute sleeping side by side. It's tough to decide of which one am I most jealous.
Whatever you think about the fisticuffs in hockey, it's hard to argue that they weren't good for the game tonight. First two periods were pretty boring, then early in the third a major scrum broke out. It happened during a line change, so there were ten guys on the ice for each team, and it got crazy heated. I mean, a lot of those hockey fights are kinda posturing, guys 'doing their jobs' and they pat each other on the ass when it's over. This was not that. These guys were pissed at each other, and it threatened to spiral out of control like in the olden days. Broad Street Bullies and all that. When it finally subsided, it was an entirely different game. Both teams, and the crowd, were totally energized. Playoff-type hockey. Plus, the beloved home team prevailed 4-1. Everyone went home happy. Except the grumpy Glen Sather I walked past on the way home, either coming or going from a town car (I couldn't tell) and fully ignoring myriad autograph seekers (to be fair, I was just walking by, he may well have signed before or after).
When I got home my wife and son were sound asleep. They normally fall asleep before I do, and they look so impossibly cute sleeping side by side. It's tough to decide of which one am I most jealous.
Preview Review II (Family Film Edition)
We went to see Where The Wild Things Are. It's debatable if it's suitable as a kid's movie, but any question of what the studio thinks was most definitely answered in the previews. It was decidedly family friendly fare. A quick revision to the scoring system. Trailers get scored out of ten for their ability to not given away the entire movie (Secret Score, or SS) and for how good the movie looks like it's going to be (Upside Score, or US).
Despicable Me -- The preview is mainly just one long scene. At first I actually thought it was maybe a short feature they were showing. Hadn't heard of this movie, but the voice cast is pretty impressive (in terms of people I find funny). The preview itself was kinda boring tho. SS: 8. Gave away very little. US: 5. Definitely could be good, but not much of a spark in the trailer. Would score lower if not for the cast.
Fantastic Mr Fox -- An even more impressive voice cast, a little heavier on thespians as opposed to comedians, but some pretty funny people in there too. SS: 5. Fair amount of plot given away, but nothing too major. US: 6. Looks kinda good, but it's hard to get excited about animated movies.
The Blind Side -- Did you know Sandra Bullock is 45? Someone just told me that. She doesn't seem 45. SS: 2. Most of the movie is given away in the preview, and for the parts that aren't? While, you can pick about a half-dozen cliched plot twists from movies of this ilk and presume this movie will utilize three or four of them. Sure, there might be a twist in there. But it'll be a familiar twist. US: 7. I dunno. I know it'll be cheesy, but I still think this will be good.
A Christmas Carol -- Robert Zemeckis gives the Scrooge story the Polar Express treatment, with a sure to be over-the-top star turn from Jim Carrey. Peter Travers or somebody will undoubtedly call this "visually stunning", a quote you'll see on the TV ads, and in the print ads, and in the ads for the DVD. SS: 1. It's a Christmas Carol, only done different. They show you how it's done in the preview, and we already know the story. What's left? US: 2. Bah humbug, indeed. Why this was made, and why anyone would care to see it, are both beyond me.
Despicable Me -- The preview is mainly just one long scene. At first I actually thought it was maybe a short feature they were showing. Hadn't heard of this movie, but the voice cast is pretty impressive (in terms of people I find funny). The preview itself was kinda boring tho. SS: 8. Gave away very little. US: 5. Definitely could be good, but not much of a spark in the trailer. Would score lower if not for the cast.
Fantastic Mr Fox -- An even more impressive voice cast, a little heavier on thespians as opposed to comedians, but some pretty funny people in there too. SS: 5. Fair amount of plot given away, but nothing too major. US: 6. Looks kinda good, but it's hard to get excited about animated movies.
The Blind Side -- Did you know Sandra Bullock is 45? Someone just told me that. She doesn't seem 45. SS: 2. Most of the movie is given away in the preview, and for the parts that aren't? While, you can pick about a half-dozen cliched plot twists from movies of this ilk and presume this movie will utilize three or four of them. Sure, there might be a twist in there. But it'll be a familiar twist. US: 7. I dunno. I know it'll be cheesy, but I still think this will be good.
A Christmas Carol -- Robert Zemeckis gives the Scrooge story the Polar Express treatment, with a sure to be over-the-top star turn from Jim Carrey. Peter Travers or somebody will undoubtedly call this "visually stunning", a quote you'll see on the TV ads, and in the print ads, and in the ads for the DVD. SS: 1. It's a Christmas Carol, only done different. They show you how it's done in the preview, and we already know the story. What's left? US: 2. Bah humbug, indeed. Why this was made, and why anyone would care to see it, are both beyond me.
(Way) Beyond Frustrated
WARNING: MORE WHINING ABOUT POKER CONTAINED HEREIN
I used to think of myself as a lucky poker player. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a crazy person. I don't believe individuals are in possession of some definable amount of luckiness, like there's a luck gene. I just mean over the course of my poker career, I felt like I had been more helped than hindered, results-wise, by variance. I was often to the good in terms of all-in EV, and even according to my selective memory (which many people say will emphasize the times we got unlucky) I seemed to run good.
Like, this one time I was playing in an online donkament, I think it was like $20 entry, big field, and I took it down for like $2500. And the winning hand, I had a huge chip lead and got it in with A7 against QQ. And the flop came 777. Now, of course I would have taken it down with just a single ace, or even just two 7's. And of course I had a big chip lead so may well (probably) would have taken it down anyway. But for whatever reason, I would remember that hand and think about how lucky I seem to be, as opposed to thinking about all the countless times I got it in good and was busted out of tourneys.
So, yeah, I used to think of myself as a lucky poker player. I do not think of myself that way anymore.
As of the session I just wrapped up, I am now down 40 buy-ins in all-in EV over my last 60k hands. I think that works out to 6.66b/100, but whatever it is, it is not something I am able to overcome through my mad poker skills. I'm happy if I post a 2bb/100 winrate while grinding out volume, so obviously the all-in EV massacre is devastating.
For those not that into the pokerz, all-in EV is simply a measurement of what your results would be if you had exactly neutral luck from the moment you got all-in during a hand. It's unpopular in some circles, because it tends to be given too much credit (there are many other ways to have good or back luck in poker than just what happens after you're all-in), and because there's not a thing you can do about what happens after you're all-in, so why pay it any heed.
But there are two things about all-in EV that make it relevant to this discussion. First of all, it's the most easily measured form of poker luck. True, I could go through my database and find out exactly how many times I got AA v KK, as opposed to vice versa, but the different ways you can run good or bad before it gets all-in are practically infinite. It's not feasible to get a meaningful measurement. So all-in EV is the only easily obtained statistic we have that reflects how we're running. As our selective memories can't be trusted (and believe me, my selective memory is telling me I'm getting pummeled by variance way beyond just all-in EV -- if one more fish rivers two pair against my TPTK and then minraises my river bet I'm gonna punch Danlim in the face), all-in EV is kinda all we got.
The second reason it's relevant, is I straight up cannot win at poker if I'm 40 buy-ins below over 60k hands.
Man, downswings are lonely. You can sort of commiserate with other poker players, but you don't really wanna be a downer. And the fact that we all go through these swings makes you feel kinda stupid for being surprised by them. I keep coming across blogs where the author really believes he's going through a downswing unlike anything his readers have experienced. And honestly, I kinda feel that way right now too. So while we can talk about the swings and give each other generic encouragement, fact is we feel we're going through something unique. In fact, accepting that what we are going through is something that happens once in a while to most grinders kinda sucks, cause we want to believe this is like a once-a-century run of shitty luck we're going through. So basically we don't really want to think other people get it, cause we don't like the implications of that.
It's just hard to know where to go from here. There's an argument for just keeping on doing what I'm doing, because the results are not bad if you factor out the all-in EV. I do have a sense, tho, that if I were more +EV in the games I'm playing, I could whether these storms a bit more. Which makes me want to look for a different approach. At the same time, I know my confidence is rocked by this run, which I know means I can't be playing as well as I am able. And I've felt a little scrambly at times, trying different styles and approaches, and have felt some old leaks coming on (in some cases pretty strong). Clicking that call button way too much again. So it seems like I should wait till I don't feel I'm in the worst run of my poker career before making any decisions.
Yet at the same time, how long do I wait? I know my luck today has no bearing on my luck tomorrow, but that cuts both ways. I'm not doomed to bad luck, but I'm not 'due' for good luck either. And I don't want to have to redeposit on the sites. This is supposed to be a profitable undertaking!
So every option is on the table. Going back to live poker. Playing just a couple tables at a time online. Just keeping on with what I've been doing (which is 6-10ish tables). Learning Sit & Go's or grinding tourneys. Mass-tabling as a shortstacker (no, I don't share the hatred of short stacking that many 2+2ers have). I mean, some are more likely than others, but I'm open to most any approach. I love playing poker, but at the end of the day it's about making money. If I can get a clear sense of what path would be most profitable, that would definitely be the one I take at the expense of pretty much any other factors.
Happily, this staking agreement still looks like it's gonna happen (we've agreed on terms, just choosing a start date). Couldn't come at a better time, because I really need somebody's objective input. The fact that he's a great poker mind with a direct investment in my results obviously makes him uniquely suited to weigh in on this stuff.
But if for some reason the staking doesn't happen, I'll still work it out. Notwithstanding all this ranting, I still understand this is part of the game. And I still believe that as long as I don't get lazy (or give up during the bad runs), I can grind a good living out of poker. It's just variance has been a relentless motherfucker the last while, and I needed to bitch about it for a while.
I used to think of myself as a lucky poker player. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a crazy person. I don't believe individuals are in possession of some definable amount of luckiness, like there's a luck gene. I just mean over the course of my poker career, I felt like I had been more helped than hindered, results-wise, by variance. I was often to the good in terms of all-in EV, and even according to my selective memory (which many people say will emphasize the times we got unlucky) I seemed to run good.
