Nov. 27th, 2008

peterbirks: (Default)
I'm excelling myself at the moment. As if it wasn't enough to be told at the weekend (rather gently) that my future was not going to pan out as I had vaguely hoped (but had known better than to expect -- seeing glasses as half-empty had the beneficial side-effect that when things go wrong, at least you are less let-down than you would have been if you were a glass-half-full kind of person) I then got another metaphorical kick in the teeth yesterday. But at least the second one had its funny side (well, it made me laugh, rather than cry). (I'll probably moan at length about the former when the mood takes me, but you are spared that for the moment).

Yesterday I got a phone call from a person with a rather upper-class accent on "a confidential matter". It became clear that this guy was a headhunter and he described the post on offer. It was quite a high-profile role, but not one that I would have thought beyond me. So I said, sure, send me through the job spec and I'll have a look at it. I eagerly anticipated the £70k offer with company car (BMW 6 series would do me, I decided....)

When job spec arrived, the wording was more ambiguous. The headhunter thanked me for being a "source" and the task was termed an "assignment".

This was a bit puzzling. If he wanted me, why phrase it that way? But if he wanted me to find someone for him, why was there no mention of a finder's fee? The headhunting firm would probably be getting little shy of £30k for filling such a role, so I wan't going to do the work for him for diddly-squat. I know that the upper classes think that the world owes them a living, but Mr Birks wouldn't play ball on that one. No sirreee.


So, I e-mailed back querying the ambiguity.

Later in the afternoon an email arrived stating that the request for me to source contacts. However (he continued) "if you feel an overwhelming compulsion to apply for the job yourself, then we would have to meet in my office".

Well, that gave me a little chuckle. Why not just write "don't be stupid, you cunt, you are too old and not sufficiently qualified". Indeed, I mentioned it to Jan, and she said "that's an insult! Tell him what you think of him!"

I'm somewhat more mature and professional than that these days, so I just replied to him that, I thought it through, and, given some of the job spex (I'm restricted by a confidentiality agreement here, so I can't be more specific) ruled out anyone that I knew in my rather small circle of contacts, but wishing him luck with future searches.

As I was on the phone to Jan, bugger me if he didn't e-mail me back, indicating that he was also incapable of taking a hint. I haven't replied to that one yet.

+++++++++++

Just opened my middle drawer on my pedestal to discover that my recently ordered poker books must have been sitting there since last Friday (or possibly the Friday before). Do I start on the sit'n'go strategy from Moshman, on the HU No-Limit Holdem (from Moshman), or on Hansen's "Every Hand Revealed"?

I played some $10 buy-in HU last night against a guy who had accumulated three buy-ins and was still sitting there, so he obviously wasn't rubbish (for the level). I still felt that I got his measure fairly quickly, although my first buy-in vanished after getting it all in on the turn with an overpair and then losing to a five-outer.

It's about 200 hands an hour single-tabling, and I suspect that the standard deviation is about two buy-ins an hour, but it's really hard to pin that down (I played at $5 buy in twice - in one I won $15 in half an hour and in the other I won 19 cents over the same period).

All of this seems to back up my first gut feeling that $25 buy-in single tabling is on a par with $100 buy-in three tabling (or something like that) for hands played and for volatility per hour.

That's a higher degree of difference than I imagined and, I suspect, is the cause of the downfall of many 6-max players moving to heads up. A similar factor hits live players dabbling online. They play $500 buy-ins live and so they single-table $400 online, whereas in fact they should be four-tabling $100 online.

The problem with Heads Up (for me) is that I am not sure I can maintain even my intial attempts at it without giving up full-ring play completely -- the differences are just so great. And full-ring play (or 8-handed) is working well for me at the moment. So, I may keep HU on "the back-burner", playing bits and pieces at v low stakes ($10 buy-in for a while) and getting a feel for the game. Clearly there's a far greater requirement to get into "the flow", and this makes 4-tabling impossible when learning the game. Later you can give up marginal gains to be made from single-tables for a greater EV from multi-tabling, but that would be some time away.

________________

August 2017

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20 212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 04:28 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios