![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Cattle sick, Nation mourns
Aug. 4th, 2007 07:31 amYou could have a global meltdown in the financial markets and Radio Four would mention it in passing. But the second you get an outbreak of foot-and-mouth, the entire station goes on national alert.
Yes, Radio Four remains that last bastion of the old BBC culture -- that trade is somehow "distasteful" and that most of its listeners are gentlemen farmers whose only other contact with the outside world is Country Life.
I tell you, it was like the Second World War had broken out again and the Germans had invaded overnight. Wall-to-wall coverage, an emergency live edition of Farming Today, old Tories wheeled out in their bathchairs to comment on "the summer of 2001". I'm surprised no-one mentioned the outbreak in the 1960s. They will, they will.
But, all credit to Gordon Brown. Tony Blair utterly fucked up the response in 2001 (which at least had one good upshot -- the death of the worst ministry in the history of the world, MAFF), mainly because he was more worried about an election than about a bunch of people living in seats that he had little chance of winning anyway.
Brown, meantime, can clearly feel the direction of the wind quite quickly, and promptly announced that he was "returning to London" this morning.
This is a weird hangover from pre-telephone days, as far as I can see. Christ, the man is on holiday at a time of national crisis! He must be completely out of touch with the situation! Why isn't he back in London!
Although it would have made some sense to talk about teleconferencing and lowering his personal carbon footprint, Brown knows that the BBC and opposition politicians like to see a grim-faced poitico heading to Downing Street for "crisis talks". They called Blair the master of image, but Brown obviously knows a thing or two about it.
Brown is heading for the personal "Birks test". Will he have the courage to go to the country in October? You can imagine the dilemma. "I'll probably win, and perhaps with a bigger majority. But what if something goes wrong and I lose? I'll be one of the shortest-serving PMs in history. And, well, I might be doing even better in a couple of years..."
In fact, there is absolutely no chance that he will be doing "better" in a couple of years. Thus far in his short tenure, he's not put a foot wrong. You can't stay that lucky for two years. In EV terms it's a no-brainer.
++++++++++++++++
In the poker world, should you go for sponsorship deals if they are offered? Or, to put it another way, should the obtaining of a sponsorship deal be your major goal?
See some interesting differences of opinion over at http://www.secretsoftheamateurs.blogspot.com/ where Big Dave wonders whether Andy would be so blasé or dismissive about it if he had ever suffered the tsunami of a bad run.
I can't help but feel that there's a hidden subtext here - that several people are trying to make a living at tournament poker with absolutely abysmal bankroll management. That's why they dream of a sponsorship deal. They want to "live the life" but don't have the bankroll for it. Alternatively, if your aim is not to "live the life", but to accumulate the cash, then sponsorship deals, and the concomitant requirements, are less attractive.
I mean, let's face it, if you accept a sponsorship deal, you are working in PR. For some people (say, Greg Raymer, as a good example) this is not a problem (well, it doesn't seem to be), because you are naturally affable and the genuine "you" fits in with what is required by the sponsoring company.
But I would guess that for most poker players the requirement to act in a certain way would not be so natural. It's a cross that has to be borne to permit you to live the tournament circuit lifestyle.
It all comes back to metagame considerations. Exactly what are you doing the whole thing for? And what helps you achieve those aims? For some, a sponsorship deal is the dream ticket to those aims. For others, it's just swapping one yoke for another.
+++++++++++
Iggy has posted an entry so long that I haven't had time to read it, yet. In fact it took me five minutes to scroll down it to find what I knew I was looking for - a link to this post:
http://www.upforanything.net/poker/archives/002159.html
where Brad "Otis" Willis makes the observations frequently seen amongst the "just into the 30s" poker player. It generates some very interesting and intelligent responses as well (2+2, compare and contrast. Did someone invent that poster Rob Burgundy? I've yet to see him contribute anything of merit to a single thread, so I guess he's an early 20s guy who just loves to rack up the numbers of posts - oh, and who has even less of a life than me.)
FWIW, I think that Brad is a mite unfair on the youth of today. Sure, the high-fives and other antics are irritating, but I've only developed genuine feelings of disgust at the actions of older players -- usually long-time losers who need to angle-shoot to reduce their loss rate. I recall two examples in Vegas where cards -- quite clearly seen by all of the players -- were technically not "tabled". In both cases the other player was over 60 and won the pot by claiming that if the cards are not tabled face-up, then they are dead.
As I said both times, I know the rules. No angle-shooter is going to get cash out of me by pretending to muck. I never let go of my winning hand until the dealer is pushing the chips in my direction. In one case it was a novice who lost out, while in the other case it was another old guy. Actually, he really ought to have known better. What he did was expose one card on the turn (deliberately), He then turned it back over. On the river he bet and was called, and he turned over the other card, which gave him the straight. He then placed the first card in the muck. Angle-shooter promptly claimed the pot because both cards had not been tabled simultaneously. I really hope I never descend to that kind of level.