Like, this one time I was playing in an online donkament, I think it was like $20 entry, big field, and I took it down for like $2500. And the winning hand, I had a huge chip lead and got it in with A7 against QQ. And the flop came 777. Now, of course I would have taken it down with just a single ace, or even just two 7's. And of course I had a big chip lead so may well (probably) would have taken it down anyway. But for whatever reason, I would remember that hand and think about how lucky I seem to be, as opposed to thinking about all the countless times I got it in good and was busted out of tourneys.
So, yeah, I used to think of myself as a lucky poker player. I do not think of myself that way anymore.
As of the session I just wrapped up, I am now down 40 buy-ins in all-in EV over my last 60k hands. I think that works out to 6.66b/100, but whatever it is, it is not something I am able to overcome through my mad poker skills. I'm happy if I post a 2bb/100 winrate while grinding out volume, so obviously the all-in EV massacre is devastating.
For those not that into the pokerz, all-in EV is simply a measurement of what your results would be if you had exactly neutral luck from the moment you got all-in during a hand. It's unpopular in some circles, because it tends to be given too much credit (there are many other ways to have good or back luck in poker than just what happens after you're all-in), and because there's not a thing you can do about what happens after you're all-in, so why pay it any heed.
But there are two things about all-in EV that make it relevant to this discussion. First of all, it's the most easily measured form of poker luck. True, I could go through my database and find out exactly how many times I got AA v KK, as opposed to vice versa, but the different ways you can run good or bad before it gets all-in are practically infinite. It's not feasible to get a meaningful measurement. So all-in EV is the only easily obtained statistic we have that reflects how we're running. As our selective memories can't be trusted (and believe me, my selective memory is telling me I'm getting pummeled by variance way beyond just all-in EV -- if one more fish rivers two pair against my TPTK and then minraises my river bet I'm gonna punch Danlim in the face), all-in EV is kinda all we got.
The second reason it's relevant, is I straight up cannot win at poker if I'm 40 buy-ins below over 60k hands.
Man, downswings are lonely. You can sort of commiserate with other poker players, but you don't really wanna be a downer. And the fact that we all go through these swings makes you feel kinda stupid for being surprised by them. I keep coming across blogs where the author really believes he's going through a downswing unlike anything his readers have experienced. And honestly, I kinda feel that way right now too. So while we can talk about the swings and give each other generic encouragement, fact is we feel we're going through something unique. In fact, accepting that what we are going through is something that happens once in a while to most grinders kinda sucks, cause we want to believe this is like a once-a-century run of shitty luck we're going through. So basically we don't really want to think other people get it, cause we don't like the implications of that.
It's just hard to know where to go from here. There's an argument for just keeping on doing what I'm doing, because the results are not bad if you factor out the all-in EV. I do have a sense, tho, that if I were more +EV in the games I'm playing, I could whether these storms a bit more. Which makes me want to look for a different approach. At the same time, I know my confidence is rocked by this run, which I know means I can't be playing as well as I am able. And I've felt a little scrambly at times, trying different styles and approaches, and have felt some old leaks coming on (in some cases pretty strong). Clicking that call button way too much again. So it seems like I should wait till I don't feel I'm in the worst run of my poker career before making any decisions.
Yet at the same time, how long do I wait? I know my luck today has no bearing on my luck tomorrow, but that cuts both ways. I'm not doomed to bad luck, but I'm not 'due' for good luck either. And I don't want to have to redeposit on the sites. This is supposed to be a profitable undertaking!
So every option is on the table. Going back to live poker. Playing just a couple tables at a time online. Just keeping on with what I've been doing (which is 6-10ish tables). Learning Sit & Go's or grinding tourneys. Mass-tabling as a shortstacker (no, I don't share the hatred of short stacking that many 2+2ers have). I mean, some are more likely than others, but I'm open to most any approach. I love playing poker, but at the end of the day it's about making money. If I can get a clear sense of what path would be most profitable, that would definitely be the one I take at the expense of pretty much any other factors.
Happily, this staking agreement still looks like it's gonna happen (we've agreed on terms, just choosing a start date). Couldn't come at a better time, because I really need somebody's objective input. The fact that he's a great poker mind with a direct investment in my results obviously makes him uniquely suited to weigh in on this stuff.
But if for some reason the staking doesn't happen, I'll still work it out. Notwithstanding all this ranting, I still understand this is part of the game. And I still believe that as long as I don't get lazy (or give up during the bad runs), I can grind a good living out of poker. It's just variance has been a relentless motherfucker the last while, and I needed to bitch about it for a while.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
An Important Comeback (and some whining)
I came to terms tonight with something I kinda already knew but wasn't fully admitting to myself: my poker confidence is shot. I realized it when I decided to 6-table 100NL, and I felt like I was playing nosebleed stakes. So much aggression! Which is totally ridiculous, cause not very long ago I played 100NL when I needed to step down for a bit.
I don't want to sit here and whine, but I've been running like ass for about three months straight. If you don't think it can happen, well, you're misinformed. Don't get me wrong. I still could have had way better results by just playing better, and who knows where the line blurs between running bad leading to worse play or vice versa. But I can say with a fair degree of confidence that this fall has been by far the worst case of run bad I've ever had. Not even close. Just in October I'm about 30 buy-ins to the bad in all-in EV. I know, I know, that's just one type of luck. But if I had run neutral in just that one department I'd have had a marginally profitable month instead of the abomination I had. It's funny, cause I'm doing all this mass-tabling, and people are telling me I'm crazy, and I'm thinking I should reconsider, etc etc. But if I had run even just okay, I'd be feeling like I was on my way with it, SuperNova Elite here I come...
Not that I'm done with SNE. My potential staker (it really looks like it's going to happen now, btw, but I'll be sure to let my faithful readers know once it's for sure one way or the other) is a SNE, and he wants me to hit that milestone in 2010. Just with a modified plan from how I've been approaching it so far.
But anyway, I've digressed a lot already. So I played a 12-table session this evening at 50, ran six buy-ins below EV to book a five buy-in loss. Typical. But I wasn't feeling too bad about it, cause I was in that right head space of accepting that I can't control the luck, and I think I did play okay.
So I was gonna go to bed, but I decided to first play an hour of 6-tabling 100NL. Within 10 minutes I was down four buy-ins. First I lost a couple flips. Then my QQ < JJ AIPF when a jack spiked on the turn. And the worst one, my AA < JJ, with it getting in on the turn and the third J hitting the river. So I was down $400 and my all-in EV was saying I should be up like $180 or thereabouts (can't remember exactly, there were a few small hands in there too).
I fully accept beats as part of poker, and I even accept that the run of luck I've been experiencing, while probably in the top percentile of bad runs, is likely not near as rare as it feels it must be. I still feel like in the long run skill will win out over luck most of the time (and it's only 'most' of the time cause we might not make it far enough into the long run to make it 'all' of the time).
But man, it's wearing me down, and I really need to find a way to reset my expectations so that hopefully my confidence will follow. I mean, today at 50 I got it in with KK against a guy's J9o. 125 BB's deep, and he had a PFR of 5. WTF? He flopped the straight. Honestly, you wonder if he knew what was coming somehow, cause it just makes no sense otherwise. But when I saw what he had I literally cringed, waiting to see how I was gonna get screwed. Even though that attitude obviously doesn't influence the cards, I just can't imagine it doesn't bleed over into my play in big and small ways.
The silver lining in all this is that I did grind back to make the 100 session basically even. Maybe the most satisfying break even session of the year, and important too, cause 100 suddenly looked like the cuddle-bear soft game it is and hopefully I can bring that feeling to my next session. The thing of it is, when I was down four buy-ins and the game seemed so tough, I actually had gotten my money in even or very good each time. So why did it seem tough? Shot confidence.
I don't want to sit here and whine, but I've been running like ass for about three months straight. If you don't think it can happen, well, you're misinformed. Don't get me wrong. I still could have had way better results by just playing better, and who knows where the line blurs between running bad leading to worse play or vice versa. But I can say with a fair degree of confidence that this fall has been by far the worst case of run bad I've ever had. Not even close. Just in October I'm about 30 buy-ins to the bad in all-in EV. I know, I know, that's just one type of luck. But if I had run neutral in just that one department I'd have had a marginally profitable month instead of the abomination I had. It's funny, cause I'm doing all this mass-tabling, and people are telling me I'm crazy, and I'm thinking I should reconsider, etc etc. But if I had run even just okay, I'd be feeling like I was on my way with it, SuperNova Elite here I come...
Not that I'm done with SNE. My potential staker (it really looks like it's going to happen now, btw, but I'll be sure to let my faithful readers know once it's for sure one way or the other) is a SNE, and he wants me to hit that milestone in 2010. Just with a modified plan from how I've been approaching it so far.
But anyway, I've digressed a lot already. So I played a 12-table session this evening at 50, ran six buy-ins below EV to book a five buy-in loss. Typical. But I wasn't feeling too bad about it, cause I was in that right head space of accepting that I can't control the luck, and I think I did play okay.
So I was gonna go to bed, but I decided to first play an hour of 6-tabling 100NL. Within 10 minutes I was down four buy-ins. First I lost a couple flips. Then my QQ < JJ AIPF when a jack spiked on the turn. And the worst one, my AA < JJ, with it getting in on the turn and the third J hitting the river. So I was down $400 and my all-in EV was saying I should be up like $180 or thereabouts (can't remember exactly, there were a few small hands in there too).
I fully accept beats as part of poker, and I even accept that the run of luck I've been experiencing, while probably in the top percentile of bad runs, is likely not near as rare as it feels it must be. I still feel like in the long run skill will win out over luck most of the time (and it's only 'most' of the time cause we might not make it far enough into the long run to make it 'all' of the time).
