The Path To Bathroom Nirvana - day two
Sep. 28th, 2007 11:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksSo, I got home yesterda, and no-one appeared to have been round to do anything. Then again, anything done would appear to have as a requirement someone being round. It was possible (but, I thought, unlikely) that someone had come round and sat in the flat all day, reading a newspaper. But I doubted it.
Needless to say, I was not best pleased. But I know how these projects go. Everyone is relying on someone else, and if an electrician lets a plumber down, it's not much use blaming the plumber.
However, all was not lost. I was upstairs, watering the plants, when I heard a "Hellloooo" from the front door — in the unmistakeable tones of the plumber.
And he was with his mate, and they hooked up the bath. So, I now have a functioning bath -- no floor, no walls, no sink, but there is a bath, and hot water runs into it, and drains out of it. Progress, most definitely, was being made.
And the carpenter was in this morning. I know that, because he phoned me up. Rather than having shower walls up to the high ceiling, he recommended no higher than 7 feet, for reasons of light and steam escape. Good stuff. I hadn't thought of that. Plus I'm having an extractor fan. I hadn't thought of that, either.
++++++++
Looking at the tragic events in Myanmar/Burma, one thing that occurred to me from looking at that dreadful picture of the Japanese photographer being killed, was that, as revolutionary dress for marching protestors go, sarongs and flip-flops are probably not ideal. They should definitely take some lessons from the Japanese student protestors of days gone by, who had the foresight to wear crash helmets, scarves around their faces and, doubtless, bullet-proof vests and reserve oxygen tanks in case of tear gas. Indeed, perhaps the two street gangs in Liverpool could be recruited by the protestors on the streets of Rangoon for some advice on how to stick two fingers up at authority and get away with it.
+++++++++++
If I continue to play as well as I am playing on the tables, I am in severe danger of going broke by Christmas :-)
Actually, I won a bit yesterday. Not a lot. I had a difficult hand with two red Aces that cost me a third of my stack when I called a final bet of $20. I felt that I had played it okay (I raised to $4 preflop, got one caller in the blind (also with about $100). I bet $9 on the flop of something like QT5 two spades. Turn brought the king of spades, He checked and I checked behind. River was a rag. He bets $20 and I call. He shows the flush.
Initially I was pleased that I had restricted my loss to $33 or thereabouts. But when I thought some more about this, I was less happy. If the guy has hit his flush or straight, I'm drawing dead to the river card. If he hasn't his his flush or straight, then I should charge him to draw. There's an argument for checking behind on the turn if this might elicit a bluff on the river, I suppose. But, although an alternative line (betting the turn and folding to a check-raise) means I miss a showdown, it also prevents opponent getting a free card if he is behind. I think that the key here is how often opponent might bet the river when he is losing to a pair of Aces. If the answer is "never", then I really ought to bet the turn. If the answer is "all the time", then checking is correct.
Since for most of the players I am against the actual percentage is much closer to "never" than to "all the time", I think that I should bet the turn and fold if I get check-raised. This line is wrong if opponent might check-raise on a big draw, but I've never seen that at $100 buy-in (or, indeed, at $200 buy-in).
Needless to say, I was not best pleased. But I know how these projects go. Everyone is relying on someone else, and if an electrician lets a plumber down, it's not much use blaming the plumber.
However, all was not lost. I was upstairs, watering the plants, when I heard a "Hellloooo" from the front door — in the unmistakeable tones of the plumber.
And he was with his mate, and they hooked up the bath. So, I now have a functioning bath -- no floor, no walls, no sink, but there is a bath, and hot water runs into it, and drains out of it. Progress, most definitely, was being made.
And the carpenter was in this morning. I know that, because he phoned me up. Rather than having shower walls up to the high ceiling, he recommended no higher than 7 feet, for reasons of light and steam escape. Good stuff. I hadn't thought of that. Plus I'm having an extractor fan. I hadn't thought of that, either.
++++++++
Looking at the tragic events in Myanmar/Burma, one thing that occurred to me from looking at that dreadful picture of the Japanese photographer being killed, was that, as revolutionary dress for marching protestors go, sarongs and flip-flops are probably not ideal. They should definitely take some lessons from the Japanese student protestors of days gone by, who had the foresight to wear crash helmets, scarves around their faces and, doubtless, bullet-proof vests and reserve oxygen tanks in case of tear gas. Indeed, perhaps the two street gangs in Liverpool could be recruited by the protestors on the streets of Rangoon for some advice on how to stick two fingers up at authority and get away with it.
+++++++++++
If I continue to play as well as I am playing on the tables, I am in severe danger of going broke by Christmas :-)
Actually, I won a bit yesterday. Not a lot. I had a difficult hand with two red Aces that cost me a third of my stack when I called a final bet of $20. I felt that I had played it okay (I raised to $4 preflop, got one caller in the blind (also with about $100). I bet $9 on the flop of something like QT5 two spades. Turn brought the king of spades, He checked and I checked behind. River was a rag. He bets $20 and I call. He shows the flush.
Initially I was pleased that I had restricted my loss to $33 or thereabouts. But when I thought some more about this, I was less happy. If the guy has hit his flush or straight, I'm drawing dead to the river card. If he hasn't his his flush or straight, then I should charge him to draw. There's an argument for checking behind on the turn if this might elicit a bluff on the river, I suppose. But, although an alternative line (betting the turn and folding to a check-raise) means I miss a showdown, it also prevents opponent getting a free card if he is behind. I think that the key here is how often opponent might bet the river when he is losing to a pair of Aces. If the answer is "never", then I really ought to bet the turn. If the answer is "all the time", then checking is correct.
Since for most of the players I am against the actual percentage is much closer to "never" than to "all the time", I think that I should bet the turn and fold if I get check-raised. This line is wrong if opponent might check-raise on a big draw, but I've never seen that at $100 buy-in (or, indeed, at $200 buy-in).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 11:39 pm (UTC)"Bet and fold to raise" is the common one, which comes about from the "free showdown raise" strategy people use. The idea being if you're going to call the turn and call the river, you raise the turn then check behind on the river if you don't improve (if you do you obviously bet).
The problem is if they get 3 bet on the turn they fold.
In the situation you stated I prefer the check call line. In omaha if a scare card hits on the turn I will often say to myself that I am prepared to put one more pot sized bet in to get to showdown.
So if a player bets out into me, I fold the turn, but if he checks then I check behind and call any river bet.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-29 10:58 am (UTC)Implicit in your statement "I am prepared to put one more pot-sized bet in to get to the showdown" is that your opponent will make a pot sized bet with sufficient frequency with a hand that you can beat for this play to be viable. As I said, if opponent never bets with a hand that you can beat, then checking behind and then calling has no plus side. At best it makes no difference and at worst you give your opponent a free card to get to his draw.
If opponent bets on the river with a hand that you can beat more than one time in three, then checking behind looks to me to be the right play. But my opponents don't often put in value bets such as that. That was why, in this particular scenario, I wondered whether I had played it right. I think it's clearly a situation that is very opponent-dependent.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-10-01 11:49 am (UTC)Niall L