I know this is like 3 months old, but for anyone who hasn't read it yet, this is an amazing article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html . It's talks about Shane Battier, but more importantly the NBA and the stats movement in sports in general. I knew about it but was only reminded to read it today when I was watching the Yao-less Rockets destroy the Lakers.
Right now I'm watching the DVRed season finale of SNL. Justin Timberlake is always terrific on SNL, although I think there was too much singing on this show. Jessica Biel is really hot and I can't believe it was 7 years ago that I saw her once in the psych department (she went to Tufts for two years, and was a freshman my senior year).
Tomorrow is the FTOPS PLO8 event on Full Tilt Poker, so I plan to take a half day at work and hopefully the end result will be even better than my results in the SCOOP.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Unhealthy and healthy (food)
Out of Danny Meyer's restaurant empire, I think the only ones I hadn't been to yet were Blue Smoke and Union Square Cafe. Since I had a rough day at work, I decided to do some bingeing and stopped into USC for their burger. The burger is a nice big round patty that came out really juicy and buttery, although medium despite requested medium rare. It came with two big slabs of bacon which were terrific, and melted cheddar cheese which was flavorful but not overwhelming. The bun was nice although the bun bottom got squished as is usually the case with most half pound+ burgers. There were only a couple slices of cucumber and red onion, with no lettuce or tomato accompanying the burger. I wish the burger had a more beefy flavor, but overall it was quite good and very satisfying. While the fries looked great, I opted for the garlic potato chips instead. They weren't as garlicky as I would have liked, but very crisp and a nice middle ground between too airy and too dense. However, probably because I don't snack regularly, my jaw got sore from all the chewing of the chips.
So after the burger I was walking up to midtown to go home when I noticed a Pump Energy Food on Madison Ave. This is an interesting franchise. Right now there are 5 locations (all in Manhattan) and while they all follow the core healthy food concept, the menus at different locations vary drastically. The one on Madison reminded me of a Chipotle. Customers can choose from a wrap, a bowl (with brown rice), or a salad. To their selection they add a protein, a vegetable, and condiments. Considering the burger binge, I decided to get a whole wheat wrap with brown rice, ground bison, spinach, cucumbers, and diced tomatoes for dinner. The prices are also similar to Chipotle, although it looks like they give you less food (proper portion perhaps?). It was good but not great, but overall a good option for something healthy that keeps well on the way home.
I never understood brown rice. I don't understand why it's ridiculously more expensive when it tastes so much worse than white rice. If you go into many restaurants in China or Japan and tried to order brown rice, they'd probably get pretty pissed and consider you dishonoring the restaurant for asking for an inferior product. I also cannot stand brown rice sushi. Sushi rice is supposed to have flavor but the brown rice is often still mealy-tasting and the texture is horrible for sushi.
I also don't think that brown rice is as healthy as its promoters tend to say it is. I find that health claims in America are almost always relative. For example, there are claims that soy protein does wondrous things and lowers cholesterol. That's not exactly true. I'm sure it lowers cholesterol when you're using it to replace bacon, but otherwise, I've also read plenty of things that advise against regularly eating soy protein. While brown rice contains more fiber than polished white rice, there's still a lot of carbs there in each serving, and I wouldn't consider that particularly healthy for most people.
So after the burger I was walking up to midtown to go home when I noticed a Pump Energy Food on Madison Ave. This is an interesting franchise. Right now there are 5 locations (all in Manhattan) and while they all follow the core healthy food concept, the menus at different locations vary drastically. The one on Madison reminded me of a Chipotle. Customers can choose from a wrap, a bowl (with brown rice), or a salad. To their selection they add a protein, a vegetable, and condiments. Considering the burger binge, I decided to get a whole wheat wrap with brown rice, ground bison, spinach, cucumbers, and diced tomatoes for dinner. The prices are also similar to Chipotle, although it looks like they give you less food (proper portion perhaps?). It was good but not great, but overall a good option for something healthy that keeps well on the way home.
I never understood brown rice. I don't understand why it's ridiculously more expensive when it tastes so much worse than white rice. If you go into many restaurants in China or Japan and tried to order brown rice, they'd probably get pretty pissed and consider you dishonoring the restaurant for asking for an inferior product. I also cannot stand brown rice sushi. Sushi rice is supposed to have flavor but the brown rice is often still mealy-tasting and the texture is horrible for sushi.
I also don't think that brown rice is as healthy as its promoters tend to say it is. I find that health claims in America are almost always relative. For example, there are claims that soy protein does wondrous things and lowers cholesterol. That's not exactly true. I'm sure it lowers cholesterol when you're using it to replace bacon, but otherwise, I've also read plenty of things that advise against regularly eating soy protein. While brown rice contains more fiber than polished white rice, there's still a lot of carbs there in each serving, and I wouldn't consider that particularly healthy for most people.
Monday, May 4, 2009
An automatic psych (bridge)
While there's really no such thing as an automatic psych, the following scenario is what I believe to be the best controlled risk/reward psych available without it being a systemic psych (eg. pretending strength opposite a limited partner). I've discussed this psych before, but a similar hand (in the example that follows I'm going to use the most optimal hand) came up while I was playing this past weekend.
