![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some first thoughts on the new Pokerstars buy-ins.
Tougher. The 40bb-100bb at $1-$2 and the the 20bb-50bb at $2-$4 have, inevitably, attracted specialists, which means that mistakes are fewer. At $2-$4 20bb-50bb this is particularly noticeable -- although it's possible that I have been running slightly bad there. The structure of this makes it much more necessary to play your own hand rather than play your opponents' , because invariably they will be committed one way or the other as soon as the flop comes down (i.e., the size of your bet or whether you bet will not change their mind). This in turn means that you are more vulnerable to sequences of poor hole cards. This is always a factor, but it's less of a factor when you and your opponent are deep-stacked.
The $1-$2 40bb to 100bb fails to attract as many fish, who, as I have said before, are often short stacks or near short-stacks. A whole mass of big stacks is somewhat initimdating.
So, all in all, a difficult time. I think I may focus on the deep-stack 40bb to 100bb and start playing some ultra deep-stack there (provided I have position, of course).
Don't bother mentioning the 100bb to 250bb with an ante -- anyone who thinks this will liven up the games is wrong. a 100bb to 250bb $1-$2 game has a $500 sit-down cap and about six bucks in the middle. a 40bb to 100bb $2-$4 game has a $400 cap and six bucks in the middle. So I tried the 50c-$1 version, just to see if it was weaker and/or looser, and it wasn't -- just $1-$2 players looking for 50c-$1 players -- and the only ones who were there were good ones. Oh, and the FPP generation was poorer.
A rather sad psychological trick by Stars, I thought, although it would appear that some 2+2 posters really thought that it would make a difference.
++++++++++++
The volcanic ash cloud over the UK and Europe is beginning to become interesting from a new point of view - viz, health and safety.
The sad thing about "health and safety" and its proponents is, as I have previously written, that the "additional" safety precaution has an unmeasurable knock-on effect in that it dilutes all other safety precautions of a similar type (the fluorescent jacket being an obvious example). In some cases this means that the overall accident rate is not reduced, while in other cases the marginal extra safety decreases and decreases until, eventually, "overload" sets in and all of the warnings are heeded less, meaning that the additional safety actually reduces overall safety. I have yet to meet any supporter of H&S measures who seemes even to have thought about this point, which is what worries me (not least because it would seem to indicate that they must be thick).
However, the grounding of aircraft from midday last Thursday was clearly initiated wihout any imagination that it would last for four days and possibly more. As such, this gives us a clear indication of how "negotiable" safety is. If this cloud doesn't move or dissipate before next Wednesday, my bet will be that something will be "discovered" that enables planes to take off -- something that could have been discovered last Thursday, but which H&S ignored, because a blanket shutdown was simpler.
Behind the scenes, I suspect that this is already happening, with CFOs and CEOs on one side screaming blue murder at NATS (which is only following protocol) on the other, pointing out that, shit, it might be dangerous, but modern society can't function without air travel.
It's not a perfect example, but the general principle can be deduced, that H&S is not, never was, and never will be, the "absolute" that people (particularly those in H&S) pretend it to be. It is not "paramount". It's something which is introduced as a choice: "this inconvenience < this added safety". Usually, the inconvenience is suffered by people who don;t matter (i.e., the general public).
But when the inconvenience increases and when the sufferers become more important, then the "H&S" people begin to pull less sway. Eventually, they back down, although invariably a face-saving formula is found.
______________________
Tougher. The 40bb-100bb at $1-$2 and the the 20bb-50bb at $2-$4 have, inevitably, attracted specialists, which means that mistakes are fewer. At $2-$4 20bb-50bb this is particularly noticeable -- although it's possible that I have been running slightly bad there. The structure of this makes it much more necessary to play your own hand rather than play your opponents' , because invariably they will be committed one way or the other as soon as the flop comes down (i.e., the size of your bet or whether you bet will not change their mind). This in turn means that you are more vulnerable to sequences of poor hole cards. This is always a factor, but it's less of a factor when you and your opponent are deep-stacked.
The $1-$2 40bb to 100bb fails to attract as many fish, who, as I have said before, are often short stacks or near short-stacks. A whole mass of big stacks is somewhat initimdating.
So, all in all, a difficult time. I think I may focus on the deep-stack 40bb to 100bb and start playing some ultra deep-stack there (provided I have position, of course).
Don't bother mentioning the 100bb to 250bb with an ante -- anyone who thinks this will liven up the games is wrong. a 100bb to 250bb $1-$2 game has a $500 sit-down cap and about six bucks in the middle. a 40bb to 100bb $2-$4 game has a $400 cap and six bucks in the middle. So I tried the 50c-$1 version, just to see if it was weaker and/or looser, and it wasn't -- just $1-$2 players looking for 50c-$1 players -- and the only ones who were there were good ones. Oh, and the FPP generation was poorer.
A rather sad psychological trick by Stars, I thought, although it would appear that some 2+2 posters really thought that it would make a difference.
++++++++++++
The volcanic ash cloud over the UK and Europe is beginning to become interesting from a new point of view - viz, health and safety.
The sad thing about "health and safety" and its proponents is, as I have previously written, that the "additional" safety precaution has an unmeasurable knock-on effect in that it dilutes all other safety precautions of a similar type (the fluorescent jacket being an obvious example). In some cases this means that the overall accident rate is not reduced, while in other cases the marginal extra safety decreases and decreases until, eventually, "overload" sets in and all of the warnings are heeded less, meaning that the additional safety actually reduces overall safety. I have yet to meet any supporter of H&S measures who seemes even to have thought about this point, which is what worries me (not least because it would seem to indicate that they must be thick).
However, the grounding of aircraft from midday last Thursday was clearly initiated wihout any imagination that it would last for four days and possibly more. As such, this gives us a clear indication of how "negotiable" safety is. If this cloud doesn't move or dissipate before next Wednesday, my bet will be that something will be "discovered" that enables planes to take off -- something that could have been discovered last Thursday, but which H&S ignored, because a blanket shutdown was simpler.
Behind the scenes, I suspect that this is already happening, with CFOs and CEOs on one side screaming blue murder at NATS (which is only following protocol) on the other, pointing out that, shit, it might be dangerous, but modern society can't function without air travel.
It's not a perfect example, but the general principle can be deduced, that H&S is not, never was, and never will be, the "absolute" that people (particularly those in H&S) pretend it to be. It is not "paramount". It's something which is introduced as a choice: "this inconvenience < this added safety". Usually, the inconvenience is suffered by people who don;t matter (i.e., the general public).
But when the inconvenience increases and when the sufferers become more important, then the "H&S" people begin to pull less sway. Eventually, they back down, although invariably a face-saving formula is found.
______________________
