Pissed off with justification

[peterbirks]

It's just a little bit of a newspaper filler to call this the most depressed day of the year. However, when it's absolutely pissing down with rain, and it's a Monday morning, and your train is late, AND THE WATER SUPPLY IN THE BUILDING HAS BROKEN DOWN (i.e., no coffee), then I think that being pissed off is more rational than a diktat of the day of the year.

And, of course, it's Monday.

Well, the new news publishing system theoretically "goes live" today, although I haven't been to the web site yet. I just hope that it isn't somehow linked in with the building's water supply.

++++++++


I read the beginnings of a very interesting thread on 2+2 last week, which was cunningly titled "Stars. Why Play Anywhere Else"?

In fact it was a diatribe against the tight nittiness of even the lowest-stakes Stars cash games. A few people agreed with the post; there was one dissenter (this was early in the thread's history), but in general the level of response was very low.

I suspect this was because the writer had touched a raw nerve. If you are asked "define the typical 2+2 reader", you might think of medium-stakes cash players. In fact the typical reader (in the sense of the modal average) is I suspect a relatively young $10 buy-in or $25 buy-in player. He is also multi-tabling on stars in a very nitty ABC style, just waiting for the occasional loose fish. In other words, the writer was criticizing the average 2+2 reader.

Until you get to the higher levels, and play fewer tables, Stars offers the average Bricks & Mortar-style player very little. Look at the length of the "achieving Supernova status" threads. This is what it's all about.

________________

Comments

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

Ironic that the by-the-book TAG clones should be whining about too many by-the-book TAG clones. Promising that so few of them realise the solution to their problem.

[lowlimitpoker.livejournal.com]

Try playing Ipoker in the afternoon if you want nitty - 6 short stacks on a table.
I now know that it wasn't just NOIQ that encouraged this type of play.
I blame things like Poker Strategies free money and Short stack cribsheet.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Well, the thing about short stack is that it's fairly easy to learn and to play to a rigid style. Its weakness is that it depends on the majority of the players being full-stackers playing each other. Once the full-stackers ignore each other and focus on the short-stackers, things become much tougher for the short-stacker. In addition, at any level of competence, the full-stackers now know the short-stackers' strategy, whereas the short-stackers (having less experience) don't know the large-stackers' strategy.

However, the upshot is only that the short-stackers go broke slowly, rather than quickly, and most of their money is lost to rake rather than to the full-stackers. Because they take longer to go broke, you get proportionately more of them at the tables than the loose nutter or loose-passive player, who goes broke faster.

Interesting that IP Network remains nitty. I haven't checked the site recently.

PJ