Say you hold ♠xxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣AKQTx with partner dealer and your side not vulnerable.
The auction starts pass by partner, 1♣ by RHO.
I think the proper bid here is a psych of 1♠!!!
Let's first look at the obvious risk. Partner has spades and raises. If partner has a good hand and makes a limit raise with 2♣, no problem you pass. Let's say partner raises you to 2/3/4 spades. Because you have 3 of them, it's less likely for one of the opponents to have a spade stack which makes it easy to double you. Also because you have 3 of them, it could be a legitimate suit for your side to play in. 2♠ in a moysian fit wouldn't be so bad, and 4♠ if partner has 5 of them wouldn't be so bad either. This is one of the main reasons why I think it's better to psych in spades than in hearts, even though looking at your hand hearts might be more likely to be their suit. It's much more dangerous when you're wrong if you psych in hearts.
Now let's look at the secondary risks. Let's say you do pick off their spade suit. If it goes pass by your LHO and partner and RHO reopens with a double, chances are LHO had a trap and you can just bid 2♣. There are some partners who might not work it out, but I try not to play with them. Another secondary risk is that you cannot take advantage even when you have succeeded. You derail their auction, but they land in a different spot and partner makes a spade lead that is very bad for the defense. This is a big risk for a lot of psychs. However, one of the advantages of psyching with this hand is that it takes away one of those cases.
The main advantage of the psych comes from actually stealing the opponents' spade fit. The two most likely scenarios are:
1. LHO has 5 spades and decides to trap, opening bidder with 3-4 spades might not be able to reopen. You might get to play it in 1S undoubled (of course you could be down 250 on a partscore hand, but the chances of them missing a game on that auction have to be much higher)
2. LHO has 4-5 spades and decides to bid notrump, likely raised to 3NT at some point by RHO. This is the killing point of the whole hand. This is the reason why I advocate a psych with this specific hand. You can now DOUBLE to ask for a club lead. This mitigates one of the risks mentioned earlier of partner making the wrong lead against the opponents' contract in the wrong strain.
So it seems to me that the risk to reward for psyching here is immensely in your favor. There is a good chance for the opponents to miss their spade game or play the hand in a notrump game going down instead. At the same time, holding 3 spades and being able to subsequently ask for a club lead strongly decreases the likelihood of disaster, especially relative to most "normal" psychs.
Say you hold ♠xxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣AKQTx with partner dealer and your side not vulnerable.
The auction starts pass by partner, 1♣ by RHO.
I think the proper bid here is a psych of 1♠!!!
Let's first look at the obvious risk. Partner has spades and raises. If partner has a good hand and makes a limit raise with 2♣, no problem you pass. Let's say partner raises you to 2/3/4 spades. Because you have 3 of them, it's less likely for one of the opponents to have a spade stack which makes it easy to double you. Also because you have 3 of them, it could be a legitimate suit for your side to play in. 2♠ in a moysian fit wouldn't be so bad, and 4♠ if partner has 5 of them wouldn't be so bad either. This is one of the main reasons why I think it's better to psych in spades than in hearts, even though looking at your hand hearts might be more likely to be their suit. It's much more dangerous when you're wrong if you psych in hearts.
Now let's look at the secondary risks. Let's say you do pick off their spade suit. If it goes pass by your LHO and partner and RHO reopens with a double, chances are LHO had a trap and you can just bid 2♣. There are some partners who might not work it out, but I try not to play with them. Another secondary risk is that you cannot take advantage even when you have succeeded. You derail their auction, but they land in a different spot and partner makes a spade lead that is very bad for the defense. This is a big risk for a lot of psychs. However, one of the advantages of psyching with this hand is that it takes away one of those cases.
The main advantage of the psych comes from actually stealing the opponents' spade fit. The two most likely scenarios are:
1. LHO has 5 spades and decides to trap, opening bidder with 3-4 spades might not be able to reopen. You might get to play it in 1S undoubled (of course you could be down 250 on a partscore hand, but the chances of them missing a game on that auction have to be much higher)
2. LHO has 4-5 spades and decides to bid notrump, likely raised to 3NT at some point by RHO. This is the killing point of the whole hand. This is the reason why I advocate a psych with this specific hand. You can now DOUBLE to ask for a club lead. This mitigates one of the risks mentioned earlier of partner making the wrong lead against the opponents' contract in the wrong strain.
So it seems to me that the risk to reward for psyching here is immensely in your favor. There is a good chance for the opponents to miss their spade game or play the hand in a notrump game going down instead. At the same time, holding 3 spades and being able to subsequently ask for a club lead strongly decreases the likelihood of disaster, especially relative to most "normal" psychs.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The NBA playoffs and The Wire (tv, stock, entertainment)
The NBA playoffs are here and there are a few really good matchups (actually every matchup is close except the Cavs' and Lakers' series). It's just a really good mix of crippled past champions, up and comers, and solid teams competing against each other. Unfortunately, I think that'll stop after the first round, and the rest of the playoffs won't be as enjoyable unless you want to watch the crowning of Kobe or Lebron.
