![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Personal Lines
Jun. 18th, 2005 11:00 amI don't write much about personal finance any more -- corporate finance is just so much more fun. But I have to admire the hatchet job that today's Jobs & Money (The Guardian) has done on Alliance & Leicester's unremitting campaign (excelling that of even Neteller and Party Poker combined) to extract the last penny out of its customers.
A&L stopped my cashback on my credit card last year. So I stopped using it. Mastercard told me that, since I hadn't been using their card much, unless I used it by the end of last month, they would not renew it. So I used it. All part of the perpetual Birks battle against financial institutions, who really are the lowest of the low (and it's sad that the online gaming sites and services seem to be heading in the same direction).
Jobs & Money listed A&L's actions over the last year. The two classics which stand out, when you look at them together, are their reasoning for cutting the rates on its First Saver children's account to 3.65% from 5.25%, on the grounds that the account had not attracted a large number of customers.
Then, this week, it cut the rates on Online Saver to 5% (as well as closing it to new customers). The reason given? That the account had been more successful than expected.
I mean, what exactly do A&L want?
The simple facts, of course, are that A&L are desperately trying to boost their short-term bottom line in preparation for putting themselves up for sale and trying to get as much money as possible for its incompetent senior executives, who have run a rubbish company in a rubbish way for several years. The only thing which has made them look moderately respectable is the fat that Lloyds and Abbey National have been operated by even greater fools.
The sad thing is; these senior executives will still walk away with several millions in their pockets when the sale goes through, courtesy of generous options, over-generous pension allowances, pay-offs for fucking off, and a myriad other things which are not mentioned in the annual report under "salary".
I mentioned a couple of months ago my conversation at a lunch with (senior) lenders at Barclays, who could not see that there was little difference between lending £1m to 100 people on a profit-sharing basis where there was a 50% chance of each individual business failing, and lending £100m to one person (on a profit sharing basis) where there was a 5% chance of the operation failing (in fact, the former is probably slightly better business than the latter). The mantra remains "no more than 5% risk of failure). Morons.
-----
I did not play well last night, and paid the penalty, with a $90 profit falling to a $90 loss on the back of some weak plays.
The first was in PLO, where I check-raised the nuts on the turn without realizing that this would still leave me with $20 and my opponent with $50. Obviously the board paired, I crying called into a $130 pot and saw his House of sevens over tens take it down.
I'm still surprised he bet the pot with a set of sevens on a board of Q T 9 7 rainbow, but since this was part of the trap I was laying, I can hardly moan (obviously what I really want is a player with the straight to the Queen to bet, since he would be drawing virtually dead to my higher straight). I got most of the money in on the turn as best I could, but if I had realized that I would have been left with $20, I would probably have bet out with the straight. That way, opponent probably flat calls his set (he's got nothing else to play with in his hand). The board pairs, and I fold to his pot bet on the river.
Contrariwise, if I CAN get myself all-in on the turn, I check-raise. Alternatively, if I can't get myself all-in, I still check-raise, but decide to lay it down if the board pairs and opponent bets. I really half-way housed this by misjudging the stacks and the pot size. Weak
----
I then spunked away $109 at $3-$6 on Stan James after going to bed and getting up because I couldn't sleep. I would probably have lost $60 or so anyway, but I really played far too aggressively for that time of night. No-one was going to lay down a marginal hand. Memo to self. never play online when you can't sleep.
I guess I should be thankful that it was $3-$6. Anyway, I came back fairly storming on Party, until I played one hand like a complete idiot, limping pre-flop from UTG+1 with T9s. I kind of made the excuse to myself that I was "mixing up my play", but the fact is, I was just wimping out and looking for a cheap flop. Down came KQT with one of my suit. SB bets and I decide to see one more, as does a looseish player in late. Rag comes on turn. SB bets and I fold. It went to a show down and he turned over T8s to win, meaning we would have split the pot.
Except that, if I had raised pre-flop, I would probably have taken down the hand. So I lost $10 instead of winning $20.
