peterbirks (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
peterbirks) wrote2006-05-14 01:12 am
peterbirks) wrote2006-05-14 01:12 am
Entry tags:
This is how it feels to be lonely
Yes, if in doubt, put the Inspiral Carpets on the CD player.
It's been a bad bad run since Wednesday. One flaw that I have when playing at these levels is that if I am stuck and it is a good game (i.e., the opposition is weak), then I play too long. Usually I get some of my money back, but I also have a life, and I shouldn't waste seven hours of my Saturday nights sitting in a game just because it is good. I should live a life as well. This is bad for work-life balance.
Nearly all of this bad run is down to variance, which can be far worse in loose fishy games. And, of course, it (the variance) chooses to arrive just as I decide to move up in stakes (ain't it always the way?) so an awful lot of hard work gets wiped out in a very short time.
Notwithstanding that, the games remain weak and I only have to stay calm and, eventually, things will come right.
I think that this is one of the reasons that I play less live poker. At least when things like this happen and (let's take one example here) your two opponents, with AQ and QT against your AK on a board of KQ54 and a pot of $120, hit the case queen on the river, then you can scream abuse at the screen (and, somehow, refrain from typing into the chat box "you fucking morons!" which is, of course, what you want to type) while typing "nice one" into the chat box.
I've kicked a few chairs in the past couple of days, I can tell you.
As Iggy wrote just this week, a bad run at poker is a dark and lonely place. I'm not sure if being married or having a girlfriend would be any help, since doubtless they want to hear your bad beat stories even less than the barman does. You just have to cope with it the best ways you can.
Amazingly, I'm not that downbeat about it at the moment, the second that I get up from the table. I just wish that I had the courage to walk away from the game even though it is good. The problem is, good $5-$10 games don't grow on trees. In a way, you are a prisoner of your own higher stakes. As Terrence Chan said a couple of weeks ago, every minute that you are not playing, the money is flowing from weaker players to stronger players (well, that's the theory). When the weaker players are luck-boxing their way into flush after flush, you feel even more obliged to remain at the table, thus fucking up your sleep patterns and shitting you off when it comes to other poker players, whom you basically come to hate with a passion.
There's a player at $2-$4 on Virgin called Shouka, a cheating Danish cunt (as in, deliberate all-in expert) who probably scrapes an existence two-tabling. Anyway, Shouka hates other poker players even more than I do, and he is a poor enough player to put this into the text box, abusing any fish who happens to get anything more than a 10-outer on him. Every time I see his name, I say to myself, please lord, don't let me become like him, a kind of Gollum guarding his $2-$4 ring tables, hating them and loving them at the same time.
In a way, I felt a bit like that at the $5-$10 table tonight (there was only one running). Social player after social player came with a short stack, lost it to someone else, and went. Then some other social player sat down and slaughtered me hand after hand. These things happen. You have to shrug your shoulders. But what you shouldn't do is stay later than you otherwise would. It's not a matter of "trying to get even"; I don't think like that. As Caro wrote, "you already ARE even". No, it's a matter of being down and knowing that you have a positive EV in the game. If I had been a couple of hundred up I would have called it a night at about eleven and done what I should have done anyway -- gone to bed. But because I was four hundred or so down, I carried on. OK, I got back to $300 down for the night. Big deal. I became a slave to the good game, something which I swore I would stop doing. I should rule poker, not the other way round.
This, then, is another of the problems of $5-$10, beyond the necessary desensitization. Even if I can shrug off the losses (and I seem to be coping with the last four days of horrors on currencies, the stockmarkets and poker with remarkable equanimity when you consider what a long way into four figures the combined losses are) I find the game taking me over again; something which I had all but eliminated at $2-$4. So, we have another task. Not just desensitization, but also a kind of indifference is necessary. My life MUST come first, not my poker.
About three years ago I played my first $3-$6, moving up from the heady heights of $2-$4. One Saturday I two-tabled on Paradise from 8am to 2am, finishing up about $5 to the good. I swore that I would never ever do anything like that again. I felt that I had utterly wasted a valuable day of my life, moving 24 hours closer to death without taking my eyes from computer monitor. Because, and herein lies part of the problem, when you are not winning at poker, it isn't very enjoyable. In fact, it's a grinding slog. Luckily, it isn't my living, so I can, and indeed I should, stop myself playing anything approaching a marathon session that tires me out, leaves me grouchy, and wastes my weekend.
