![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I really ought to have copied the link to the story yesterday about the guy who was fined £50 for putting his junk mail in a street bin. Hinckley & Bosworth Council, perhaps realizing that they had made themselves look complete tits, decided to drop the case, not because the law was moronic, but because of "conflicting evidence". The only "apology" from the council's chief executive was that "perhaps Hinckley's residents could be better informed on where to dump their waste".
Of course, this is the old fallback for stupid politicians. "We just aren't getting our message across". I've yet to hear a politician admit that they are getting their message across, but the voters are rejecting it because they don't agree with it. Are politicians perfectly aware of the truth but unable to publicly admit it (i.e., lying)? Or are they too dim to see the truth (i.e., stupid)?
Personally, I blame pensions. The councils are so desperately trying to pay the pensions of retired council workers that they have to generate any income they can. The concept of "refuse collection" in London (well, in Lewisham) has all but vanished. Here's what they won't collect from you at home:
Garden stuff (i.e., twigs and the like, cuttings from the hydrangea in the front patio)
Large household items (i.e., any item of furniture, planks of wood)
Too much rubbish: Even if you are within the rules (techincally), if you have a big clear-out, they won't take it, on the grounds that it isn't ordinary domestic refuse.
And they wonder why people leave stuff on quiet streets in the middle of the night.
Given the lack of comments on recent posts and an e-mail from Jonathan Palfrey that he tried to post a comment (three times, which shows more dedication than the web site would have got from me) but got the response "Invalid form submission", I have to assume that LiveJournal was or is suffering from some problems. I just put a "test" comment in an earlier post, and it went in fine, so either the matter is cured, or something very odd is happening in the interweb world.
Speaking of which, a note to DY. I replied to your e-mail re Fooled By Randomness, but I got a message that "relaying to prohibited by administrator".
+++++
I've redabbled in 5-10 on Stars while the $120 bonus is running. Although one swallow doesn't make a summer, I couldn't resist limping with Ace-Seven of hearts in MP2 with a limp from UTG+1 (loose) and from MP1 (conservative) (see post a few days ago on this). Net result? Raise from MP3 and reraise from button. Folds from all three limpers (including me). Perhaps this kind of thing just always happens to me.
(As it happens, if I had raised, the button would have reraised and I would have lost three bets rather than one, since button had AA. Like I said, one swallow doesn't make a summer. But raises seem to come in from behind a good 60%-70% of the time in the games in which I play in this kind of situation. So, either I am playing in a very different type of game from other people (generally lunchtime in the US to mid-afternoon in the US), or something very odd is happening.)
I may make a more detailed analysis of the percentage of hands that go to showdown in the games that I play (rather low), how my wins are distributed (i.e., lots of small pots vs a few large pots, and so on). Unfortunately, the gainsayers don't seem to have the same stats available, so it's hard to see exactly what is going on.
I noticed from one other player who does post his stats, and who has a much lower raise percentage than me pre-flop, that he wins a smaller percentage of hands when he sees the flop, and a slightly smaller BB per 100. However, clearly he is winning bigger pots when he wins them.
I remain agnostic here, because I am aware that some people like to win big pots in showdowns, while others tend to win smaller pots without a showdown. The great players can shift from one to the other at the right time.
++++
Update: Of course, one of the problems with "dablling" at a higher limit is that if you get cold-decked for 90 minutes, your entire month's profit can get wiped out in a flash. So it goes. I'm not that downhearted about it. Whereas last year a run like that would have left me racked with self-doubt, today I knew that it was just one of those runs of hands that happen occasionally. By the time I was $280 down at one table which looked unpromising, I left it. I remained at the other table because it had a couple of loose aggressive players. I tried nothing clever, and, gradually, I got back my $200 deficit at that table, leaving me down $20 or thereabouts by the time the loose players left. So, still a $300 deficit for the session, but one where I was pleased with my play and where I felt that I had a handle on the game. Of course, having a $2,500 bankroll on the site makes things easier as well, because you can just lump in another $500 to the table and tell yourself that you are only $300 down on your initial stake of $1000 (40%), rather than $300 down on your initial stake of $300 (100%).
