A win-win situation
Jan. 22nd, 2010 10:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksNot often that a company comes out with an offer that makes sense, will be well-received by customers, and increases the company's profits, but the supermarkets' "Buy One, get One Free (Next Week)" is definitely one of them.
One of the maddening things about the old "B1G1F" promotions was that a single person (e.g., me) would never be able to eat the second item before it went off. With stuff that freezes (bacon, the 100% beef burgers, etc) it's not a problem, but with fresh fruit and veg, the offer was fairly useless.
So, Tesco and Sainsbury now offer the opportunity on some items (the lettuce offer at Tesco caught my eye) to buy the item and to receive a voucher at check-out that can be exchanged for the same item the following week.
Obv Tesco and Sainsburys' are talking about "reducing waste", but it also increases their profits, because the take-up on these offers will clearly be less than 100%. My guess is that it will be below 50%. That means that such a promotion "costs" Tesco far less. You could have twice as many B1G1L promotions as B1G1F promotions, for less cost.
But if it's food that would otherwise be thrown away, then that's fine by me. In effect, as the Butler would put it, you are using Tesco as your freezer for goods that you wouldn't be able to freeze anyway. All that you have to do is remember to go to collect it.
++++++++++++
It's been a wearying and hard-work month online. In a sense this is good; I am beginning to see what my limits are in terms of time, energy and focus. I've become comfortable with six-tabling (four now seems slow), so it's possible that I could progress to a "comfortable" eight-table scenario for 90 minutes a time. That would boost the hands per hour very nicely -- up to 500 or so. With the progressive nature of rakeback (each 'extra' hand earns you proportionately more in rakeback than the previous hand) that makes $10 a hundred at $1-$2 easier to achieve, provided I can maintain the same winrate at the tables as I am achieving six-tabling at the moment.
The maths on that are not hard -- I could be looking at an average $40 to $50 an hour before the end of the year if things go right. That won't be the average for the whole year, although $35 now looks within reach. And there's always the chance of a stinky run that pushes me back down to 50c-$1,
One begins to see why so many "good" players are 24-tabling at $1-$2 and $2-$4 full ring rather than three-tabling at $25-$50 short-handed. Even though they can beat both games, they probably earn more at the former (with considerably less volatility and mental effort) than they could at the latter. Even when six-tabling you head into a certain degree of auto-pilot, something you have to be careful about if you are playing the same opponents again and again.
There's clearly two streams of poker thought here (and I'm not talking about full-stacking vs short-stacking this time). The business-players talk about reducing beta, generating a higher RoE and RoI, sustainability, and basically loads of business model stuff, while many of the old-schoolers talk about gambling and the thrill.
In simple terms, they can be split into "risk-avoiders" and "thrill-seekers".
The latter just can't see the point of the former ("you might as well get a job", they say) while the former look on the "thrill-seekers" as gambling degenerates with a serious personality flaw that needs to be cured or pitied rather than celebrated.
I've known the thrill of big bets, the satisfaction of a hefty win and the despair of a lumpy loss. I can see its appeal. But I know that, to be a winner online, these things necessarily have to be tucked away in the drawer. These are the weaknesses in other players that I will exploit. The old saws of poker come out. "Games can be good and games can be fun, but rarely can they be both at the same time" and "Once you let emotions get in the way of your poker play, you are the fish".
This is where Poker and zen come together. A "perfect" poker session isn't the type described by Conor Tate online, some massive win at PLO where you chopped off four all-in 52%-shots on the spin. The perfect session is when you play 1,000, then 2,000, maybe 3,000 hands. You have some good mini-runs and bad mini-runs, but you know that you are making right decisions. When something goes wrong -- a two-outer, whatever, you move on to the next hand in a state of complete calmness. Your next decision is as cool, calculated and correct as the previous one. You are thinking quickly, smoothly, and you KNOW that you are in control of your game at everyone of your tables. No other player is irritating you, fooling you, playing you around. Everything, as they say in Louisiana, is copacetic.