But, well, for the last two nights, that is exactly what I have done. And, until I can make $5-$10 an irelevant stake level in my head, it's probably what I will carry on doing.
Especially since I'm now nearly a grand behind my schedule for the year, so I have to play more if I want to catch up. Fuck it.
++++++++++
I forgot that the FA Cup Final was on today. I slept for two hours this afternoon (because I stayed up playing until 2am last night in TWO "good" $5-$10 games) and woke up with just 15 minutes to go in the game. I idly watched it until the final penalty, reading the papers at the same time. That's about all I've done today apart from play poker and clean up the house. I haven't been outside except to buy the newspapers. I didn't go outside yesterday either, except to go to Tesco's. Oh, I tell a lie. I did. I took the car to be mended. But it's hardly what could be called a life, is it.
++++++++++
Because there was only one decent game on Virgin, I fired up a 12c-25c ($25 max buy-in) table at No Limit and played Chris Ferguson style with a $5 stake. I all-inned with JJ from the small blind, eliciting folds from the BB and two limpers. Then I got to see a flop for free from the BB and flopped a straight. I all-inned and got called by TPTK, thus doubling through to $10.60, at which point I left (50 hands played). About half an hour later I sat down with $5 again at another 12c-25c table. This time my all-in with AA from under the gun got no callers, and my AKs all-in was called by JJ. The JJ won. I rebought and ended up leaving that game with a $5.09. Gain for the two hours played, 69 cents. Nominal bankroll for No limit games, $50.69. If it ever gets up to $100, I shall move up to $50 max buy ins and I shall sit down with $10, adopting roughly similar tactics.
On the plus side, at least it's relaxing and fun, which I suppose is what poker is meant to be and what it was for me in a long and distant past, rather than the hard work it feels like today as I strive to beat last year's win and look for ways to increase my profits to a level that will pay for a car, a new house and the conversion of this one.
Whatever happened to the times when all that I wanted my winnings to do was to pay for my holiday?
____________________
It's been a bad bad run since Wednesday. One flaw that I have when playing at these levels is that if I am stuck and it is a good game (i.e., the opposition is weak), then I play too long. Usually I get some of my money back, but I also have a life, and I shouldn't waste seven hours of my Saturday nights sitting in a game just because it is good. I should live a life as well. This is bad for work-life balance.
Nearly all of this bad run is down to variance, which can be far worse in loose fishy games. And, of course, it (the variance) chooses to arrive just as I decide to move up in stakes (ain't it always the way?) so an awful lot of hard work gets wiped out in a very short time.
Notwithstanding that, the games remain weak and I only have to stay calm and, eventually, things will come right.
I think that this is one of the reasons that I play less live poker. At least when things like this happen and (let's take one example here) your two opponents, with AQ and QT against your AK on a board of KQ54 and a pot of $120, hit the case queen on the river, then you can scream abuse at the screen (and, somehow, refrain from typing into the chat box "you fucking morons!" which is, of course, what you want to type) while typing "nice one" into the chat box.
I've kicked a few chairs in the past couple of days, I can tell you.
As Iggy wrote just this week, a bad run at poker is a dark and lonely place. I'm not sure if being married or having a girlfriend would be any help, since doubtless they want to hear your bad beat stories even less than the barman does. You just have to cope with it the best ways you can.
Amazingly, I'm not that downbeat about it at the moment, the second that I get up from the table. I just wish that I had the courage to walk away from the game even though it is good. The problem is, good $5-$10 games don't grow on trees. In a way, you are a prisoner of your own higher stakes. As Terrence Chan said a couple of weeks ago, every minute that you are not playing, the money is flowing from weaker players to stronger players (well, that's the theory). When the weaker players are luck-boxing their way into flush after flush, you feel even more obliged to remain at the table, thus fucking up your sleep patterns and shitting you off when it comes to other poker players, whom you basically come to hate with a passion.
There's a player at $2-$4 on Virgin called Shouka, a cheating Danish cunt (as in, deliberate all-in expert) who probably scrapes an existence two-tabling. Anyway, Shouka hates other poker players even more than I do, and he is a poor enough player to put this into the text box, abusing any fish who happens to get anything more than a 10-outer on him. Every time I see his name, I say to myself, please lord, don't let me become like him, a kind of Gollum guarding his $2-$4 ring tables, hating them and loving them at the same time.