I also started rewatching The Wire on DVD, which I still think (and I'm sure I'm not alone) is the best drama ever on TV. I bought the whole series on DVD from Amazon for about $180 a while back but only just opened it. While I was bored the other day, I googled stuff about The Wire and came across some interesting stuff. First, the UK Guardian is doing a weekly blog post about rewatching The Wire (currently on season 1 episode 9 or so). Then, this amazing collection of posts on the NYT Freakanomics blog: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/the-wire/ or more specifically http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/what-do-real-thugs-think-of-the-wire/ where the author actually watched the 5th season as it was happening with "thugz" and former gangsters to see what they thought.
In a post about a few months ago, the same author made a suggestion that Geithner should take advice from those "thugz" rather than from the Wall St. people who've failed us. This part, which I'm just going to copy from http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/a-letter-from-the-thugz/ , made a really interesting point:
"The unanimous opinion among The Thugz was that you must base your work around a time-tested law of ghetto capitalism: losers must die in full view. What? This doesn’t make sense. O.K., well, let me explain. Your first mistake (more accurately, your predecessor’s error) was to mix the bad apples (banks) with the good (banks). By doing so, you forgot what makes capitalism so much fun: winners win at the losers’ expense, and everyone gets to watch and laugh. Sort of like public hangings, except reported on the financial pages. Otherwise, why read The Wall Street Journal?
The moral is: don’t ever take the joy of death away from the public. Because if you don’t see losers in pain, you begin to think the game is rigged. And we all know the game is fair, open, and transparent … yes?"
"If you don't see losers in pain, you begin to think the game is rigged." That's exactly how I feel about the whole situation with the banks. It doesn't feel like there's a real loser amongst the banks. Where's the actual pain for Citi and BofA, or AIG for that matter? The government continues to throw money at them, money that then ends up on their bottom line as profit. The game is rigged. But since it's the only game in town, everyone still comes to play.
A quick thanks to my friend Brad (I don't think he reads this blog though) who introduced me to both The Wire and Freakonomics.
I also started rewatching The Wire on DVD, which I still think (and I'm sure I'm not alone) is the best drama ever on TV. I bought the whole series on DVD from Amazon for about $180 a while back but only just opened it. While I was bored the other day, I googled stuff about The Wire and came across some interesting stuff. First, the UK Guardian is doing a weekly blog post about rewatching The Wire (currently on season 1 episode 9 or so). Then, this amazing collection of posts on the NYT Freakanomics blog: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/the-wire/ or more specifically http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/what-do-real-thugs-think-of-the-wire/ where the author actually watched the 5th season as it was happening with "thugz" and former gangsters to see what they thought.
In a post about a few months ago, the same author made a suggestion that Geithner should take advice from those "thugz" rather than from the Wall St. people who've failed us. This part, which I'm just going to copy from http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/a-letter-from-the-thugz/ , made a really interesting point:
"The unanimous opinion among The Thugz was that you must base your work around a time-tested law of ghetto capitalism: losers must die in full view. What? This doesn’t make sense. O.K., well, let me explain. Your first mistake (more accurately, your predecessor’s error) was to mix the bad apples (banks) with the good (banks). By doing so, you forgot what makes capitalism so much fun: winners win at the losers’ expense, and everyone gets to watch and laugh. Sort of like public hangings, except reported on the financial pages. Otherwise, why read The Wall Street Journal?
The moral is: don’t ever take the joy of death away from the public. Because if you don’t see losers in pain, you begin to think the game is rigged. And we all know the game is fair, open, and transparent … yes?"
"If you don't see losers in pain, you begin to think the game is rigged." That's exactly how I feel about the whole situation with the banks. It doesn't feel like there's a real loser amongst the banks. Where's the actual pain for Citi and BofA, or AIG for that matter? The government continues to throw money at them, money that then ends up on their bottom line as profit. The game is rigged. But since it's the only game in town, everyone still comes to play.
A quick thanks to my friend Brad (I don't think he reads this blog though) who introduced me to both The Wire and Freakonomics.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Some financial stock stuff (stock)
It makes me sick that even after going below $50 not that long ago, Goldman Sachs manages to raise money by selling shares at $123/share. Not only that, but supposedly it was oversubscribed. Who are these people buying at this price? Even at its all-time highs the stock never went higher than $250, and now with the added dilution of three offerings in the last year, someone thinks it's a good investment at this price?
Speaking of Goldman Sachs, CNBC was reporting that one analyst (I think it was Dick Bove) said that Goldman should pay back Buffett rather than the TARP, because Buffett's stake is more expensive. Of course they're not going to do that, seeing as how Buffett's a valued customer and paying off the TARP allows them to regain control of their executive compensation. I hate the financial world.
Among other financial instruments came the fun fact that FAS and FAZ crossed paths at $9.50 last week, and right now are priced to cross paths at $9.18ish. I've mentioned before how ridiculous these instruments are: http://ramblingsandgamblings.blogspot.com/2009/01/leveraged-etfs-stock.html
If I remember correctly, both FAS and FAZ came out priced at $70 each less than a year ago. As my friend likes to point out, SKF is now lower than it was when it came out in the first quarter of 2007. It's bad enough that these are poorly designed instruments, but I heard from someone at work that his friends had brokers try to push SKF on them as a downside hedge. It's ridiculous either way whether these brokers are just complete idiots or are purposely pushing to sell something that is faulty. I hate the financial world. I can't wait for the class action lawsuits.
