![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My first attempt to watch the movie Bobby was kyboshed by Virgin Atlantic's complete incompetence these days when it comes to showing movies. The net result was me catching fractured parts of the movie, in no particular order, whenever Virgin could manage to get the system to work.
So, I bought a few DVDs on the way home last night, and Bobby was one of them.
As was the case with my first impression, I had some difficulties with the movie, which I recall describing as "sub-Altman". The film also seems to contain Kennedy supporters to a man -- not just in the campaign team (that, after all, was only to be expected), but also amongst all the other characters. I still recall being told that Bobby Kennedy had been shot and, a few hours later, that he had died. Although very young at the time, I was a great fan of Eugene McCarthy -- the first politician that I felt such enthusiasm for. Indeed, that enthusiasm has never been matched since -- not even for McGovern in '72 (McGovern is still toddling along in his 90s, I believe).
McCarthy is hardly mentioned, and the shots of Kennedy intercut with the movie (which kept reminding me of Nashville, except not as good) made him out to be little short of the second Messiah (although perhaps we had better not read down that route again...)
But, on the positive side, it's hardly fair to expect Emilio Estefez to match Altman, and his clear aim, to encapsulate a decade in a single evening, is not badly done. Sharon Stone is superb, Helen Hunt equally so. Demi Moore was lauded for playing against type, but it was the kind of role she could do in her sleep. Top performances on the male side as well, although, since this appeared to be a collection of Liberal Los Angeles on display, I was surprised that Sean Penn didn't turn up somewhere. I presume Anthony Hopkins (the one disappointment) got the part as a counterpoint for having to play Nixon in the eponymous film.
++++++++++++++++
Things are getting complex on the poker front. Maximising earnings at this time of year is, for me, very much a matter of exploiting the many and several generous bonuses. Party sent me an e-mail saying that I hadn't been seen at the tables "for some time" and just offered me a $35 bonus without a need for a deposit. Well, if you count 10 days as "for some time", you must be darned impatient, is all I can say. 240 points required, so that looks like 35% to 40% rakeback equivalent. You get a few more bucks on top of that by its ordinary reward scheme, plus a couple of bucks on Party points (now redeemable for cash).
Full Tilt, meanwhile, continues to suck me back in like a degenerate slots player, offering a superb bonus if you just qualify for any IronMan in December. You basically get a bonus for each and every Iron Man that you have qualified for this year, which means that just getting into the Bronze Iron Man is, for me, worth a $200 bonus. Add in the $60 or so EV from the freeroll, plus the FPP points, and it's something that I can't turn down.
Even though I should, because I've been running like shit on FTP for three months now. Indeed, over the past two years it's the only site that I can't beat. Statistically, this isn't unlikely, but I get the horrible feeling that my style isn't the right one for the kind of opposition I meet at the $100 buy-in, where I am flat-level after 10k hands. There's an awful lot of check-raising all-in on the flop to continuation bets -- frequently from deep stacks. I have to assume that a number of these bets are two-way semi-bluffs, since data-mining would show that I have a wide range when raising from hi-jack, cut-off or button. I haven't yet been in a situation where I can put this to the test with a call. But, no doubt when I do, opponent will show the business, or his flush draw will hit. That's the way FTP works for me.
These losses are more than couterbalanced by performances elsewhere, where playing in exactly the same way generates a comfortable profit. Simple variance? Possibly. But after three losing days there on the spin I was seriously thinking of shifting from 9-max to 6-max, mainly on the grounds that things couldn't go any worse.
++++++++++++++
Lunch with an old university friend At Le Vagna on Great Portland Street today. If I bump into Chris Evans or Danny Baker, I shall eat elsewhere.
__________________
So, I bought a few DVDs on the way home last night, and Bobby was one of them.
As was the case with my first impression, I had some difficulties with the movie, which I recall describing as "sub-Altman". The film also seems to contain Kennedy supporters to a man -- not just in the campaign team (that, after all, was only to be expected), but also amongst all the other characters. I still recall being told that Bobby Kennedy had been shot and, a few hours later, that he had died. Although very young at the time, I was a great fan of Eugene McCarthy -- the first politician that I felt such enthusiasm for. Indeed, that enthusiasm has never been matched since -- not even for McGovern in '72 (McGovern is still toddling along in his 90s, I believe).
McCarthy is hardly mentioned, and the shots of Kennedy intercut with the movie (which kept reminding me of Nashville, except not as good) made him out to be little short of the second Messiah (although perhaps we had better not read down that route again...)
But, on the positive side, it's hardly fair to expect Emilio Estefez to match Altman, and his clear aim, to encapsulate a decade in a single evening, is not badly done. Sharon Stone is superb, Helen Hunt equally so. Demi Moore was lauded for playing against type, but it was the kind of role she could do in her sleep. Top performances on the male side as well, although, since this appeared to be a collection of Liberal Los Angeles on display, I was surprised that Sean Penn didn't turn up somewhere. I presume Anthony Hopkins (the one disappointment) got the part as a counterpoint for having to play Nixon in the eponymous film.
++++++++++++++++
Things are getting complex on the poker front. Maximising earnings at this time of year is, for me, very much a matter of exploiting the many and several generous bonuses. Party sent me an e-mail saying that I hadn't been seen at the tables "for some time" and just offered me a $35 bonus without a need for a deposit. Well, if you count 10 days as "for some time", you must be darned impatient, is all I can say. 240 points required, so that looks like 35% to 40% rakeback equivalent. You get a few more bucks on top of that by its ordinary reward scheme, plus a couple of bucks on Party points (now redeemable for cash).
Full Tilt, meanwhile, continues to suck me back in like a degenerate slots player, offering a superb bonus if you just qualify for any IronMan in December. You basically get a bonus for each and every Iron Man that you have qualified for this year, which means that just getting into the Bronze Iron Man is, for me, worth a $200 bonus. Add in the $60 or so EV from the freeroll, plus the FPP points, and it's something that I can't turn down.
Even though I should, because I've been running like shit on FTP for three months now. Indeed, over the past two years it's the only site that I can't beat. Statistically, this isn't unlikely, but I get the horrible feeling that my style isn't the right one for the kind of opposition I meet at the $100 buy-in, where I am flat-level after 10k hands. There's an awful lot of check-raising all-in on the flop to continuation bets -- frequently from deep stacks. I have to assume that a number of these bets are two-way semi-bluffs, since data-mining would show that I have a wide range when raising from hi-jack, cut-off or button. I haven't yet been in a situation where I can put this to the test with a call. But, no doubt when I do, opponent will show the business, or his flush draw will hit. That's the way FTP works for me.
These losses are more than couterbalanced by performances elsewhere, where playing in exactly the same way generates a comfortable profit. Simple variance? Possibly. But after three losing days there on the spin I was seriously thinking of shifting from 9-max to 6-max, mainly on the grounds that things couldn't go any worse.
++++++++++++++
Lunch with an old university friend At Le Vagna on Great Portland Street today. If I bump into Chris Evans or Danny Baker, I shall eat elsewhere.
__________________
