Achievements
Aug. 2nd, 2006 08:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksSometimes I think that I would have enjoyed being a coder — for about a year or two, anyway. At work we are soon going to be launching our new portal, and my own esteemed work will be uploaded onto it. However, since I produce a daily newsletter, the normal uploading process for less time-sensitive productions woouldn't be any good. So we worked out something quicker.
This involved me adding tags to the stories, which will then be processed using a Python program and uploaded to the web site via something called, unimaginitively, xml uploader.
So far, so simple. A guy from IT came upstairs and installed Python and the xml and the processing batch files on my machine at work.
Except, of course, when it comes to things like this, things are never quite that simple. Paths need to be changed, things are missing (in this case an important part of Python, pywin32,build 2-09), DLLs that should be there, aren't. So, Mr IT man spent two hours on two separate afternoons, and, this morning, we finally dry-ran it, and it worked. Yowza.
But this wasn't the real problem. The real problem was that I had to install all this shit on my machine at home, the one connected to the office by a VPN, because the programs were running on the C Drive.
Now, lumping the machine into work can be done, but it isn't much fun. So, armed with my scrawled notes and having watched Mr IT man install all the shit and change the environmental variables and download things from three separate places, I set to work.
And, well, bugger me, it worked first time. I've never known that happen before. There's one final bit (actually running the upload program) that I can't test-run, but we'll find out about that on Friday.
+++++++++++++++
Here's a bit of a post that you may or may not have read, recounting a hand in the WSOP this week, on day one.
Next , again in the SB I had 88 , after 3 limpers I wanted to thin the field , so raised to 300 , they all called , flop was J 8 5 , I led out for 900 and seat one and two called , with a straight and a flush draw there I checked in the dark , turn was a 7 , seat 1 checked but seat 2 bet 2000 , pot was now 5900 and as seat one was already picking up 2000 to call I knew I was getting 4-1 to hit my full house , I called , river was a K , I decided to lead out for 1100 rather than check call seat two who if he was betting the turn with the blockers , ie 99 or TT to represent the straight he may bet more on the river than I want to call , also if seat one calls my bet and he now moves in he must have the straight , 9T of diamonds would have been a great hand for the flop . My bet was called by seat one and then seat two raised all in for 6500 , I had to assume he had the straight and passed as did seat one , I ended the level 6525 .
And, at the end of this (long) post, covering many many hands:
On reflection the only hand I could have played differently was the AA where I over raised to 1400 but I was playing the player.
Now, I know that I'm not the greatest tournament player in the world, and that my No Limit expertise OOP is, at best, laughable, but, well, wouldn't you be asking yourself some questions about this play of 88 in the SB?
I mean, you raise to 300 to thin the field (although I would have thought that 88 OOP is a classic "hope to hit a set" middle pair) and this fails to get anyone out. Conclusion? Either you should have raised more or you shouldn't have raised at all.
Then on a flop of J85 (great, you've hit your set) you lead out for 900, despite there being two of a suit and worrying straight draw possibilities. Unsurprisingly, you get two callers, and a goof chance that you will be worried by the turn card. So, at this point, you decide to check in the dark.
I dunno, the entire progression of the hand has me puzzled. Clearly this game is more complex than I thought. I would have check-raised the flop all-in.
_________________
This involved me adding tags to the stories, which will then be processed using a Python program and uploaded to the web site via something called, unimaginitively, xml uploader.
So far, so simple. A guy from IT came upstairs and installed Python and the xml and the processing batch files on my machine at work.
Except, of course, when it comes to things like this, things are never quite that simple. Paths need to be changed, things are missing (in this case an important part of Python, pywin32,build 2-09), DLLs that should be there, aren't. So, Mr IT man spent two hours on two separate afternoons, and, this morning, we finally dry-ran it, and it worked. Yowza.
But this wasn't the real problem. The real problem was that I had to install all this shit on my machine at home, the one connected to the office by a VPN, because the programs were running on the C Drive.
Now, lumping the machine into work can be done, but it isn't much fun. So, armed with my scrawled notes and having watched Mr IT man install all the shit and change the environmental variables and download things from three separate places, I set to work.
And, well, bugger me, it worked first time. I've never known that happen before. There's one final bit (actually running the upload program) that I can't test-run, but we'll find out about that on Friday.