Speaking of Goldman Sachs, CNBC was reporting that one analyst (I think it was Dick Bove) said that Goldman should pay back Buffett rather than the TARP, because Buffett's stake is more expensive. Of course they're not going to do that, seeing as how Buffett's a valued customer and paying off the TARP allows them to regain control of their executive compensation. I hate the financial world.
Among other financial instruments came the fun fact that FAS and FAZ crossed paths at $9.50 last week, and right now are priced to cross paths at $9.18ish. I've mentioned before how ridiculous these instruments are: http://ramblingsandgamblings.blogspot.com/2009/01/leveraged-etfs-stock.html
If I remember correctly, both FAS and FAZ came out priced at $70 each less than a year ago. As my friend likes to point out, SKF is now lower than it was when it came out in the first quarter of 2007. It's bad enough that these are poorly designed instruments, but I heard from someone at work that his friends had brokers try to push SKF on them as a downside hedge. It's ridiculous either way whether these brokers are just complete idiots or are purposely pushing to sell something that is faulty. I hate the financial world. I can't wait for the class action lawsuits.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Gramercy Tavern disappoints me again (food)
I had only eaten once previously in the main dining room at Gramercy Tavern. It was with a friend and we had the tasting menu. I don't recall the specifics, but I remember feeling underwhelmed, especially for the price. I vaguely remember a squid ink pasta dish that was nowhere near as good as the one I had at Esca subsequently. However, I've been to the tavern side of the restaurant (different menus, no reservations at the tavern side) a few times and have enjoyed my visits. Most recently I've been going there for lunch, when they do a delicious and filling soup and sandwich for $14. So today when I went and was told I'd have to wait for a table in the tavern, I decided to give the main dining room another try.
I ordered a cauliflower soup to start and a lamb pappardelle entree. The cauliflower soup had quite a yellow color, which I assumed came from either curry or saffron, though I could not discern any strong flavor of either of those two things. It was poured into a bowl with a couple small pieces of lobster, a couple small pieces of cauliflower, and what tasted like tiny diced apple. I could not figure out what those things were doing there. While the soup itself was decent, I just thought the whole mess of a dish was a confusion of flavors. The lamb pappardelle was similarly confusing. There were little olives throughout the dish and random tastes of lemon that I did not comprehend. The sauce itself was a little thin, considering that I always thought pappardelle, like tagliatelle, was supposed to be served with a rich ragout type sauce because of its width.
I got out of there quickly without even looking at the dessert menu. For the price, I could have had two pastas, one side, and 3 flavors of gelato at Otto and been much more satisfied. I still think the tavern side is worth visiting, especially for the soup and sandwich or the cheese-stuffed meatball.
This leads me to wonder why Gramercy Tavern has such a good reputation. I've been disappointed twice by the main dining room. While I can see that the food is cooked at a high level, I've just never really liked any of the flavor combinations that I've been served. I do know that most of its reputation came from back when Tom Colicchio (guy on the show Top Chef) ran the kitchen. Perhaps it's just time to move on when the head chef does. I could easily imagine the same thing happening at Le Cirque (there's an HBO documentary about its reopening last year), where much of the praise came when Daniel Boulud was in the kitchen, even though they still charge ridiculous prices today.
I ordered a cauliflower soup to start and a lamb pappardelle entree. The cauliflower soup had quite a yellow color, which I assumed came from either curry or saffron, though I could not discern any strong flavor of either of those two things. It was poured into a bowl with a couple small pieces of lobster, a couple small pieces of cauliflower, and what tasted like tiny diced apple. I could not figure out what those things were doing there. While the soup itself was decent, I just thought the whole mess of a dish was a confusion of flavors. The lamb pappardelle was similarly confusing. There were little olives throughout the dish and random tastes of lemon that I did not comprehend. The sauce itself was a little thin, considering that I always thought pappardelle, like tagliatelle, was supposed to be served with a rich ragout type sauce because of its width.
I got out of there quickly without even looking at the dessert menu. For the price, I could have had two pastas, one side, and 3 flavors of gelato at Otto and been much more satisfied. I still think the tavern side is worth visiting, especially for the soup and sandwich or the cheese-stuffed meatball.
This leads me to wonder why Gramercy Tavern has such a good reputation. I've been disappointed twice by the main dining room. While I can see that the food is cooked at a high level, I've just never really liked any of the flavor combinations that I've been served. I do know that most of its reputation came from back when Tom Colicchio (guy on the show Top Chef) ran the kitchen. Perhaps it's just time to move on when the head chef does. I could easily imagine the same thing happening at Le Cirque (there's an HBO documentary about its reopening last year), where much of the praise came when Daniel Boulud was in the kitchen, even though they still charge ridiculous prices today.
Friday, April 3, 2009
10 Hours on Pokerstars (poker)
Yesterday marked the beginning of Pokerstars' inaugural Spring Championship of Online Poker (SCOOP). This series of poker tournaments features the novel idea of running three separate tournaments with different buyin levels (low, medium, high) for each game. With the Pot Limit Omaha/8 tournaments being held on the first day, I played in all 3 buyins.
