We Don't Need That Commuting Groove Thaang
Jan. 2nd, 2008 12:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksA small Ad from one of our German readers:
For Sale:
How To Play Turn And River in No-Limit Hold'Em, by Barry Greenstein
Unwanted present. Unread, unopened, unneeded.
Best offer secures.
+++++++++++++++++
And so I returned to the commuting groove this morning. Network Rail has failed to balls up the south-eastern line, unlike the lines into Essex (Liverpool Street closed because Network Rail can't mend a bridge inside 10 days) and the West Coast Line (Rugby section of line closed because it took Network Rail until the beginning of December to notice how late their line works projects were running).
Network Rail's engineering works are a bit like the platform indicators of when a train is due.
Until one minute before the train is scheduled to arrive, the train, if it is late, wil be indicated as being a minute or so late. Then, a minute or so later, the time will be moved back a couple of minutes - and so on, and so on.
Notwithstanding the irritation that this causes, the question is, why do it in the first place? Better, surely, to take a 15-minute hit in one lump and then the customer is happy when it arrives only five minutes late.
Network Rail could have done this with the rail engineering. Say that the lot will be closed until January 31, and then reopen it on January 4. Only a complete fool would say that stuff will be finished by December 30 when that turns out not to be the case. The level of incompetence on the engineering side is bad enough, but what's most annoying is the gross incompetence in senior management, who clearly haven't got the faintest idea how to manage expectations.
At Lewisham, the 6.20 has become the 6.16 (and increased to 10 carriages, woo hoo!) and the 6.22 has become the 6.20. How do I know, you might ask, that it is not the 6.22 that has become the 6.16, with the 6.20 remaining as was?
Because, of course, the 6.20 (as was) and the 6.22 (as was) leave from different platforms.
Walking through Trafalgar Square, I was pleasantly surprised to note that there were no teenagers dying from knife wounds anywhere to be seen. Clearly the streets are now a safe place to be.
Oh, and overnight, someone had dumped two wardrobes and a side cabinet on the pavement outside the house. They weren't even in that bad a nick. With luck some Lithuanian entrepreneurs will have picked the stuff up by the time I get home. If not, I shall have to phone the council.
++++++++
Played like a bit of a tosser last night, if truth be told, and lady luck declined to turn my small amounts of minus Sklansky dollars into large amounts of positive real ones. Instead it turned them into large amounts of negative real ones. I'm not sure how I got out for the day for "only" minus $96. Well, I am sure, because I booked a $100 Party bonus.
The most irritating hand was where I laid down the nut flush to a board containing a pair where a Jack came on turn and an Ace on the river. Opponent (35%/3%) had mini-raised preflop and I remembered him doing this with JJ in a similar situation a week or so ago.
I bet out a 75% pot bet with K3 of diamonds (Big Blind) on a flop of 2d 4d 4s. One could even argue against this, being OOP against three opponents. But I got away with it, being called in one spot by the mini-raiser.
Turn bought Jd giving me the flush. I bet $15 (the pot), leaving me $80 behind. Opponent called, and he had me marginally outstacked.
River brought Ace of diamonds and I'm now really thinking about the maximum that I can bet to get paid if opponent has something with a small amount of showdown value. I really didn't think this through enough and I won't make the same mistake again.
I decided that about $18 of the $45 was the max he would pay me off on. I put it in, and he promptly raised all-in, leaving me with $62 or thereabouts to call.
One of the major things you need to do as a poker player is to be prepared for all eventualities, but I had fallen into the trap of so assuming that my read on him was right (and he was a fairly straightforward player) that this completely threw me.
Making a difficult decision for a lot of money in about six seconds is not recommended (which is why you plan the hand in advance).
Nothing made sense here -- he wasn't the type to put in an all-in bluff; he wasn't good enough to see my bet as a "blocking" bet (which it wasn't, anyway, because when I put the bet in I was certain that I was winning; it was a value bet, but a good player might misinterpret it as a blocking bet); the only hand that made even the slightest sense was AA with no diamond, and even that seemed unlikely.
Anyhoo, I decided that, in the past, calling in these situations with a flush had been a loser, so I folded.
Then, just to kick me in the nuts, he showed QQ with the Queen of diamonds (which gave him the second nut-flush).