In a way, I felt a bit like that at the $5-$10 table tonight (there was only one running). Social player after social player came with a short stack, lost it to someone else, and went. Then some other social player sat down and slaughtered me hand after hand. These things happen. You have to shrug your shoulders. But what you shouldn't do is stay later than you otherwise would. It's not a matter of "trying to get even"; I don't think like that. As Caro wrote, "you already ARE even". No, it's a matter of being down and knowing that you have a positive EV in the game. If I had been a couple of hundred up I would have called it a night at about eleven and done what I should have done anyway -- gone to bed. But because I was four hundred or so down, I carried on. OK, I got back to $300 down for the night. Big deal. I became a slave to the good game, something which I swore I would stop doing. I should rule poker, not the other way round.
This, then, is another of the problems of $5-$10, beyond the necessary desensitization. Even if I can shrug off the losses (and I seem to be coping with the last four days of horrors on currencies, the stockmarkets and poker with remarkable equanimity when you consider what a long way into four figures the combined losses are) I find the game taking me over again; something which I had all but eliminated at $2-$4. So, we have another task. Not just desensitization, but also a kind of indifference is necessary. My life MUST come first, not my poker.
About three years ago I played my first $3-$6, moving up from the heady heights of $2-$4. One Saturday I two-tabled on Paradise from 8am to 2am, finishing up about $5 to the good. I swore that I would never ever do anything like that again. I felt that I had utterly wasted a valuable day of my life, moving 24 hours closer to death without taking my eyes from computer monitor. Because, and herein lies part of the problem, when you are not winning at poker, it isn't very enjoyable. In fact, it's a grinding slog. Luckily, it isn't my living, so I can, and indeed I should, stop myself playing anything approaching a marathon session that tires me out, leaves me grouchy, and wastes my weekend.
But, well, for the last two nights, that is exactly what I have done. And, until I can make $5-$10 an irelevant stake level in my head, it's probably what I will carry on doing.
Especially since I'm now nearly a grand behind my schedule for the year, so I have to play more if I want to catch up. Fuck it.
++++++++++
I forgot that the FA Cup Final was on today. I slept for two hours this afternoon (because I stayed up playing until 2am last night in TWO "good" $5-$10 games) and woke up with just 15 minutes to go in the game. I idly watched it until the final penalty, reading the papers at the same time. That's about all I've done today apart from play poker and clean up the house. I haven't been outside except to buy the newspapers. I didn't go outside yesterday either, except to go to Tesco's. Oh, I tell a lie. I did. I took the car to be mended. But it's hardly what could be called a life, is it.
++++++++++
Because there was only one decent game on Virgin, I fired up a 12c-25c ($25 max buy-in) table at No Limit and played Chris Ferguson style with a $5 stake. I all-inned with JJ from the small blind, eliciting folds from the BB and two limpers. Then I got to see a flop for free from the BB and flopped a straight. I all-inned and got called by TPTK, thus doubling through to $10.60, at which point I left (50 hands played). About half an hour later I sat down with $5 again at another 12c-25c table. This time my all-in with AA from under the gun got no callers, and my AKs all-in was called by JJ. The JJ won. I rebought and ended up leaving that game with a $5.09. Gain for the two hours played, 69 cents. Nominal bankroll for No limit games, $50.69. If it ever gets up to $100, I shall move up to $50 max buy ins and I shall sit down with $10, adopting roughly similar tactics.
On the plus side, at least it's relaxing and fun, which I suppose is what poker is meant to be and what it was for me in a long and distant past, rather than the hard work it feels like today as I strive to beat last year's win and look for ways to increase my profits to a level that will pay for a car, a new house and the conversion of this one.
Whatever happened to the times when all that I wanted my winnings to do was to pay for my holiday?
____________________
Leaving a Good Game
(Anonymous) 2006-05-14 06:05 am (UTC)(link)Sorry to hear about the bad run. But there are a couple very good reasons to leave a good table that have nothing to do with bankroll management. The first is that you might likely have a bad seat with relation to a couple other players who are frustrating your strategy. In this regards for instance, having just passive players after you who call/suck_the_deck_along means you can't often checkraise to narrow the field when you need to. Also of course, having a very aggressive player to your left often means he is open stealing in late position preflop when you would like to, and that you are in the position of calling his bets before seeing how others react to same. So if this is the case, then by all means just get up and maybe put yourself back on the list, even if it is long, and try to get a better seat.
