Saturday, January 17, 2009

Bits and pieces

A curiously affecting piece about Gaza, which doesn't draw conclusions.


He really did want to hurt him. Those tatts say Boy is not so femme these days, hey?


Remind me, what are these values you're fighting for?


Transfer windows are fun. In what other job would your new employer pay more than 100 million to your old one to have you work for them?

It's not a surprise though: it was obvious that Citeh would try to buy Kaka, the world's best player, and equally obvious that they'd have to pay nine figures to get him. What is surprising is that Hughes thinks that signing Scott Parker and Craig Bellamy is a step to becoming Champions League class.

Meanwhile, at Liverpool... Now that is a bit odd, because managers in Spain generally have no say at all who their club signs.


FUCK OMAHA. I was playing a $3 tourney. I have AAQT with one ace suited, a strong hand. Some guy had raised pot and I reraised pot. He should have folded at that point. He had KKxx with nothing suited. My hand is face up and he's not a good enough shot to outrun it.

The flop is three uncoordinated cards and I bet pot again. He definitely should fold now, because he has basically two outs to catch my hand.

The turn is a K. Fuck this shit. I've played three Omaha tourneys this month and each time some guy has caught me from way behind and I've busted short of the money. Fuck Omaha, fuck poker and fuck the inevitable "trust in the cosmos"/"look them in the eyes and bluff"/blah blah blah that some will take this post to be inviting.


Is there anyone else who wants to email me to give me a lecture on why I am shit?

I am not here for you to pimp out to your mates as a manuscript reader, nor am I here for you to make fun of me for taking something seriously that I take seriously. If you genuinely believe that either thing will get you a good reaction, you're a fucking fool, and I'm afraid I don't tolerate fools particularly well.

OTOH, I am more than willing to look at your own ms if you are a friend to me and I have time and I don't mind being made fun of for taking something seriously that I don't really take seriously.

And the truth is, I already have a miserable cunt to point out how horrible I am at the slightest provocation and I find it really fucking hard to believe that anyone who actually is my friend wants to make that the substance of our conversation.

So. I am shit. I'm not changing. If you don't like it, fuck off.


At 12:32 pm, Blogger Arleen said...

You're not shit.

At 1:38 pm, Blogger Looney said...

Um, that was my ms I sent... Hopefully that's not what set you off :-)

At 1:41 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

No bro, I'm more than happy to review your ms.

At 1:43 pm, Blogger Looney said...

Oh, yeah, and you're not shit.

And the it's said that the only way Kaka will sign, besides getting 1/2 a mil a week, is if he has all sorts of escape clauses, like City have to make the CL within 2 seasons, that Robinho stays, that they continue to spend on transfers, etc...

It's stupid money. They'd be so much better off to have a fucking 5-year plan, don't sell out of their academy, rather loan them out and bring them up, and buying for the UEFA cup, then for fourth place, then for first. It seems the sheikh (sp?) has been playing too much FIFA09...

At 1:52 pm, Blogger Looney said...

more than happy...

Gracias, amigo. Only took me an extra, what? 18 months? LOL...

At 2:48 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Arleen said...

You're not shit.

Oh yes he is.

At 2:50 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

You forgot the "if you don't like it, fuck off" part. I'm never becoming your idea of a good person, obv., should an ugly, void fucktard like you even have that idea.

At 3:03 pm, Blogger $Zero said...

Omaha was hoping you had Queens and was feeling you out (and stayed-in long enough to get lucky).

If you were there to look him straight in the eyes you might have been able to change his mind about investing against aces, but that assumes that you would have actually wanted him to drop out.

Shit happens, dude.

People with a pair Kings feel entitled.

Also, if you were there in person, you would have a much better understanding of how he thought and played, pokerwise.

Plus, you would have been able to engage in information gathering banter.

As well as giving out disinformation banter.

These are huge dimensions of the game which are totally lost playing online.

Not to mention the possibility that people are cheating via various possible computer advantages, like playing more than one hand at the table thru proxy servers, let alone the other possibilities.

At 3:07 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

The first paragraph was correct, the rest bullshit. About par for you, Z.

The only hand I could have that he beat was QQxx. You have to be pretty bad to play your hands just to beat one particular hand. I suppose his understanding of Omaha does not go deep enough to understand that it's bad to repop the pot with QQxx against a UTG raiser, but meh. It just pisses me off that these people don't bother to learn even the rudiments, so for them it's just a lottery, and yet again my stack is the prize.

At 3:18 pm, Blogger $Zero said...

The only hand I could have that he beat was QQxx.

Excuse me, did i misunderstand?

What was the flop, turn, and river?

The unsuited ace was on the table, right?

Regardless, people with Kings feel entitled almost as much as people with Queens do. Perhaps he was banking on that, his own way of thinkins, see?

And the rest is definitely not bullshit, it's 100% reality.

And you're right about the lottery thinger to some extent, but what are you going to do? Ban lottery players from the table?

Your only hope is to be able to identify the lottery mindset by looking them straight in the eyes and play accordingly.

At 3:20 pm, Blogger $Zero said...

BTW; He also could have beat pocket Jacks, etc.

You have to think like them before you can beat them.