But man, it's wearing me down, and I really need to find a way to reset my expectations so that hopefully my confidence will follow. I mean, today at 50 I got it in with KK against a guy's J9o. 125 BB's deep, and he had a PFR of 5. WTF? He flopped the straight. Honestly, you wonder if he knew what was coming somehow, cause it just makes no sense otherwise. But when I saw what he had I literally cringed, waiting to see how I was gonna get screwed. Even though that attitude obviously doesn't influence the cards, I just can't imagine it doesn't bleed over into my play in big and small ways.
The silver lining in all this is that I did grind back to make the 100 session basically even. Maybe the most satisfying break even session of the year, and important too, cause 100 suddenly looked like the cuddle-bear soft game it is and hopefully I can bring that feeling to my next session. The thing of it is, when I was down four buy-ins and the game seemed so tough, I actually had gotten my money in even or very good each time. So why did it seem tough? Shot confidence.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Henry As Baby
I have to admit, when I was imagining his arrival, I kinda looked at the first few months as something to just sorta get through. I love kids, including toddlers, but I never really connected much to newborns. Just seemed like a lot of crying and diaper-changing and not much else.
Now that he's here, though, I already feel a sense of panic that he's gonna change too soon. I'm excited to watch him grow, but I'm in no hurry for it to happen. He's just so perfect right now, and he is such a great influence on me.
That's a lot of pressure to put on the guy, but I don't think he's feeling it.
Now that he's here, though, I already feel a sense of panic that he's gonna change too soon. I'm excited to watch him grow, but I'm in no hurry for it to happen. He's just so perfect right now, and he is such a great influence on me.
That's a lot of pressure to put on the guy, but I don't think he's feeling it.
U2
I blogged when I got home from the show but I found what I wrote embarrassing (there may have been some alcohol consumed that evening). So I deleted the blog the next morning. From what I can remember, tho, it was a pretty kick ass show.
It used to everybody liked U2. Just like The Police. There was a time you couldn't really find somebody who would admit to not liking The Police. But now a lot of that old Police stuff does sound kinda shrill, tbh. And now I personally know people who actively dislike U2. I can understand that. Bono's a bit much, so if you're not willing to go with it it might be hard to just be neutral.
Personally I'm not sure how big a U2 fan I'd consider myself in the moment, but I do know they have a pretty freaking impressive collection of songs to pick from for their set list. Some true classics didn't make the cut, but with the exception of the new material pretty much every tune they played was sing-along familiar. And they do know how to rock the stadium show. Of course the sound is not great in BC Place, and the band is far enough away from your seats to make it basically the equivalent of watching them on TV. Watching them on your neighbor's TV, more like (while you're sitting in your own living room). Yet somehow it's still invigorating. I still feel very inspired by it, 48 hours later and stone cold sober.
Black Eyed Peas opened. I hadn't heard of them before "Where Is The Love?" came out, I don't think. That's the first one I remember hearing, anyway, and I thought it was pretty cool. Like a more pop-minded "Arrested Development", with hopefully more staying power. But then they pretty much tanked (not commercially, of course), putting out a series of inanities. They are, for the most part, catchy, but it just seems like maybe they could have accomplished a lot more. But whatever. That "I Got A Feeling" got the whole room hopping just as much as almost anything U2 did. That was pretty impressive. I was surprised how much Will.I.Am ran the show, definitely seemed like it's 100% his band. Except when Fergie did "Big Girls Don't Cry". I think I have more irrational hate for that song than any other song ever recorded. It's not that I think it's a bad song. It just pisses me off for some unknown reason.
It used to everybody liked U2. Just like The Police. There was a time you couldn't really find somebody who would admit to not liking The Police. But now a lot of that old Police stuff does sound kinda shrill, tbh. And now I personally know people who actively dislike U2. I can understand that. Bono's a bit much, so if you're not willing to go with it it might be hard to just be neutral.
Personally I'm not sure how big a U2 fan I'd consider myself in the moment, but I do know they have a pretty freaking impressive collection of songs to pick from for their set list. Some true classics didn't make the cut, but with the exception of the new material pretty much every tune they played was sing-along familiar. And they do know how to rock the stadium show. Of course the sound is not great in BC Place, and the band is far enough away from your seats to make it basically the equivalent of watching them on TV. Watching them on your neighbor's TV, more like (while you're sitting in your own living room). Yet somehow it's still invigorating. I still feel very inspired by it, 48 hours later and stone cold sober.
Black Eyed Peas opened. I hadn't heard of them before "Where Is The Love?" came out, I don't think. That's the first one I remember hearing, anyway, and I thought it was pretty cool. Like a more pop-minded "Arrested Development", with hopefully more staying power. But then they pretty much tanked (not commercially, of course), putting out a series of inanities. They are, for the most part, catchy, but it just seems like maybe they could have accomplished a lot more. But whatever. That "I Got A Feeling" got the whole room hopping just as much as almost anything U2 did. That was pretty impressive. I was surprised how much Will.I.Am ran the show, definitely seemed like it's 100% his band. Except when Fergie did "Big Girls Don't Cry". I think I have more irrational hate for that song than any other song ever recorded. It's not that I think it's a bad song. It just pisses me off for some unknown reason.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Who Me? Staked?
Still not motivated to grind, which is strange for me. I normally almost always want to play. I blame the kid (obviously). How am I supposed to care about work with him about?
I did force myself to play a little bit today, and start catching up on band emails. I even opened up some mail, so I'm slowly starting to shift back towards being a contributing member of society. The lack of volume has allowed me to reflect on this whole mass-tabling approach, and I'm definitely having serious second thoughts. To be clear, I still think it's good at least in theory. But I think I jumped to 24 tables far too quick (basically straight from ~12 to 24 with only a brief stop around 16) and should back it up and work my way up much slower.
It's not just the time off that's got me thinking that, tho. I have entered into fairly serious discussions with an uber-successful midstakes multi-tabler about a staking agreement. It's kinda odd, because I had never remotely thought about getting staked, and he's never staked anyone before. But I had some exchanges with him on 2+2 and liked his way of thinking about things, so I asked him about coaching. As his hourly is quite high grinding, he wasn't really interested in coaching but was interested in talking about a staking arrangement (which would obviously involve some coaching, but would have a potentially higher return than just an hourly rate). I have no idea if it's going to happen or not. I think we're gonna figure it out in the next few days, but who knows, we've been talking about it a while. But if he does make a formal offer, and it seems fair and all that, I'm probably going to go for it.
But anyway, as part of this process, I recorded a table of myself 6-tabling. I have to admit I was fairly shocked by how different it was from 24-tabling. Of course I knew it would be somewhat so. But it was like, totally, completely different. I realized most of the time 24-tabling I've just been playing my cards. I mean, obviously I'm stacking off lighter against a 50/30 than a 14/11 or whatnot. But especially preflop, I've basically been playing from a chart. The thing is, it's not that the game, when 24-tabling, moves too fast to make more involved decisions. It's just that it moves fast enough to kind of lull me into this bad rhythm of just looking at my cards and clicking raise or (mainly) fold. There is time to take that extra moment to make a more complete decision, for sure, but forcing myself to do so is not a skill I currently have down.
So the last couple sessions I've played 12 tables (I know that sounds like a lot, but when you've been playing 24 it feels slow like live poker). At someone's suggestion, I've got it set up like I'm tiling six tables, but with a stack of two in each tiled spot. I'm having total problems getting used to playing in that configuration, but I'm still finding the pace of the games much more manageable and I think I'm playing a lot better. My plan, if the staking thing does not happen, is to 12 table at 50 until I'm comfortable with it, and then, roll-willing, keep 12-tabling at 100. If it continues to go well, I'll maybe add like two tables at a time, so long as I feel like every decision is still a thoughtful one.
It's also possible I'll go all the way back down to 6-8 tables and try to play slightly higher stakes. My best months were when I was doing that, so it's always in the back of my mind as a possibility.
Man, blogs are self-indulgent.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Henry's First Game
When you are soliciting opinions on whether or not you should circumcise your son, a surprising number of people state that having him look the same as his father is an important factor. To me, that’s kind of a stretch. I guess I can see where they’re coming from, but when you’re talking about chopping away a bit of penis it seems to me you should have stronger reasons than cultivating a family resemblance.
It is important to me, however, that Henry shares some of his old man’s passions. So I was happy to begin his indoctrination into NHL hockey this evening at GM Place.
Okay, four days old is a little ridiculous for your first Canucks game, but what happened, see, was we had these primo seats from back when we thought Henry wasn’t going to be born until November. They were in the Champions Club, which is a large private suite with a ridiculous eat-till-your-sick buffet and other amenities included (Rachel had won them through work). So when Henry arrived early we considered selling them (but we felt a little funny about that seeing we hadn’t bought them), considered asking Katy to watch him while we went, but ultimately decided we wanted to take him to the game. Happily the midwife was over today and she gave it the thumps up, so we bundled the little guy up and walked the half-dozen blocks to the game.
It was pretty much a non-event, as far as he was concerned. People oohed and aahed at him, but he slept through all that. And the game to boot. Still, I think he’s probably got hockey fever now. By osmosis.
Overall the first four days of the Henry era have been amazing. Yes, the expected sleep deprivation (although Rachel has borne by far the greater brunt of that). But he’s just so perfect. I haven’t really done anything else but hang out here, and I have never ever in my entire life felt anything approaching this sense of peace and contentment. Henry is good for my psyche.
Gotta get back to grinding the pokerz and answering the band emails so that the bank doesn’t foreclose, and I guess I will. But all I really wanna do is just wanna hang with my man (and his mom).
