Storm ship Alabama

There was a rip of thunder in the middle of last night that sounded like a bomb going off. And I also have to assume that there was some kind of electrical power surge, because my bedside clock moved forward an hour. I listened to the radio for a full three minutes before I realized it was 4.35am, not 5.35am as my clock assured me. Irritating.

++++

I'm going to have to cut back on the lengthy posts here; with the new writing gig, I basically don't have any time for anything for the next few days. Come the weekend things will ease up (very slightly).

I enjoyed talking to the Youngster yesterday. Although I disagree with many of his thoughts (that anyone could disagree with David's conclusions never ceases to amaze him, but, there you go), he will always argue his case cogently.

Anyway, we got onto one American's theory/observation that we spend too much time these days trying to preserve things. Or, in another sense, "to encourage stability" in the world. This American's theory is that instability is good. My observation was that many Americans are great fans of change and instability, so long as it doesn;t affect them. A kind of academic nimbyism.

But it did get me thinking. Because, in one sense -- for the overall increased betterment of the human race, increased instability is good. In a Benthamite sense, you should back it, because progress is only achieved through change.

But, from the individual's point of view, instability is frequently bad. The Enclosure Laws might have been good in the long run, but tell that to the peasant who has lost the land on which he kept is two sheep, three ducks and a pig. It's a common mistake of politicians (and some economists) that the nation is the individual writ large -- that what is sensible for the individual to do must, by definition, be sensible for 50m individuals to do in concert. The instability/stability dichotomy is one example of where this is not true.

Another night, another dollar

I had a 2,000-word piece in Insurance Day today, where I managed to get in a quote from a former WSOP champ. Yes, "Robert Baldwin" (as he now seems to be known) was commenting on the damage to the Beau Rivage in Biloxi. I'm now trying to work out how to get a Phil Hellmuth quote in there.

++++

I continue to burn money at the Party Poker tables as I move slowly towards accumulating enough hands for the by now relatively worthless $200 bonus. Once again, I flittered from table to table, looking for a "good" game. By the time I found one, I was more than $80 up. Which I proceeded to throw down the drain and several hundred dollars after it as two players on my right (one calling 48% of the time and only raising pre-flop with Aces, the other calling 60% of the time) continually outdrew me. I gave up expecting to hit any kind of flop. Obviously when my Aces finally hit a set on the flop, no-one called me, even though I gave them a chance to catch up a bit. Very depressing. Net result, about $200 disappears again over three hours. I made one frustrated call with AKs on a board of QQ763, solely on the (not that remote) chance that my UTG raiser opponent had either AK or AJs. Obviously he had AQ off. I'm beginining to forget what it's like to win. In addition, the game is MUCH more tiring to play when you are losing! Eventually one of the fish went broke (it took him three hours, and he didn't lose it to me) and the other one left after he won back some of his substantial losses (he did win some of it from me). I could cite some hands from the past few days, but they aren't that remarkable. Standard limit stuff of players either beating you when you had them beaten at the start or on the turn (and you can't criticise their call) or beating you on the river when they shouldn't be in the hand at all (which means that you WANT them to call).

You keep chanting the mantra, but it's tough sometimes, very tough. Still, maybe things will be different tomorrow. And perhaps they won't.