At 3:24 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

You misunderstood. It was Omaha. His hand was KKxx rainbow. Mine was AAQT with one ace suited. He raised first in under the gun, and I reraised pot in the big blind. If you know the first thing about Omaha, my hand is obvious. I clearly have a hand that beats yours (which isn't that strong and he probably should not have raised in the first place).

The flop came something like J72 rainbow. I bet pot. So what can I have on that flop? I've repped AAxx preflop and now I'm leading pot into you, when you've also repped a very strong hand. The only hands it's even feasible I can have here are AAxx/KKxx/QQxx or some sort of set. The only hand he beats in that range is QQxx.

I don't credit him with thinking at all, beyond I HAS KINGS! Like many players who play holdem and don't understand Omaha one bit, he just overvalues the big pair.

What would I do? Fix this fucking universe so that they occasionally miss on the turn and I stack them would be nice.

At 3:24 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

Dude, if you are threebetting JJxx in Omaha from the blinds, stop.

At 3:25 pm, Blogger $Zero said...

Oh wait, I thought Omaha was his name, not the game.

I've never played Omaha, if that's what you meant.

At 3:29 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

His play would have been awful in holdem too. There he should shove pre. But this was Omaha, which is why my notation for his hand is KKxx (four cards) not KK (two).

At 3:34 pm, Blogger $Zero said...

His play would have been awful in holdem too.

Like I said, people tend to feel entitled with Kings and Queens.

And Jacks and Tens, even.

Especially lottery peeps.

If you're not taking that into consideration, you're wasting your time.

At 3:38 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

I explained why his play would have been bad in holdem. pity you didn't actually read that explanation, because you're not disagreeing with it, as you think.

At 3:45 pm, Blogger $Zero said...

There he should shove pre.



If only you could play against seven perfect computers, huh?

Then you'd have at least a one in seven chance of winning.

At 3:45 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

Yes, should.

At 3:49 pm, Blogger $Zero said...

So then, it's just a matter of what cards you're dealt, then, is it?

Might as well toss coins.

At 3:51 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...


He raises pre with KK, I 3bet, he should shove. There's enough in the pot that he doesn't mind if I fold, and he can expect to be called by a range of worse cards. The only hand he's behind is AA. So yes, he should shove in that spot.

At 3:54 pm, Blogger $Zero said...

But he didn't.

At 3:57 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

Dude, we weren't playing holdem. His correct play was, as I noted, just to fold preflop. Small consolation for me, but he cost himself theoretically. Sadly, he cost me in practice.

At 4:01 pm, Blogger $Zero said...

but he cost himself theoretically

Oh my.

At 4:02 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

Dude, just stick to playing home games against other people who don't know a thing. You can "out-think" them to your heart's content. I have a different framework for understanding poker and there's no point discussing it with you, because yours is useless to me.

At 4:03 pm, Blogger $Zero said...

His correct play was,

If everyone played correctly, would you win more?

At 4:04 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

The point of my complaint was that when I play correctly and he plays SO incorrectly, it would be nice to be rewarded in this lifetime, rather than some theoretical distant future.

At 4:13 pm, Blogger $Zero said...

And my point is that you're counting on people making theoretical mistakes.

And that it's much easier to win counting on same when you can better evaluate the individuals that you're playing against.

When you don't have that advantage, the theoretical future becomes further away than it needs to be.

So to prevent yourself from experiencing unnecessary frustration, perhaps you should calculate out how long that theoretical future is, in both cases.

At 6:02 pm, Blogger P. said...

Re P's ms, I offered you time - months in fact... bit by bit dripfeed if it was easier. Yes, I over-reacted to the generally arsey way you have of making what someone figures is a reasonable request that might prompt a reasonable response. I duly apologised for it.

Like the lady says, you're not shit. You just come out with it sometimes.

At 6:12 pm, Blogger P. said...

That comment made sense before it left my head.


At 8:27 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So. I am shit. I'm not changing. If you don't like it, fuck off."

All righty then! You've learnt the attitude finally, now it's a matter putting it to use!

No, I'm not being a smartass.

Sure you're shit. I'm shit. Everybody's shit. Guess what? We are allowed to be shit. There's no law against being shit in any country I ever heard of. Being shit seems quite acceptable to the cosmic order.

Taking shit, now that's another matter. Most countries seem to demand it.

Congratulations Zen, you've stepped across a threshold to a place where you've a far better chance of dealing with the world on your terms.

And no, I am not being a smartass.

At 10:00 pm, Blogger $Zero said...

BTW, Zen.

Were you struck by the ethical dilemma implied by the fact that your poker winning aspirations are essentially dependent on the mistakes of others?

Either that or just pure luck.

Does it bother you at all that such is the case?

That you're striving to become a capitalist winner who takes advantage of the misunderstandings of others?

Or have you made the rationalization that you should be rewarded for learning the odds and dynamics better than someone else has?

In essence, making your future poker victories more of a fair competition than the exploitation of others' weaknesses that victory is.

It's pretty funny how capitalism intrudes on everything, isn't it?


Is it a bad thing or not?

You'll say that you'll only being competing against willing participants who can afford to lose, right?

The mind is a clever mechanism, isn't it?

Anyway, boots is right. You gotta stop apologizing for being a shit.

And yes, I am being a smartass.


Post a Comment

<< Home