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Blood Of My Blood
I have no idea what time I was born. I'm sure I was told dozens of times, but it just never stuck in my memory . I can pretty much guarantee you, though, that I will never forget what time my son was born. Which, by the way, was 6:10am. Today.
Henry Lawrence Jonat. Impossibly perfect. Really, it beggars belief. Shortly after he was born, while the midwives were attending to his mother, Henry was left to his overwhelmed father's care. He just slept, curled up on my chest. Pretty sure it's the highlight of my life so far.
If Henry is a small, perfect miracle, his mother is a full-grown one. She never complained, never screamed at me (none of that 'YOU DID THIS TO ME' stuff the movies tell you to expect). In fact, between contractions she kept asking if I was okay! When Henry started his move, it got pretty intense. But as painful as it got, she never lost focus, she just kept right on task. No painkillers or sedatives or whatever, nothing. She blew my mind!
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Ruptured Membranes
If you ask me, it's a most unpleasant phrase. Sounds unduly harsh. I much prefer the more colloquial "my water broke". The first few times I heard 'Ruptured Membranes' I didn't realize what it was, and felt a strong sense of relief when I was educated.
So while I don't like to think of what happened to her membranes, I guess I'm okay with the fact that at 6:23am today Rachel's water broke. That's about as quick as I've gotten out of bed as an adult, even though I felt like 90% sure it was a false alarm. I mean, we weren't due for almost two weeks, never mind the fact everybody said it would be late.
But it wasn't a false alarm. It's for real. Should be an interesting day.
So while I don't like to think of what happened to her membranes, I guess I'm okay with the fact that at 6:23am today Rachel's water broke. That's about as quick as I've gotten out of bed as an adult, even though I felt like 90% sure it was a false alarm. I mean, we weren't due for almost two weeks, never mind the fact everybody said it would be late.
But it wasn't a false alarm. It's for real. Should be an interesting day.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Giving The Fish My Moneys
Not always, but normally when I have a terrible session I've been stacked a lot by the 50/10/1 types. It makes sense, of course, that this leads to bad results because those are the spots on the tables where you normally make your money. So if you're actually losing to them, more often than not it's gonna get ugly.
I was talking to Dixon from Stoxpoker (who I used to get coaching from and probably will again) and he said he is now almost always folding TPTK to these types, and routinely folding overpair. Most everybody knows that you try to value bet these guys with any reasonable made hand, but you don't try to bluff, and if you get raised you're probably looking at 2p+.
For some reason it remains hard to fully accept that an extremely wide preflop range and a willingness to call down light does not mean that their raising range (especially if it's a large raise) is also wide. Definitely over the last week or so I would have been way better off just folding any time someone fitting this general profile raised me and I had one pair (regardless how good the pair). But am I just running bad in these spots, or is this a rule I should accept fairly strictly?
The most common spot where I'm calling off is I'll have AA, raise from the BTN and get called by the BB. Flop is like J77 and he C/R's big, then shoves a rag turn. There are more Jx hands than 7x hands in his range, and of course it's possible he's overvaluing a single jack. But in recent experience anyway, it's always a seven (occasionally JJ). Should I be folding AA in this spot? The point is, he would call me all the way down, regardless of bet size, with Jx. But aggression from him? Even on a board like this, I think I'm better off, long run, folding.
Here's a couple more hands where I feel I should have folded, but at the table it felt wrong. Hand 1, who shoves there? He must have either a FD, or a PP that does not give me credit for a Q. (I guess it's a good shove if I snap). And hand 2, I mean, I know I'm beat. But can't he have two pair, or a missed draw? Not often enough, I don't think. But with the odds I'm being laid...
I was talking to Dixon from Stoxpoker (who I used to get coaching from and probably will again) and he said he is now almost always folding TPTK to these types, and routinely folding overpair. Most everybody knows that you try to value bet these guys with any reasonable made hand, but you don't try to bluff, and if you get raised you're probably looking at 2p+.
For some reason it remains hard to fully accept that an extremely wide preflop range and a willingness to call down light does not mean that their raising range (especially if it's a large raise) is also wide. Definitely over the last week or so I would have been way better off just folding any time someone fitting this general profile raised me and I had one pair (regardless how good the pair). But am I just running bad in these spots, or is this a rule I should accept fairly strictly?
The most common spot where I'm calling off is I'll have AA, raise from the BTN and get called by the BB. Flop is like J77 and he C/R's big, then shoves a rag turn. There are more Jx hands than 7x hands in his range, and of course it's possible he's overvaluing a single jack. But in recent experience anyway, it's always a seven (occasionally JJ). Should I be folding AA in this spot? The point is, he would call me all the way down, regardless of bet size, with Jx. But aggression from him? Even on a board like this, I think I'm better off, long run, folding.
Here's a couple more hands where I feel I should have folded, but at the table it felt wrong. Hand 1, who shoves there? He must have either a FD, or a PP that does not give me credit for a Q. (I guess it's a good shove if I snap). And hand 2, I mean, I know I'm beat. But can't he have two pair, or a missed draw? Not often enough, I don't think. But with the odds I'm being laid...
Monday, October 12, 2009
Ell Oh Ell
You know what really grinds my gears? I'll tell you. Text message acronyms, and emoticons, and the like.
I use 'em, cause you have to, cause otherwise people maybe can't tell when you're joking (in a text, or an email, or on a forum or whatever). And they might think you're a mental case when they miss the sarcasm or whatever. But even while I've given myself over to the necessity of them, I can't type LOL or ;) without feeling a little bit like a teenager. Maybe a Japanese teenager. Probably a teenaged Japanese girl, even. LOL.
I use 'em, cause you have to, cause otherwise people maybe can't tell when you're joking (in a text, or an email, or on a forum or whatever). And they might think you're a mental case when they miss the sarcasm or whatever. But even while I've given myself over to the necessity of them, I can't type LOL or ;) without feeling a little bit like a teenager. Maybe a Japanese teenager. Probably a teenaged Japanese girl, even. LOL.
As Drunk As It Gets
That probably would have been a better title for yesterday's blog.
It was still a kick ass good time, alcohol or no. But no, I don't think there were too many sober people there. Well maybe Charles, the conspiracy-theory minded security guard.
Reba says it was possibly a personal record state of drunkenness for her. She reported this morning that she fell over in her room trying to get into her pajama's. Also, she had the misfortune of being the only one among us whose cell phone works up there. Drunken dialing ensued. Fo sho.
It was still a kick ass good time, alcohol or no. But no, I don't think there were too many sober people there. Well maybe Charles, the conspiracy-theory minded security guard.
Reba says it was possibly a personal record state of drunkenness for her. She reported this morning that she fell over in her room trying to get into her pajama's. Also, she had the misfortune of being the only one among us whose cell phone works up there. Drunken dialing ensued. Fo sho.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
As Good As It Gets
We played a gig a few years ago at something called the Boise River Fest. There was, they tell us, 100,000 people there. There were cameras on tracks swooping in and out as we played, we were being broadcast live on regional television. And it occurred to me, right then and there, that a great show cannot be predicted. We didn't have a bad show that night, but it was hardly a career highlight.
Tonight we played a small place in Montana called Chico Hot Springs. There was maybe 250 people there total. Got kinda fucked up on the Jaeger shots some asshole/kind soul kept bringing to the stage (I normally manage my alcohol intake quite well, but it'd be rude to turn down Jaeger shots).
But the point is, honestly, I can't have more fun playing music than I did tonight. So the lesson, clearly, is that it's not about crowd size. It's not about TV cameras. It's not about expectations or what you get paid, or glory. If you connect with the audience, and it goes off, this is the greatest job imaginable. If you don't, it's not.
Simple. Like that.
Tonight we played a small place in Montana called Chico Hot Springs. There was maybe 250 people there total. Got kinda fucked up on the Jaeger shots some asshole/kind soul kept bringing to the stage (I normally manage my alcohol intake quite well, but it'd be rude to turn down Jaeger shots).
But the point is, honestly, I can't have more fun playing music than I did tonight. So the lesson, clearly, is that it's not about crowd size. It's not about TV cameras. It's not about expectations or what you get paid, or glory. If you connect with the audience, and it goes off, this is the greatest job imaginable. If you don't, it's not.
Simple. Like that.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The Dude Abides
We got hired to play a fancy to-do at a resort in Montana tonight and we were told there would be some Hollywood celebrities in the crowd. An edict was put out that there should be no photos taken, and I was like, yeah, whatever, I think I can control myself.
But then, in line for Roast Beast, there he was. The Dude. Jeff Bridges.
So I got out my iPhone and told Reba to stand in between the actor and myself and I pretended to take a photo of her (a ruse destined to work, of course, despite the fact that I was pointing the lens nowhere near her). Unfortunately the iPhone takes total shit photos (except when it doesn’t – very still, good light, whatever, they’re actually really good, but this situation did not meet those requirements). So the photo was considerably -- and I mean considerably -- worse than that travesty of me and Buckwheat Zydeco in Northern Michigan. I coulda tried again, I suppose, but I was already aware that a) I was breaking the rules; and, more importantly, b) I was dorking it up pretty good trying to take clandestine pictures.
I guess if I want to look at pictures of Jeff Bridges I’ll just have to google him.
But then, in line for Roast Beast, there he was. The Dude. Jeff Bridges.
So I got out my iPhone and told Reba to stand in between the actor and myself and I pretended to take a photo of her (a ruse destined to work, of course, despite the fact that I was pointing the lens nowhere near her). Unfortunately the iPhone takes total shit photos (except when it doesn’t – very still, good light, whatever, they’re actually really good, but this situation did not meet those requirements). So the photo was considerably -- and I mean considerably -- worse than that travesty of me and Buckwheat Zydeco in Northern Michigan. I coulda tried again, I suppose, but I was already aware that a) I was breaking the rules; and, more importantly, b) I was dorking it up pretty good trying to take clandestine pictures.