The second reason is simply that when you are seen not running well, then other players don't respect your bets and raises as much, which means it is harder to steal and semi-bluff when you need to. When you are running well however, and showing down good hands, then they respect you more and you can take down more pots uncontested when you need to.
Also I would like to mention again, that you should definitely get over your fear of the party/neteller thing and fix that situation. That is where so many better games are and you simply can't afford to be in the position of not being able to move money there when you need to through neteller to be able to play 5/10 with the already bad/tighter times of day you have to contend with in relation to american playing hours. So just call or email party and tell them you once had another account linked to neteller and now want to link your current one to neteller. They will just be happy to do so from everything I have read on 2+2 as I have mentioned in the past. MAKE THE CALL NOW!
Good luck and good skill,
BluffTHIS!
Re: Leaving a Good Game
1) Position in that game. You are right. Although the personnel changed constantly, I had a succession of loose-passive calling stations on my immediate left and in the seat after. This doesn't make the game "bad" as such, and the mass of calls on the flop when you are winning with top pair good kicker do mean that you have to be lucky. But when you win a pot it makes up for a lot of suck-outs against you. This was how it ran yesterday. Shrink to $200 down over an hour's play, win a pot to get back to even. Shrink to $300 down over 90 minutes, win two pots to get $50 up. Shrink to $400 down over two hours, win a pot to get back to $200 down. Shrink a bit. Go to bed at 2am. This probably makes for a variance of 20 big bets an hour. It also takes a while to adjust your style to what I'll call "the Bellagio daytime $4-$8 style" where a single raise makes no difference and an attempt at a check-raise (which probably wouldn't make any difference anyway) gets six callers. YOu are then tempted to bet out middle pair from the SB, only for top pair bad kicker to call you from last position.
This "won't bet, won't fold" kind of player is remarkably common in low-limit live games, but he's an unusual anaimal in online $5-$10.
I think my expected earn on Virgin in this kind of game (depending on my seat) varies from $10 to $30 per 50 hands -- it's that weak. Other players welcome to join. You can skin the fish and then I will skin you. That's the way it normally works. :-)
PJ
2) Perception of you by other players. I don't think that this made much difference. They played that way against each other and against the winning "good" players (not that I saw many of these) as well. I also reload my stack subtly, so only the observant players would see that my stack was not increasing in size thtough my winning pots, but through replenishment.
In other words, your points are accurate, as usual, but were not a factor in this case. I was +EV for the game, but I should have left anyway.
3) Party: I'm still playing $5-$10 there (I have one last bad session left before I retire hurt again) despite losing just over $500 in three days on that site alone. I'd run my roll up there nicely to not far off $2,000. But you are right, I might as well sort out the Neteller thing. I have a pile of papers to sort out for tax year 05/06 (runs through to April 5 in this country) so I can make that part of my "sort things out financially".
4) More Party: I suggest that you take a look at the $5-$10 limit games again, just a brief look. Tell me what you think and whether my perception that they are far less attractive than they were just a year ago is correct. I'm playing there now and there was only one game at $5-$10 averaging more than $70, with three or four hovering from $64 to $69. The VPIP looks to be in the 21% to 25% range
no subject
(Anonymous) 2006-05-14 07:49 am (UTC)(link)It's nice for you that you have some spare cash. However, if I spent as many hours working as you spend on your job and your poker combined, then no doubt I'd have spare cash too.
I'm not that keen on my job and I'd be delighted to stop doing it if I could afford to; but from your description I don't think I'd enjoy playing poker either. And I probably wouldn't even make money at it as you manage to do. If you want to make money at poker, I'm sure it helps to be interested in the game.
As you seem to have enough money for your needs, the obvious solution would seem to be to cut down on your poker playing somewhat and try to find ways of enjoying it more. But these things become addictive and I understand that it's very hard to pursue an addiction in moderation.
I still play Civ from time to time although the game is far too long, grossly unrealistic, and gets very dreary in its later stages. I don't know why computer games are always so long and involve so much tedious micromanagement. It's hard to escape drudgery even when playing games... Sigh.
