The Caretaker

[peterbirks]

I don't know about you, but have you ever wondered what it is about school caretakers? I mean, are any of them sane? Is there something that attracts the, er, less than stable, to the post?

First there was Soham, and now a guy whom the newspapers seem intent on making "nutter of the year", if the photos are anything to go by, gets arrested for sending letter bombs to a variety of targets whom, I suspect, a considerable number of people see as worthy recipients of such missives. Not that I think that, and anyone who says I do is a liar, so there.

++++++

I've been falling back into some bad old ways at the poker table, the main one being a focus on bonus rather than on a win. The problem with this (Ultimate bet) bonus is that, once you've decided to "go for it", there isn't really any going back. It's just so structured that 1,000 points brings me to the end of my UB bonus dollars, and 1,000 points can be redeemed at the end of the week for $50. Effectively this makes a bonus of 5¢ a hand for 3,000 hands at $2-$4 or $3-$6. And that, I thought, was really too good to turn down.

Trouble is, 3,000 hands at a single site in a week is a bit of hard work, so you get tired, so you don't play optimallly, so you lose. Not a great deal, at the moment, but it's a trend that I must protect myself against. I'm about 1,650 hands in after four days, but I'm already a bit fed up with it, which is another bad sign.

Comments

[ribmeister.livejournal.com]

3,000 in a week is hard? :) 3 weeks into February and i'm averaging 7,000 raked hands per week. No issues winning either, up $8,000 at PL 1/2. I guess it depends how many tables you play, I 6 table so thats 360 hands per hour, works out around 20 hours per week.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

As soon as I wrote the above, I laid myself long odds on that you would respond with how many hands that you play, Ribbo.

If you can't work out why 3,000 hands in a week is hard for me and not for you, then you haven't been reading this blog. I would have thought that the reasons were obvious, even to the most obtuse.


However, if you ask (nicely!) I might explain.

If I have the time.

Pete

[ribmeister.livejournal.com]

It's easy to find the time when you're a winning player. I guess that's the difference though eh?

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Well, that's part of the point, Ribbo (goodness, I can only assume this is a deliberate ploy on your part.

No, it isn't easy to find the time.

But time is only one factor. I just get too tired after even an hour of just two-tabling on UB (that's about 200 hands-worth). I can manage more at weekends, but during the week, when I get home from work, two hours in an evening is about the maximum I can manage before I can see my play deteriorating. And I need an hour break in-between.


I'm getting old. It's a simple point and I think it's better to realize this than for me to try to fool myself that you still have the mental stamina of someone 20 years younger.

So, the main factors are:

a) time
b) age

with the minor added point of game availability, although that's specific to UB.

But I know that you were only joshing and that you were aware of all this....

PJ

[ribmeister.livejournal.com]

If you can manage more at weekends, then work during the week is indeed having an effect on you.
So yes it is easy to find the time if you're winning enough money, because you won't be working 8 hours a day. You will have a better source of income.

But that's not really the issue as there are plenty of other factors, the main one being security in life. Poker, especially now, has no guaranteed future, so the argument that the bird in the hand (of work income) is better than 2 in the bush (of a richer poker income) is a hard one to balance.
For me it's pretty easy decision though, having not worked for 8 years, being near damn unemployable. Having no mortgage on the house also means my security will still be there should poker stop suddendly. The whole outgoings thing is what does most budding poker players in.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Well, I have no mortgage on this place (although the buying of downstairs will bring one back again), but the sad fact of it is (apart from the security), that work:

(a) pays me far more than I am good enough to win playing online (although it doesn't pay as much as Mikey earns, obviously...)

(b) gives me some balance when it comes to meeting people.

But if I was minded, I would be a fine candidate for trying the poker life. I don't drink or smoke and my outgoings if I wanted to be a poker bum are probably less than 400 pounds a month.

But it just doesn't appeal. I don't have the mental strength for it.

Pre-emptive plagiarism

[(Anonymous)]

Oh dear. I seem to have had the same thought about caretakers as you on my blog (http://my.opera.com/fiendishgames/blog/) . Full marks to whoever managed to locate that picture of him as a cross-eyed four-eyed loon. He must be guilty!

I noticed yesterday that someone is starting up a games company called Fiendish Games (www.fiendishgames.co.uk). Seeing as we sold the rights to that name to Canon Inc. a while back I am confident this bloke (Ian Mellor, according to a Whois search) does not have the rights to this name. Unfortunately, if I write to him and tell him this, it pretty much confirms that we don't have the rights to the name any more either and seeing as Canon's Fiendish Games (a computer game company) has changed its name to Small Rockets, I don't suppose they'd be that bothered about protecting their property. Then again, we have seen numerous instances of the most nit-picking objections to co-opting of intellectual property, maybe they will.

What to do? Go in friendly (after all, it is a fellow gamer) and say you can use the name but please put a link to our web site on the front page, and just wait for them to go out of business (as they surely will - it's an online games retailer). Or take the business approach and ask them to desist from using the name?

Re: Pre-emptive plagiarism

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Hi John:

On what to do. Hmm. I'd probably tell him that you sold the rights to Canon on condition that they did not use the name in a way that could confuse them with you, whereas there is a distinct possibility that the new operation might be confused with you.

If the guy offered to make it clear that he wasn't in anyway linked to the manufacturers of such great games as Breaking Awway (movie was pimped in this morning's Metro, by the way) and Office Politics and also offered a link to your blog, or whatever, I'd be quite happy with the situation. What you have here is reputational risk, in that someone else's actions might affect your reputation because of the similarity of name. You would be quite correct to take action to make sure there was no confusion.

But surely Canon bought the FiendishGames Web site names as well?

++++

As for the caretaker thingy, well, it was hardly difficult, was it?

PJ