I guess if I want to look at pictures of Jeff Bridges I’ll just have to google him.
T-minus Three Weeks
Give or take. I'm actually told that we should expect him to arrive a little late. I'm not sure why they don't then make the due date a little bit later, and tell us to expect him to arrive on time. But they're the experts.
People tend to ask me two things, normally in succession. Am I excited? And then, Am I nervous and/or scared? Sometimes I disrupt their flow by answering the first question, "Yeah, I'm excited, and a little scared too." That throws 'em off.
But the truth is, I don't really no what I am. I wouldn't say in denial. But as much as I know what's about to happen, and as much as I want it to happen, for the life of me I just can't imagine it. I can't picture his face, I can't imagine his voice.
They say a woman becomes a mother at conception, and a man becomes a father at birth. I don't know. That's just a saying, and I'm pretty sure it's biologically incorrect. But I guess it's probably true, in the sense that it's meant. I've known I'm a father for, what, eight months now? But I think it's gonna be another three weeks (give or take) before I feel like one.
People tend to ask me two things, normally in succession. Am I excited? And then, Am I nervous and/or scared? Sometimes I disrupt their flow by answering the first question, "Yeah, I'm excited, and a little scared too." That throws 'em off.
But the truth is, I don't really no what I am. I wouldn't say in denial. But as much as I know what's about to happen, and as much as I want it to happen, for the life of me I just can't imagine it. I can't picture his face, I can't imagine his voice.
They say a woman becomes a mother at conception, and a man becomes a father at birth. I don't know. That's just a saying, and I'm pretty sure it's biologically incorrect. But I guess it's probably true, in the sense that it's meant. I've known I'm a father for, what, eight months now? But I think it's gonna be another three weeks (give or take) before I feel like one.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Rake!
Yesterday I had a truly horrific session. Played all day, actually felt I was playing well (but who knows), but just couldn't catch a break. Lost 16 (!) buy-ins. When I was finished I looked at my VPP's for the day, and they were of course pretty crazy high (personal record!) which got me thinking about the insane amount of rake i had paid.
So I checked, and it turns out I paid more rake than my loss! Dunno why, I should know better by now, but this really blew my mind.
I am amazed, in retrospect, at how terrible the day felt considering that I was roughly breaking even (marginally winning) against the other players. I swear, I felt like I was losing every significant hand. Yet what was really happening, if I could have stepped back from the game a bit, was I was just pushing my money back and forth across the table, and PokerStars was quietly charging a toll for each pass.
There are two main things I take from that. The first is the obvious one: rake is a mother fucker. If there were some magical internet poker game with no rake, anybody with half a clue would make decent coin from the pokerz. But, in combination with variance (which pushes a significant percentage of pots to even the worst of players), the rake slowly erodes the financial reward your skill edge brings. Until only the most skilled are left making anything at all. Nothing new here, of course, but no matter how long I've known this to be the case, it still sucks.
The newer revelation is that I still worry far too much about results. Because I was, in terms of winning or losing pots, breaking even in the game. Yet I felt like shit and at one point tilted away a buy-in or two before gathering it back in. It is just not believable to me that I would have felt the same during the session if I had never looked at totals while I was playing. In fact, I think I would have been totally shocked by the results when I did get around to looking. How could I possibly have the distinct impression I was getting my butt kicked when, in fact, I was not?
I'd like to just never look at results, although right now I feel like the stress of wondering what's going on over on the cashier page might outweigh the benefits of not checking. That's a goal, tho, even if I know it probably has to wait until I get 'over-rolled' for the games (which is another goal). Getting to the point where I'm comfortable being ignorant of the day's results does sound rather blissful.
So I checked, and it turns out I paid more rake than my loss! Dunno why, I should know better by now, but this really blew my mind.
I am amazed, in retrospect, at how terrible the day felt considering that I was roughly breaking even (marginally winning) against the other players. I swear, I felt like I was losing every significant hand. Yet what was really happening, if I could have stepped back from the game a bit, was I was just pushing my money back and forth across the table, and PokerStars was quietly charging a toll for each pass.
There are two main things I take from that. The first is the obvious one: rake is a mother fucker. If there were some magical internet poker game with no rake, anybody with half a clue would make decent coin from the pokerz. But, in combination with variance (which pushes a significant percentage of pots to even the worst of players), the rake slowly erodes the financial reward your skill edge brings. Until only the most skilled are left making anything at all. Nothing new here, of course, but no matter how long I've known this to be the case, it still sucks.
The newer revelation is that I still worry far too much about results. Because I was, in terms of winning or losing pots, breaking even in the game. Yet I felt like shit and at one point tilted away a buy-in or two before gathering it back in. It is just not believable to me that I would have felt the same during the session if I had never looked at totals while I was playing. In fact, I think I would have been totally shocked by the results when I did get around to looking. How could I possibly have the distinct impression I was getting my butt kicked when, in fact, I was not?
I'd like to just never look at results, although right now I feel like the stress of wondering what's going on over on the cashier page might outweigh the benefits of not checking. That's a goal, tho, even if I know it probably has to wait until I get 'over-rolled' for the games (which is another goal). Getting to the point where I'm comfortable being ignorant of the day's results does sound rather blissful.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Preview Review
Only been to a couple movies over the past couple weeks. I found myself admiring "The Informant" more than enjoying it. Not that I didn't enjoy it at all, just that I couldn't quite get into it as much I wanted to. The slow reveal of Matt Damon's character's, uh, issues was unique and fun. But the whole thing just needed a bit more suspense or a danger element or something. Some kinda jolt. Also, the whole stylized thing was confusing. What year was it supposed to be? Soundtrack and credits and whatnot said 70's, some of the style felt 80's, plot was in the 90's. I don't know. I guess it was on purpose. It was probably clever. I just wasn't in on it.
It was obviously much better than Bruce Willis's latest, "Surrogates", which was just kind of run of the mill terrible. Although the whole thing about having a son who passed away, first hinted at with a lingering shot of Bruce staring wistfully at a child's baseball glove, was a little extra terrible. Really? You're really going there? I will say, as a positive, that I kinda bought Bruce in his role more than I normally do. He didn't wisecrack/smirk his way through the thing. Instead of being Bruce Willis, it was more like he was, I don't know, an actor.
But anyway, the main reason to go to the movies of course is to see the previews. So without further ado, I bring you my first ever Preview Review.
Each trailer gets two scores (both out of 10). The "Reveal" score is how much of the movie the trailer gives away. The "Upside" score is how good the movie looks like it's going to be.
2012 -- People just can't get enough of disaster movies. We are long past the point of a burning hotel or a sinking ship. In 2012 the whole world just ends. Of course, it's almost entirely about the special effects, while John Cusack, Amanda Peet, and some cute kids try to give you somebody to care about (so you're not just cheering for more shit to blow up). The effects do look amazing, and the movie does look completely ridiculous, which is basically what you want out of something like this. Right? REVEAL SCORE: 7. Not that much of the plot is given away, but there are so many of the special effects money shots in the trailer that you could probably just watch it on a loop and save yourself the ticket price. UPSIDE SCORE: 6. Looks like a pretty bad movie, but a fun bad movie.
OLD DOGS -- Just wow. REVEAL SCORE: 9. If this movie has even one good laugh I'll have to downgrade the reveal score, cause the trailer sure makes it look like there is nary a one. UPSIDE SCORE: 1. If you think Seth Green taking a golf ball in the nuts is hilarious, than by all means check it out. Though I don't know why you wouldn't just stay home and watch American's Funniest Home Videos.
DAYBREAKERS -- A vampire movie with a twist (the vampires are the majority). The trailer makes the movie look quite stylized, but also like that style might be it's chief selling point. REVEAL: 7. Didn't really give away that much, but you kinda you can fill in the blanks on the untold plot points. UPSIDE: 7. Don't get me wrong. Definitely could be terrible. But for some reason I think this looks promising.
THE BLIND SIDE -- Sandra Bullock in what surely should have been a TV movie, about an upscale white family 'adopting' an oversized, ostracized, extremely disadvantaged black teenager. REVEAL: 9. If you see the trailer, you see the movie. UPSIDE: 7. Would like to score it lower, but I have to admit that judging by the trailer (which is the point of this exercise) it's look like it's powerful and well-done (to go with obvious).
HOLMES -- How did Robert Downey go so quickly from begging for work as an "Ally McBeal" guest star to basically the hottest thing going? I guess everybody loves a comeback. He's pretty good, but it doesn't feel his resurgence is all on merit. REVEAL: 2. It's a great trailer in this regard, telling you everything you need to know about the movie's vibe and almost nothing significant about it's plot. UPSIDE: 6. This one I would have liked to scored higher. You can't like Hollywood Movies and not want this thing to be kick ass. But judging by the trailer, it just looks kind of middling. Hope that impression's wrong!
It was obviously much better than Bruce Willis's latest, "Surrogates", which was just kind of run of the mill terrible. Although the whole thing about having a son who passed away, first hinted at with a lingering shot of Bruce staring wistfully at a child's baseball glove, was a little extra terrible. Really? You're really going there? I will say, as a positive, that I kinda bought Bruce in his role more than I normally do. He didn't wisecrack/smirk his way through the thing. Instead of being Bruce Willis, it was more like he was, I don't know, an actor.
But anyway, the main reason to go to the movies of course is to see the previews. So without further ado, I bring you my first ever Preview Review.
Each trailer gets two scores (both out of 10). The "Reveal" score is how much of the movie the trailer gives away. The "Upside" score is how good the movie looks like it's going to be.