My first major decision came in the medium buyin tournament. There were about 870 people left out of 2104 with 306 cashing and I was a little above average in chips. A short stack in middle position made a pot raise and I called from the button with ♦Q♦4♥3♥2. I figured that since the short stack didn't have many chips left, I'd probably be able to check down the hand with someone else. Both the small blind and big blind called. The flop came ♦A♣K♣8. This was checked around to the preflop raiser who as expected put what little he had left in chips into the pot. I called from the button, and the small blind now check-raised the pot. The big blind then pushed all in on top of that, and it was to me. I had the big blind covered but the small blind had me covered. At this point I had 13k in chips left, which was about average. If I went all in, the pot would be about 48k. In general, I'm a big advocate of never putting all your chips in for half the pot (in this case I still had scoop chances of runner runner straight). I went through my read and it seemed to me that the only reason players would check raise here would be with high hands susceptible to redraws. If I hit the low alone I'd get 24k in chips while if I shared the low I'd still get back 12k in chips. The problem was that if no low came my tournament was over. So the real question here is the marginal utility of the extra chips versus me continuing to grind with an average stack. After considerable thought, I decided that I had the only low draw out there, and that an extra 45 big blinds was very important considering we were still far off from the money. So I pushed and the full hands were:
Preflop raiser ♠A♠3♣J♣3
Small blind ♥J♥8♦J♦8
Big blind ♥K♥Q♠K♦9
This was about as good a distribution of the other hands as I could have hoped for. When I ran the numbers, I had an 81% chance at the low. Unfortunately, no low card came and I was out of the tournament.
In the low buyin tournament, there were an astonishing 7622 entries, which is a ridiculous number for a PLO/8 event. I played fairly well, but found myself a little impatient and undisciplined at about the 4 hour mark. At one point, I was drawing to 16 outs on the river just for half the pot. I managed to survive that and was in good shape once we made the money. With about 250 players left I'd just taken down a big pot to push to 12th place. Then the very next hand, I get ♠A♠J♥A♥5 and have it all in against someone's ♦A♦8♣A♣6, only to get scooped when they hit their flush. I was ahead on that hand 54-46 in terms of expected value. That hand crippled me and a few hands later I have it all in against someone who decided to chase an A3 low and hit a straight on me. I ended up 242 of 7662 for a return of 3.3x my buyin after 6 hours of play.
The most fun was in the high buyin tournament, which drew a field of 327 players. There were many big name players, from live pros to well-known online pros. The table I was at early was so stacked with online PLO and PLO8 pros in fact that a couple of good PLO8 players commented in the chat box "WTF table" and the like. I'm not even sure if they acknowledged my presence with that comment, there were so many known guys there. I played well early, realizing that the table was pretty tight and loosening my game up just enough to take advantage. Again, I started to lose my patience and discipline about 4 hours in after a string of missed flops. With a little less than average chips and less than 100 people remaining, I went all in over the top on the flop with the worst of it when both my opponent and I had trips but I was outkicked. I hit one of my 9 outs and came back up to above average. Much of the road to the bubble was fairly smooth from that point on. I was at a great table where I was second in chips, but double the next players' stacks, and the chip leader of the table was fairly tight. Also, the player directly behind me was tight. This was really useful as I could raise mildly favored hands preflop and expect to get checked down most of the time.
With two spots to go until the money, came one of the toughest hands of the night. I was well above average in chips when it occurred. I held AA2J once suited and raised in early position. From the button, the chip leader of the table reraised me. This was a very tough decision. With 2 till cash and a healthy stack even if I fold, it's a much tougher risk/reward guess than the hand in the earlier tournament. I finally pushed all in over the top, but I think that I would have folded anything that was AA4x or worse. I scooped that hand and made the money comfortably. A little later on, about 9+ hours in, I got a little tired and made some uncharacteristic plays.
Another interesting hand came just as we were about to collapse to the last two tables. A shorter stack raises from the button and I'm holding AK35. I think this is a very strong hand because it's a very good high hand with AK, you can counterfeit an opponent's A2xx with both an A and a 2, and if you were to run into aces, you still might have the best low draw. So I pushed over the top and ran into AA46. Somehow I managed to win the hand (I think I hit trips but it's all a blur right now).
So not long after we became the final two tables, I got dealt A24Q and limped UTG. The chip leader calls from the button and 4 players see a flop. The flop is 832 with two diamonds of which I have none. It checks around to the button who bets the pot. I call after some thought and the turn is the 3 of diamonds which makes the board 8323 with three diamonds. I check again and the button bets the pot again. This is a very tough decision here. My read was that I was either entitled to half the pot (ie. opponent has a hand like 88xx) or even 3/4 of it if my opponent has a hand like A456. I decided to call again. It is important to note that even if I thought I was ahead, it makes no sense to raise here. It is ok to be wrong on my read and still come away with a quarter of the pot. It is not ok to get counterfeited and lose everything. I call because if the river counterfeits my low, I'm very willing to let the hand go. The river is a K and I check call the final pot bet. Chipleader shows A4JK and I feel sick. Getting quartered by a 6 outer is tough enough. But the pot bet on the turn by him is such an amateur move that it's so gross when it lucks out. A guy looking at AKJ4 should be much more worried about both getting quartered or counterfeited than even I was. My guess is he's from that school of poker where if the opponent check calls he must be weak and you can bully him off if you keep betting.