The reality, of course, is usually different. There's nearly always one fucking multi-tabler who really pisses you off, who is playing a blinder, and whom you just can't seem to beat. There's one fish luckbox who is two buy-ins up and can't stop talking in the chat-box. You know he will go broke within a couple of hours (unless he leaves), and you know that it probably won't be to you. Poker, in other words, is usually about coping the best you can with these irritants, it's about attempting to attain that state of mind mentioned in the previous paragraph. You might only get to the top of that mountain very rarely, but that does not make it a bad idea to climb the next step.
______________________
One of the maddening things about the old "B1G1F" promotions was that a single person (e.g., me) would never be able to eat the second item before it went off. With stuff that freezes (bacon, the 100% beef burgers, etc) it's not a problem, but with fresh fruit and veg, the offer was fairly useless.
So, Tesco and Sainsbury now offer the opportunity on some items (the lettuce offer at Tesco caught my eye) to buy the item and to receive a voucher at check-out that can be exchanged for the same item the following week.
Obv Tesco and Sainsburys' are talking about "reducing waste", but it also increases their profits, because the take-up on these offers will clearly be less than 100%. My guess is that it will be below 50%. That means that such a promotion "costs" Tesco far less. You could have twice as many B1G1L promotions as B1G1F promotions, for less cost.
But if it's food that would otherwise be thrown away, then that's fine by me. In effect, as the Butler would put it, you are using Tesco as your freezer for goods that you wouldn't be able to freeze anyway. All that you have to do is remember to go to collect it.
++++++++++++
It's been a wearying and hard-work month online. In a sense this is good; I am beginning to see what my limits are in terms of time, energy and focus. I've become comfortable with six-tabling (four now seems slow), so it's possible that I could progress to a "comfortable" eight-table scenario for 90 minutes a time. That would boost the hands per hour very nicely -- up to 500 or so. With the progressive nature of rakeback (each 'extra' hand earns you proportionately more in rakeback than the previous hand) that makes $10 a hundred at $1-$2 easier to achieve, provided I can maintain the same winrate at the tables as I am achieving six-tabling at the moment.
The maths on that are not hard -- I could be looking at an average $40 to $50 an hour before the end of the year if things go right. That won't be the average for the whole year, although $35 now looks within reach. And there's always the chance of a stinky run that pushes me back down to 50c-$1,
One begins to see why so many "good" players are 24-tabling at $1-$2 and $2-$4 full ring rather than three-tabling at $25-$50 short-handed. Even though they can beat both games, they probably earn more at the former (with considerably less volatility and mental effort) than they could at the latter. Even when six-tabling you head into a certain degree of auto-pilot, something you have to be careful about if you are playing the same opponents again and again.
There's clearly two streams of poker thought here (and I'm not talking about full-stacking vs short-stacking this time). The business-players talk about reducing beta, generating a higher RoE and RoI, sustainability, and basically loads of business model stuff, while many of the old-schoolers talk about gambling and the thrill.
In simple terms, they can be split into "risk-avoiders" and "thrill-seekers".
The latter just can't see the point of the former ("you might as well get a job", they say) while the former look on the "thrill-seekers" as gambling degenerates with a serious personality flaw that needs to be cured or pitied rather than celebrated.
I've known the thrill of big bets, the satisfaction of a hefty win and the despair of a lumpy loss. I can see its appeal. But I know that, to be a winner online, these things necessarily have to be tucked away in the drawer. These are the weaknesses in other players that I will exploit. The old saws of poker come out. "Games can be good and games can be fun, but rarely can they be both at the same time" and "Once you let emotions get in the way of your poker play, you are the fish".
