Currency
I haven't mentioned the dollar in a while.
My last "peak" target possiblities were $1.985, $2.015 or $2.055. When there was a pullback from the $1.985 level was becoming evident, I closed out for a £450 profit. Since then I've not seen an attractive position from a technical point of view, and so I missed the spike to $1.99. However, it looks to me that there should be a pullback to $1.92 or thereabouts before we see the next big forward push (looking increasingly like $2.05). So I went short at $1.9690 and I await developments.
It's stupid to have stop loss positions, because a breach of such a position might be a sell in some situations and a hold in others. It all depends on when it happens and how it happens.
Overall, things still look bleak for the dollar, as is evidenced in me thinking of $1.92 as a maximum downside. Meanwhile the current rate, which seemed ridiculously high back in December 2004, now has a "normal" feel to it, despite the imbalance in purchasing power parity.
I must remember to get down to the Belz shopping mall to pick up some jeans this March. And a new leather jacket would be nice, too.
Last night was a bit grim -- a $200 loss, but I felt little emotional impact. This is a good thing. Now if only I could manage to feel no emotional impact at a $500 loss, or at three successive days of $200 losses, then I would feel "ready" to move up to $5-$10.
It looks as if the Party full-ring games are beginning to pick up (slightly) at these higher stakes. This also seems to be coinciding with a fall-off in the quality of play. Typical, one might think, that my biggest loss of the year came just as the quality of players got worse..... But, well, a semi-bluff on the turn loses a lot of its strength when you suddenly find yourself up against opponents who refuse to lay down their hand.
I won the day before, although I made a "wrong" (as the cards lay) laydown which, in retrospect, I would do again (at $2-$4, although at $15-$30 I would have called).
I picked up AA and reraised a tightish player pre-flop. A loose cannon who had limped under the gun cold-called the double raise and original raiser flat called.
Flop brought Ad Qs 7s
Loose cannon checked, original raiser bets. I raise. Loose cannon calls. Original raiser calls. 2.25 bb in pot
Turn brought 3h. Loose cannon checked, original raiser checked. I bet. Loose cannon calls, original raiser calls. 5bb in pot.
Flop brought 2s. Loose cannon bets, original raiser raises. I fold. Loose cannon calls.
Original raiser shows QQ for three queens. Loose cannon shows A8 off for a pair of Aces. Original raiser takes down pot of 8.75bb.
Clearly if I only have to call one bet here I am making a crying call, but the raise by the original raiser means that I am not only putting in at odds of 4-to-1, but also that I am vulnerable to a three-bet from the loose cannon. Am I getting odds to call here? At $15-$30, I probably am, because the original raiser might well have read the hand perfectly and be raising to push me out, giving his QQQ a chance against the loose cannon. But at $2-$4, you tend to get calls with QQQ in these situations. To be frank, I think that the QQQ was a raise for value and that the guy missed the possible flush on the board.
These hands happen and I know that most players call here out of frustration, wanting to show how unlucky they were, and then justify it on dubious, nay, spurious, mathematical grounds. The hand is made complicated by it being hard to put the loose cannon (60%/0% pre-flop) on a hand. I would have guessed a flush half the time and a complete bluff the other half. Original raiser meanwhile might also be on a thin value bluff some of the time (value against original bettor, bluff against me), and sitting on the nuts (AKs, AJs, ATs) the majority of the time. If I am 100% guaranteed that loose cannon won't three-bet, I might still call. But it's the fact that the betting isn't closed that led me to fold.
99% of the time in $2-$4 "tight-time" hours this decision is spot on (this is the first time this year, in 10,000 hands, that it's been wrong). But that doesn't stop you swearing "bollox" at the screen the one time it goest belly-up.
My last "peak" target possiblities were $1.985, $2.015 or $2.055. When there was a pullback from the $1.985 level was becoming evident, I closed out for a £450 profit. Since then I've not seen an attractive position from a technical point of view, and so I missed the spike to $1.99. However, it looks to me that there should be a pullback to $1.92 or thereabouts before we see the next big forward push (looking increasingly like $2.05). So I went short at $1.9690 and I await developments.
It's stupid to have stop loss positions, because a breach of such a position might be a sell in some situations and a hold in others. It all depends on when it happens and how it happens.
Overall, things still look bleak for the dollar, as is evidenced in me thinking of $1.92 as a maximum downside. Meanwhile the current rate, which seemed ridiculously high back in December 2004, now has a "normal" feel to it, despite the imbalance in purchasing power parity.
I must remember to get down to the Belz shopping mall to pick up some jeans this March. And a new leather jacket would be nice, too.
Last night was a bit grim -- a $200 loss, but I felt little emotional impact. This is a good thing. Now if only I could manage to feel no emotional impact at a $500 loss, or at three successive days of $200 losses, then I would feel "ready" to move up to $5-$10.
It looks as if the Party full-ring games are beginning to pick up (slightly) at these higher stakes. This also seems to be coinciding with a fall-off in the quality of play. Typical, one might think, that my biggest loss of the year came just as the quality of players got worse..... But, well, a semi-bluff on the turn loses a lot of its strength when you suddenly find yourself up against opponents who refuse to lay down their hand.
I won the day before, although I made a "wrong" (as the cards lay) laydown which, in retrospect, I would do again (at $2-$4, although at $15-$30 I would have called).
I picked up AA and reraised a tightish player pre-flop. A loose cannon who had limped under the gun cold-called the double raise and original raiser flat called.
Flop brought Ad Qs 7s
Loose cannon checked, original raiser bets. I raise. Loose cannon calls. Original raiser calls. 2.25 bb in pot
Turn brought 3h. Loose cannon checked, original raiser checked. I bet. Loose cannon calls, original raiser calls. 5bb in pot.
Flop brought 2s. Loose cannon bets, original raiser raises. I fold. Loose cannon calls.
Original raiser shows QQ for three queens. Loose cannon shows A8 off for a pair of Aces. Original raiser takes down pot of 8.75bb.
Clearly if I only have to call one bet here I am making a crying call, but the raise by the original raiser means that I am not only putting in at odds of 4-to-1, but also that I am vulnerable to a three-bet from the loose cannon. Am I getting odds to call here? At $15-$30, I probably am, because the original raiser might well have read the hand perfectly and be raising to push me out, giving his QQQ a chance against the loose cannon. But at $2-$4, you tend to get calls with QQQ in these situations. To be frank, I think that the QQQ was a raise for value and that the guy missed the possible flush on the board.
These hands happen and I know that most players call here out of frustration, wanting to show how unlucky they were, and then justify it on dubious, nay, spurious, mathematical grounds. The hand is made complicated by it being hard to put the loose cannon (60%/0% pre-flop) on a hand. I would have guessed a flush half the time and a complete bluff the other half. Original raiser meanwhile might also be on a thin value bluff some of the time (value against original bettor, bluff against me), and sitting on the nuts (AKs, AJs, ATs) the majority of the time. If I am 100% guaranteed that loose cannon won't three-bet, I might still call. But it's the fact that the betting isn't closed that led me to fold.
99% of the time in $2-$4 "tight-time" hours this decision is spot on (this is the first time this year, in 10,000 hands, that it's been wrong). But that doesn't stop you swearing "bollox" at the screen the one time it goest belly-up.