A few hands later, chip leader raises in middle position and I reraise with ♥A♥2♥Q♣Q. The flop comes ♣9♣8♥6 and I push. This is a pretty good flop for me. Nut low draw, no overcard, and a backdoor flush draw. Chipleader quickly calls with ♦A♣K♠Q♣6 and the ♣2 hits the turn and the ♠T on the river and I'm out. I spent 10 hours straight in that tournament, the longest I'd ever been in a tournament, and came away 17th of 327 with 3.5x my buyin. It was a disappointing end to get sucked out on twice at the end by the same guy playing badly. But overall it was a fun if tiring experience and I'm looking foward to the next set of PLO8 tournaments. I think at this point I'm ready to admit that PLO8 is my best game and I should only play these tournaments. I have cashed in the last few big online PLO8 tournaments, but have not gotten that run of cards late that's seen me to the final table. Still gonna keep trying.
My first major decision came in the medium buyin tournament. There were about 870 people left out of 2104 with 306 cashing and I was a little above average in chips. A short stack in middle position made a pot raise and I called from the button with ♦Q♦4♥3♥2. I figured that since the short stack didn't have many chips left, I'd probably be able to check down the hand with someone else. Both the small blind and big blind called. The flop came ♦A♣K♣8. This was checked around to the preflop raiser who as expected put what little he had left in chips into the pot. I called from the button, and the small blind now check-raised the pot. The big blind then pushed all in on top of that, and it was to me. I had the big blind covered but the small blind had me covered. At this point I had 13k in chips left, which was about average. If I went all in, the pot would be about 48k. In general, I'm a big advocate of never putting all your chips in for half the pot (in this case I still had scoop chances of runner runner straight). I went through my read and it seemed to me that the only reason players would check raise here would be with high hands susceptible to redraws. If I hit the low alone I'd get 24k in chips while if I shared the low I'd still get back 12k in chips. The problem was that if no low came my tournament was over. So the real question here is the marginal utility of the extra chips versus me continuing to grind with an average stack. After considerable thought, I decided that I had the only low draw out there, and that an extra 45 big blinds was very important considering we were still far off from the money. So I pushed and the full hands were:
Preflop raiser ♠A♠3♣J♣3
Small blind ♥J♥8♦J♦8
Big blind ♥K♥Q♠K♦9
This was about as good a distribution of the other hands as I could have hoped for. When I ran the numbers, I had an 81% chance at the low. Unfortunately, no low card came and I was out of the tournament.
In the low buyin tournament, there were an astonishing 7622 entries, which is a ridiculous number for a PLO/8 event. I played fairly well, but found myself a little impatient and undisciplined at about the 4 hour mark. At one point, I was drawing to 16 outs on the river just for half the pot. I managed to survive that and was in good shape once we made the money. With about 250 players left I'd just taken down a big pot to push to 12th place. Then the very next hand, I get ♠A♠J♥A♥5 and have it all in against someone's ♦A♦8♣A♣6, only to get scooped when they hit their flush. I was ahead on that hand 54-46 in terms of expected value. That hand crippled me and a few hands later I have it all in against someone who decided to chase an A3 low and hit a straight on me. I ended up 242 of 7662 for a return of 3.3x my buyin after 6 hours of play.
The most fun was in the high buyin tournament, which drew a field of 327 players. There were many big name players, from live pros to well-known online pros. The table I was at early was so stacked with online PLO and PLO8 pros in fact that a couple of good PLO8 players commented in the chat box "WTF table" and the like. I'm not even sure if they acknowledged my presence with that comment, there were so many known guys there. I played well early, realizing that the table was pretty tight and loosening my game up just enough to take advantage. Again, I started to lose my patience and discipline about 4 hours in after a string of missed flops. With a little less than average chips and less than 100 people remaining, I went all in over the top on the flop with the worst of it when both my opponent and I had trips but I was outkicked. I hit one of my 9 outs and came back up to above average. Much of the road to the bubble was fairly smooth from that point on. I was at a great table where I was second in chips, but double the next players' stacks, and the chip leader of the table was fairly tight. Also, the player directly behind me was tight. This was really useful as I could raise mildly favored hands preflop and expect to get checked down most of the time.
With two spots to go until the money, came one of the toughest hands of the night. I was well above average in chips when it occurred. I held AA2J once suited and raised in early position. From the button, the chip leader of the table reraised me. This was a very tough decision. With 2 till cash and a healthy stack even if I fold, it's a much tougher risk/reward guess than the hand in the earlier tournament. I finally pushed all in over the top, but I think that I would have folded anything that was AA4x or worse. I scooped that hand and made the money comfortably. A little later on, about 9+ hours in, I got a little tired and made some uncharacteristic plays.
Another interesting hand came just as we were about to collapse to the last two tables. A shorter stack raises from the button and I'm holding AK35. I think this is a very strong hand because it's a very good high hand with AK, you can counterfeit an opponent's A2xx with both an A and a 2, and if you were to run into aces, you still might have the best low draw. So I pushed over the top and ran into AA46. Somehow I managed to win the hand (I think I hit trips but it's all a blur right now).