2012 -- People just can't get enough of disaster movies. We are long past the point of a burning hotel or a sinking ship. In 2012 the whole world just ends. Of course, it's almost entirely about the special effects, while John Cusack, Amanda Peet, and some cute kids try to give you somebody to care about (so you're not just cheering for more shit to blow up). The effects do look amazing, and the movie does look completely ridiculous, which is basically what you want out of something like this. Right? REVEAL SCORE: 7. Not that much of the plot is given away, but there are so many of the special effects money shots in the trailer that you could probably just watch it on a loop and save yourself the ticket price. UPSIDE SCORE: 6. Looks like a pretty bad movie, but a fun bad movie.
OLD DOGS -- Just wow. REVEAL SCORE: 9. If this movie has even one good laugh I'll have to downgrade the reveal score, cause the trailer sure makes it look like there is nary a one. UPSIDE SCORE: 1. If you think Seth Green taking a golf ball in the nuts is hilarious, than by all means check it out. Though I don't know why you wouldn't just stay home and watch American's Funniest Home Videos.
DAYBREAKERS -- A vampire movie with a twist (the vampires are the majority). The trailer makes the movie look quite stylized, but also like that style might be it's chief selling point. REVEAL: 7. Didn't really give away that much, but you kinda you can fill in the blanks on the untold plot points. UPSIDE: 7. Don't get me wrong. Definitely could be terrible. But for some reason I think this looks promising.
THE BLIND SIDE -- Sandra Bullock in what surely should have been a TV movie, about an upscale white family 'adopting' an oversized, ostracized, extremely disadvantaged black teenager. REVEAL: 9. If you see the trailer, you see the movie. UPSIDE: 7. Would like to score it lower, but I have to admit that judging by the trailer (which is the point of this exercise) it's look like it's powerful and well-done (to go with obvious).
HOLMES -- How did Robert Downey go so quickly from begging for work as an "Ally McBeal" guest star to basically the hottest thing going? I guess everybody loves a comeback. He's pretty good, but it doesn't feel his resurgence is all on merit. REVEAL: 2. It's a great trailer in this regard, telling you everything you need to know about the movie's vibe and almost nothing significant about it's plot. UPSIDE: 6. This one I would have liked to scored higher. You can't like Hollywood Movies and not want this thing to be kick ass. But judging by the trailer, it just looks kind of middling. Hope that impression's wrong!
Moving On Down
Have decided to stick exclusively to NL50 for an as-yet-undetermined length of time. I have been moving back and forth between 100 and 50 based on my bankroll, and I'm tired of wasting mental energy worrying about getting bumped down or whatever.
I really should have stayed exclusively at 50 as I learn to mass-table effectively (still dropping EV to technical difficulties and occasional brain cramps, both of which will always be factors when playing 24 tables but are becoming less and less major each day as I improve at this approach). But I was stubborn and kept following my bankroll guidelines. As I've had pretty good success at 50 so far, and not so much at 100, the pattern was fairly predictable. The fact that I've run way, way better (luck-wise) at 50 made me wanted to not give up 100 (hate to give in to variance). But at the same time, it's indisputable that the level of play at 100 is significantly higher. So even though I can obviously have great up or down swings at either level, my EV in 50 is surely higher (notwithstanding the higher rake impact). For these and other reasons, it just seems to make sense to play exclusively there for a bit.
The biggest drawback, in the short term, is the VPP's accrue a lot slower. Maybe 60% of the rate they accrue at 100. Which makes the SNE goal a lot more difficult. I think at the lower level it would take around 50 hours a week. Pretty doable (and worth it, imo) if I wasn't playing in the band and/or awaiting my child's imminent arrival. Might be doable still, but probably becomes a long shot (at NL100 I wouldn't say it's a slam dunk, but I would say if I it remains a goal for the entire year it's much more likely I would hit it than not). But ultimately, of course, this is all about making a living. Posting a winning record in the games and getting to, say, 800K vpp's is gonna be more profitable than losing in the games but making Elite.
It would be frustrating to get that close and not make it. But the one thing I definitely do not want to do is play in games where I'm -EV just to accrue VPP's. I'm willing to put in the work to get to SNE, but I'm not willing to throw money at it. I do expect to be able to beat 100 sooner than later, as I iron out the kinks in my mass table game and hopefully just continue to get better at poker. Which would make SNE once again feel quite within reach. We'll see how it develops, but for now it feels good to just focus on NL50.
I really should have stayed exclusively at 50 as I learn to mass-table effectively (still dropping EV to technical difficulties and occasional brain cramps, both of which will always be factors when playing 24 tables but are becoming less and less major each day as I improve at this approach). But I was stubborn and kept following my bankroll guidelines. As I've had pretty good success at 50 so far, and not so much at 100, the pattern was fairly predictable. The fact that I've run way, way better (luck-wise) at 50 made me wanted to not give up 100 (hate to give in to variance). But at the same time, it's indisputable that the level of play at 100 is significantly higher. So even though I can obviously have great up or down swings at either level, my EV in 50 is surely higher (notwithstanding the higher rake impact). For these and other reasons, it just seems to make sense to play exclusively there for a bit.
The biggest drawback, in the short term, is the VPP's accrue a lot slower. Maybe 60% of the rate they accrue at 100. Which makes the SNE goal a lot more difficult. I think at the lower level it would take around 50 hours a week. Pretty doable (and worth it, imo) if I wasn't playing in the band and/or awaiting my child's imminent arrival. Might be doable still, but probably becomes a long shot (at NL100 I wouldn't say it's a slam dunk, but I would say if I it remains a goal for the entire year it's much more likely I would hit it than not). But ultimately, of course, this is all about making a living. Posting a winning record in the games and getting to, say, 800K vpp's is gonna be more profitable than losing in the games but making Elite.
It would be frustrating to get that close and not make it. But the one thing I definitely do not want to do is play in games where I'm -EV just to accrue VPP's. I'm willing to put in the work to get to SNE, but I'm not willing to throw money at it. I do expect to be able to beat 100 sooner than later, as I iron out the kinks in my mass table game and hopefully just continue to get better at poker. Which would make SNE once again feel quite within reach. We'll see how it develops, but for now it feels good to just focus on NL50.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Hockey Season
There a lot of things I would do different if I was to live my life over, and one of them would be to get less obsessed by the NHL. I've toned 'er down some over the years, but I'm still fairly obsessed with the Canucks. It's totally irrational. I mean, if I met some guy on the street who happened to be good at hockey, I wouldn't particularly care. But for some reason, you group 'em all together and pay them a lot of money to feign allegiance to my city, and I live or die by it. It's embarrassing, really, but I can't help it.
I used to fairly strongly believe that people who were not into their hometown team were revealing a character deficiency. Like, the guy who was born and raised in Vancouver but is a Bruins fan, or whatever. If there's some sort of reason, maybe his old man was from Boston, or the star player is from his hometown, I guess it's okay. But just to randomly choose to not cheer for your home team, for no reason? That aint right. I still sorta think so. But I think caring as much as I do about any professional sports team shows a bigger deficiency: you gotta be kinda dumb.
If I was dumb like that, this would just have been preamble to the fact that the season opened tonight. I couldn't watch, being preoccupied as I was with playing a rock show in Bend, Oregon. But judging by the box score, we stumbled badly out of the gate, falling behind 3-0 and 4-1, before launching an intense comeback attempt. Got 'er back to 4-3 (with an insane third period shots advantage) before surrendering the empty-netter. Honestly, I think it bodes pretty well that when it's 3-0 it's not over. We're supposed to be pretty good this year. Some experts even predicting a Cup run. Not that I give a fuck.
I used to fairly strongly believe that people who were not into their hometown team were revealing a character deficiency. Like, the guy who was born and raised in Vancouver but is a Bruins fan, or whatever. If there's some sort of reason, maybe his old man was from Boston, or the star player is from his hometown, I guess it's okay. But just to randomly choose to not cheer for your home team, for no reason? That aint right. I still sorta think so. But I think caring as much as I do about any professional sports team shows a bigger deficiency: you gotta be kinda dumb.
If I was dumb like that, this would just have been preamble to the fact that the season opened tonight. I couldn't watch, being preoccupied as I was with playing a rock show in Bend, Oregon. But judging by the box score, we stumbled badly out of the gate, falling behind 3-0 and 4-1, before launching an intense comeback attempt. Got 'er back to 4-3 (with an insane third period shots advantage) before surrendering the empty-netter. Honestly, I think it bodes pretty well that when it's 3-0 it's not over. We're supposed to be pretty good this year. Some experts even predicting a Cup run. Not that I give a fuck.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Trading Leaks
Not sure why, but my persistent pre flop leaks have improved a TON this month. In the past when I've struggled with specific spots like this, it's felt like I've worked on them forever with little to no improvement, then very suddenly hit a point where they got way better and it never looked back. So fingers crossed that's the case here and I can move on to new things to fix.
Speaking of which, I am costing myself unnecessary $ pretty regularly by peeling too many flops and giving up on too many turns. I mean, if I'm gonna peel with second pair, I can't just fold every time he fires a blank turn. Which is more or less what I'm doing right now. The problem has developed because with the mass tabling I have less detailed reads, and right now using poker co-pilot it's even worse (they don't have a turn cbet stat, among other problems).
I'm not entirely sure how to fix it, whether I should be raising a few more flops with marginal holdings, or continuing on more turns (either peeling again, or raising). I don't really think the actual number of flops I'm calling is too high in a vacuum, it's just that I'm doing it too often without a clear plan for the rest of the hand. For now folding more flops will put me in these spots less often and hopefully leave me more energy/focus/whatever to handle them better. If I start feeling like I am handling it better, maybe I'll start floating a bit more again.
