Everyone has heard, well most adults anyway, of the phrase angry sex. It goes something like this: a couple argue heatedly, each getting more and more angry, their emotions escalating, their blood circulating, until a tipping point occurs and both wind up in coitus amidst flowing fluids. Better even are those who have experienced it. It is quite an intense experience, fleeting, but fervent. (And while it does nothing to ameliorate the problem, at least the couple can talk about it as the energy of the fight has been spent between the sheets or living room floor.
However, although angry sex usually involves intense fucking, it seldom incorporates a 180 neck twist, like Linda Blair's head does in The Exorcist. So it was a shock when Bill Compton and his maker Lorena Krasiki have angry sex in last night's True Blood episode. Bill violently twists her head a full 180 mid-coitus. A variation on the neck chocking or erotic asphyxiation that some more adventurous attempt. This is hardly make-up sex as it seems clear that Bill is trying to kill her but can't. Vampires are persistent in their deaths.
While love is a powerful emotion so too is hate. Both generate fervid and intense emotions. Perhaps they start from the same place, but one emotion goes one way and the other the other way. For Bill his hatred of Lorena certainly generates some angry emotions. It went one, very shocking and violent way. Why not simply twist her neck without the sex, one might ask. Seems like a fair question, but as everyone knows who has had angry sex, it simply feels too good to pass up--even if you hate the bitch.
This scene perhaps is the one that everyone will be talking about, but what about the vibrating, gyrating, pulsating, orgasmic sex Tara has with the mysterious vampire, Franklin Mott. He pulsated her like some type of mating grasshopper. I suspect Tara is multi-orgasmic.
True Blood has made some truly unique sexual TV history. Nice, clean family entertainment. Bravo HBO! Keep it up. My kind of TV.
BTW: what is released when, say, a male vampire has an ejaculation? If they cry tears of blood, then do they shoot spurts of sanguine semen. Perhaps we shall find out this season with a bloody money shot. That would be special.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Review of Sgt Pepper Live by Cheap Trick by a Novice
First, let me say that I am no fan of the Beatles or their ‘landmark’ musical achievement called Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. However, I am well aware that all, okay, most, great music since its release magically finds its way back to the album. It’s comfortably enshrined in music’s cannon; I know this because that’s what critics and musicians tell me. Maybe it’s my age, but I never really thought much of it. (I also think Zeppelin overrated, blaspheme I know, but that’s my opinion). Further, I might point out that while watching the show I imbibed several beers—I did that before the show too. So I was buzzed. I say this because, as I write, the morning after, I may forget or misremember a few things.
But the show was really good despite my condition and apathy for the Beatles. Perhaps the buzz mitigated some of my aversion to the music, but it must be said that I was familiar with almost all the songs anyway. The Beatles' music is pervassive, to say the least.
Everything about the production and performance was excellent, top notch. The band performed with an orchestra and impressive light show. Furthermore, the sound quality generated crisp, clean notes and vocals. Let me also say that I am not really much of an orchestra fan, either, but it worked. The album has orchestra arrangements, and so this was merely a faithful rendering of the music. From my limited knowledge, the performance sounded much like the music replete with orchestra melodies and harmonizing vocals--there were no less than six back-up singers.
The band played, I assume, all the songs from the album, and so if you are a fan of the album and are still well enough to attend a “rock show,” it would be well worth your time. Even for someone like me, as I said, the show was excellent. In short, the show is worth seeing. But the show does have flaws.
The Beatles I recall were very much into diversity of music and culture—all honorable pursuits. But there was a song that literally brought the house down—that is to a soporific state. Not good for a concert. The song “Within You Without You"(featuring an Indian Ensemble) was slow and odd. Think "The Love Guru" here. It certainly had a “tripping” vibe to it—as in the Beatles were clearly on drugs when they wrote it. The song sucks, and the show came to a grinding halt. Maybe they should pass out ‘shrooms for that song. Instead, I went to take a piss. It seemed like the logical thing to do at that time.