So not long after we became the final two tables, I got dealt A24Q and limped UTG. The chip leader calls from the button and 4 players see a flop. The flop is 832 with two diamonds of which I have none. It checks around to the button who bets the pot. I call after some thought and the turn is the 3 of diamonds which makes the board 8323 with three diamonds. I check again and the button bets the pot again. This is a very tough decision here. My read was that I was either entitled to half the pot (ie. opponent has a hand like 88xx) or even 3/4 of it if my opponent has a hand like A456. I decided to call again. It is important to note that even if I thought I was ahead, it makes no sense to raise here. It is ok to be wrong on my read and still come away with a quarter of the pot. It is not ok to get counterfeited and lose everything. I call because if the river counterfeits my low, I'm very willing to let the hand go. The river is a K and I check call the final pot bet. Chipleader shows A4JK and I feel sick. Getting quartered by a 6 outer is tough enough. But the pot bet on the turn by him is such an amateur move that it's so gross when it lucks out. A guy looking at AKJ4 should be much more worried about both getting quartered or counterfeited than even I was. My guess is he's from that school of poker where if the opponent check calls he must be weak and you can bully him off if you keep betting.
A few hands later, chip leader raises in middle position and I reraise with ♥A♥2♥Q♣Q. The flop comes ♣9♣8♥6 and I push. This is a pretty good flop for me. Nut low draw, no overcard, and a backdoor flush draw. Chipleader quickly calls with ♦A♣K♠Q♣6 and the ♣2 hits the turn and the ♠T on the river and I'm out. I spent 10 hours straight in that tournament, the longest I'd ever been in a tournament, and came away 17th of 327 with 3.5x my buyin. It was a disappointing end to get sucked out on twice at the end by the same guy playing badly. But overall it was a fun if tiring experience and I'm looking foward to the next set of PLO8 tournaments. I think at this point I'm ready to admit that PLO8 is my best game and I should only play these tournaments. I have cashed in the last few big online PLO8 tournaments, but have not gotten that run of cards late that's seen me to the final table. Still gonna keep trying.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Books (entertainment)
I know I talk a lot about tv in my blog but never really mention books. That's because I haven't really read a book in ages. I used to love books when I was a kid, but even then, I had a lot of trouble keeping focus. This was especially true of "classics". I read half of Beloved, half of The Great Gatsby, half of Flowers for Algernon, half of Oliver Twist, two chapters of To Kill a Mockingbird, two chapters of Red Badge of Courage, ten chapters of Moby Dick, and I'm sure there are more half-read classics but those are just the ones off the top of my head.
When I read fantasy/sci-fi books I read Terry Brooks (which some people deem "Tolkien lite") and never touched Tolkien or any of the Harry Potter books. I've bought a few non-fiction books over the last few years and the furthest I got was half-way through Friedman's The World is Flat. I do better with short story collections, including books about traders and gamblers, and most recently I found both of Chelsea Handler's collections of short stories quite enjoyable.
The reason I suddenly feel like talking about books is that I've noticed a lot of people on the subway lately with Kindles, Amazon's electronic book device. I've read terrific reviews about the Kindle and I think it'd make a great present for most people. However, if I were to kill time on the subway, I'd use my video IPod. Not only to catch up on tv shows that I've missed, but even if I wanted a book, I'd do an audiobook. My favorite is Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential. It's a great read that I highly recommend for anyone, but I think the audiobook is even better because his voice really brings life to the narration.
Sometimes I feel it's kind of a shame that I don't read much nowadays. As a kid I was at the library a good amount. I used to fill those Scholastic book order forms month after month. My favorite author was Agatha Christie. My favorite book of hers was the ABC Murders, because it was the first time I'd come across the plot of a murderer with one intended victim creating fake serial killings to cover his tracks, something that reappears now and again in tv and movies. My only problem was that I often found her solutions to be a little far-fetched. It wasn't to the point of deus ex machina, but it wasn't often that one could logically come to her conclusions. When I felt that I wanted a shot at solving the mystery, I read Encyclopedia Brown.
I've heard so many times how "the book was way better than the movie" in reference to the LOTR, Harry Potter, DaVinci Code and other modern classics adapted to the big screen. I find that these films are usually more than adequate, especially the ones with decent budgets. Maybe someone can recommend a book that is great, not too long, and won't be made into a movie?
When I read fantasy/sci-fi books I read Terry Brooks (which some people deem "Tolkien lite") and never touched Tolkien or any of the Harry Potter books. I've bought a few non-fiction books over the last few years and the furthest I got was half-way through Friedman's The World is Flat. I do better with short story collections, including books about traders and gamblers, and most recently I found both of Chelsea Handler's collections of short stories quite enjoyable.
The reason I suddenly feel like talking about books is that I've noticed a lot of people on the subway lately with Kindles, Amazon's electronic book device. I've read terrific reviews about the Kindle and I think it'd make a great present for most people. However, if I were to kill time on the subway, I'd use my video IPod. Not only to catch up on tv shows that I've missed, but even if I wanted a book, I'd do an audiobook. My favorite is Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential. It's a great read that I highly recommend for anyone, but I think the audiobook is even better because his voice really brings life to the narration.