Now that I think about it, this makes some kind of sense. He probably thought that his flush was good and that I was making a blocking bet on something like trip fours. Whereas my bet was an attempt to extract value, he saw it as a weak lead.
All of this is easy to work out in hindsight, and I was distinctly unhappy with myself. I should have shoved on the turn. He might well have called with an overpair. I must make more of these large overbets on the turn when I am nearly absolutely certain that I am winning. Recalling just this situation, I shoved (4x the size of the pot) against a player whom I knew to be weak, on a board of KQT two hearts. I had KQ with one heart. I reckon he might call with a nut flush draw, or with AK and any flush draw.
He insta called with KQ and no hearts.
Well, 95% of the time my shove here would represent either a straight or a set of tens. But I'd be hesitant to put in such a big bet on the grounds that I would lose my market. I'd probably bet twice the size of the pot and the same on the turn. But if people will call with top two pair and no flush opportunity...
And I was running bad. 600 hands without turning a single set? Referee. Rigged, I tell you.
+++++
Party Poker are trying to rival Network Rail in irritating their customers. When the company first offered "Cash for points", you could change 1,000 points for $10. After I did this, I logged on again when I had accumulated 1,000 points, only to see that it was now a minimum of $25 for 2,500 points. So, I carried on playing at my normal pace until I reached that, and I changed it up.
After recent heavy gaming on the site, I was up to 5,500 points, so I logged to change them up.
No such luck; it's now 10,000 points for $100.
The thing is, what's the point? I'm not going to play any more often. All that Party does is hold onto an irrelevant amount of cash for a bit longer than otherwise. In the process, they get me thinking that the entire company is run by cunts. Well, I knew that anyway. But did they really need to confirm it? And what will happen after I cash the 10,000 points? Will they make it $1,000 for 100,000 points?
The negative brand image that this generates far outweighs the small gains that the morons in their marketing department think they achieve through "encouraging" extra play.
For Sale:
How To Play Turn And River in No-Limit Hold'Em, by Barry Greenstein
Unwanted present. Unread, unopened, unneeded.
Best offer secures.
+++++++++++++++++
And so I returned to the commuting groove this morning. Network Rail has failed to balls up the south-eastern line, unlike the lines into Essex (Liverpool Street closed because Network Rail can't mend a bridge inside 10 days) and the West Coast Line (Rugby section of line closed because it took Network Rail until the beginning of December to notice how late their line works projects were running).
Network Rail's engineering works are a bit like the platform indicators of when a train is due.
Until one minute before the train is scheduled to arrive, the train, if it is late, wil be indicated as being a minute or so late. Then, a minute or so later, the time will be moved back a couple of minutes - and so on, and so on.
Notwithstanding the irritation that this causes, the question is, why do it in the first place? Better, surely, to take a 15-minute hit in one lump and then the customer is happy when it arrives only five minutes late.
Network Rail could have done this with the rail engineering. Say that the lot will be closed until January 31, and then reopen it on January 4. Only a complete fool would say that stuff will be finished by December 30 when that turns out not to be the case. The level of incompetence on the engineering side is bad enough, but what's most annoying is the gross incompetence in senior management, who clearly haven't got the faintest idea how to manage expectations.
At Lewisham, the 6.20 has become the 6.16 (and increased to 10 carriages, woo hoo!) and the 6.22 has become the 6.20. How do I know, you might ask, that it is not the 6.22 that has become the 6.16, with the 6.20 remaining as was?
Because, of course, the 6.20 (as was) and the 6.22 (as was) leave from different platforms.
Walking through Trafalgar Square, I was pleasantly surprised to note that there were no teenagers dying from knife wounds anywhere to be seen. Clearly the streets are now a safe place to be.
Oh, and overnight, someone had dumped two wardrobes and a side cabinet on the pavement outside the house. They weren't even in that bad a nick. With luck some Lithuanian entrepreneurs will have picked the stuff up by the time I get home. If not, I shall have to phone the council.
++++++++
Played like a bit of a tosser last night, if truth be told, and lady luck declined to turn my small amounts of minus Sklansky dollars into large amounts of positive real ones. Instead it turned them into large amounts of negative real ones. I'm not sure how I got out for the day for "only" minus $96. Well, I am sure, because I booked a $100 Party bonus.
