Farewell Fincham

[peterbirks]

And so, farewell Peter Fincham, now ex-controller of BBC One, and as predicted here on Friday July 13 (when Fincham himself said that he had no intention of resigning).

The only disappointing aspect in this is that, once again, incompetence does not appear to be a crime. The main reason for the departure, folowing an investigation into the affair, appears to be that the BBC failed to issue a correction quickly enough. In other words, they failed to make it clear that they had made a balls-up. Fincham said that he was resigning as "a matter of honour" but once again, made pains to emphasize that there had been no deliberate deceit on the part of the BBC.

It often seems to be the case that it's the cover-up (a distinct act, easily identified) that incurs a greater penalty than the crime. See for example Marion Jones, found guilty of lying to the Feds about drug abuse in the lead up to the 2000 Olympics. Her possible jail time is for the lying, not for the drug abuse.

In Fincham's case, the real sackable sins were twofold: 1) His boasting to the journalists about a "hot" piece of TV where the Queen appears to flounce out of a painting session, while failing to check that the clip had represented events accurately (the old case of, "the better the story, the more you need to verify it") and 2) the penny-pinching of TV stations when it comes to paying production companies, which is what causes these independent production companies to make mistakes such as putting clips together in a misleading way.

The first offence, however, was incompetence, rather than malfeasance. English criminal law is the basis of much of our attitude to 'life', hence the universal excuse of "Bu I didn't do it on purpose!". Motive rather than effect is seen as the overriding factor. Fincham didn't mean to deceive the journalists watching the clip, so that's alright then, is it?

No, not really. We should look more on the effect of things rather than the intention of the perpetrator. There's far too much "but he meant well" in this world, and too little "but he should have known better".

The second offence, the penny-pinching, is one for which Fincham is not exclusively to blame, and it is, needless to say, not even a point mentioned by the investigation. If you pay junior people in the media absolute shit (because so many people want to get in) then you will get donkeys. Hell, a lot of people want to get into Goldman Sachs, but the bank doesn't cut its salaries as a result. It just gets to choose the best, not the ones who will work cheapest.

++++++++++


Great stories fron Hugo Martin on Pokerverdict: The 'Martin Johnson' tale is an absolute beauty, summing up marketing departments worldwide.

'What do you call someone too stupid to go into marketing or PR?'

'I dunno, when I find one, I'll tell you'.

http://www.pokerverdict.com/Poker-Blog/Hugos-Blogspotting/5117/hugos_blogspotting_5_october.html


One quote from someone responding to a luckyjimm post...

So, like you, Jimm, I wait here with my laptop, the web, my poker addiction, and pass the days until I die.

Never let anyone think that winning at this game is easy.

++++++++++

There's been a player on NoIQ who has been driving me mental. I've only played 400+ hands against him, so it's possible that his performance is a mere statistical quirk. He's seeing 50%+ of pots and winning 40% of the flops that he sees. A third of the time he goes to showdown and he's winning just over half those showdowns.

Part of his technique seems to be to defend his big blind tenaciously; and it seems to be working for him, in the small sample that I have to hand.

Purely in the interests of experimentation, I decided to try to play against him in a slightly non-standard way, just to see how he reacted. With luck, he might be put out of his comfort zone. I suspected that he had a style that worked against tightish ABC players who always continuation-betted, but tended to fold to check-raises more than they should.

Tobe frank, I was just trying to see how this guy thought and played. This was the cheapest (although perhaps not the best) way to find out one bit of the puzzle.