Sometimes I feel it's kind of a shame that I don't read much nowadays. As a kid I was at the library a good amount. I used to fill those Scholastic book order forms month after month. My favorite author was Agatha Christie. My favorite book of hers was the ABC Murders, because it was the first time I'd come across the plot of a murderer with one intended victim creating fake serial killings to cover his tracks, something that reappears now and again in tv and movies. My only problem was that I often found her solutions to be a little far-fetched. It wasn't to the point of deus ex machina, but it wasn't often that one could logically come to her conclusions. When I felt that I wanted a shot at solving the mystery, I read Encyclopedia Brown.
I've heard so many times how "the book was way better than the movie" in reference to the LOTR, Harry Potter, DaVinci Code and other modern classics adapted to the big screen. I find that these films are usually more than adequate, especially the ones with decent budgets. Maybe someone can recommend a book that is great, not too long, and won't be made into a movie?
Upcoming market news and GM (stock)
So even though it still feels like we're going to be range-bound, I read somewhere that there was a good amount of action on May volatility, and so I took a second look at what's coming up. This Thursday is supposed to be the meeting/results on whether they should make any changes to mark-to-market accounting. Next week is supposedly when they make a decision on whether to reinstate the uptick rule. As I've mentioned before, I'm not a fan of the uptick rule, but I heard somewhere that they were thinking about only applying it to stocks that are already down 10%, which I think is a good compromise. Finally, in late April, we will get the results of the bank stress test. I guess all of these have the potential to move the markets, though I doubt they will do anything that's completely unexpected.
The thing that I found most interesting about the White House automakers meeting over the weekend was that they got Wagoner to step down without guaranteeing support for GM. I would have understood it if they said that they would support GM but only if he stepped down, but to have him step down just so GM gets a 2 month extension? That seems to me like an admission of total failure. Then I thought about it some more and came to this conclusion. If Wagoner was offered the ultimatum of no support at all versus a 2 month extension to come up with a better plan if he steps down, I think it makes complete sense to take it. If GM is immediately forced into bankruptcy, the stock will be worthless. This way, he gets to exit out of his stock (whether he believes they'll come up with a viable plan or not) while it's still worth something, without having any inside information. If this was actually what happened, it's an offer he can't refuse.
I also heard from a coworker that a Congressman said on CNBC that GM is essentially a health care company that happens to make cars on the side, or something like that. We thought that was amusing and a great way to put it.
The thing that I found most interesting about the White House automakers meeting over the weekend was that they got Wagoner to step down without guaranteeing support for GM. I would have understood it if they said that they would support GM but only if he stepped down, but to have him step down just so GM gets a 2 month extension? That seems to me like an admission of total failure. Then I thought about it some more and came to this conclusion. If Wagoner was offered the ultimatum of no support at all versus a 2 month extension to come up with a better plan if he steps down, I think it makes complete sense to take it. If GM is immediately forced into bankruptcy, the stock will be worthless. This way, he gets to exit out of his stock (whether he believes they'll come up with a viable plan or not) while it's still worth something, without having any inside information. If this was actually what happened, it's an offer he can't refuse.
I also heard from a coworker that a Congressman said on CNBC that GM is essentially a health care company that happens to make cars on the side, or something like that. We thought that was amusing and a great way to put it.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Sideways (stock)
Not talking about the movie, even though I really liked it. Talking about the possible market direction in the near future. Both a successful coworker and I feel that something has changed in our day-to-day trading. We both feel there's been more clashing of orders and less one-directional flow, and think that the market has entered into a consolidation phase.
It makes sense to me in that there's not a whole lot in the near term that could trigger dramatic optimism or pessimism in the market. Back when the DOW was in the 6000's, there was fear that Citigroup or Bank of America wasn't going to last through a weekend. That fear does not feel like it will come back anytime soon. On the upside however, I look at where we are in relation to the bottom at 2002. While we are still below that level on average, I can't say that I believe the economy is stronger than that period of time in any way. A lot more has already been done by the Fed versus back then, leaving less room for further triggers to the upside. I don't see a reason why we should be at a higher level.
Even if we are going to be sideways or in a range for a while, the important question to most people is for how long? I'm not going to make any bold predictions here, but I'm going to point out something that I think is interesting. The VIX, even though it feels like it's come down a lot, is still at 40. This is still a historically high number, and if we do settle into a range, it might be a while before that number pulls down.
It makes sense to me in that there's not a whole lot in the near term that could trigger dramatic optimism or pessimism in the market. Back when the DOW was in the 6000's, there was fear that Citigroup or Bank of America wasn't going to last through a weekend. That fear does not feel like it will come back anytime soon. On the upside however, I look at where we are in relation to the bottom at 2002. While we are still below that level on average, I can't say that I believe the economy is stronger than that period of time in any way. A lot more has already been done by the Fed versus back then, leaving less room for further triggers to the upside. I don't see a reason why we should be at a higher level.
Even if we are going to be sideways or in a range for a while, the important question to most people is for how long? I'm not going to make any bold predictions here, but I'm going to point out something that I think is interesting. The VIX, even though it feels like it's come down a lot, is still at 40. This is still a historically high number, and if we do settle into a range, it might be a while before that number pulls down.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)