The most irritating hand was where I laid down the nut flush to a board containing a pair where a Jack came on turn and an Ace on the river. Opponent (35%/3%) had mini-raised preflop and I remembered him doing this with JJ in a similar situation a week or so ago.
I bet out a 75% pot bet with K3 of diamonds (Big Blind) on a flop of 2d 4d 4s. One could even argue against this, being OOP against three opponents. But I got away with it, being called in one spot by the mini-raiser.
Turn bought Jd giving me the flush. I bet $15 (the pot), leaving me $80 behind. Opponent called, and he had me marginally outstacked.
River brought Ace of diamonds and I'm now really thinking about the maximum that I can bet to get paid if opponent has something with a small amount of showdown value. I really didn't think this through enough and I won't make the same mistake again.
I decided that about $18 of the $45 was the max he would pay me off on. I put it in, and he promptly raised all-in, leaving me with $62 or thereabouts to call.
One of the major things you need to do as a poker player is to be prepared for all eventualities, but I had fallen into the trap of so assuming that my read on him was right (and he was a fairly straightforward player) that this completely threw me.
Making a difficult decision for a lot of money in about six seconds is not recommended (which is why you plan the hand in advance).
Nothing made sense here -- he wasn't the type to put in an all-in bluff; he wasn't good enough to see my bet as a "blocking" bet (which it wasn't, anyway, because when I put the bet in I was certain that I was winning; it was a value bet, but a good player might misinterpret it as a blocking bet); the only hand that made even the slightest sense was AA with no diamond, and even that seemed unlikely.
Anyhoo, I decided that, in the past, calling in these situations with a flush had been a loser, so I folded.
Then, just to kick me in the nuts, he showed QQ with the Queen of diamonds (which gave him the second nut-flush).
Now that I think about it, this makes some kind of sense. He probably thought that his flush was good and that I was making a blocking bet on something like trip fours. Whereas my bet was an attempt to extract value, he saw it as a weak lead.
All of this is easy to work out in hindsight, and I was distinctly unhappy with myself. I should have shoved on the turn. He might well have called with an overpair. I must make more of these large overbets on the turn when I am nearly absolutely certain that I am winning. Recalling just this situation, I shoved (4x the size of the pot) against a player whom I knew to be weak, on a board of KQT two hearts. I had KQ with one heart. I reckon he might call with a nut flush draw, or with AK and any flush draw.
He insta called with KQ and no hearts.
Well, 95% of the time my shove here would represent either a straight or a set of tens. But I'd be hesitant to put in such a big bet on the grounds that I would lose my market. I'd probably bet twice the size of the pot and the same on the turn. But if people will call with top two pair and no flush opportunity...
And I was running bad. 600 hands without turning a single set? Referee. Rigged, I tell you.
+++++
Party Poker are trying to rival Network Rail in irritating their customers. When the company first offered "Cash for points", you could change 1,000 points for $10. After I did this, I logged on again when I had accumulated 1,000 points, only to see that it was now a minimum of $25 for 2,500 points. So, I carried on playing at my normal pace until I reached that, and I changed it up.
After recent heavy gaming on the site, I was up to 5,500 points, so I logged to change them up.
No such luck; it's now 10,000 points for $100.
The thing is, what's the point? I'm not going to play any more often. All that Party does is hold onto an irrelevant amount of cash for a bit longer than otherwise. In the process, they get me thinking that the entire company is run by cunts. Well, I knew that anyway. But did they really need to confirm it? And what will happen after I cash the 10,000 points? Will they make it $1,000 for 100,000 points?
The negative brand image that this generates far outweighs the small gains that the morons in their marketing department think they achieve through "encouraging" extra play.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-02 01:12 pm (UTC)Of course on the occasions when the train doesn't have a problem outside your station and just arrives one minute late you don't give it any thought.
Lurker
no subject
Date: 2008-01-02 02:32 pm (UTC)Don't you have any fireplaces?
A modern wood burning stove will produce no smoke and will reduce the heating bill on your hovel so you can buy more junk to put in it. It's also a hit with babes who like doing that "love making in front of a fire" thang.
There must be enough wood waste lying around London to heat millions of homes. You can always throw a few migrants on the log pile.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-02 02:40 pm (UTC)However, as you say, obtaining wood for fireplaces isn't much of a problem in London. What's rare is the ease of access (viz, just outside the door).
