![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
SUNDAY TIMES CENSORS CLARKSON!
WE REVEAL THE TRUTH!
That would be good, wouldn't it? Indeed, a whole bunch of web sites claim to have done just that, publishing a Clarkson article on how it would be a good idea to leave for another country, except that there's problems with all other countries. An article that was censored by the Sunday Times by the accursed Murdoch cannot be kept out of the public eye in these days of easy publishing, so don't even try!
Unfortuntately, publishing might be easy, but being a proper publisher isn't. One of the things to check when you are publishing a censored article is that it is actually a censored article (well, to be honest, that's the first thing to check).
And, in these days of interwebbing, even if you are so poor at publishing as to take Wikipedia as an unimpeachable source, it isn't to hard to check if something has been censored.
So, I fear that I will not be letting you read the marvellously xenophobic piece that Clarkson wrote. Instead, I recommend that you see it here...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article6907747.ece
++++++++
Facebook is repeatedly a home to the new marketeers. You'll always find a mug to do your marketing for you. Get Anarchy In The UK to number one, Get God Save the Queen to number one.
Why? As some for of brilliant protest against "the establishment"? Well, lol, as they say.
The use of branding by capitalism to sell to people who think that they are being anti-capitalist by buying that brand is a well-trodden path, and there are mugs out there who will always fall for it. Facebook, being taken over by those cancerous "social marketeers" is even better, because it is cheap. If there is one thing worse than a person in marketing, it's a person in marketing who is cheap.
Incidentally, people in marketing will ALWAYS give you a reason why you should spend more on marketing. If you are getting insufficient response, then obviously you need to spend more. However, if you are getting 90% response rates, you also need to spend more, because your marketing is profitable as low as 20% response rates. No mention of the fact that, if you spend nothing, you might get an even better rsponse rate, over time.
Bill Hicks got it right on marketing, obv. "Kill yourselves. Kill yourselves now", he said.
++++++++
Pokerstars has brought in its new blind structures, and I've been thinking through the implications. I've read nothing on 2+2 yet which appears to "get it". The weird thing is the players cheering the 100bb-250bb blinds, with an ante. A cursory look at this shows that an old 50c-$1 blind structure with $20 Min $100 max BI is replaced by a 25c-50c blind structure, plus ante, with a $50 min and $125 max BI. The only differences are (a) psychological and (b) you get fewer FPPs.
Of more interest are the 20BB-50bb tables. The 2+2ers were screaming away that these appeared to be both more popular and that more fish were playing on them.
In which case, of course, then you should be playing on them, and stop moaning that you haven't got 100 big blinds or any 100 big blind opponents.
But then something else struck me. I could quite easily play $1-$2 blind at the full buy-in tables (40bb to 100bb) and $2-$4 blinds at the small buy-in tables (20bb to 50bb), sitting down with the max at both tables. That gives me $200 sit down at both types of table, while one has bigger blinds (which, in itself, is roughly equal to the smaller blinds, but with antes). FPP generation is bigger at the $2-$4 tables with 50bb max than it is at the $$1-$2 tables with a 100bb max. It would appear that the quality of play will, on average, be roughly the same. The only downside is that I am not playing a deepstack game, which takes certain strategies away from me. But if I get a double through, I can stay, so long as the biger stacks are on my right.
The only downside that I can foresee is that these short-stack tables will lead people to becoming much better at short-stack vs short stack play, which means that some of the techniques I have been using profitably against the better short stacks will no longer work. But we'll see how that progresses. So, for the weekend, I'm thinking of giving that a go.
_________________________
WE REVEAL THE TRUTH!
That would be good, wouldn't it? Indeed, a whole bunch of web sites claim to have done just that, publishing a Clarkson article on how it would be a good idea to leave for another country, except that there's problems with all other countries. An article that was censored by the Sunday Times by the accursed Murdoch cannot be kept out of the public eye in these days of easy publishing, so don't even try!
Unfortuntately, publishing might be easy, but being a proper publisher isn't. One of the things to check when you are publishing a censored article is that it is actually a censored article (well, to be honest, that's the first thing to check).
And, in these days of interwebbing, even if you are so poor at publishing as to take Wikipedia as an unimpeachable source, it isn't to hard to check if something has been censored.
So, I fear that I will not be letting you read the marvellously xenophobic piece that Clarkson wrote. Instead, I recommend that you see it here...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article6907747.ece
++++++++
Facebook is repeatedly a home to the new marketeers. You'll always find a mug to do your marketing for you. Get Anarchy In The UK to number one, Get God Save the Queen to number one.
Why? As some for of brilliant protest against "the establishment"? Well, lol, as they say.
The use of branding by capitalism to sell to people who think that they are being anti-capitalist by buying that brand is a well-trodden path, and there are mugs out there who will always fall for it. Facebook, being taken over by those cancerous "social marketeers" is even better, because it is cheap. If there is one thing worse than a person in marketing, it's a person in marketing who is cheap.
Incidentally, people in marketing will ALWAYS give you a reason why you should spend more on marketing. If you are getting insufficient response, then obviously you need to spend more. However, if you are getting 90% response rates, you also need to spend more, because your marketing is profitable as low as 20% response rates. No mention of the fact that, if you spend nothing, you might get an even better rsponse rate, over time.
Bill Hicks got it right on marketing, obv. "Kill yourselves. Kill yourselves now", he said.
++++++++
Pokerstars has brought in its new blind structures, and I've been thinking through the implications. I've read nothing on 2+2 yet which appears to "get it". The weird thing is the players cheering the 100bb-250bb blinds, with an ante. A cursory look at this shows that an old 50c-$1 blind structure with $20 Min $100 max BI is replaced by a 25c-50c blind structure, plus ante, with a $50 min and $125 max BI. The only differences are (a) psychological and (b) you get fewer FPPs.
Of more interest are the 20BB-50bb tables. The 2+2ers were screaming away that these appeared to be both more popular and that more fish were playing on them.
In which case, of course, then you should be playing on them, and stop moaning that you haven't got 100 big blinds or any 100 big blind opponents.
But then something else struck me. I could quite easily play $1-$2 blind at the full buy-in tables (40bb to 100bb) and $2-$4 blinds at the small buy-in tables (20bb to 50bb), sitting down with the max at both tables. That gives me $200 sit down at both types of table, while one has bigger blinds (which, in itself, is roughly equal to the smaller blinds, but with antes). FPP generation is bigger at the $2-$4 tables with 50bb max than it is at the $$1-$2 tables with a 100bb max. It would appear that the quality of play will, on average, be roughly the same. The only downside is that I am not playing a deepstack game, which takes certain strategies away from me. But if I get a double through, I can stay, so long as the biger stacks are on my right.
The only downside that I can foresee is that these short-stack tables will lead people to becoming much better at short-stack vs short stack play, which means that some of the techniques I have been using profitably against the better short stacks will no longer work. But we'll see how that progresses. So, for the weekend, I'm thinking of giving that a go.
_________________________
