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.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)