Eventually I shall reinstall a fireplace in the main "sitting room" (or whatever you want to call it), much to the horror of my mother, who considered the boparding up of Victorian fireplaces and the installation of central heating one of the few pieces of progress of the 20th century.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2008-01-02 02:59 pm (UTC)1) You will probably need an insulated flue insert. It consists of a double skinned stainless steel tube going up the full length of your chimney to the outside world. Modern housing regulations being the pain that they are.
2) At the bottom goes a T-piece. The down tube has a cover over it for inspection and for your boy to stick his brushes up. The horizontal outlet with an extra piece of tubing goes into the stove. Stove does not go into the breast. It works better if it is out in the room. About a foot clear of the breast. You'll then need heat resistant tiles under the feet of the stove.
3) You might want to have a stove with a back boiler that feeds your radiators and hot water cylinder.
4) If your wood supply consists of off-cuts, bits of furniture, pallets etc. then it can all be stored indoors. I wouldn't do that with grubby bits of tree as the population of your house will increase a billion fold and I challenge you to notice any of them until it is too late. Psocids are an arse! There's no harm in having a few logs in from outside so long as they get burnt on the day. As soon as you get the fire going, close off the air inlets to the minimum and you are only looking at a few logs per hour.
I have two tonnes of wood in Ireland if you fancy a bit of a drive. :D
party points
Date: 2008-01-02 11:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 02:03 am (UTC)Perhaps cr the turn or bet a bit heavier on the river, but I'd not let this player's action govern too much; he was trying to be clever and got lucky.
Totti
no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 05:14 am (UTC)What is important is to not start second guessing your actions on earlier streets. On the flop betting is the best option. Check/calling is awful, and check/raising is viable. On the turn I would definitely bet, and I dont really like overbetting. On the river you have a bit of difficult decision, but, and this is a big but, betting small to induce a call is usually a mistake. Most of the time a bad players decision to call or fold to a bet is almost binary, they either do or they dont. If a player calls $20, he is pretty certain to call $40 as well. Obviously if you bet massively (ie overbetting) or too small it will change it somewhat, but in general it pays to always bet quite large in these situations. Let your opponent make a big mistake rather than a small one!
One other big reason to bet big is that if your opponent is thinking at all, he will realise that a small bet is going to be rarely a bluff. On the river against semi decent players I'm often in spots where im happy to call pot bets but will probably fold to 1/2 pots, I know they dont expect me to fold when they bet half the pot, and vice versa.
I know this is somewhat of a tangent, but lastly on this subject, in terms of meta game, small value bets are terrible, because they remove your ability to bluff. After a hand like this if you bet big on the river even the worst opponent will realise you want him to fold.
So on the river I would bet about 40. (45 would be fine). That would leave you to call about 40, which you would be forced to instantly call. As played I think the fold is only a small mistake, (i would call though).
I really enjoyed your last post about the london character and their dodgy deals.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 12:42 pm (UTC)On the hand in question, I take all your points.
I've still a vague feeling that a shove on the turn isn't that bad a play in terms of EV against a certain type of player, of whom this player might have been one. This heads into the area of players looking for an excuse to call (a trap that I have fallen into myself).
So, with that kind of hand, he might say "he might be on a draw here, in which case I should call. And if he as trips, then I have a flush draw to win. And if it's Ace-Jack, I'm winning." On the turn, poorer players often call overbets on these grounds.
However, I don't dislike the pot bet on the turn either. You are right. The best thing to do is to just stick to betting the pot (or thereabouts) on flop, turn and river. Simple, consisttent, and the best line. Sure, it means I am committed if he raises me all-in, but the gains from the hands on which he calls will far outweigh the losses when the raise comes. Keep it simple.
On the metagame point, it's not that big a factor at these levels. There's quite a large player pool and I'm quite liable to put in an overbet in similar situations when I think the opponent is liable to call it. My bet sizes in this situation are very player-dependent (or, rather, player-stat-dependent). If this bet makes another opponent think that an overbet is always a bluff, I'm delighted.
"Chiselling" (as I term it) feels profitable to me, so long as your big bets on the river also represent a good hand most of the time. I've bluffed with half-pot bets, pot bets and shoves, but in each case the bluff makes up a small proportion of the whole.
PJ