Birks cracks

[peterbirks]

It's no use; I can't make it through to December. I'm going to go out Vegas late September/early October for a 10-day break. Then, if I feel the desire, I'll pop out for a 10-day/two-week break in December. In neither case will I focus too much on serious money-making. I just need a holiday.

I will look to see what the limit hold'em games are like and also have a look at the NL. The major problem with the latter is the boredom and, I suspect, at the $200 buy-ins and below, the serious need to avoid Fancy-Play-Syndrome, because any clever plays will just go straight over most of the players' heads.

I've had a flat few days online but, I'm glad to say, I really feel as if I've been playing well at limit. I've got away from some hands, lost the absolute minimum on others, made some blinding calls and nicked some pots -- all the kind of thing that are a signal that you are near your 'A' game. For example, against a tight player who is not that tricky, I reckon that you do well to lose only 3.5 big bets from the big blind with A9 on a flop of A94 rainbow.

(I checked my big blind, check-raised the flop, called the three-bet, and check-called it down on turn and river. He had 99.)

Lunch today in a group of eight at a local Italian. After about 45 minutes' wait everyone was eating bar me. When I pointed out that my pork fillet hadn't arrived, it was claimed that the waiter thought that I said "buffet". I just said that I wouldn't bother. At which point they said "We will make it complementary". Good stuff. Then again, the company was paying anyway, so I didn't really "win".

Leaving the restaurant, I immediately assumed that I had by some mistake been transported to New Orleans. Looking at MyYahoo, I see that the humiddity is claimed to be a mere 40% and a temperature of 31 (88). Well, that's what you say, Yahoo. My body tells me different.

+++++++

Comments

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

I'm suspicious of that 40% figure, too. I'd put it somewhere in the 60% area. I don't think we ever get to the levels they see in the Southern USA, or maybe it's just worse there because the sun shines from so much higher in the sky or something. I managed a 15-minute walk outside at lunchtime without being drenched in non-evaporating sweat (enduring image, isn't it, hmm?), something that wouldn't have happened when I was in N'Orlins.

Cold seems to be worse here, too. Maybe it's more humid than in some other places? I spent a week in Chicago one January where it was -5F (-20-ish C) and it seemed more tolerable than the zero-ish Centigrade that I'd left behind. Or perhaps it was just because I was in Chicago rather than London. Psychological Chill Factor, anyone?

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Wind chill is the major factor in how you feel the cold (oh, and rain/ice as well, of course). Dead still air in very cold conditions can, I understand, be rather dangerous, because you don't realize that you are getting hypothermia.

I just read a piece in The Guardian this morning about the opposite of hypothermia, when your body temperature goes above 40 degrees or something like that. "Your white cells begin to cook like miniature fried eggs...."

Not a charming thought.

One of the factors which I suspect more fortunate souls in the US might not realise is that London is, wuite simply, not built for this kind of heat. Transport has no air-conditioning; most (well, nearly all) homes have no air-conditioning; most cars have no air-conditioning (not that anyone drives in London anyway) many offices have no air-conditioning, and in those that do, it often breaks down because it isn't designed to deal with temperatures hitting 35 or 36. There is no escape, apart from taking a cold shower every hour, on the hour.

PJ

Monster

[(Anonymous)]

Hi Peter,

I presume you have seen the new Monster tables on party. There is a huge thread in the zoo (Internet Gambling forum) on this. It makes me damn glad I don't play low stakes HE. Although it is incorrect to say it is a rake increase, it is an increase in the cost of play. And it seems that cash games players are being taxed to give overlays to tournament donkeys. Although a lot of posters are leaving party because of this, thus leaving more fish, the higher proportion of fish may not be enough to overcome the additional expense unless you are the best player on the very best tables. Small winners will be turned into breakeven at best.

If you have a copy of Mason Malmuth's Poker Essays #1, there is an article near the beginning discussing the pros and cons of jackpot games, with the cons outpacing the pros most likely.

BluffTHIS!