This is where Poker and zen come together. A "perfect" poker session isn't the type described by Conor Tate online, some massive win at PLO where you chopped off four all-in 52%-shots on the spin. The perfect session is when you play 1,000, then 2,000, maybe 3,000 hands. You have some good mini-runs and bad mini-runs, but you know that you are making right decisions. When something goes wrong -- a two-outer, whatever, you move on to the next hand in a state of complete calmness. Your next decision is as cool, calculated and correct as the previous one. You are thinking quickly, smoothly, and you KNOW that you are in control of your game at everyone of your tables. No other player is irritating you, fooling you, playing you around. Everything, as they say in Louisiana, is copacetic.
The reality, of course, is usually different. There's nearly always one fucking multi-tabler who really pisses you off, who is playing a blinder, and whom you just can't seem to beat. There's one fish luckbox who is two buy-ins up and can't stop talking in the chat-box. You know he will go broke within a couple of hours (unless he leaves), and you know that it probably won't be to you. Poker, in other words, is usually about coping the best you can with these irritants, it's about attempting to attain that state of mind mentioned in the previous paragraph. You might only get to the top of that mountain very rarely, but that does not make it a bad idea to climb the next step.
______________________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-25 08:31 pm (UTC)Part of the appeal of Rush Poker is probably that it allows multi-tabling on a lower bankroll. And the big multi-tablers play an ABC game that doesn't used HUD (i.e., plays are not player specific). Other players who would like it would be the HEM/PT3 haters and non-users. And then there's the pure action junkie for the evening. Finally there's the people on the move with only a Netbook monitor. Now, that for me is the real appeal. I'd just have to accept the loss of the HUD. All in all, not an unattractive mix, but not one I'd choose all the time.
Heads Up? Well, Heads Up is kind of Rush Poker anyway.
It's funny, but "game selection" has suddenly become "bum hunting", thanks to the Heads Up controversy. I've long been of the opinion that if you are playing at a level where you have to find "good" tables, then you are playing at too high a level. That's why I'm interested in the forthcoming book that I've heard about on exploiting regulars. Fish are nice bonuses, but if you need to find them, then you are in trouble these days. Your bread and butter needs to be the break-even players -- preferably the massive multi-tablers who are playing by rote. For a start, there are lots more of them. Secondly, they tend to play in similar ways. Thirdly, you don't have to worry about finding "good" tables, because all tables are likely to be good.
So much of this is ego-related. People look for bad players at 10-20 just so they can say they are 10-20 players. In fact they could probably make far more money stiffing the auto-pilot tight-regs at 1-2. If you want to see a recurring theme from winning players, it's that they all have come to realize that ego has no place these days for the winning poker player. That's one reason that I've virtually given up following "the stars", except where I feel I can learn something from them. Dwan is a great player, but I think as a metagamer he is flawed. Antonius, meanwhile, is shrewder. Ivey is the greatest all-round player in the world with a good sense of bankroll (I think), but he is flawed because gambling has become everything. It has become the end in itself, rather than getting him lots of money which he can spend in the real world. For Ivey, gambling IS the world.
Poker is just so full of these contradictions. That's what makes "success" at it more subjective than was previously thought. Money is a way of keeping score, but it's no longer seen as the only way of keeping score.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2010-01-25 11:51 pm (UTC)I wonder if Rush Poker might work substantially better than regular poker on the sort of small screen you'd expect to find on a mobile device? Many mobile device manufacturers would not support the presence of such a client in their app store, but it still might be of interest.
I guess everyone has their own utility function; some will derive utility from the balla lifestyle and "hanging with the big dogs", as you say in your second last paragraph, others measure their bankroll, others still might measure how much money they manage to redirect from the poker universe to their favourite cause - quite possibly, their mortgage.
Does Neil Channing take much money out of the gambling universe, would you know? I don't think he's at all short of winnings, but there was a moment on a poker show I saw recently (quite possibly not a recent show...) where he ended up with a sizeable, middling-final-table payout and then admitted (possibly unusually candidly, or quite possibly just for image - who knows?) that he would "probably just gamble it". The Black Belt Poker enterprise seems to have been inspired, at least in part, by his conisderable staking arrangements.