But these were not kids; these were old guys. The whooping and hollering might be louder amongst the youngsters, but the collusion and the angle-shooting spreads across all age groups.
+++++++
Speaking of Mr Burgundy (and, BTW, I'm aware of the "Anchorman" derivation) - here's a fascinating thread on botulism.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=11501450&an=0&page=0#Post11501450
It seems obvious that the original poster (Kornman) is a mainland European who previously worked for 888. He made the astute observation that many poker sites rank heavily winning bots alongside heavily winning poker players -- both damage what he describes as the "ecosystem" and we would describe as "everyone loses slowly while we hoover up the rake".
Ron Burgundy's (posts, 4574) considered response was
"Could someone translate this post into English plz?
Everyone else could understand it. I'm surprised someone else didnt type TLDNR (see the Brad post)
Many 2+2ers live in some kind of Malmuthian hermetism, consisting mainly of the line "My interests equal the general interests". This can be extended even to concepts of "justice". I don't know how many times I've typed "Life isn't fair. Learn it now" into a chat box.
One response was
LIF - LIN.
A second response that I see time and again is that Poker sites should value winning players "because they play more, and so generate more rake".
The lack of logic in this argument can most easily be seen if you say that this argument could be applied, 10-fold, to bots. All that poker sites care about is that money does not leave thepoker economy before it hits their own bottom line. It matters not that a player generated $1000 in rake this week if he takes $11,000 off other players. To a poker site, that is ten grand lose, not a grand won.
At least, that was how I saw it, until one astute poster (yes, they are there, if you look hard enough) pointed out that if you are a "skin", then the argument collapses. Skins want winning players, because they generate more rake, and the money that they win comes from players who are probably playing at other skins. So, the money lost by the other players doesn't cost the skin any money, while the winning player plays more, and thus generates more rake for the skin.
This is a very important point, because it basically means that the business model of a poker skin is different from the poker model of a non-skin site such as Pokerstars or Full Tilt. Stars and FTP want me to "lose slowly", i.e., break even against other players, losing just the rake. For them, that is the most sustainable model.
Skins, meanwhile, want me to win, so that I will play more, and at higher stakes. Skins are fighting for the best players playing at the biggest stakes, and will offer rakeback deals to get them.
+++++++++++++++++
Yes, Radio Four remains that last bastion of the old BBC culture -- that trade is somehow "distasteful" and that most of its listeners are gentlemen farmers whose only other contact with the outside world is Country Life.
I tell you, it was like the Second World War had broken out again and the Germans had invaded overnight. Wall-to-wall coverage, an emergency live edition of Farming Today, old Tories wheeled out in their bathchairs to comment on "the summer of 2001". I'm surprised no-one mentioned the outbreak in the 1960s. They will, they will.
But, all credit to Gordon Brown. Tony Blair utterly fucked up the response in 2001 (which at least had one good upshot -- the death of the worst ministry in the history of the world, MAFF), mainly because he was more worried about an election than about a bunch of people living in seats that he had little chance of winning anyway.
Brown, meantime, can clearly feel the direction of the wind quite quickly, and promptly announced that he was "returning to London" this morning.
This is a weird hangover from pre-telephone days, as far as I can see. Christ, the man is on holiday at a time of national crisis! He must be completely out of touch with the situation! Why isn't he back in London!
Although it would have made some sense to talk about teleconferencing and lowering his personal carbon footprint, Brown knows that the BBC and opposition politicians like to see a grim-faced poitico heading to Downing Street for "crisis talks". They called Blair the master of image, but Brown obviously knows a thing or two about it.
Brown is heading for the personal "Birks test". Will he have the courage to go to the country in October? You can imagine the dilemma. "I'll probably win, and perhaps with a bigger majority. But what if something goes wrong and I lose? I'll be one of the shortest-serving PMs in history. And, well, I might be doing even better in a couple of years..."
In fact, there is absolutely no chance that he will be doing "better" in a couple of years. Thus far in his short tenure, he's not put a foot wrong. You can't stay that lucky for two years. In EV terms it's a no-brainer.
++++++++++++++++
In the poker world, should you go for sponsorship deals if they are offered? Or, to put it another way, should the obtaining of a sponsorship deal be your major goal?
See some interesting differences of opinion over at http://www.secretsoftheamateurs.blogspot.com/ where Big Dave wonders whether Andy would be so blasé or dismissive about it if he had ever suffered the tsunami of a bad run.
I can't help but feel that there's a hidden subtext here - that several people are trying to make a living at tournament poker with absolutely abysmal bankroll management. That's why they dream of a sponsorship deal. They want to "live the life" but don't have the bankroll for it. Alternatively, if your aim is not to "live the life", but to accumulate the cash, then sponsorship deals, and the concomitant requirements, are less attractive.
