With Marbury wanting out, and given that his salary is almost identical to Bryant...I wondered what kind of deal could happen, it turned out to be pretty tough, but this is what I got from the trade machine on ESPN
4-team trade, Chicago, the Lakers, the Knicks and the Kings:
Chicago gets Kobe
trades Ben Gordon to LA
Lakers get Gordon and Mike Bibby from Sac in exchange for Kobe
Sac gets Marbury in exchange for Bibby to the Lakers and Artest to the Knicks
The Knicks get Artest from Sac and Ben Wallace from the Bulls.
Here's why I think it's a reasonable deal for everyone.
The Lakers will never get value for Kobe...here they will get two potential all-stars and still keep Bynum and Odom... Bibby, Gordon, Odom, Bynum and Luke Walton sounds like a pretty good lineup - as a bonus, Gordon's contract has only one year remaining and Bibby's only 2, so it gives them lots of flexibility in the free agent market
Chicago gets Kobe and gets rid of Ben Wallace's awful contract without giving up anything really but Gordon, obviously a great deal for them.
The Kings get rid of both of their problems in Artest and Bibby - Artest is an obvious one, Bibby it seems like they've been trying to get rid of for ages, perhaps to rebuild. Here they get Marbury and his awful contract, but it's over in 2 years and they have $19mill in cap room to play with, in the meantime they can tell their fans they got a legit PG in exchange for Bibby, not bad right?
The Knicks get rid of Marbury and grab Artest, a player they've wanted for a long time for some reason. The only hitch is they get stuck with Ben Wallace and his horrible contract.
So why would they do it? After all, they already have Curry and Zach Randolph...well, this is the Knicks, they got Steve Francis when they already had 3 other guys playing his role... and doesn't a really bad contract for an over-the-hill former all star sound like a classic Knicks situation?
In fact, when you think about it, its amazing Isiah hasn't tried to get Wallace already.
I <3 the trade machine.
Rob
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
"Poker and the Art of Zen" or "Zen and the Art of Paying Attention"
Poker taught me to appreciate math.
I don't mean the calculative aspects of math, strictly speaking, I mean the broader theoretical underpinnings of mathematics and their implications, not just for poker, but for the art of paying attention in general.
To me, poker is a beautiful metaphor for the way life really works. That is to say that because it is a game in which luck is intrinsically involved, it is a reasonable magnitude more real than a pure strategy game like chess.
In chess there is a right move and a wrong move and the value of those moves is clearly defined. Assuming you've correctly reasoned out a problem, you can determine, with great accuracy, what the correct move to do in a given situation is and what its exact consequences are.
In poker no such certainty exists. You can play a hand absolutely perfectly, make all the right moves, and still lose when your opponent hits a miracle card. Once you decide to play a hand, you have no control over the cards no matter what you do. With this critical component out of each player's individual control, the game fundamentally changes from what could otherwise be, theoretically, a pure game of skill.
Now, I'm not saying that Poker is a game of luck. Far from it. Poker is merely a game of uncertain outcomes. However, just because an outcome is uncertain, does not mean it is unlikely. In Holdem, pocket aces will beat a random hand an average of about 85% of the time. Aces should win then a significant amount of the time, and you would expect that you would rarely see them lose.
Sometimes you would be right. But sometimes you would be wrong. Occasionally, you will see (or unfortunately experience) Aces lose three or four times in a row against hands that are significant underdogs. This doesn't jibe with our intuitive sense of the math because we are analyzing the situation incorrectly.
The 85% of the time that Aces win is an accurate number - but its one that is an average resulting from hundreds of thousands if not millions of hands. If you flip a coin one hundred times, you will occasionally notice a particular pattern emerge. Once in awhile, heads will come up ten times in a row, and perhaps 75 times in 100 overall when you'd expect it to be 50. The truth is it is 50, but that 50 is averaged over a much larger sample size. Accordingly, short apparent runs or patterns will happen. In fact, it'd be weird if they didn't.
Since flipping a coin a hundred thousand times (or playing AA against a random hand a hundred thousand times) will net a particular average, it stands to reason that many possible combinations of events will contribute to the average. This includes apparent patterns. I say apparent because these "patterns" become relatively insignificant when taking the wider view of one hundred thousand or a million trials.
In other words, the idea that there is a pattern, or a meaning behind a particular random event is simply nearsighted thinking. An individual event is merely one aspect of a larger statistical event playing itself out - a probability wave for you physics folks.
