![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Pissed off with justification
Jan. 19th, 2009 07:22 amIt's just a little bit of a newspaper filler to call this the most depressed day of the year. However, when it's absolutely pissing down with rain, and it's a Monday morning, and your train is late, AND THE WATER SUPPLY IN THE BUILDING HAS BROKEN DOWN (i.e., no coffee), then I think that being pissed off is more rational than a diktat of the day of the year.
And, of course, it's Monday.
Well, the new news publishing system theoretically "goes live" today, although I haven't been to the web site yet. I just hope that it isn't somehow linked in with the building's water supply.
++++++++
I read the beginnings of a very interesting thread on 2+2 last week, which was cunningly titled "Stars. Why Play Anywhere Else"?
In fact it was a diatribe against the tight nittiness of even the lowest-stakes Stars cash games. A few people agreed with the post; there was one dissenter (this was early in the thread's history), but in general the level of response was very low.
I suspect this was because the writer had touched a raw nerve. If you are asked "define the typical 2+2 reader", you might think of medium-stakes cash players. In fact the typical reader (in the sense of the modal average) is I suspect a relatively young $10 buy-in or $25 buy-in player. He is also multi-tabling on stars in a very nitty ABC style, just waiting for the occasional loose fish. In other words, the writer was criticizing the average 2+2 reader.
Until you get to the higher levels, and play fewer tables, Stars offers the average Bricks & Mortar-style player very little. Look at the length of the "achieving Supernova status" threads. This is what it's all about.
________________
And, of course, it's Monday.
Well, the new news publishing system theoretically "goes live" today, although I haven't been to the web site yet. I just hope that it isn't somehow linked in with the building's water supply.
++++++++
I read the beginnings of a very interesting thread on 2+2 last week, which was cunningly titled "Stars. Why Play Anywhere Else"?
In fact it was a diatribe against the tight nittiness of even the lowest-stakes Stars cash games. A few people agreed with the post; there was one dissenter (this was early in the thread's history), but in general the level of response was very low.
I suspect this was because the writer had touched a raw nerve. If you are asked "define the typical 2+2 reader", you might think of medium-stakes cash players. In fact the typical reader (in the sense of the modal average) is I suspect a relatively young $10 buy-in or $25 buy-in player. He is also multi-tabling on stars in a very nitty ABC style, just waiting for the occasional loose fish. In other words, the writer was criticizing the average 2+2 reader.
Until you get to the higher levels, and play fewer tables, Stars offers the average Bricks & Mortar-style player very little. Look at the length of the "achieving Supernova status" threads. This is what it's all about.
________________