Yes, I'm (kind of) joking. But you know what I mean.
Of course, this is the old fallback for stupid politicians. "We just aren't getting our message across". I've yet to hear a politician admit that they are getting their message across, but the voters are rejecting it because they don't agree with it. Are politicians perfectly aware of the truth but unable to publicly admit it (i.e., lying)? Or are they too dim to see the truth (i.e., stupid)?
Personally, I blame pensions. The councils are so desperately trying to pay the pensions of retired council workers that they have to generate any income they can. The concept of "refuse collection" in London (well, in Lewisham) has all but vanished. Here's what they won't collect from you at home:
Garden stuff (i.e., twigs and the like, cuttings from the hydrangea in the front patio)
Large household items (i.e., any item of furniture, planks of wood)
Too much rubbish: Even if you are within the rules (techincally), if you have a big clear-out, they won't take it, on the grounds that it isn't ordinary domestic refuse.
And they wonder why people leave stuff on quiet streets in the middle of the night.
Given the lack of comments on recent posts and an e-mail from Jonathan Palfrey that he tried to post a comment (three times, which shows more dedication than the web site would have got from me) but got the response "Invalid form submission", I have to assume that LiveJournal was or is suffering from some problems. I just put a "test" comment in an earlier post, and it went in fine, so either the matter is cured, or something very odd is happening in the interweb world.
Speaking of which, a note to DY. I replied to your e-mail re Fooled By Randomness, but I got a message that "relaying to
+++++
I've redabbled in 5-10 on Stars while the $120 bonus is running. Although one swallow doesn't make a summer, I couldn't resist limping with Ace-Seven of hearts in MP2 with a limp from UTG+1 (loose) and from MP1 (conservative) (see post a few days ago on this). Net result? Raise from MP3 and reraise from button. Folds from all three limpers (including me). Perhaps this kind of thing just always happens to me.
(As it happens, if I had raised, the button would have reraised and I would have lost three bets rather than one, since button had AA. Like I said, one swallow doesn't make a summer. But raises seem to come in from behind a good 60%-70% of the time in the games in which I play in this kind of situation. So, either I am playing in a very different type of game from other people (generally lunchtime in the US to mid-afternoon in the US), or something very odd is happening.)
I may make a more detailed analysis of the percentage of hands that go to showdown in the games that I play (rather low), how my wins are distributed (i.e., lots of small pots vs a few large pots, and so on). Unfortunately, the gainsayers don't seem to have the same stats available, so it's hard to see exactly what is going on.
I noticed from one other player who does post his stats, and who has a much lower raise percentage than me pre-flop, that he wins a smaller percentage of hands when he sees the flop, and a slightly smaller BB per 100. However, clearly he is winning bigger pots when he wins them.
I remain agnostic here, because I am aware that some people like to win big pots in showdowns, while others tend to win smaller pots without a showdown. The great players can shift from one to the other at the right time.
++++
Update: Of course, one of the problems with "dablling" at a higher limit is that if you get cold-decked for 90 minutes, your entire month's profit can get wiped out in a flash. So it goes. I'm not that downhearted about it. Whereas last year a run like that would have left me racked with self-doubt, today I knew that it was just one of those runs of hands that happen occasionally. By the time I was $280 down at one table which looked unpromising, I left it. I remained at the other table because it had a couple of loose aggressive players. I tried nothing clever, and, gradually, I got back my $200 deficit at that table, leaving me down $20 or thereabouts by the time the loose players left. So, still a $300 deficit for the session, but one where I was pleased with my play and where I felt that I had a handle on the game. Of course, having a $2,500 bankroll on the site makes things easier as well, because you can just lump in another $500 to the table and tell yourself that you are only $300 down on your initial stake of $1000 (40%), rather than $300 down on your initial stake of $300 (100%).
Yes, I'm (kind of) joking. But you know what I mean.