And therein the metaphor lies.
As hard as we try, we can never control all variables in any particular situation. Even when we control a high percentage of potential outcomes by focusing and being particularly thorough, there are still factors which can cause us to fail. Life is not a vacuum.
Much as a particular poker hand is but once incident in a larger statistical probability wave, an individual is merely a potential outcome in the grander probability wave. And, more concretely, an individual's efforts can only harness a maximum amount of control over any particular outcome.
This lack of control has certain profound consequences, but they are more theoretical than practical. However, the benefits of adopting this theoretical perspective are significant, both at the poker table and in life.
At the poker table, the fact that Aces will lose 15% of the time rarely influences your decisionmaking. There's no such thing as a sure thing, after all, but I'll take a 4:1 edge every time thank you. At the end, I'll expect to come out ahead, and that is simply the best that I can hope for.
Poker is gambling, then, in that the outcome is uncertain. However poker is intelligent gambling because reason and discipline allow you to put yourself in consistently favorable situations and thus give you a long term edge over your competition. This is the meaning of the common poker term "EV" or "expected value." Thus, poker players frequently say that a particular play is +EV or -EV to describe whether it is profitable in the long term. Playing pocket aces against one opponent all in before the flop in holdem is a +EV play, because you will win about 85% of the time, so if you play them for $10 a hand for 10 hands, you should expect to win $85 on average. If however you are the poor guy playing a random hand against aces all in before the flop under the same conditions, you expect to only win $15 per $100 but to lose $85. Thus for every $100 invested your EV is -$85, clearly a bad investment.
This is an extreme example, but it is used for merely illustrative purposes. The same principle applies in just about every decision at the poker table. Similarly, it should apply in just about every decision in real life. EV does not necessarily need to refer to money, it can refer to whatever you expect to gain from a particular decision and/or outcome. Thus, I can expect on average, that everytime I give my freeancee, Janessa, a dozen roses, I will gain a certain amount of units of happiness in my relationship. Clearly giving her roses, then is +EV as far as my relationship goes.
Of course, doing it often may diminish that EV, where playing aces frequently will not affect their value. The difference is accounted for by the fact that the frequency of giving her roses is a measurable percentage of the EV. That is to say that if I give her roses once a month, the EV will be fairly high as she will be pleasantly surprised by them and not take them for granted. Part of her pleasure, and through that my eventual EV, will be taken from that surprise. The same is not true with pocket aces before the flop in holdem because the EV comes entirely from profit in a given situation.
One could argue, of course, that there are still important similarities if we look closer. For example, the EV of playing aces is affected by how we play them. If we always raise with them the same amount, we will become predictable, and our opponents will be able to get away from their hands easier. Similarly, if we always play them fast, we can expect our thinking opponents not to pay us off with a bigger pot because they will be expecting us to have Aces.
Perhaps this is approximately the same type of value as involved in the frequency of giving roses. If not, its close enough.
Ok, now the reason why this actually matters.
Life, like poker, is a series of interconnected statistical events which are at least partially random. In poker, this perspective helps you see the forest for the trees. You may feel insanely unlucky at times, but knowing that you are making +EV decisions over the long term should be comforting. Of course it never can take the sting entirely away from bad runs, but it can make them easier. Once you've played thousands upon thousands of hands and seen all that can happen for your own eyes and with your own money, your perspective becomes wider.
It is that wide perspective, in my estimation, that is what people mean when they describe Zen. One is at peace because one understands that one cannot control everything. This is not a passive surrender to the universe, however, but a realistic assessment of one's limitations. A person should always strive hard for their goals, but they are kept humble by the underlying random nature of events and are ready for the runs and patterns, both good and bad, that come along with living in this type of universe.
Interestingly, this perspective has at least one additional significant benefit: it provides you with better lenses for how individual events occur. Broken down, what one person calls an individual event, such as pocket kings cracking pocket aces when both hands are all in before the flop in holdem, is really a series of events and decisions. One person decided not to fold pocket kings, despite whatever evidence he may or may not have had available that he may have been beat. Whether this decision is right or wrong is immaterial here. The point is that he could not have cracked pocket aces had he not played pocket kings. Nor could he have cracked them if he had not been at the table at that particular time for that particular deal. Had he had to go to the bathroom, his hand would have been dead, the Aces would, presumably, not have been cracked, and the entire tournament would have been different.
