![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I took a $400 bath yesterday at $200 buy-in. And, although, as BDD once said, "I'd rather it hadn't happened", I was pleased that I suffered little emotional response. I don't like the term 'cooler' because I think it often refers to hands that, if you think about it rationally, you put the money in when you know you were beaten. However, even I am going to push all my money in on this hand (reconstructed from memory).
MP1 ($100): Raises $6 to $8
Button ($200): Calls
Hero ($200) (8s 8d) (Big Blind): Calls
Neither opponent designated as out-and-out nutter. Right hand opponent is fairly tight.
$25 in pot
Flop Td 8s 3d
Hero checks (single opponent I would lead out here, but two opponents gives me the opportunity to extract an extra bet from Right-hand opponent).
MP1 Bets $8
Button raises to $16
Hero raises to $52
MP1 folds
Button reraises to $192
Hero calls.
Button shows TT for a set of tens. Hero shows 88 for a set of eights.
So it goes.
When opponent reraised all-in here his range was narrowed sufficiently for me not to be that surprised to see a set of tens, but I'm still compelled to call against a range that definitely includes 33 and might include (at a pinch) AA or KK or AK of diamonds.
I also got caught for $100 with AK in the BB vs 88 on the button. He raised to 6. I reraised to $18. He called. Flop came AT8 two of a suit. I bet $35 and he raised all in with a set of 8s. Can't really see me getting away from that one.
So, just one of those nights. It followed a $200 hit in my final session the previous night ($100 buy-in on No IQ), so that's damaged the figures for the month quite a bit.
I suppose part of the reason for a lack of emotional response was that, when your equity portfolio is down $6k in 22 days, a minor blip at $200 buy-in seems an irrelevancy.
++++++++
Fed cuts interest rates by 75bp. This was already factored into interest rate swaps. The only surprise was that it came yesterday rather than at month-end. So why should sterling recover nearly three cents as a result?
Two reasons. The first is that the currency market is often stupid. It should make no difference in a cricket match if a top bowler is brought on now rather than, as had been expected, in three overs' time. But it still (temporarily) impacts the expected total score of the batting team in the spread markets when it happens.
Currencies are like that.
The second reason is more valid. Although the 75bp cut was "factored in", once it arrived, the traders started wondering whether more might be on the way.
The most pleasing thing that I read, however, was a quote from the chief investment strategist at Merrill Lynch (although, now I think about it, that's not a job with a great track record recently). He echoed something that I wrote here and which I didn't read anywhere else at the time --
I've been pointing out this blatantly obvious fact - that the setting of interest rates controls only the base price — for months. It doesn't control liquidity and, more importantly, it doesn't control the level of risk aversion. You (in the role of Ben Bernanke) could cut rates by three per cent, but if risk aversion went through the roof, it would still cost a less than triple A borrower more to borrow.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves now. Risk aversion has been at very low levels and has now returned to normality. Cutrting rates won't make lenders less risk averse.
__________
MP1 ($100): Raises $6 to $8
Button ($200): Calls
Hero ($200) (8s 8d) (Big Blind): Calls
Neither opponent designated as out-and-out nutter. Right hand opponent is fairly tight.
$25 in pot
Flop Td 8s 3d
Hero checks (single opponent I would lead out here, but two opponents gives me the opportunity to extract an extra bet from Right-hand opponent).
MP1 Bets $8
Button raises to $16
Hero raises to $52
MP1 folds
Button reraises to $192
Hero calls.
Button shows TT for a set of tens. Hero shows 88 for a set of eights.
So it goes.
When opponent reraised all-in here his range was narrowed sufficiently for me not to be that surprised to see a set of tens, but I'm still compelled to call against a range that definitely includes 33 and might include (at a pinch) AA or KK or AK of diamonds.
I also got caught for $100 with AK in the BB vs 88 on the button. He raised to 6. I reraised to $18. He called. Flop came AT8 two of a suit. I bet $35 and he raised all in with a set of 8s. Can't really see me getting away from that one.
So, just one of those nights. It followed a $200 hit in my final session the previous night ($100 buy-in on No IQ), so that's damaged the figures for the month quite a bit.
I suppose part of the reason for a lack of emotional response was that, when your equity portfolio is down $6k in 22 days, a minor blip at $200 buy-in seems an irrelevancy.
++++++++
Fed cuts interest rates by 75bp. This was already factored into interest rate swaps. The only surprise was that it came yesterday rather than at month-end. So why should sterling recover nearly three cents as a result?
Two reasons. The first is that the currency market is often stupid. It should make no difference in a cricket match if a top bowler is brought on now rather than, as had been expected, in three overs' time. But it still (temporarily) impacts the expected total score of the batting team in the spread markets when it happens.
Currencies are like that.
The second reason is more valid. Although the 75bp cut was "factored in", once it arrived, the traders started wondering whether more might be on the way.
The most pleasing thing that I read, however, was a quote from the chief investment strategist at Merrill Lynch (although, now I think about it, that's not a job with a great track record recently). He echoed something that I wrote here and which I didn't read anywhere else at the time --
"In simple terms, [the central banks] cannot force financial institutions to start or stop lending".wrote Rchard Bernstein.
I've been pointing out this blatantly obvious fact - that the setting of interest rates controls only the base price — for months. It doesn't control liquidity and, more importantly, it doesn't control the level of risk aversion. You (in the role of Ben Bernanke) could cut rates by three per cent, but if risk aversion went through the roof, it would still cost a less than triple A borrower more to borrow.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves now. Risk aversion has been at very low levels and has now returned to normality. Cutrting rates won't make lenders less risk averse.
__________