I mean, let's face it, if you accept a sponsorship deal, you are working in PR. For some people (say, Greg Raymer, as a good example) this is not a problem (well, it doesn't seem to be), because you are naturally affable and the genuine "you" fits in with what is required by the sponsoring company.
But I would guess that for most poker players the requirement to act in a certain way would not be so natural. It's a cross that has to be borne to permit you to live the tournament circuit lifestyle.
It all comes back to metagame considerations. Exactly what are you doing the whole thing for? And what helps you achieve those aims? For some, a sponsorship deal is the dream ticket to those aims. For others, it's just swapping one yoke for another.
+++++++++++
Iggy has posted an entry so long that I haven't had time to read it, yet. In fact it took me five minutes to scroll down it to find what I knew I was looking for - a link to this post:
http://www.upforanything.net/poker/archives/002159.html
where Brad "Otis" Willis makes the observations frequently seen amongst the "just into the 30s" poker player. It generates some very interesting and intelligent responses as well (2+2, compare and contrast. Did someone invent that poster Rob Burgundy? I've yet to see him contribute anything of merit to a single thread, so I guess he's an early 20s guy who just loves to rack up the numbers of posts - oh, and who has even less of a life than me.)
FWIW, I think that Brad is a mite unfair on the youth of today. Sure, the high-fives and other antics are irritating, but I've only developed genuine feelings of disgust at the actions of older players -- usually long-time losers who need to angle-shoot to reduce their loss rate. I recall two examples in Vegas where cards -- quite clearly seen by all of the players -- were technically not "tabled". In both cases the other player was over 60 and won the pot by claiming that if the cards are not tabled face-up, then they are dead.
As I said both times, I know the rules. No angle-shooter is going to get cash out of me by pretending to muck. I never let go of my winning hand until the dealer is pushing the chips in my direction. In one case it was a novice who lost out, while in the other case it was another old guy. Actually, he really ought to have known better. What he did was expose one card on the turn (deliberately), He then turned it back over. On the river he bet and was called, and he turned over the other card, which gave him the straight. He then placed the first card in the muck. Angle-shooter promptly claimed the pot because both cards had not been tabled simultaneously. I really hope I never descend to that kind of level.
But these were not kids; these were old guys. The whooping and hollering might be louder amongst the youngsters, but the collusion and the angle-shooting spreads across all age groups.
+++++++
Speaking of Mr Burgundy (and, BTW, I'm aware of the "Anchorman" derivation) - here's a fascinating thread on botulism.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=11501450&an=0&page=0#Post11501450
It seems obvious that the original poster (Kornman) is a mainland European who previously worked for 888. He made the astute observation that many poker sites rank heavily winning bots alongside heavily winning poker players -- both damage what he describes as the "ecosystem" and we would describe as "everyone loses slowly while we hoover up the rake".
Ron Burgundy's (posts, 4574) considered response was
"Could someone translate this post into English plz?
Everyone else could understand it. I'm surprised someone else didnt type TLDNR (see the Brad post)
Many 2+2ers live in some kind of Malmuthian hermetism, consisting mainly of the line "My interests equal the general interests". This can be extended even to concepts of "justice". I don't know how many times I've typed "Life isn't fair. Learn it now" into a chat box.
One response was
"Poker is a game with simple rules. Games are fun because they're pure competition within a well-defined framework (rules). Being punished for playing the game too well (arbitrary meta-rule) is unfair and unreasonable."
LIF - LIN.
A second response that I see time and again is that Poker sites should value winning players "because they play more, and so generate more rake".
The lack of logic in this argument can most easily be seen if you say that this argument could be applied, 10-fold, to bots. All that poker sites care about is that money does not leave thepoker economy before it hits their own bottom line. It matters not that a player generated $1000 in rake this week if he takes $11,000 off other players. To a poker site, that is ten grand lose, not a grand won.
At least, that was how I saw it, until one astute poster (yes, they are there, if you look hard enough) pointed out that if you are a "skin", then the argument collapses. Skins want winning players, because they generate more rake, and the money that they win comes from players who are probably playing at other skins. So, the money lost by the other players doesn't cost the skin any money, while the winning player plays more, and thus generates more rake for the skin.
This is a very important point, because it basically means that the business model of a poker skin is different from the poker model of a non-skin site such as Pokerstars or Full Tilt. Stars and FTP want me to "lose slowly", i.e., break even against other players, losing just the rake. For them, that is the most sustainable model.
Skins, meanwhile, want me to win, so that I will play more, and at higher stakes. Skins are fighting for the best players playing at the biggest stakes, and will offer rakeback deals to get them.
+++++++++++++++++