The first point, whether to play the kings, is within our control, and the second, whether we were there at a particular time, is. We should thus not worry about the second factor, and accept that over the long run, we would be a 4:1 dog if we somehow knew with certainty our opponent had aces. The key then is to cull together the data and make a determination of the hand we are up against based on innumerable potential factors that change the situation. The position of the initial raiser, for example. People tend to play much looser in late position than in early position because they have to beat less opponents. Thus, someone opening from first position is much more likely to have aces than someone opening from a common steal position, such as last position (the button) or the position before last (the cutoff).
This does not mean they have exactly AA, only that their potential range of hands is narrower, and that this range is merely a factor in the overall analysis. In a tournament, you might strongly consider stack size. A person with a short stack relative to the blinds, say only enough for two or three big blinds may be desperate, and thus more willing to gamble with a marginal hand than he normally would be. This too must be considered and weighed in the analysis.
Statistical perspective on the randomness of larger events thus assists us in our analysis of what we think of as individual or at least smaller events. Moreover, because of the large number of potential factors in any one decision, the smartest poker players pay attention and try to remember what a particular player did in past situations to determine what they are likely tro do in the future.
And that is zen. Zen is paying attention. If you pay attention you can give yourself the largest possible edge in life because your consideration of the variables of any particular decision will necessarily be based on more accurate, though always imperfect, information. And that is why poker is a metaphor for zen, why zen is a metaphor for life, and why paying attention is the key to both.
--Rob
I don't mean the calculative aspects of math, strictly speaking, I mean the broader theoretical underpinnings of mathematics and their implications, not just for poker, but for the art of paying attention in general.
To me, poker is a beautiful metaphor for the way life really works. That is to say that because it is a game in which luck is intrinsically involved, it is a reasonable magnitude more real than a pure strategy game like chess.
In chess there is a right move and a wrong move and the value of those moves is clearly defined. Assuming you've correctly reasoned out a problem, you can determine, with great accuracy, what the correct move to do in a given situation is and what its exact consequences are.
In poker no such certainty exists. You can play a hand absolutely perfectly, make all the right moves, and still lose when your opponent hits a miracle card. Once you decide to play a hand, you have no control over the cards no matter what you do. With this critical component out of each player's individual control, the game fundamentally changes from what could otherwise be, theoretically, a pure game of skill.
Now, I'm not saying that Poker is a game of luck. Far from it. Poker is merely a game of uncertain outcomes. However, just because an outcome is uncertain, does not mean it is unlikely. In Holdem, pocket aces will beat a random hand an average of about 85% of the time. Aces should win then a significant amount of the time, and you would expect that you would rarely see them lose.
Sometimes you would be right. But sometimes you would be wrong. Occasionally, you will see (or unfortunately experience) Aces lose three or four times in a row against hands that are significant underdogs. This doesn't jibe with our intuitive sense of the math because we are analyzing the situation incorrectly.
The 85% of the time that Aces win is an accurate number - but its one that is an average resulting from hundreds of thousands if not millions of hands. If you flip a coin one hundred times, you will occasionally notice a particular pattern emerge. Once in awhile, heads will come up ten times in a row, and perhaps 75 times in 100 overall when you'd expect it to be 50. The truth is it is 50, but that 50 is averaged over a much larger sample size. Accordingly, short apparent runs or patterns will happen. In fact, it'd be weird if they didn't.
Since flipping a coin a hundred thousand times (or playing AA against a random hand a hundred thousand times) will net a particular average, it stands to reason that many possible combinations of events will contribute to the average. This includes apparent patterns. I say apparent because these "patterns" become relatively insignificant when taking the wider view of one hundred thousand or a million trials.
In other words, the idea that there is a pattern, or a meaning behind a particular random event is simply nearsighted thinking. An individual event is merely one aspect of a larger statistical event playing itself out - a probability wave for you physics folks.
And therein the metaphor lies.
As hard as we try, we can never control all variables in any particular situation. Even when we control a high percentage of potential outcomes by focusing and being particularly thorough, there are still factors which can cause us to fail. Life is not a vacuum.
Much as a particular poker hand is but once incident in a larger statistical probability wave, an individual is merely a potential outcome in the grander probability wave. And, more concretely, an individual's efforts can only harness a maximum amount of control over any particular outcome.
This lack of control has certain profound consequences, but they are more theoretical than practical. However, the benefits of adopting this theoretical perspective are significant, both at the poker table and in life.
At the poker table, the fact that Aces will lose 15% of the time rarely influences your decisionmaking. There's no such thing as a sure thing, after all, but I'll take a 4:1 edge every time thank you. At the end, I'll expect to come out ahead, and that is simply the best that I can hope for.