-- Jonathan
Re: Leaving a Good Game
(Anonymous) 2006-05-14 08:08 am (UTC)(link)Those kind of passive calling stations, who never raise to let you know whether you are beat or just being called in position with bottom pair or a draw are frustrating, but you just have to play ABC poker with them and value bet their asses off when you have the goods. And when you do bet middle pair and get called, you often just have to check and sometimes fold the winner to someone with position betting a worse hand on the turn when the bet increases.
The fluctuations you mention are normal as you say, you get down $300 and then win some pots and are up $50, or about what you expect for an hourly rate in bets/hour or 100. The thing to do in evaluating your play though is to examine how often you are putting money in on the turn and river when the bet size increases, and especially out of position, with more marginal hands and see whether you should be folding in some spots earlier and toning down the aggression, or the opposite of representing more strength by checkraising the turn and leading non-threatening rivers (assuming they can fold marginal but better hands).
I was still online now (3:50a EDT) and did check the 5/10 list on party. You know I have said in the past I regard a good game as a 7 big bet average, but let's say 6.5. 9 tables met that criteria, although only 3 of them were full ring. Although since I don't play limit at any stakes, I don't really have a baseline to judge by, but from everything I have read on 2+2 the games certainly have seemed to tightend. And a large part of this seems to be the growing prevalance and popularity of 6-max tables, which of course often means the FR tables are populated by even more rocks. I like 6-max in both NL and plo (although party got rid of 6-max in plo with latest change), and would certainly prefer it if I played limit. Of course you have to be more aggressive with more marginal holdings, while avoiding the tipping point of going too far, and the variance will be higher. But if you can play 6-max very well, then your win rate should be higher as well with more hands per hour. But it is a different animal and you can't think A6s is suddenly a huge hand utg just because it is 6-max.
Since the games do not indeed seem to be as good as a year ago, and since you are forced to play at the worst times, it is even more imperative to have an ongoing systematic plan to evaluate your play and constantly improve. When you sit at your normal tables, I suspect that of the 10 players (9 on stars if like big bet?), then 3 will be good winning players, and the rest losers or only marginal winners. So you need to be one of those 3. Also, I think it is imperative that you constanly are reviewing the table list and signing up for new tables so as not to suddenly find yourself on 3 or 4 tables at the bottom of the list as the losers slowly leave. Of course this is a cycle, that goes back and forth, but you need to be putting yourself on the best tables and leaving those that have cooled down.
Bluff
no subject
Yes, at least I'm not addicted to World of Warcraft :-)
Apparently Project Entropia now has a debit card and its currency can be converted into real cash at an exchange rate. Looks to me that this could be a neat way to play an enjoyable game and make a million dollars.
In fact the whole system is reminiscent of the old and long defunct "Apple World", which was just ahead of its time. It's a games-playing world, but one with real stores. And the "players" can own the stores. Magic.
You are absolutely right; the logical thing for me to do (and the thing which would probably generate the most short-term happiness) would be for me to quit poker, quit work and sell the flat. I could then bank a lot of money, and bum around the world to my heart's content until I died.
The problem is that I am the opposite of "the other man's grass is always greener". This leads to too much inertia and commitment-phobia. I sit back and say "just five years more ... you'll be a long-time retired".
So, in a sense, this (relative) unhappiness, which is a far less unhappy state than I was from 1990 to 1995, is deferred gratification. A bit of a bummer if I walk under a bus tomorrow, I know, but, well, life's a gamble.
I'm now going to get up from the computer and do something socially useful, like, er, hoover and roast a chicken for my sandwiches this week.
PJ
Re: Leaving a Good Game
1) I've been considering 6-max very very seriously. My previous prejudice against it was that "bad" players make plays at 6-max which would be errors in ring games, but are less so in 6-max (this point is mentioned by Sklansky or Malmuth or one of those lot). However, thinking on this again, this is specious reasoning on my part. I play limit rather than NL because weaker players go broke less quickly. Just because the bad players in 6-max make some good plays by mistake (as it were) doesn't mean that they won't go broke eventually. In other words, the high variance is an ally, not an enemy.
2) The major error that most players make in 6-max is that they over-compensate for the fact that it is short-handed. I've been watching this.
3) If I shifted to 6-max (and I have dabbled at it at 50c-$1) it would probably be at $2-$4 for a while.
4) Collusion is a bigger potential problem (although less so at these low stakes).
5) It would be a long-term commitment (hence my hesitancy to make the jump). At the moment I can still find the loose-enough ring games and I am not so prejudiced against games with three rocks, three good players and two slightly looser-passive players (say, 30%/3% preflop).