Curiously, the crowd came to its feet not in response to a Beatle’s song, but instead to a Cheap Trick song. Not only did the band play the Beatles, but also it played their own hits. The song that got everyone to his/her feet was the classic “I Want You.” I must confess that I prefer Cheap Trick’s music to that of the Beatles (I know I am off to hell for such heresy), but so too did the audience. So on their feet for the song the audience sprang. It was the highlight of the show—in fact it was Cheap Trick’s songs that worked best. (By best, I mean the songs the crowd enjoyed most.) I might suggest they kick Stg. Pepper to the curb and play their music. I am sure it could work in Vegas. At any rate, judging from the crowd response this night, it was Cheap Trick they wanted to hear. However, immediately following the crowd’s enthusiasm for the song, guitarist Rick Nelison decided to suck the energy out of the show by hawking products. How cheap and lame is that? I suppose that a multi-million dollar production needs to move product, but why do it right when crowd is into the show? Ah, yes, the cynic in me says, that’s the only time to do it. But still, it was amateurish and forced—a terrible moment in the show.
Finally, while as I said I am no fan of the Beatles, I still knew most the music, simply because I am alive and can hear. I suppose being awake helps, too. I thought the same was true for Cheap Trick’s music. With its catchy songs and riffs, radio has been a friend to the band, playing its songs often enough. So it came as a surprise, really, a shock that my girlfriend claimed she had never heard the song “Dream Police.” What, I said incredulously. Everyone, even if you hate the band, has heard “Dream Police.” Everyone knows the chorus:
The dream police, they live inside of my head
The dream police, they come to me in my bed
The dream police, they’re coming to arrest me, oh no
Everyone knows those paranoia-laden lyrics. They’re awesome. So now I wonder if my girlfriend grew up in this country. Seriously, everyone knows those lyrics. In fact, instead of asking for papers in Arizona, the police should ask people to sing the chorus to “Dream Police” as proof of citizenship. I mean, honestly, she never had heard the song “Dream Police?” Seriously, who is she? An American?
Well worth the performance, even if one does not know "Dream Police." They also played "Surrender," which she knew.
But the show was really good despite my condition and apathy for the Beatles. Perhaps the buzz mitigated some of my aversion to the music, but it must be said that I was familiar with almost all the songs anyway. The Beatles' music is pervassive, to say the least.
Everything about the production and performance was excellent, top notch. The band performed with an orchestra and impressive light show. Furthermore, the sound quality generated crisp, clean notes and vocals. Let me also say that I am not really much of an orchestra fan, either, but it worked. The album has orchestra arrangements, and so this was merely a faithful rendering of the music. From my limited knowledge, the performance sounded much like the music replete with orchestra melodies and harmonizing vocals--there were no less than six back-up singers.
The band played, I assume, all the songs from the album, and so if you are a fan of the album and are still well enough to attend a “rock show,” it would be well worth your time. Even for someone like me, as I said, the show was excellent. In short, the show is worth seeing. But the show does have flaws.
The Beatles I recall were very much into diversity of music and culture—all honorable pursuits. But there was a song that literally brought the house down—that is to a soporific state. Not good for a concert. The song “Within You Without You"(featuring an Indian Ensemble) was slow and odd. Think "The Love Guru" here. It certainly had a “tripping” vibe to it—as in the Beatles were clearly on drugs when they wrote it. The song sucks, and the show came to a grinding halt. Maybe they should pass out ‘shrooms for that song. Instead, I went to take a piss. It seemed like the logical thing to do at that time.
Curiously, the crowd came to its feet not in response to a Beatle’s song, but instead to a Cheap Trick song. Not only did the band play the Beatles, but also it played their own hits. The song that got everyone to his/her feet was the classic “I Want You.” I must confess that I prefer Cheap Trick’s music to that of the Beatles (I know I am off to hell for such heresy), but so too did the audience. So on their feet for the song the audience sprang. It was the highlight of the show—in fact it was Cheap Trick’s songs that worked best. (By best, I mean the songs the crowd enjoyed most.) I might suggest they kick Stg. Pepper to the curb and play their music. I am sure it could work in Vegas. At any rate, judging from the crowd response this night, it was Cheap Trick they wanted to hear. However, immediately following the crowd’s enthusiasm for the song, guitarist Rick Nelison decided to suck the energy out of the show by hawking products. How cheap and lame is that? I suppose that a multi-million dollar production needs to move product, but why do it right when crowd is into the show? Ah, yes, the cynic in me says, that’s the only time to do it. But still, it was amateurish and forced—a terrible moment in the show.