Poker is gambling, then, in that the outcome is uncertain. However poker is intelligent gambling because reason and discipline allow you to put yourself in consistently favorable situations and thus give you a long term edge over your competition. This is the meaning of the common poker term "EV" or "expected value." Thus, poker players frequently say that a particular play is +EV or -EV to describe whether it is profitable in the long term. Playing pocket aces against one opponent all in before the flop in holdem is a +EV play, because you will win about 85% of the time, so if you play them for $10 a hand for 10 hands, you should expect to win $85 on average. If however you are the poor guy playing a random hand against aces all in before the flop under the same conditions, you expect to only win $15 per $100 but to lose $85. Thus for every $100 invested your EV is -$85, clearly a bad investment.
This is an extreme example, but it is used for merely illustrative purposes. The same principle applies in just about every decision at the poker table. Similarly, it should apply in just about every decision in real life. EV does not necessarily need to refer to money, it can refer to whatever you expect to gain from a particular decision and/or outcome. Thus, I can expect on average, that everytime I give my freeancee, Janessa, a dozen roses, I will gain a certain amount of units of happiness in my relationship. Clearly giving her roses, then is +EV as far as my relationship goes.
Of course, doing it often may diminish that EV, where playing aces frequently will not affect their value. The difference is accounted for by the fact that the frequency of giving her roses is a measurable percentage of the EV. That is to say that if I give her roses once a month, the EV will be fairly high as she will be pleasantly surprised by them and not take them for granted. Part of her pleasure, and through that my eventual EV, will be taken from that surprise. The same is not true with pocket aces before the flop in holdem because the EV comes entirely from profit in a given situation.
One could argue, of course, that there are still important similarities if we look closer. For example, the EV of playing aces is affected by how we play them. If we always raise with them the same amount, we will become predictable, and our opponents will be able to get away from their hands easier. Similarly, if we always play them fast, we can expect our thinking opponents not to pay us off with a bigger pot because they will be expecting us to have Aces.
Perhaps this is approximately the same type of value as involved in the frequency of giving roses. If not, its close enough.
Ok, now the reason why this actually matters.
Life, like poker, is a series of interconnected statistical events which are at least partially random. In poker, this perspective helps you see the forest for the trees. You may feel insanely unlucky at times, but knowing that you are making +EV decisions over the long term should be comforting. Of course it never can take the sting entirely away from bad runs, but it can make them easier. Once you've played thousands upon thousands of hands and seen all that can happen for your own eyes and with your own money, your perspective becomes wider.
It is that wide perspective, in my estimation, that is what people mean when they describe Zen. One is at peace because one understands that one cannot control everything. This is not a passive surrender to the universe, however, but a realistic assessment of one's limitations. A person should always strive hard for their goals, but they are kept humble by the underlying random nature of events and are ready for the runs and patterns, both good and bad, that come along with living in this type of universe.
Interestingly, this perspective has at least one additional significant benefit: it provides you with better lenses for how individual events occur. Broken down, what one person calls an individual event, such as pocket kings cracking pocket aces when both hands are all in before the flop in holdem, is really a series of events and decisions. One person decided not to fold pocket kings, despite whatever evidence he may or may not have had available that he may have been beat. Whether this decision is right or wrong is immaterial here. The point is that he could not have cracked pocket aces had he not played pocket kings. Nor could he have cracked them if he had not been at the table at that particular time for that particular deal. Had he had to go to the bathroom, his hand would have been dead, the Aces would, presumably, not have been cracked, and the entire tournament would have been different.
The first point, whether to play the kings, is within our control, and the second, whether we were there at a particular time, is. We should thus not worry about the second factor, and accept that over the long run, we would be a 4:1 dog if we somehow knew with certainty our opponent had aces. The key then is to cull together the data and make a determination of the hand we are up against based on innumerable potential factors that change the situation. The position of the initial raiser, for example. People tend to play much looser in late position than in early position because they have to beat less opponents. Thus, someone opening from first position is much more likely to have aces than someone opening from a common steal position, such as last position (the button) or the position before last (the cutoff).
This does not mean they have exactly AA, only that their potential range of hands is narrower, and that this range is merely a factor in the overall analysis. In a tournament, you might strongly consider stack size. A person with a short stack relative to the blinds, say only enough for two or three big blinds may be desperate, and thus more willing to gamble with a marginal hand than he normally would be. This too must be considered and weighed in the analysis.