++++++++++
On a final note, my volatility appears to be going through the roof at the moment, for reasons that are hard to fathom. In a 90-minute session on Party (just finished) I went $400 down an hour and finished $50 up. Part of this was undoubtedly due to the fact that people were willing to give me action because I was perceived to be "running bad". Indeed I was getting lots of AK and AQ and I was having to give up a lot of them on the turn. But then I started hitting and the players now tried to put in raises on the turn with a flush draw and an ace, only to be smacked with a three-bet from my TPTK.
In this sense, the "running bad" image is a two-edged sword. You lose a lot of fold equity, but you win a lot more when the cards run good.
I may commit myself to 6-table max on one poker site, perhaps a new one (for me). At least it would be an interesting project.
PJ
Meta Game Again
(Anonymous) 2006-05-14 09:00 am (UTC)(link)gl
Dave D
Re: Meta Game Again
I agree; the ability to stay in a good game is an incredibly significant part of making a profit. But at what opportunity cost? As you say, it's a metagame factor.
Suppose I am in a very good game. Where would you draw the line?
1) Staying up an hour later than usual because I don't have to be up early in the morning.
2) Staying up an hour later than usual even though I do have to be up early in the morning.
3) Not doing the house-cleaning (or some other necessary but unenjoyable task) because the game is good.
4) Missing an appointment (or some other necessary, but enjoyable, albeit non-remunaritive, task) because the game is good.
5) Standing up the girlfriend.
I think that everyone has their own line to draw and everyone has an opinion on where the line should be drawn (and, as can be seen above, we don't necessarily follow our own principles!). I would hesitate to say that someone has "got it wrong" because they play for a set four hours a day and then leave, even if the game is good. However, I would most definitely say that they had got it wrong if they left when they were a certain amount ahead, even if the game was good. In that sense, I don't think that the pair of attitudes are, as you claim, equally wrong-headed.
On that point, I would be less condemning of someone who had a rigid stop-loss principle, no matter how good the game, for reasons elucidated by Bluff and John Fox.
PJ
Re: Meta Game Again
PJ
Dusty chickens in London?
(Anonymous) 2006-05-14 10:28 am (UTC)(link)I could also sell the house and live for a while without working. But not all that long, really -- bearing in mind that I have a family to support, and after all we have to live somewhere.
I hadn't heard of Project Entropia. I'll look it up. Though it's probably not my kind of thing; few games are.
-- Jonathan
"Ferguson style"?
Where do you pick up the Ferguson NL style from? Is there an online discussion about it anywhere online?
Re: "Ferguson style"?
It was just a bit of short-hand for a low buy-in followed by a push pre-flop strategy. The low buy-in serves both to protect you and to encourage the larger stacks to call because it is rarely more than 20% of their total stack size.
This would be hopeless against any competent player cognizant of what you were doing, but it's a pleasant intellectual experiment.
Actually, I adapted it fairly quickly, throwing in a limp on the button holding 88 because I knew that SB and BB hardly ever raised pre-flop. Missed the eight on flop, turn and river, but still won the pot :-)
PJ
Re: Meta Game Again
(Anonymous) 2006-05-14 08:04 pm (UTC)(link)gl
dd
no subject
It's not, other than that you don't scream so much for fear of waking the kids.
since doubtless they want to hear your bad beat stories even less than the barman does.
You got that right.
Re: "Ferguson style"?
(Anonymous) 2006-05-15 03:25 am (UTC)(link)Obviously this works best when there are limpers or raisers ahead of you so you don't just win the blinds. Also this might work up to like the $200 tables where you are buying in for $40, but I find it hard to believe that the better players you encounter at stakes above that will give you enough action when you play precisely that tight.
Bluff
no subject
That's just a beautiful line.
Re: Neteller & Party
So, I tried to change the account association at Party.
No good. It told me that that e-mail address had already been used.
So I telephoned Party.
The first guy told me that it was impossible. I wouldn't quit.
The second guy (his supervisor) told me that it was impossible. I still wouldn't quit.
I got put through to the transactions department. He asked me to wait 24 hours and by then the Neteller account should be associated with the Conject account.
I reckon that my chance of success there is about 50%, but it's lucky that I'm a stubborn son-of-a-bitch.
Length of phone call, half an hour.
PJ