peterbirks (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
peterbirks) wrote2005-11-21 02:26 pm
peterbirks) wrote2005-11-21 02:26 pm
Downhill
Ken Livingstone is coming up with ever-more original ways to block my normal route from Charing Cross to Oxford Circus. This morning my way was obstructed by five tons or thereabouts of artificially created snow, scattered on what looked like a child's mountain, which I thought was bit excessive, even for Ken. Apparently there was a snowboarding event at the weekend. Not wishing to be too left-field here, but, well, wouldn't it be a better idea (and cheaper) to hold snowboarding events in places which are (a) on a slope (a point where Trafalgar Square fails abysmally, I fear) and (b) where you are likely to get snow?
The irony of that is -- Trafalgar Square (and, by definition, adjacent London landmarks) might well get some natural snow by next weekend -- the first in quite a while.
++++
The shareprice of Empire Online this morning resembled Big Dave's bankroll when he is on winner's tilt -- down 20%, up 10%, and by lunchtime, roughly level but up a bit.
First it transpired that Party had repitched its offer, if an offer of less than half the initial figure can be called a "repitch". Empire certainly didn't think so. They called it an insult. They have terminated talks and said that they will now be instituting legal action against Party for the way in which it took away the rakebackers' toys (i.e., the fish). This was obviously the cause of this morning's yo-yo. First the focus was on Party's bid (at 60p a share) disappearing, but then some bright spark said "hold on, Empire might actually have a case here". And, even if they don't have a case, they might be able to make themselves enough of a nuisance for Party to buy them out. Since this was obviously the point of the bid in the first place (to head off legal action), you have to feel that Party have misjudged their bid level. 90p, they would probably have got away with it.
The implications for players' money at Empire is unknown. At the moment, the processors are the same as those at Party, and that is where the money is held (in other words, Empire don't have any of my cash). Empire's statement basically said that everything was now up in the air. My guess is that they will attempt to move Empire players over to Noble.
Simon G is one of those who has suffered from this, having made most of his dosh via Eurobet. I don't know what percentage of this was rakeback. My own performance is currently 88% profit at Empire and 12% rakeback ($720 gain and $99 rakeback) but the database sample is probably a bit small to draw any definitive conclusions from that.
++++
I really must quote BLUFF from his most recent post on Big Dave's blog. It's tucked away at the end of a long meandering thread, whichmeans that people might miss it. I therefore give his statement the prominence that it deserves:
personally detest hi/lo and don't play it because I don't like bad players with worse draws making me have to fold, and because it is a magnet for weak-tights seeking lower variance and thus makes for bad games.
My god, there's my attitude to high-low in a nutshell.
Both BLUFF and Dave also make the very important point that plays in high-low are normally mathematical rather than people-dependent. I spend most of my time playing limit hold'em at higher levels looks at who is sitting where. If anything, this is one of my strengths -- guessing what other players will do in given situations. If the nature of your opponent is basically irrelevant, I don't really want to play.
The irony of that is -- Trafalgar Square (and, by definition, adjacent London landmarks) might well get some natural snow by next weekend -- the first in quite a while.
++++
The shareprice of Empire Online this morning resembled Big Dave's bankroll when he is on winner's tilt -- down 20%, up 10%, and by lunchtime, roughly level but up a bit.
First it transpired that Party had repitched its offer, if an offer of less than half the initial figure can be called a "repitch". Empire certainly didn't think so. They called it an insult. They have terminated talks and said that they will now be instituting legal action against Party for the way in which it took away the rakebackers' toys (i.e., the fish). This was obviously the cause of this morning's yo-yo. First the focus was on Party's bid (at 60p a share) disappearing, but then some bright spark said "hold on, Empire might actually have a case here". And, even if they don't have a case, they might be able to make themselves enough of a nuisance for Party to buy them out. Since this was obviously the point of the bid in the first place (to head off legal action), you have to feel that Party have misjudged their bid level. 90p, they would probably have got away with it.
The implications for players' money at Empire is unknown. At the moment, the processors are the same as those at Party, and that is where the money is held (in other words, Empire don't have any of my cash). Empire's statement basically said that everything was now up in the air. My guess is that they will attempt to move Empire players over to Noble.
Simon G is one of those who has suffered from this, having made most of his dosh via Eurobet. I don't know what percentage of this was rakeback. My own performance is currently 88% profit at Empire and 12% rakeback ($720 gain and $99 rakeback) but the database sample is probably a bit small to draw any definitive conclusions from that.
++++
I really must quote BLUFF from his most recent post on Big Dave's blog. It's tucked away at the end of a long meandering thread, whichmeans that people might miss it. I therefore give his statement the prominence that it deserves:
personally detest hi/lo and don't play it because I don't like bad players with worse draws making me have to fold, and because it is a magnet for weak-tights seeking lower variance and thus makes for bad games.
My god, there's my attitude to high-low in a nutshell.
Both BLUFF and Dave also make the very important point that plays in high-low are normally mathematical rather than people-dependent. I spend most of my time playing limit hold'em at higher levels looks at who is sitting where. If anything, this is one of my strengths -- guessing what other players will do in given situations. If the nature of your opponent is basically irrelevant, I don't really want to play.
Re: Hi Lo quote
PJ
Re: Hi Lo quote
(Anonymous) 2005-11-23 09:29 pm (UTC)(link)dd