Statistical perspective on the randomness of larger events thus assists us in our analysis of what we think of as individual or at least smaller events. Moreover, because of the large number of potential factors in any one decision, the smartest poker players pay attention and try to remember what a particular player did in past situations to determine what they are likely tro do in the future.
And that is zen. Zen is paying attention. If you pay attention you can give yourself the largest possible edge in life because your consideration of the variables of any particular decision will necessarily be based on more accurate, though always imperfect, information. And that is why poker is a metaphor for zen, why zen is a metaphor for life, and why paying attention is the key to both.
--Rob
Friday, November 2, 2007
The Nuts and the Sickest Beats I've ever Given and Recieved
As I stated in my first blog, I am an avid no limit texas hold 'em player. I play almost entirely on Pokerstars and Full Tilt as Cixelsyd23 and Cixelsyd23f respectively (the f is a typo, it does not mean fantastic, fabulous or any four letter word you can think of!)
Recently I've had some thoughts about terminology in poker and a few small ideas I'd like to see adopted by the entirety of poker society. Since my blog clearly reaches all major poker players, I thought I'd state those ideas here.
First, when I am playing a poker hand online, I frequently am talking through the hand with myself, working out what I have and what I put my opponent on...one day a few months ago I had a common thought...I had a gutshot - a gutshot is an inside straight draw for those not familiar with the terminology...I believe its called a gutshot because usually you hit it right in the middle of the straight - tho I wouldn't be surprised if its also related to the feeling your opponent gets when you hit it! In any event, I had a gutshot draw, but it was to the nuts (the best possible hand) - hence, I had a Nutshot.
I'll let that sink in for a minute.
Now, this second one is a bit more complicated, but in essence its a variation on the same theme. Not as often in holdem, but sometimes in Pot Limit Omaha, you will hit a full house that is less than the best possible full house, such as if you hold
77AK double suited
and the board is
7858 with two spades
you have sevens full of eights, but anyone with an 85 or an 87 in their hand has you beat, and anyone with 88 has you crushed.
If you are sitting there with 87 on this turn however, you have the nut full house - which got me thinking
You have the Nuthouse.
I'll let that sink in for a minute.
Now, I'm not one to tell bad beat stories. I don't think they're good for the game or that they accomplish anything. They usually make the storyteller look like a whiner, and really no one cares, because everyone has bad luck at poker, it's just part of the game.
That said, I took a beat today that was as sick as I ever have before, and I wanted to share it. Amazingly, it did not put me on tilt. Truthfully, I think I was so stunned I could only laugh:
Full Tilt Poker Game #4044297823: $11 + $1 Sit & Go (Turbo) (30734353), Table 1 - 150/300 - No Limit Hold'em - 14:44:48 ET - 2007/11/02
Seat 1: 10-2x2 (1,345)
Seat 3: snaggletooth666 (1,370)
Seat 4: drolocoyote (5,100)
Seat 5: FoBstyle (1,470)
Seat 7: Cixelsyd23f (2,955)
Seat 8: hotsh0t606 (1,260)
10-2x2 posts the small blind of 150
snaggletooth666 posts the big blind of 300
The button is in seat #8
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Cixelsyd23f [Jd Jc]
drolocoyote folds
FoBstyle folds
Cixelsyd23f raises to 2,955, and is all in
hotsh0t606 calls 1,260, and is all in
10-2x2 folds
snaggletooth666 folds
Cixelsyd23f shows [Jd Jc]
hotsh0t606 shows [Jh Js]
Uncalled bet of 1,695 returned to Cixelsyd23f
*** FLOP *** [3h 4h 3c]
*** TURN *** [3h 4h 3c] [2h]
*** RIVER *** [3h 4h 3c 2h] [5h]
Cixelsyd23f shows two pair, Jacks and Threes
hotsh0t606 shows a flush, Jack high
hotsh0t606 wins the pot (2,970) with a flush, Jack high
Pretty sick! There is a 95.65% of a tie and only a 2.17% chance either hand will win. I've seen some sicker things I suppose but never been on the bad end of them (I once got it in with AKo against two other AKos and won the whole pot when I rivered a four flush)...
The sickest beat I ever gave out tho has to be the following:
now here's a dramatic hand!!