Speaking of which, I am costing myself unnecessary $ pretty regularly by peeling too many flops and giving up on too many turns. I mean, if I'm gonna peel with second pair, I can't just fold every time he fires a blank turn. Which is more or less what I'm doing right now. The problem has developed because with the mass tabling I have less detailed reads, and right now using poker co-pilot it's even worse (they don't have a turn cbet stat, among other problems).
I'm not entirely sure how to fix it, whether I should be raising a few more flops with marginal holdings, or continuing on more turns (either peeling again, or raising). I don't really think the actual number of flops I'm calling is too high in a vacuum, it's just that I'm doing it too often without a clear plan for the rest of the hand. For now folding more flops will put me in these spots less often and hopefully leave me more energy/focus/whatever to handle them better. If I start feeling like I am handling it better, maybe I'll start floating a bit more again.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Live Music
In Santa Cruz, California. We had time between load-in and sound check so we walked down to the beach. Absolutely perfect day. There was this giant dead sea lion on the beach. It looked strange. Would like to say it looked beautiful, or regal or powerful or something, but it just didn't.
Anyway, that's just an aside. In Santa Cruz, California. Sitting at the back of the room as the opener plays. They are called Fruition. They are friends of our drummer Tyler's (he plays with them sometimes, including tonight) and they happened to be down here recording, so they asked today if they could play a set before us. One of their singer/guitar players is named Jake, and he's from Tyler's hometown, so we've seen him several times over the years in various bands and whatnot. He's a talented guy. I don't know anything about his situation, but I assume unless he's dealing drugs or has an inheritance or something then he's probably living below what many people would consider the poverty line. (Again, I don't know about him personally, but that's the norm for people pursuing music the way he is). But he's going after it, and every single time I hear him, he's better. He's always been a good musician, but he's become a great musician/singer. But more than that, he's becoming an artist.
What it really makes me think about is how beautiful, regal, powerful live music is. We saw a band on tour this summer called Alice Potter & The Nocturnals. (Maybe Grace Potter? something like that). They were almost like a 60's tribute band (Woodstock era 60's, not Beach Boys). Not covers, original music, I just mean style-wise. But whatever, holy shit were they good. Blow you away good. Heard her on the satellite radio the other day, and it wasn't quite the same. But live? They have it going on in abundance. All of which is an aside as well, by the way. (Maybe blogs are, in the main, just one big aside).
The most powerful thing by far, of course, is going to see an artist who you love, whose songs resonate. I don't go to live concerts that much, in part because it's so emotionally draining to hear live performances of multiple songs that mean a lot to you. In succession. Over a short period. In a communal setting. But even though I have felt near destroyed after more than a few concerts, I can see from a distance that it's a good destruction.
We do have tickets, almost by accident, for U2 coming up. I think I can get through that one rather intact, tho.
Anyway, that's just an aside. In Santa Cruz, California. Sitting at the back of the room as the opener plays. They are called Fruition. They are friends of our drummer Tyler's (he plays with them sometimes, including tonight) and they happened to be down here recording, so they asked today if they could play a set before us. One of their singer/guitar players is named Jake, and he's from Tyler's hometown, so we've seen him several times over the years in various bands and whatnot. He's a talented guy. I don't know anything about his situation, but I assume unless he's dealing drugs or has an inheritance or something then he's probably living below what many people would consider the poverty line. (Again, I don't know about him personally, but that's the norm for people pursuing music the way he is). But he's going after it, and every single time I hear him, he's better. He's always been a good musician, but he's become a great musician/singer. But more than that, he's becoming an artist.
What it really makes me think about is how beautiful, regal, powerful live music is. We saw a band on tour this summer called Alice Potter & The Nocturnals. (Maybe Grace Potter? something like that). They were almost like a 60's tribute band (Woodstock era 60's, not Beach Boys). Not covers, original music, I just mean style-wise. But whatever, holy shit were they good. Blow you away good. Heard her on the satellite radio the other day, and it wasn't quite the same. But live? They have it going on in abundance. All of which is an aside as well, by the way. (Maybe blogs are, in the main, just one big aside).
The most powerful thing by far, of course, is going to see an artist who you love, whose songs resonate. I don't go to live concerts that much, in part because it's so emotionally draining to hear live performances of multiple songs that mean a lot to you. In succession. Over a short period. In a communal setting. But even though I have felt near destroyed after more than a few concerts, I can see from a distance that it's a good destruction.
We do have tickets, almost by accident, for U2 coming up. I think I can get through that one rather intact, tho.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Bad Calls Gone Good
http://www.pokerhandreplays.com/view.php/id/850646
Actually, I don’t even know if it’s a bad call. I just know that if I take this line I am paying off a lot and kind of flying in the dark. Maybe that’s fine, but I don’t really feel like it’s a good line overall. Maybe bet/call turn is better.
The thinking, for what it’s worth, is by c/c’ing the turn I put some bluffs in his range (if he was floating the flop, he’s definitely bluffing this turn) and allow myself a chance to hit my 10-outer when he does have the flush.
I was inclined to fold the river, but I just thought I’d seemed so weak that his range was not necessarily that polarized. I wasn’t only beating bluffs. He could be value betting his two pair type hands or even a rivered top pair, if he’s inclined to VB thin. Which I believe he probably is.
Yet c/c’ing two streets just seems bad. I dunno. Poker is hard.
Actually, I don’t even know if it’s a bad call. I just know that if I take this line I am paying off a lot and kind of flying in the dark. Maybe that’s fine, but I don’t really feel like it’s a good line overall. Maybe bet/call turn is better.
The thinking, for what it’s worth, is by c/c’ing the turn I put some bluffs in his range (if he was floating the flop, he’s definitely bluffing this turn) and allow myself a chance to hit my 10-outer when he does have the flush.
I was inclined to fold the river, but I just thought I’d seemed so weak that his range was not necessarily that polarized. I wasn’t only beating bluffs. He could be value betting his two pair type hands or even a rivered top pair, if he’s inclined to VB thin. Which I believe he probably is.
Yet c/c’ing two streets just seems bad. I dunno. Poker is hard.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Lucky Rivers
I used to feel somewhat guilty when I sucked out. That passed a long time ago. Now I kinda like it. Which flies in the face, I suppose, of Willinnewhaven’s advice to not care about results. But I don’t think I like it specifically because I dragged the pot (although you would imagine that’s a factor). It’s more because it helps take the edge off when it happens the other way. Like, ‘look, ma, I’m not cursed! I can get lucky too’.
In this one I think villain donks with any K, and will have a hard time letting it go. He obv looks committed on the turn, which he probably was even without improving but as it turns out he was not only committed but ahead. (Yeah, the overbet is a little worrisome, but this particular player I still thought I'd be ahead way more often than not. TP is definitely the stone cold nuts to him).
http://www.pokerhandreplays.com/view.php/id/845592
When I click it back in the next hand and he shoves I’m like 95% sure I’m good. Oh well. Saved by the turn (just realized that means blog title doesn't work -- too late to change it now).
http://www.pokerhandreplays.com/view.php/id/845594
Speaking of click it back, I really can’t say enough about how well it works as a value line. And the beauty is, you can also mix in bluffs because if your opponent has absolutely nothing it’s still hard for him to continue. So even if someone has been paying attention enough to see me do it a few times, I think my range is polarized in a way that makes it tough to counter. With 24 tables going these days, I’m sure I am not putting good regs to many tough decisions, so any relatively simple way to get a bit tricker is a good thing.
But anyway, villain here actually has reasonable TAGish stats (despite the not very TAGgy preflop call). I guess he just won’t stand for being min three bet post flop.
Boise DoubleTree
First, the ridiculously long hallways. Who are they kidding? What are they compensating for? And they don't have wireless internet in the rooms. Come on, be reasonable. It's two thousand and fucking nine. Even Super 8's all have wireless internet. The Super 8's in, like, Alaska all have wireless internet.
I remember, as children, we would go down to Seattle to watch the Mariners, and we would stay at the DoubleTree in Bellevue. Man, that was a snazzy hotel. They didn't have wireless internet, cause it hadn't been invented yet, but I have every confidence that, if it had existed, the Bellevue DoubleTree would have had it. If the Bellevue DoubleTree of the 80's could see the Boise DoubleTree of today, it would be chagrined. Of this I am certain.
No More Results
I've decided I will no longer post poker results in this blog. I don't think I have posted results that much, anyway, but I am going to make a total point of not commenting on big winning or losing sessions. There are a number of reasons for this decision. Here are a few of them:
- there's a guy in the cardplayer forums right now (as there often is) going off about how terrible he's been running. he sounds like a complete idiot who does not understand the first thing about poker. i do not want to be that guy.
- i aint superstitious, but nothing brings on a doomswitch quicker than a brag session. even if it's just in my head, something seems to go wrong as soon as i say it's going right.
- it's kind of garish to talk about how much you make in general, why talk about in poker?
- the 'results' posts don't paint an accurate picture of how things are going anyway, as I tend to post more about it when variance is punishing me than when it's going swimmingly.
- too many posts that start 'i'm running bad', or, 'i'm on a heater' gets old. i'd like to post more about specific hands, or at least strategies and approaches. the occasional variance blog is okay, cause it's obviously a huge part of poker and it really does blow my feeble little mind fairly regularly, but it shouldn't make up the majority of my poker blogs.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Glee Sucks
A great TV series is a wondrous gift to the world. You get yourself the DVD's, and like once a year you can watch the whole damn thing again. If you are a frequent traveler, it's just about the best thing imaginable.
So I get excited when people get excited about a TV show. And the critics definitely seem to be excited about the new show 'Glee'. Which is odd. Cause it sucks.
