![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My Name is Surl
Apr. 18th, 2006 05:37 amEver keen to find alternatives to actually doing some work, I've ducked from two hit-and-runs on UB and Party (a round dabbled at $3-$6 on Party, the stake level which is currently my nemesis) to resorting to blogging. Anything in order to not have to write about AXA's plans in Malaysia.
I watched episode 11 of the High Stakes Poker game last night. I hope that not many people are paying attention to this game. Just watching a few hands makes you realize how dangerous it is for most people to watch tournament play on TV and to then think that they have a chance in cash games.
There was one odd play from Brunson Senior that had me puzzled. He picked up AA out of position (OOP) and put in a modest raise given his stack size (5K?, 4K?, something like that). Negreanu, who had gone on a bit of a rush, called with 88, spotting the implied odds if he hits his set. The flop comes K8x two clubs. Brunson has the Ace of clubs. He bets about 10K, Negreanu raises 20K and Brunson goes all-in with about 120K in front of him.
Now, presumably Brunson thinks that Negreanu has something like KC QC or AD KC, but the point is not that relevant. Brunson's bet of 120K into a 40K pot is going to win 40K if his read is right (40K that he might win anyway if he flat calls and then bets the pot on the turn) and lose 120K if it is wrong.
The only explanation that I can think of for Brunson's play (which looks like a tournament rather than a cash bet) is if he thinks Negreanu will call with TPTK or with the flush draw. Actually, with KC QC Negreanu is probably just abvout getting odds for the call.
Further embarrassing play from Hellmuth, including an acceptance by Greenstein of Hellmuth's insurance request (you can hear Greenstein telling the other players to shut up as he jumps on the offer of 20K of a 100K pot when his equity in the pot is about 9K). A couple of other hands just made no sense to me at all. He was being played like a violin nearer the end.
Oh well, Malaysia beckons. Interesting story in the press this morning about a Japanese soldier from World War II turning up in the Ukraine. Well, that's as good a place to hide out as any, I guess.
++++
For readers of Freakonomics, here's an interesting case where normal incentives and disincentives do not seem to apply.
It's a common assumption that "moral hazard" exists in much of insurance; in other words, the fact that insurance mitigates your loss makes you less careful. Logically, therefore, one would have thought that you would be more likely to prang an insured car than an uninsured one.
But, no. In South Africa about 60% of drivers are uninsured, compared to less than 5% in the UK. But a car driver is 10 times more likely to have crash in South Africa than in the UK.
There are a number of explanations that you can wheel out to explain this, but it does seem to put some dent in the idea that you should not offer people compensation for things because it will automatically make them less responsible.
I watched episode 11 of the High Stakes Poker game last night. I hope that not many people are paying attention to this game. Just watching a few hands makes you realize how dangerous it is for most people to watch tournament play on TV and to then think that they have a chance in cash games.
There was one odd play from Brunson Senior that had me puzzled. He picked up AA out of position (OOP) and put in a modest raise given his stack size (5K?, 4K?, something like that). Negreanu, who had gone on a bit of a rush, called with 88, spotting the implied odds if he hits his set. The flop comes K8x two clubs. Brunson has the Ace of clubs. He bets about 10K, Negreanu raises 20K and Brunson goes all-in with about 120K in front of him.
Now, presumably Brunson thinks that Negreanu has something like KC QC or AD KC, but the point is not that relevant. Brunson's bet of 120K into a 40K pot is going to win 40K if his read is right (40K that he might win anyway if he flat calls and then bets the pot on the turn) and lose 120K if it is wrong.
The only explanation that I can think of for Brunson's play (which looks like a tournament rather than a cash bet) is if he thinks Negreanu will call with TPTK or with the flush draw. Actually, with KC QC Negreanu is probably just abvout getting odds for the call.
Further embarrassing play from Hellmuth, including an acceptance by Greenstein of Hellmuth's insurance request (you can hear Greenstein telling the other players to shut up as he jumps on the offer of 20K of a 100K pot when his equity in the pot is about 9K). A couple of other hands just made no sense to me at all. He was being played like a violin nearer the end.
Oh well, Malaysia beckons. Interesting story in the press this morning about a Japanese soldier from World War II turning up in the Ukraine. Well, that's as good a place to hide out as any, I guess.
++++
For readers of Freakonomics, here's an interesting case where normal incentives and disincentives do not seem to apply.
It's a common assumption that "moral hazard" exists in much of insurance; in other words, the fact that insurance mitigates your loss makes you less careful. Logically, therefore, one would have thought that you would be more likely to prang an insured car than an uninsured one.
But, no. In South Africa about 60% of drivers are uninsured, compared to less than 5% in the UK. But a car driver is 10 times more likely to have crash in South Africa than in the UK.
There are a number of explanations that you can wheel out to explain this, but it does seem to put some dent in the idea that you should not offer people compensation for things because it will automatically make them less responsible.