PokerStars Game #12568261019: Tournament #63783822, $36+$3 Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2007/10/11 - 15:13:02 (ET)
Table '63783822 1' 6-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: Morain (1340 in chips)
Seat 2: Trouble T (1080 in chips)
Seat 3: Cixelsyd23 (2080 in chips)
Seat 4: pietza (1470 in chips)
Seat 5: Merra (1640 in chips)
Seat 6: Robert1003 (1390 in chips)
Robert1003: posts small blind 10
Morain: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Cixelsyd23 [Kc Ks]
Trouble T: folds
Cixelsyd23: raises 60 to 80
pietza: folds
Merra: folds
Robert1003: raises 60 to 140
Morain: folds
Cixelsyd23: raises 280 to 420
Robert1003: raises 280 to 700
Cixelsyd23: raises 1380 to 2080 and is all-in
Robert1003: calls 690 and is all-in
*** FLOP *** [5d Kd 3d]
*** TURN *** [5d Kd 3d] [9d]
*** RIVER *** [5d Kd 3d 9d] [Kh]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Robert1003: shows [Ah Ad] (a flush, Ace high)
Cixelsyd23: shows [Kc Ks] (four of a kind, Kings)
Cixelsyd23 collected 2800 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2800 | Rake 0
Board [5d Kd 3d 9d Kh]
Seat 1: Morain (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 2: Trouble T folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: Cixelsyd23 showed [Kc Ks] and won (2800) with four of a kind, Kings
Seat 4: pietza folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: Merra (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Robert1003 (small blind) showed [Ah Ad] and lost with a flush, Ace high
Talk about drama...I out flop the guy despite being a 4:1 dog after the flop, he turns a flush which leaves me with precisely ONE out which I hit on the river.
Crazy.
Poker is fun.
Rob
Recently I've had some thoughts about terminology in poker and a few small ideas I'd like to see adopted by the entirety of poker society. Since my blog clearly reaches all major poker players, I thought I'd state those ideas here.
First, when I am playing a poker hand online, I frequently am talking through the hand with myself, working out what I have and what I put my opponent on...one day a few months ago I had a common thought...I had a gutshot - a gutshot is an inside straight draw for those not familiar with the terminology...I believe its called a gutshot because usually you hit it right in the middle of the straight - tho I wouldn't be surprised if its also related to the feeling your opponent gets when you hit it! In any event, I had a gutshot draw, but it was to the nuts (the best possible hand) - hence, I had a Nutshot.
I'll let that sink in for a minute.
Now, this second one is a bit more complicated, but in essence its a variation on the same theme. Not as often in holdem, but sometimes in Pot Limit Omaha, you will hit a full house that is less than the best possible full house, such as if you hold
77AK double suited
and the board is
7858 with two spades
you have sevens full of eights, but anyone with an 85 or an 87 in their hand has you beat, and anyone with 88 has you crushed.
If you are sitting there with 87 on this turn however, you have the nut full house - which got me thinking
You have the Nuthouse.
I'll let that sink in for a minute.
Now, I'm not one to tell bad beat stories. I don't think they're good for the game or that they accomplish anything. They usually make the storyteller look like a whiner, and really no one cares, because everyone has bad luck at poker, it's just part of the game.
That said, I took a beat today that was as sick as I ever have before, and I wanted to share it. Amazingly, it did not put me on tilt. Truthfully, I think I was so stunned I could only laugh:
Full Tilt Poker Game #4044297823: $11 + $1 Sit & Go (Turbo) (30734353), Table 1 - 150/300 - No Limit Hold'em - 14:44:48 ET - 2007/11/02
Seat 1: 10-2x2 (1,345)
Seat 3: snaggletooth666 (1,370)
Seat 4: drolocoyote (5,100)
Seat 5: FoBstyle (1,470)
Seat 7: Cixelsyd23f (2,955)
Seat 8: hotsh0t606 (1,260)
10-2x2 posts the small blind of 150
snaggletooth666 posts the big blind of 300
The button is in seat #8
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Cixelsyd23f [Jd Jc]
drolocoyote folds
FoBstyle folds
Cixelsyd23f raises to 2,955, and is all in
hotsh0t606 calls 1,260, and is all in
10-2x2 folds
snaggletooth666 folds
Cixelsyd23f shows [Jd Jc]
hotsh0t606 shows [Jh Js]
Uncalled bet of 1,695 returned to Cixelsyd23f
*** FLOP *** [3h 4h 3c]
*** TURN *** [3h 4h 3c] [2h]
*** RIVER *** [3h 4h 3c 2h] [5h]
Cixelsyd23f shows two pair, Jacks and Threes
hotsh0t606 shows a flush, Jack high
hotsh0t606 wins the pot (2,970) with a flush, Jack high
Pretty sick! There is a 95.65% of a tie and only a 2.17% chance either hand will win. I've seen some sicker things I suppose but never been on the bad end of them (I once got it in with AKo against two other AKos and won the whole pot when I rivered a four flush)...