+++++++++++++++
Here's a bit of a post that you may or may not have read, recounting a hand in the WSOP this week, on day one.
Next , again in the SB I had 88 , after 3 limpers I wanted to thin the field , so raised to 300 , they all called , flop was J 8 5 , I led out for 900 and seat one and two called , with a straight and a flush draw there I checked in the dark , turn was a 7 , seat 1 checked but seat 2 bet 2000 , pot was now 5900 and as seat one was already picking up 2000 to call I knew I was getting 4-1 to hit my full house , I called , river was a K , I decided to lead out for 1100 rather than check call seat two who if he was betting the turn with the blockers , ie 99 or TT to represent the straight he may bet more on the river than I want to call , also if seat one calls my bet and he now moves in he must have the straight , 9T of diamonds would have been a great hand for the flop . My bet was called by seat one and then seat two raised all in for 6500 , I had to assume he had the straight and passed as did seat one , I ended the level 6525 .
And, at the end of this (long) post, covering many many hands:
On reflection the only hand I could have played differently was the AA where I over raised to 1400 but I was playing the player.
Now, I know that I'm not the greatest tournament player in the world, and that my No Limit expertise OOP is, at best, laughable, but, well, wouldn't you be asking yourself some questions about this play of 88 in the SB?
I mean, you raise to 300 to thin the field (although I would have thought that 88 OOP is a classic "hope to hit a set" middle pair) and this fails to get anyone out. Conclusion? Either you should have raised more or you shouldn't have raised at all.
Then on a flop of J85 (great, you've hit your set) you lead out for 900, despite there being two of a suit and worrying straight draw possibilities. Unsurprisingly, you get two callers, and a goof chance that you will be worried by the turn card. So, at this point, you decide to check in the dark.
I dunno, the entire progression of the hand has me puzzled. Clearly this game is more complex than I thought. I would have check-raised the flop all-in.
_________________
no subject
Date: 2006-08-03 11:03 am (UTC)You say you'd check-raise the flop allin ...first of all there's no guarantee anyone will bet. When an aggressive player raises from the blinds then checks the flop the possibility of a check-raise is always in the air. Certainly someone acting last with 9T isnt going to bet. Secondly if someone does bet, so now the pot is 2,000 or so, don't you think an allin of your 10,000 stack is a slight overbet? The only hands which are calling are JJ or maybe an open-ended straight+flush draw.
The flop bet seems perfect to me ... about 3/4 of the pot which will tempt flush draws etc into calling when they don't have the right odds. After two callers you know the turn is going to be problematic and you're first to act. Checking in the dark means that they can't deduce anything from your check whether a blank, turn card, or flush card falls.
On river you're worried about seat 2 more than seat 1. By making a reasonable bet you're making Seat 1 call which must inhibit greatly the chance of Seat 2 bluffing as Seat 1 may have the nuts even if he believes the blind has nothing.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-03 11:30 am (UTC)I've long maintained that the dead money in tournaments often survives a lot longer than the live money, usually going out in the top third of the field but out of the money. Dead money certainly doesn't "donk off chips quickly".
My general interpretation here is that any combination of play that leaves you losing a significant lump of your stack, with a good hand, without seeing a showdown, must have you asking yourself questions about the sagacity of the various plays in the hand. I know that I would be asking myself some serious questions about whether what I did was right. That's a general point, not one specific to this hand.
I know that there is no guarantee that there will be a bet on the flop. That's OK too. If that happens, then I've kept the pot size small when OOP. I might still end up losing a quarter of my stack, but at least I'll see a showdown. I really think that the size of the flop bet is wrong, because it sets up the horrible situation later on.
If there is a bet on the flop, your check-raise all-in wins it there and then unless your original sentence is true, that the dead money will indeed donk off chips quickly. As you say, only JJ or some monster draw will call you, and, given the way the hand has gone, that's a small percentage of the possible range of hands. Your CR willnearly always win you 1,800 chips or thereabouts, a 20% increase in equity. That would be fine by me. Let's assume that there's an equal chance of a bad call and of a good call. You are as likely to beat the bad call as you are to lose to the good call. That all evens out, although it increases your volatility. Since the check-round doesn't really bother you either (because it gets rid of the horrible decision on the river), a check seems a much nicer play. Now, if I was on the button, I like the 3/4 pot bet much better.
PJ