Always The Bridesmaid
Nov. 27th, 2008 12:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksI'm excelling myself at the moment. As if it wasn't enough to be told at the weekend (rather gently) that my future was not going to pan out as I had vaguely hoped (but had known better than to expect -- seeing glasses as half-empty had the beneficial side-effect that when things go wrong, at least you are less let-down than you would have been if you were a glass-half-full kind of person) I then got another metaphorical kick in the teeth yesterday. But at least the second one had its funny side (well, it made me laugh, rather than cry). (I'll probably moan at length about the former when the mood takes me, but you are spared that for the moment).
Yesterday I got a phone call from a person with a rather upper-class accent on "a confidential matter". It became clear that this guy was a headhunter and he described the post on offer. It was quite a high-profile role, but not one that I would have thought beyond me. So I said, sure, send me through the job spec and I'll have a look at it. I eagerly anticipated the £70k offer with company car (BMW 6 series would do me, I decided....)
When job spec arrived, the wording was more ambiguous. The headhunter thanked me for being a "source" and the task was termed an "assignment".
This was a bit puzzling. If he wanted me, why phrase it that way? But if he wanted me to find someone for him, why was there no mention of a finder's fee? The headhunting firm would probably be getting little shy of £30k for filling such a role, so I wan't going to do the work for him for diddly-squat. I know that the upper classes think that the world owes them a living, but Mr Birks wouldn't play ball on that one. No sirreee.
So, I e-mailed back querying the ambiguity.
Later in the afternoon an email arrived stating that the request for me to source contacts. However (he continued) "if you feel an overwhelming compulsion to apply for the job yourself, then we would have to meet in my office".
Well, that gave me a little chuckle. Why not just write "don't be stupid, you cunt, you are too old and not sufficiently qualified". Indeed, I mentioned it to Jan, and she said "that's an insult! Tell him what you think of him!"
I'm somewhat more mature and professional than that these days, so I just replied to him that, I thought it through, and, given some of the job spex (I'm restricted by a confidentiality agreement here, so I can't be more specific) ruled out anyone that I knew in my rather small circle of contacts, but wishing him luck with future searches.
As I was on the phone to Jan, bugger me if he didn't e-mail me back, indicating that he was also incapable of taking a hint. I haven't replied to that one yet.
+++++++++++
Just opened my middle drawer on my pedestal to discover that my recently ordered poker books must have been sitting there since last Friday (or possibly the Friday before). Do I start on the sit'n'go strategy from Moshman, on the HU No-Limit Holdem (from Moshman), or on Hansen's "Every Hand Revealed"?
I played some $10 buy-in HU last night against a guy who had accumulated three buy-ins and was still sitting there, so he obviously wasn't rubbish (for the level). I still felt that I got his measure fairly quickly, although my first buy-in vanished after getting it all in on the turn with an overpair and then losing to a five-outer.
It's about 200 hands an hour single-tabling, and I suspect that the standard deviation is about two buy-ins an hour, but it's really hard to pin that down (I played at $5 buy in twice - in one I won $15 in half an hour and in the other I won 19 cents over the same period).
All of this seems to back up my first gut feeling that $25 buy-in single tabling is on a par with $100 buy-in three tabling (or something like that) for hands played and for volatility per hour.
That's a higher degree of difference than I imagined and, I suspect, is the cause of the downfall of many 6-max players moving to heads up. A similar factor hits live players dabbling online. They play $500 buy-ins live and so they single-table $400 online, whereas in fact they should be four-tabling $100 online.
The problem with Heads Up (for me) is that I am not sure I can maintain even my intial attempts at it without giving up full-ring play completely -- the differences are just so great. And full-ring play (or 8-handed) is working well for me at the moment. So, I may keep HU on "the back-burner", playing bits and pieces at v low stakes ($10 buy-in for a while) and getting a feel for the game. Clearly there's a far greater requirement to get into "the flow", and this makes 4-tabling impossible when learning the game. Later you can give up marginal gains to be made from single-tables for a greater EV from multi-tabling, but that would be some time away.
________________
Yesterday I got a phone call from a person with a rather upper-class accent on "a confidential matter". It became clear that this guy was a headhunter and he described the post on offer. It was quite a high-profile role, but not one that I would have thought beyond me. So I said, sure, send me through the job spec and I'll have a look at it. I eagerly anticipated the £70k offer with company car (BMW 6 series would do me, I decided....)
When job spec arrived, the wording was more ambiguous. The headhunter thanked me for being a "source" and the task was termed an "assignment".
This was a bit puzzling. If he wanted me, why phrase it that way? But if he wanted me to find someone for him, why was there no mention of a finder's fee? The headhunting firm would probably be getting little shy of £30k for filling such a role, so I wan't going to do the work for him for diddly-squat. I know that the upper classes think that the world owes them a living, but Mr Birks wouldn't play ball on that one. No sirreee.
So, I e-mailed back querying the ambiguity.
Later in the afternoon an email arrived stating that the request for me to source contacts. However (he continued) "if you feel an overwhelming compulsion to apply for the job yourself, then we would have to meet in my office".
Well, that gave me a little chuckle. Why not just write "don't be stupid, you cunt, you are too old and not sufficiently qualified". Indeed, I mentioned it to Jan, and she said "that's an insult! Tell him what you think of him!"