The sickest beat I ever gave out tho has to be the following:
now here's a dramatic hand!!
PokerStars Game #12568261019: Tournament #63783822, $36+$3 Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2007/10/11 - 15:13:02 (ET)
Table '63783822 1' 6-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: Morain (1340 in chips)
Seat 2: Trouble T (1080 in chips)
Seat 3: Cixelsyd23 (2080 in chips)
Seat 4: pietza (1470 in chips)
Seat 5: Merra (1640 in chips)
Seat 6: Robert1003 (1390 in chips)
Robert1003: posts small blind 10
Morain: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Cixelsyd23 [Kc Ks]
Trouble T: folds
Cixelsyd23: raises 60 to 80
pietza: folds
Merra: folds
Robert1003: raises 60 to 140
Morain: folds
Cixelsyd23: raises 280 to 420
Robert1003: raises 280 to 700
Cixelsyd23: raises 1380 to 2080 and is all-in
Robert1003: calls 690 and is all-in
*** FLOP *** [5d Kd 3d]
*** TURN *** [5d Kd 3d] [9d]
*** RIVER *** [5d Kd 3d 9d] [Kh]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Robert1003: shows [Ah Ad] (a flush, Ace high)
Cixelsyd23: shows [Kc Ks] (four of a kind, Kings)
Cixelsyd23 collected 2800 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2800 | Rake 0
Board [5d Kd 3d 9d Kh]
Seat 1: Morain (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 2: Trouble T folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: Cixelsyd23 showed [Kc Ks] and won (2800) with four of a kind, Kings
Seat 4: pietza folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: Merra (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Robert1003 (small blind) showed [Ah Ad] and lost with a flush, Ace high
Talk about drama...I out flop the guy despite being a 4:1 dog after the flop, he turns a flush which leaves me with precisely ONE out which I hit on the river.
Crazy.
Poker is fun.
Rob
Can't we come up with a better word than "fiancée"?
In July, I got engaged. Now this is a wonderful thing, and I'm very happy and excited. We are in the process of planning a wedding for next July.
The thing is, I'm still used to calling Janessa my "girlfriend." I frequently have to correct myself and call her my "fiancée." But this strikes me as a strange word to describe our relationship. I invariably find myself using a Pepe le Pew voice and making a mockery of the whole situation. I know french is the language of love, but I speak AMERICAN, shouldn't there be a better way to say this? Something like "Freeancée?"
The other option I was tinkering around with was "bethroed." But this is even worse. Getting "bethrothed" sounds like something two goth kids would do at the Medieval Fair while playing a spirited game of Dungeons & Douchebags.
Even worse the 'toth' sounds pretty weird. I can easily imagine myself saying to my doctor, "I'm not feeling so good, I've been puking all day...I think I' m getting bethrothed." Like, is there a cream for that, or what?
So I've been brainstorming options and doing a little bit of google research, here's some of the ideas that have turned up:
Bride-to-Be/Wife-to-Be
This strikes me as incredibly obvious but pretty awkward. They are technically one word because of the hyphens, but try saying the hyphens out loud - doesn't work so well, does it?
Besides, something about these terms says "trainee" to me. I really don't want to describe Janessa as my "marriage trainee."
Prospective Wife/Spouse
This, if anything, is worse. Prospective? What am I, a 49er in the 19th Century? Do I hope I will find my true love buried under rocks? Pass.
Future Wife
A little better, but still not quite right. I can't escape the feeling that I'm describing some sort of science fiction event here...like I have my past wife, my present wife, and my future wife, and if they ever meet there's going to be some kind of awful fight with potentially grave consequences for the space/time continuum
Prewife
I love this one principally because it sounds like another funny word: Precum.
Uh oh, I think I got some prewife on you, are you ok honey? Do you need a towel?
Old Lady
Does this really mean 'engaged'? I always thought it meant your spouse, but dictionary.com lists it as a synonym for engaged. I could never get used to saying this because I'd feel like I was living in 1972, had a huge beard and bathed only on holidays...thanks, moving on...