I can see why people want to like it. I can see the potential. But it's just not funny. And nobody's likable. And the plot is a snorefest. And quirky <> fun. Not automatically. And Jane Lynch already did what she's doing now. In about 15 movies. Each one of which was better than this. And the whole 'no laugh track' thing would be better if I was laughing at home. Preferably on the outside, but I'd take even a slight inner feeling of bemusement.
Maybe it'll get better, it's my solemn wish that it does. But considering it's apparently already great, I'm not optimistic.
Poker On The Mac
Yeah, fuck it. I'm done with VMWare Fusion, and the bullshit Windows on the Mac. I downloaded a free trial of Poker CoPilot, and I fired up PokerStars in the Mac OS. And suddenly, magically, everything runs smooth.
I messed around for a while just 4-tabling. That was fun, it'd been quite a while and I was almost shocked how different an experience it is after a couple months of as many tables as the computer can handle. But after a while I just said screw it, got 'er up to 24 tables, and there was nary a lag to be found. Very encouraging, cause I feel like I'll be able to play 24 tables on the road (when there's good internet at least). And also, though I didn't play that long, I didn't find 24 tables to be much harder than the 16 I'd gotten used to playing.
Poker CoPilot would be an amazing program if it was three or so years ago. But compared to the level HEM has gotten to, it's pretty weak. There's only maybe 15 or so stats total. But the HUD works great (it's actually maybe a little simpler, in a good way, like to use, than it's far more developed PC equivalents). And it tracks your sessions great. Apparently it can slow down quite a bit as the database fills up with hands, which given the amount I play will be an issue. But realistically, if PokerTracker 3 comes through with it's promise to release a Mac version in the fall, I won't be on Poker CoPilot that long anyway.
The biggest problem by far with poker on the Mac is the lack of an AHK, Table Ninja-like program. It's really hard to join tables while keeping the other ~20 going (which Table Ninja automates, of course). And you don't realize how much the hot keys help, instead of having to click the mouse for every single action, until you don't have them. But even if it's far from ideal, it's a bazillion times better than all the freeze-ups and lag folds I was getting with increasing regularity. Plus, I just read about an AHK program being developed for PokerStars on the Mac. If it's halfway-decent, then even that problem is solved.
Shoulda just switched over to playing in the MacOS a long time ago.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Elevator
Got in the elevator this afternoon and there were already four people on it. It was kind of awkward. You know the way elevators can be.
So I felt self-conscious, and just for something to do looked at my watch. Only I wasn't wearing one. But I wasn't looking to really see the time, I was just looking to kill a couple floors. So I didn't immediately clue in that I wasn't wearing one. And by the time I did clue in, I had been looking at my wrist kind of a long time for somebody not wearing a watch. And I kept looking even longer as I considered whether there was some kind of maneuver I could do now that would make it less weird that I was staring at a non-existent watch for several seconds.
I couldn't think of anything, so I just put my wrist back down. Then I pretended to check my iPhone for new email, even though there is no reception in the elevator shaft.
So I felt self-conscious, and just for something to do looked at my watch. Only I wasn't wearing one. But I wasn't looking to really see the time, I was just looking to kill a couple floors. So I didn't immediately clue in that I wasn't wearing one. And by the time I did clue in, I had been looking at my wrist kind of a long time for somebody not wearing a watch. And I kept looking even longer as I considered whether there was some kind of maneuver I could do now that would make it less weird that I was staring at a non-existent watch for several seconds.
I couldn't think of anything, so I just put my wrist back down. Then I pretended to check my iPhone for new email, even though there is no reception in the elevator shaft.
Poker Must Be For Me
I mean, really. If it can go as wrong as it has for the last several days, and I still like playing the game, I must be meant to play.
Okay, first off, the technical issues. Without getting too far into the deets, I've been trying to improve the performance of the laptop for pokerz. It's a Mac running Windows (cause some of the programs I want to use don't run on Mac OS), and it was no problem until I got into mass tabling. It starts freaking out anywhere between 12-16 tables, which is pretty frustrating. So I found this guy who can do some technical whatnots to make it run better, but we've been hitting snag after snag. I don't want to write seventeen paragraphs about this (though I could), but it has been terrible. Every time I think it's solved, something else pops up. And because I've been trying to test it, I've been pushing it to the edge and as a result have had a couple crashes and several mass-table timeout piss offs. Nothing worse than a 70/40 open shoving into my flopped top set, and I can't fucking call cause the computer's losing its mind. I try to convince myself his backdoor flush draw was gonna get there, but it's cold comfort. I'm not sure how much $ I've lost to this shit, but its more than a little for sure.
I am going to have my brand spanking new PC on Wednesday, and it will help immeasurably. But I still gotta figure out something with the laptop. I've been considering just biting the bullet and buying a PC laptop, they're pretty cheap, but I really want to keep the Mac as my main computer (cause Apple is A#1), and I don't want to travel with two laptops. So I'm holding out. Maybe my tech guy will come up with something, or maybe Poker Tracker will finally come through with the Mac version they say is around the bend and I won't need to run windows. We'll see...
Another new development lately is an inordinate amount of misclicks. I'm not talking about the brain fart type misclick. I'm talking about literally my finger is in the wrong spot or I accidentally click the mouse as it's over the button I did not want. I'm pretty sure it's been because I'm trying to deal with the tech stuff at the same time, so I've been popping in and out of the game. Can't remember it really happening before, but this week it's probably cost me cumulatively a couple buy-ins.
Now, the actual game play? Well, that's been easily worse than the technical issues. Again, there's no point going on and on about how bad I've been running. Nobody cares but me, and I already know. But you probably stopped reading long ago, so it's okay if I indulge myself. I know the memory is selective, but I am fairly certain I have never run like this. So many coolers. For example, I just double checked, and I ran AK into AA six times today. Overall just a real smorgasbord of ways to lose. The poker gods have been downright artistic.
For sure the most frustrated I've ever been with how the cards are falling, but I'm not really disheartened overall. Not the way downswings have gotten to me in the past. I mean, don't get me wrong, it really really sucks. Just a few short days ago I was eyeing mixing some 200NL into the sessions, and suddenly I'm back playing 50NL. That blows. But at this point I know these swings are inevitable, and while I'm certainly not guaranteed one going the other way, if I keep putting in the hands odds are I'll eventually get boom switched. Until then, the only real problem is that it's slower collecting VPP's at 50NL. Cause I wasn't counting on the actual gameplay money anyway. I might have to put in more time to get the same bonuses, but I will still get there. And, knock on wood, I won't be at 50NL long enough for it to have much impact at all. But we'll see.
Interestingly, reviewing my last session right now, I only stacked an opponent twice, and I got stacked six times. And of those eight hands total, the two I won were quite clearly the ones I played the worst. Not quite enough evidence to try a George Constanza style opposite approach, but still...
Okay, first off, the technical issues. Without getting too far into the deets, I've been trying to improve the performance of the laptop for pokerz. It's a Mac running Windows (cause some of the programs I want to use don't run on Mac OS), and it was no problem until I got into mass tabling. It starts freaking out anywhere between 12-16 tables, which is pretty frustrating. So I found this guy who can do some technical whatnots to make it run better, but we've been hitting snag after snag. I don't want to write seventeen paragraphs about this (though I could), but it has been terrible. Every time I think it's solved, something else pops up. And because I've been trying to test it, I've been pushing it to the edge and as a result have had a couple crashes and several mass-table timeout piss offs. Nothing worse than a 70/40 open shoving into my flopped top set, and I can't fucking call cause the computer's losing its mind. I try to convince myself his backdoor flush draw was gonna get there, but it's cold comfort. I'm not sure how much $ I've lost to this shit, but its more than a little for sure.
I am going to have my brand spanking new PC on Wednesday, and it will help immeasurably. But I still gotta figure out something with the laptop. I've been considering just biting the bullet and buying a PC laptop, they're pretty cheap, but I really want to keep the Mac as my main computer (cause Apple is A#1), and I don't want to travel with two laptops. So I'm holding out. Maybe my tech guy will come up with something, or maybe Poker Tracker will finally come through with the Mac version they say is around the bend and I won't need to run windows. We'll see...
Another new development lately is an inordinate amount of misclicks. I'm not talking about the brain fart type misclick. I'm talking about literally my finger is in the wrong spot or I accidentally click the mouse as it's over the button I did not want. I'm pretty sure it's been because I'm trying to deal with the tech stuff at the same time, so I've been popping in and out of the game. Can't remember it really happening before, but this week it's probably cost me cumulatively a couple buy-ins.
Now, the actual game play? Well, that's been easily worse than the technical issues. Again, there's no point going on and on about how bad I've been running. Nobody cares but me, and I already know. But you probably stopped reading long ago, so it's okay if I indulge myself. I know the memory is selective, but I am fairly certain I have never run like this. So many coolers. For example, I just double checked, and I ran AK into AA six times today. Overall just a real smorgasbord of ways to lose. The poker gods have been downright artistic.
For sure the most frustrated I've ever been with how the cards are falling, but I'm not really disheartened overall. Not the way downswings have gotten to me in the past. I mean, don't get me wrong, it really really sucks. Just a few short days ago I was eyeing mixing some 200NL into the sessions, and suddenly I'm back playing 50NL. That blows. But at this point I know these swings are inevitable, and while I'm certainly not guaranteed one going the other way, if I keep putting in the hands odds are I'll eventually get boom switched. Until then, the only real problem is that it's slower collecting VPP's at 50NL. Cause I wasn't counting on the actual gameplay money anyway. I might have to put in more time to get the same bonuses, but I will still get there. And, knock on wood, I won't be at 50NL long enough for it to have much impact at all. But we'll see.
Interestingly, reviewing my last session right now, I only stacked an opponent twice, and I got stacked six times. And of those eight hands total, the two I won were quite clearly the ones I played the worst. Not quite enough evidence to try a George Constanza style opposite approach, but still...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)