![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I finally got round to beginning the transfer of Glastonbury 2000 from Video to DVD (Birks edit). It's interesting what the passage of six years can bring. Not only did the first day feature a charmingly young Roisin from Moloko, but also, with a certain sense of synchronicity, Trent Reznor perfoming Hurt, later made famous by a Mr J Cash. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest.
I'm watching episode 10 of High Stakes Poker at the moment. Quality stuff. This is the episode where Hellmuth gets the KQ against Greenstein's QQ on a flop of KQx. Unlucky, you might think. But this was subsequent to two hands (and, of course, we only see highlights, so perhaps it's unfair on Phil) where, to be frank, Hellmuth's play was embarrassing. All of the rest look like horrifically tough opponents (which, at these stakes, they should be).
I wrote before (many times) on how playing in the WSOP carries no attraction for me. But being good enough (and rich enough, and courageous enough) to play in THIS game (and have the respect of my peers). Well, that would be the pinnacle of my life.
++++
Later:
Just had nearly five hours on "a well-known European site" which was good practice for tearing your hair out and appreciating the value of Ed Miller's Small Stakes Hold'em in the right circumstances. I think that everyone who is used to playing this kind of game, with players ranging from competent to uber-passives to utter maniacs, should be forced to play a few hours in the afternoon UK time, just to see how unbelievably different the games are. Instead of 70% of hands being won without a showdown, I reckon the percentage was 5% or less. Instead of a raise forcing out players behind you (or getting a reraise), you were equally likely to be cold-called by more than one player behind you (as well as both the blinds, natch). I tell you, it was a weird change of game for something ostensibly operating under the same set of rules.
However, for two serious reasons, I stayed for quite a while. One was that there were two maniacs, one at each table. The second was that I managed to get seriously stuck.
I never got out of it at the $2-$4 table -- losing more than $200 to a monstrous series of suckouts (e.g., 99 vs K3off in an 18BB pot, on a board of 88T ... T ... 8 ).
And, no, the pair of nines doesn't win. It splits.
Luckily it all came good at the $5-$10 table. If I could find $5-$10 tables like this every day of the week, I would play them all the time. Unfortunately, they are as rare as hen's teeth at my normal time of playing. I got back from $200 down to $200 up at that table (including one $337 pot), leaving me the grand sum of eight dollars down after nearly five hours.
And that, my friends, was a bloody good get-out. I'm going to get a couple of hours sleep.
PJ
I'm watching episode 10 of High Stakes Poker at the moment. Quality stuff. This is the episode where Hellmuth gets the KQ against Greenstein's QQ on a flop of KQx. Unlucky, you might think. But this was subsequent to two hands (and, of course, we only see highlights, so perhaps it's unfair on Phil) where, to be frank, Hellmuth's play was embarrassing. All of the rest look like horrifically tough opponents (which, at these stakes, they should be).
I wrote before (many times) on how playing in the WSOP carries no attraction for me. But being good enough (and rich enough, and courageous enough) to play in THIS game (and have the respect of my peers). Well, that would be the pinnacle of my life.
++++
Later:
Just had nearly five hours on "a well-known European site" which was good practice for tearing your hair out and appreciating the value of Ed Miller's Small Stakes Hold'em in the right circumstances. I think that everyone who is used to playing this kind of game, with players ranging from competent to uber-passives to utter maniacs, should be forced to play a few hours in the afternoon UK time, just to see how unbelievably different the games are. Instead of 70% of hands being won without a showdown, I reckon the percentage was 5% or less. Instead of a raise forcing out players behind you (or getting a reraise), you were equally likely to be cold-called by more than one player behind you (as well as both the blinds, natch). I tell you, it was a weird change of game for something ostensibly operating under the same set of rules.
However, for two serious reasons, I stayed for quite a while. One was that there were two maniacs, one at each table. The second was that I managed to get seriously stuck.
I never got out of it at the $2-$4 table -- losing more than $200 to a monstrous series of suckouts (e.g., 99 vs K3off in an 18BB pot, on a board of 88T ... T ... 8 ).
And, no, the pair of nines doesn't win. It splits.
Luckily it all came good at the $5-$10 table. If I could find $5-$10 tables like this every day of the week, I would play them all the time. Unfortunately, they are as rare as hen's teeth at my normal time of playing. I got back from $200 down to $200 up at that table (including one $337 pot), leaving me the grand sum of eight dollars down after nearly five hours.
And that, my friends, was a bloody good get-out. I'm going to get a couple of hours sleep.
PJ