Intended
This is nicer and a bit more poetic, but still very old-fashioned and a little clunky. I don't have any sarcastic comments about this one, I just can't imagine ever using it in conversation without sounding like a giant douchebag.
So now I'm thinking I'll just call her my wife now and be done with it. Any better ideas?
Rob
The thing is, I'm still used to calling Janessa my "girlfriend." I frequently have to correct myself and call her my "fiancée." But this strikes me as a strange word to describe our relationship. I invariably find myself using a Pepe le Pew voice and making a mockery of the whole situation. I know french is the language of love, but I speak AMERICAN, shouldn't there be a better way to say this? Something like "Freeancée?"
The other option I was tinkering around with was "bethroed." But this is even worse. Getting "bethrothed" sounds like something two goth kids would do at the Medieval Fair while playing a spirited game of Dungeons & Douchebags.
Even worse the 'toth' sounds pretty weird. I can easily imagine myself saying to my doctor, "I'm not feeling so good, I've been puking all day...I think I' m getting bethrothed." Like, is there a cream for that, or what?
So I've been brainstorming options and doing a little bit of google research, here's some of the ideas that have turned up:
Bride-to-Be/Wife-to-Be
This strikes me as incredibly obvious but pretty awkward. They are technically one word because of the hyphens, but try saying the hyphens out loud - doesn't work so well, does it?
Besides, something about these terms says "trainee" to me. I really don't want to describe Janessa as my "marriage trainee."
Prospective Wife/Spouse
This, if anything, is worse. Prospective? What am I, a 49er in the 19th Century? Do I hope I will find my true love buried under rocks? Pass.
Future Wife
A little better, but still not quite right. I can't escape the feeling that I'm describing some sort of science fiction event here...like I have my past wife, my present wife, and my future wife, and if they ever meet there's going to be some kind of awful fight with potentially grave consequences for the space/time continuum
Prewife
I love this one principally because it sounds like another funny word: Precum.
Uh oh, I think I got some prewife on you, are you ok honey? Do you need a towel?
Old Lady
Does this really mean 'engaged'? I always thought it meant your spouse, but dictionary.com lists it as a synonym for engaged. I could never get used to saying this because I'd feel like I was living in 1972, had a huge beard and bathed only on holidays...thanks, moving on...
Intended
This is nicer and a bit more poetic, but still very old-fashioned and a little clunky. I don't have any sarcastic comments about this one, I just can't imagine ever using it in conversation without sounding like a giant douchebag.
So now I'm thinking I'll just call her my wife now and be done with it. Any better ideas?
Rob
Thursday, November 1, 2007
The Mustache That Changed History, Al Gore, and Why Vanity Fair Rocks
I read a fascinating article yesterday in Vanity Fair about Hitler's toothbrush mustache ... among other interesting points, the article examined how the fact that Chaplin also wore the mustache may have caused some leaders to take Hitler less seriously as well as the fact that since Hitler and Stalin, no major world leaders have worn facial hair...for some reason I find this shit compelling:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/11/cohen200711
I read a second article in the same magazine that is worth a read if you have any interest in the Clintons and politics...it details the progressive split between Al Gore and the Clintons and is interesting reading for anyone who is wondering why the hell Al Gore isn't running for President:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711
In short, the Clintons are absolutely ruthless - which I'm sure most of you knew intellectually, but I found the details surprising and disturbing
Finally, I want to commend Vanity Fair for doing what every magazine doesn't but should - listing page numbers for articles ON THE COVER UNDERNEATH THE ARTICLE TITLE - holy shit this is helpful, I can't tell you how many times I've had to page back and forth to the index of a magazine in frustration looking for a page number, can we just all agree that every magazine needs to do this now and be done with it?
Thanks VF
Rob
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/11/cohen200711
I read a second article in the same magazine that is worth a read if you have any interest in the Clintons and politics...it details the progressive split between Al Gore and the Clintons and is interesting reading for anyone who is wondering why the hell Al Gore isn't running for President:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711
In short, the Clintons are absolutely ruthless - which I'm sure most of you knew intellectually, but I found the details surprising and disturbing
Finally, I want to commend Vanity Fair for doing what every magazine doesn't but should - listing page numbers for articles ON THE COVER UNDERNEATH THE ARTICLE TITLE - holy shit this is helpful, I can't tell you how many times I've had to page back and forth to the index of a magazine in frustration looking for a page number, can we just all agree that every magazine needs to do this now and be done with it?
Thanks VF
Rob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)