Finally, while as I said I am no fan of the Beatles, I still knew most the music, simply because I am alive and can hear. I suppose being awake helps, too. I thought the same was true for Cheap Trick’s music. With its catchy songs and riffs, radio has been a friend to the band, playing its songs often enough. So it came as a surprise, really, a shock that my girlfriend claimed she had never heard the song “Dream Police.” What, I said incredulously. Everyone, even if you hate the band, has heard “Dream Police.” Everyone knows the chorus:
The dream police, they live inside of my head
The dream police, they come to me in my bed
The dream police, they’re coming to arrest me, oh no
Everyone knows those paranoia-laden lyrics. They’re awesome. So now I wonder if my girlfriend grew up in this country. Seriously, everyone knows those lyrics. In fact, instead of asking for papers in Arizona, the police should ask people to sing the chorus to “Dream Police” as proof of citizenship. I mean, honestly, she never had heard the song “Dream Police?” Seriously, who is she? An American?
Well worth the performance, even if one does not know "Dream Police." They also played "Surrender," which she knew.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Kill Corporate Personhood
The dance at Capital Hill yesterday with Tony Hayward (can he sound anymore British and thus like an elitist idiot) painfully exposes the problems with capitalism—the unregulated, unfettered kind apoplectically endorsed by the GOP. The GOP argument goes something like this: corporations should not have to pay its fair share of taxes or deal with regulations lest those burdens stifle innovation, profits and hiring. The argument assumes that corporations, in the best interest of the consumer, will regulate themselves as the best manner to maintain and increase profitability. This unregulated environment creates the conditions to hire the people. This mantra is echoed throughout the GOP and its retarded progeny—Tea Party old, white jerk-offs. The argument goes further by stating that the problem with American is government, that government somehow makes the lives of Americans worse. Has anyone noticed what Enron did to people; BP; Lehman Bros.? It takes a willful intellectual neglect to conclude that government and not corporations create and sustain an unbearable burden for people. But, then again, intellectualism is in short supply.
This self-regulation notion has been entirely proven to be a fantasy, to be a fallacious argument, more correct in Superman’s bizzaro world than the one in which regular people live. Indeed, it is hardly ever the case that the corporation will ‘self-regulate.’ BP is the most evident example, but one need not look too far in the past to find clear, evident, conspicuous evidence: Enron, Lehman Brothers, WorldCom, Exxon-Valdez, Toyota, GM, (insert any health-care provider) and on and one the list goes. These corporate individuals have maimed and killed many an American in the course of business per usual. Strident regulations might well have prevented many a death, but, as free-market (an absurdly incorrect designation) capitalists, our representatives have permitted and even sanctioned these crimes. If one kills someone, he goes to jail--OJ Simpson notwithstanding. Not, of course, if the individual corporation does the same thing with its chemcicals, design flaws, and short cuts to profitability. It lives on, most of the time. Although Lehman Brothers died, as did Enron, so in extreme cases, the corporation can die. But the death hardly seems just.
So as Tony-I-don’t-recall-and-I-wasn’t-part-of-the-decision-Hayward blatantly lies about the culpability of his individual corporation BP, one is not surprised. He is protecting his family, so to speak, and thus must lie about its cruel and irresponsible behavior. Did anyone watching truly believe him? Did anyone believe that he has no idea what happened, that he had no part in the decision, that BP’s safety record played no role in the slow death of part of America? No reasonable person believed him, except Joe Barton and his ilke, who have sympathy for BP and the mess it now finds itself in. Go GOP protect BP, try to generate sympathy for it. Good luck.
We have created an environment where the truth is evaded and destroyed. Profits, the very sustenance of the individual corporation, must be protected and sustained, hence the evasiveness by Hayward. But he’s just the latest to protect his family. Every corporate CEO does the same thing: lies so as to protect his individual corporation.