You would think that I would have learnt that from the fact that a couple of hands earlier I had taken down a pot with AK on a rag board, forcing three people to fold on the turn, solely because I had capped it pre-flop after being reraised behind. $105 thank you very much, on the back of sheer aggression.
A&L stopped my cashback on my credit card last year. So I stopped using it. Mastercard told me that, since I hadn't been using their card much, unless I used it by the end of last month, they would not renew it. So I used it. All part of the perpetual Birks battle against financial institutions, who really are the lowest of the low (and it's sad that the online gaming sites and services seem to be heading in the same direction).
Jobs & Money listed A&L's actions over the last year. The two classics which stand out, when you look at them together, are their reasoning for cutting the rates on its First Saver children's account to 3.65% from 5.25%, on the grounds that the account had not attracted a large number of customers.
Then, this week, it cut the rates on Online Saver to 5% (as well as closing it to new customers). The reason given? That the account had been more successful than expected.
I mean, what exactly do A&L want?
The simple facts, of course, are that A&L are desperately trying to boost their short-term bottom line in preparation for putting themselves up for sale and trying to get as much money as possible for its incompetent senior executives, who have run a rubbish company in a rubbish way for several years. The only thing which has made them look moderately respectable is the fat that Lloyds and Abbey National have been operated by even greater fools.
The sad thing is; these senior executives will still walk away with several millions in their pockets when the sale goes through, courtesy of generous options, over-generous pension allowances, pay-offs for fucking off, and a myriad other things which are not mentioned in the annual report under "salary".
I mentioned a couple of months ago my conversation at a lunch with (senior) lenders at Barclays, who could not see that there was little difference between lending £1m to 100 people on a profit-sharing basis where there was a 50% chance of each individual business failing, and lending £100m to one person (on a profit sharing basis) where there was a 5% chance of the operation failing (in fact, the former is probably slightly better business than the latter). The mantra remains "no more than 5% risk of failure). Morons.
-----
I did not play well last night, and paid the penalty, with a $90 profit falling to a $90 loss on the back of some weak plays.
The first was in PLO, where I check-raised the nuts on the turn without realizing that this would still leave me with $20 and my opponent with $50. Obviously the board paired, I crying called into a $130 pot and saw his House of sevens over tens take it down.
I'm still surprised he bet the pot with a set of sevens on a board of Q T 9 7 rainbow, but since this was part of the trap I was laying, I can hardly moan (obviously what I really want is a player with the straight to the Queen to bet, since he would be drawing virtually dead to my higher straight). I got most of the money in on the turn as best I could, but if I had realized that I would have been left with $20, I would probably have bet out with the straight. That way, opponent probably flat calls his set (he's got nothing else to play with in his hand). The board pairs, and I fold to his pot bet on the river.
Contrariwise, if I CAN get myself all-in on the turn, I check-raise. Alternatively, if I can't get myself all-in, I still check-raise, but decide to lay it down if the board pairs and opponent bets. I really half-way housed this by misjudging the stacks and the pot size. Weak
----
I then spunked away $109 at $3-$6 on Stan James after going to bed and getting up because I couldn't sleep. I would probably have lost $60 or so anyway, but I really played far too aggressively for that time of night. No-one was going to lay down a marginal hand. Memo to self. never play online when you can't sleep.
I guess I should be thankful that it was $3-$6. Anyway, I came back fairly storming on Party, until I played one hand like a complete idiot, limping pre-flop from UTG+1 with T9s. I kind of made the excuse to myself that I was "mixing up my play", but the fact is, I was just wimping out and looking for a cheap flop. Down came KQT with one of my suit. SB bets and I decide to see one more, as does a looseish player in late. Rag comes on turn. SB bets and I fold. It went to a show down and he turned over T8s to win, meaning we would have split the pot.
Except that, if I had raised pre-flop, I would probably have taken down the hand. So I lost $10 instead of winning $20.
You would think that I would have learnt that from the fact that a couple of hands earlier I had taken down a pot with AK on a rag board, forcing three people to fold on the turn, solely because I had capped it pre-flop after being reraised behind. $105 thank you very much, on the back of sheer aggression.