I'm somewhat more mature and professional than that these days, so I just replied to him that, I thought it through, and, given some of the job spex (I'm restricted by a confidentiality agreement here, so I can't be more specific) ruled out anyone that I knew in my rather small circle of contacts, but wishing him luck with future searches.
As I was on the phone to Jan, bugger me if he didn't e-mail me back, indicating that he was also incapable of taking a hint. I haven't replied to that one yet.
+++++++++++
Just opened my middle drawer on my pedestal to discover that my recently ordered poker books must have been sitting there since last Friday (or possibly the Friday before). Do I start on the sit'n'go strategy from Moshman, on the HU No-Limit Holdem (from Moshman), or on Hansen's "Every Hand Revealed"?
I played some $10 buy-in HU last night against a guy who had accumulated three buy-ins and was still sitting there, so he obviously wasn't rubbish (for the level). I still felt that I got his measure fairly quickly, although my first buy-in vanished after getting it all in on the turn with an overpair and then losing to a five-outer.
It's about 200 hands an hour single-tabling, and I suspect that the standard deviation is about two buy-ins an hour, but it's really hard to pin that down (I played at $5 buy in twice - in one I won $15 in half an hour and in the other I won 19 cents over the same period).
All of this seems to back up my first gut feeling that $25 buy-in single tabling is on a par with $100 buy-in three tabling (or something like that) for hands played and for volatility per hour.
That's a higher degree of difference than I imagined and, I suspect, is the cause of the downfall of many 6-max players moving to heads up. A similar factor hits live players dabbling online. They play $500 buy-ins live and so they single-table $400 online, whereas in fact they should be four-tabling $100 online.
The problem with Heads Up (for me) is that I am not sure I can maintain even my intial attempts at it without giving up full-ring play completely -- the differences are just so great. And full-ring play (or 8-handed) is working well for me at the moment. So, I may keep HU on "the back-burner", playing bits and pieces at v low stakes ($10 buy-in for a while) and getting a feel for the game. Clearly there's a far greater requirement to get into "the flow", and this makes 4-tabling impossible when learning the game. Later you can give up marginal gains to be made from single-tables for a greater EV from multi-tabling, but that would be some time away.
________________
no subject
Date: 2008-11-27 05:47 pm (UTC)matt
High Stakes
Date: 2008-11-27 08:05 pm (UTC)So, I remember High Stakes opening. I have walked past it (when it has usually been shut) maybe half a dozen times. But I have never walked inside it.
PJ
Pimp my Shark
Date: 2008-11-27 10:13 pm (UTC)I regard this as both mature and professional.
Mature, because after many years of analysis (mostly statistical, but with a smidgeon of introspection), I have realised that my personality is not well-suited to bottled rage. It's also probably bad for the environment.
Professional, because, well, these people are cock-suckers, aren't they? Obviously, they're pointless leeches. Arguably, they're an economic drag on society (not employing people who are fully qualified but don't fit an age profile; not checking back with the client because grabbing the vig is a higher EVP than making a constructive suggestion; basically, not having a clue).
I do this all the time; specifically with regard to unsolicited emails. I've made a grown man cry over the phone twice in my lifetime; both times for what I would argue are good and sufficient reasons.
I contend that, if everybody was prepared to be less passive-aggressive and just say what they think, then the world would be short a large number of cock-suckers.
Naturally, this contention has led my to my current enviable position of a happy, well-remunerated, and indeed universally venerated life.
(I do like getting hurt emails back saying "Well, there's no need to be rude." Sometimes I do the panto thing and email back, "Oh yes there is." Sometimes I just let them wait for the other shoe to drop.)
Re: Pimp my Shark
Date: 2008-11-27 10:19 pm (UTC)We'd obviously have less maniacs letting loose the hounds of Koranic hell in Bombay if everybody was as paranoid as LiveJournal.
That (to nobody's great surprise) was me above. Must go now, since I have to type in the two words "learn" and "beneath" (in addition to my username and password, both of which I had already entered) in order to prove that I am not a spambot. Do you get a lot of these on your squalid LJ site, btw?
Does anybody?
PS Happy Thanksgiving. The best I could manage from the local Spar was instanto-Christmas for two quid, which is a shame because I dislike turkey and loathe christmas pud. Never mind; the thought's the thing.
I think I'll think of Thai food instead.
Re: Pimp my Shark
Date: 2008-11-27 10:45 pm (UTC)But this was like kicking cripples. Far more fun is to start talking back. And keep talking. Don't let them get a word in edgeways. And see how long it takes for them to give up and walk away. When they do, shout "There's no need to be rude! I was just having a chat!"
PJ
Blog comment spam
Date: 2008-11-28 09:35 am (UTC)A secondary reason for finally starting to blog about things workly (as well as having accumulated a Stackoverflow reputation of 2165 at time of writing) was to start the process of circumventing the recruiter - build a modest body of vaguely representative work online in the hope/expectation that this will become a more significant way to identify like-minded individuals for hiring in the future.
Re: Blog comment spam
Date: 2008-12-01 09:08 pm (UTC)You do know that 2165 is an entirely meaningless number (unless you're Dan Brown, I suppose), don't you? Rather like these hundreds of billions whereof Birks speaks.