Re: Monster

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Hi Bluff.

Yes, the new Monser nonsense kicked in yesterday when I fired up Party. My initial reaction was to assume that it was just another Party rip-off from which I would gain no benefit. After finding out what I can about the "promotion", I see no reason to change my mind.

I still can't work out how I can benefit in any way apart from happening to hit a bad beat jackpot.

On the plus side, if "only" $11m or so is being sucked out of the game, then your actual EV probably doesn't sink that much. The problem is, that EV is drastically skewed. The chances are that your EV is hit quite significantly (say, by 50%), while you get 45% of this EV back via the chance of winning the Bad Beat Jackpot. It's a bit like being compelled to buy a lottery ticket for a pound every time you win two pounds, except this one doesn't have the "1-in-57" chance of a tenner.

The only way that I can see how this impacts my EV is to carry on playing, which is annoying. Maybe I'll win a BBJ! Hell, I did once on Paradise, and I was making a cup of coffee at the time (I'd folded my hands and clicked "sit out" for the next hand!).

I mean, we know that Party are a bunch of shits, but this whole thing really does seem to rely more than usually on punter inertia. Why pay 50cents to a Monster tournament that you are not playing in? And yet people do.

Mad mad mad.

PJ

Re: Monster

[(Anonymous)]

I think the thing is that it may make 2/4 virtually unbeatable for any but the very best, and even then might turn them into nearly breakeven. The thread on 2+2 has rake calculations with this added and it really should make a lot of winning players not want to play there, despite the paradox that a bunch of those kind of players leaving makes the games better, but just not enough to make up for the extra .50 cents per hand. This is just a marketing scam, and one paid for by winning cash game players for the benefit of themselves and rake profit, and for tourney players.

Bluff

Re: Monster's Effect

[(Anonymous)]

There was a post made just a while ago about the effect. I don't know him or how credible he is, but he said:

"My simulations in 2/4 limit has the average player getting raped for an extra 1.37BB/100."

I don't use PT but am familiar with its stats, so if true, that is pretty stout of a hit in LHE for any stakes.

Bluff

Re: Monster's Effect

[countingmyouts.livejournal.com]

I know the chap who came up with that figure, he's generally reliable.

Any figure near the 1.37 BB/100 will make that limit either unplayable (for most) or barely profitable for only the best of players. I just cannot see the jackpot chasers making up enough of the difference to make it playable.

Michael

Re: Monster's Effect

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Yep, if it turns out to be 1.37bb, it's virtually unplayable. There's the EV of actually hitting the BBJ, of course, but that's no good on a month-by-month basis.

The 1.37BB also probably does not allow for any departure by good players. There will be some kind of stasis here (most likely best discovered through a study of Paul Samuelson's work on the impact of an added tax in a perfect free market) where the number of good players who leave is just enough to keep the less fussy good players happy with their reduced win rate and the chance of the BBJ. That was why I said that the only way to discover the "true" impact would be to keep playing. And even this would have an ongoing dynamic (because some players would take longer to decide to leave than others) before stability set in.

It's a difficult one and I'm really not too sure where to go on this at the moment. I know that the rake at the Flamingo plus the money taken for the high hand (plus coffees plus tips to dealers) made it virtually impossible to win money at $2-$4, even off complete fish. However, the high hand was paid daily, and you could expect to win one of these a week if you played four or five hours a day (well, that was my calculation). That boosted your earn back to about 1BB an hour.

PJ

Re: Monster's Effect

[(Anonymous)]

Hi Pete

I've just started playing on Party again (having left CD for the reasons mentioned last week) and I noticed this "Monster" thing. Am I right in thinking that if I play in the non-Monster tables they aren't affected?

Brian Frew

Re: Monster's Effect

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

As far as I am aware, the standardly named tables are the same as they always were. There's just fewer of them, and this means that the more discerning (i.e., better) player is likely to gravitate there.

But I just played an hour, two ordinary tables and one Monster table, and I can't say that I noticed much difference.

PJ