Texas Hold'em NL $0.50/$1.00
Table "TURBO" Tennyson
Seat 1: HoldemBoy109 ($55.10 in chips)
Seat 2: Hero ($117.20 in chips)
Seat 4: bulldogge1 ($114.30 in chips) DEALER
Seat 7: lenos ($68.00 in chips)
Seat 9: Laggy opponent ($146.60 in chips)
Seat 10: LongGong ($98.00 in chips)
lenos: Post SB $0.50
Laggy opponent: Post BB $1.00

*** HOLE CARDS ***

Dealt to Hero [7d 7d]
Dealt to Laggy opponent [2s 7s]
LongGong: Fold
HoldemBoy109: Fold
Hero: Raise $3.50
bulldogge1: Fold
lenos: Fold
Laggy opponent: Call $2.50

*** FLOP *** [Qs 3d Kc]

Laggy opponent: Check
Hero: Check

*** TURN *** [5c]
Laggy opponent: Check
Hero: Check

(Once I've checked the flop, I'm only betting the turn if a scare-card appears. A five is not a scare card.)

*** RIVER *** [8h]
Laggy opponent: Bet $5.00
Hero: Call $5.00

(I'd decided to call any bet up to 1.5 times the pot here).

*** SUMMARY ***

Total pot $16.65 Rake $0.85
Hero: wins $16.65


Of course, I can win more if I bet and he check-raises and then I call him down. Then again, I win less if I bet and he folds or if I bet and he check-raises me with a hand that beats me.

This opponent seems willing to make moves against players either on the flop or on the turn (although his big river bets are usually the business). I suspect that he may overbet his bluffs and cleverly value-bet hands with showdown value. Miller points out how easily “exploitable” is the habit of putting in big bets on bluffs and smaller bets with good hands, but that’s a fine example of theory not being so easy in practice. I think this guy puts in the “bigger” bluffy bets on the flop and turn (always with effective stacks behind, obviously, he chooses his opponents well) while on the river he flip-flops, putting in the bigger bets with the good hands and smaller bets with the tentative hands. But, then again, I’m not sitting on a large sample.

He’s an interesting case study, because I haven’t seen anyone else at this level in the 8 to 10-player games use this style, and I’m still trying to work out efficient counterplays. I suspect that the efficient counterplays have a high standard deviation which is one reason that he can get away with it. If most of his opponents are tight multi-tablers, then they just can’t be bothered to focus on one single opponent playing in an efficient loose-aggressive style. For me, it’s an example of my inexperience in that I don’t have an immediate “template of response” to this style. I just have to get there by trial and error. Oh, to have talent!

Comments

[real-aardvark.livejournal.com]

When considering the medium to long-term effects of paying peanuts and thus acquiring donkeys (a strangely mixed metaphor. Perhaps monkeys are more amenable to the carrot and stick approach?), I imagine that the dispassionate observer of our current economic climate would be hard-pressed to regard Goldman Sachs as the ideal counter-example.

Otherwise, you're right. It's still unclear to me what precise (legal) offence Marion Jones has committed that justifies a custodial sentence. I mean, everybody lies to the Feds, usually with good reason. Is it now a crime to be caught doing so, irrespective of either the mens re or the mens acta offence originally committed? If so, we're back with the Spartans. Which is not an entirely comfortable place to be.

[real-aardvark.livejournal.com]

(And before you cavill: yes, I am aware that this is Goldman Sachs, not Bear Stearns, we're talking about. A truly impressive return from the FICC division, generated, as far as I recall, from a judicious bit of short-selling. But it still looks like luck to me, possibly propped up by one or two very clear-sighted individuals. On the whole, I imagine that Goldman Sachs is as filled with overpaid donkeys as any other firm on Wall Street or in the City.)

Are You a Criminal?

[geoffchall.livejournal.com]

This 'lying to federal authorities' is the basis for the wonderful questions on US Visa forms. "Are you a registered terrorist?" and such-like are not there to elicit a Yes but to give them a crime by which to convict you if it turns out that you had been a terrorist, regardless of whether your offences were spent or you were someone the US would regard as a 'good terrorist'.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

i was just attracted to the fact that donkey and monkey are but one letter apart. This also makes me amenable to the parrot and stick approach.

PJ

Down at the Old Cock and Bull

[real-aardvark.livejournal.com]

I'm looking forward to the point where I can retire and open up a charming village pub in the Cotswolds called "The Parrot and Sick..."