Perhaps some brilliant team of attorneys can over turn the 1886 Supreme Court decision that established corporate personhood for 14th Amendment protection. The problem is that a century of cruel and inhumane law has been established and thus needs to be navigated. But it’s time to strip corporations of individual rights. A corporation is a thing and does not deserve any protection provided by our constitution—that was written for people—not a collection of people running a business. This is obvious, and yet, despite the clarity of that fact, we still allow this bizarre and illogical reality to persist. Until we expunge corporate personhood, corporations will continue to kill the world and the living things in it for profits. In the interim though, we can start by killing BP--kill it I say, and take all its profits to pay for the damage. Kill it. Chop its head off by siezing its capital assets. Kill it. Before it kills us.
This self-regulation notion has been entirely proven to be a fantasy, to be a fallacious argument, more correct in Superman’s bizzaro world than the one in which regular people live. Indeed, it is hardly ever the case that the corporation will ‘self-regulate.’ BP is the most evident example, but one need not look too far in the past to find clear, evident, conspicuous evidence: Enron, Lehman Brothers, WorldCom, Exxon-Valdez, Toyota, GM, (insert any health-care provider) and on and one the list goes. These corporate individuals have maimed and killed many an American in the course of business per usual. Strident regulations might well have prevented many a death, but, as free-market (an absurdly incorrect designation) capitalists, our representatives have permitted and even sanctioned these crimes. If one kills someone, he goes to jail--OJ Simpson notwithstanding. Not, of course, if the individual corporation does the same thing with its chemcicals, design flaws, and short cuts to profitability. It lives on, most of the time. Although Lehman Brothers died, as did Enron, so in extreme cases, the corporation can die. But the death hardly seems just.
So as Tony-I-don’t-recall-and-I-wasn’t-part-of-the-decision-Hayward blatantly lies about the culpability of his individual corporation BP, one is not surprised. He is protecting his family, so to speak, and thus must lie about its cruel and irresponsible behavior. Did anyone watching truly believe him? Did anyone believe that he has no idea what happened, that he had no part in the decision, that BP’s safety record played no role in the slow death of part of America? No reasonable person believed him, except Joe Barton and his ilke, who have sympathy for BP and the mess it now finds itself in. Go GOP protect BP, try to generate sympathy for it. Good luck.
We have created an environment where the truth is evaded and destroyed. Profits, the very sustenance of the individual corporation, must be protected and sustained, hence the evasiveness by Hayward. But he’s just the latest to protect his family. Every corporate CEO does the same thing: lies so as to protect his individual corporation.
Perhaps some brilliant team of attorneys can over turn the 1886 Supreme Court decision that established corporate personhood for 14th Amendment protection. The problem is that a century of cruel and inhumane law has been established and thus needs to be navigated. But it’s time to strip corporations of individual rights. A corporation is a thing and does not deserve any protection provided by our constitution—that was written for people—not a collection of people running a business. This is obvious, and yet, despite the clarity of that fact, we still allow this bizarre and illogical reality to persist. Until we expunge corporate personhood, corporations will continue to kill the world and the living things in it for profits. In the interim though, we can start by killing BP--kill it I say, and take all its profits to pay for the damage. Kill it. Chop its head off by siezing its capital assets. Kill it. Before it kills us.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The Gay Marriage Dance
Gay marriage simply won’t fade away. It keeps coming up. Yesterday a California judge ruled on it and now we are told it’s heading to the Conservative, err, Supreme Court. (The idea that the Supreme Court Justices are somehow dispassionate and apolitical is absurd—how else does one view the fact that Rush Limbaugh’s wedding—his fourth—had Clarence Thomas on the guest list. I wonder if Limbaugh calls him boy—well within his frame of perception.) One report on the hearing indicated that when asked by the attorneys what harm gay marriage would do to “hetro-marriages” they could provide no valid answer. That is because, as sane and reasonable people have known, there is no valid reason to deny gay people the ability to marry. It can’t and won’t affect hetor-marriages. It was a bogus, hate-filled argument from the start.
The locus for denying gay people the ability to marry can be found in hate, fear and ignorance—plain and simple. And of course, we certainly want those characteristics in abundance when making legal decisions, or decisions that deny people civil liberties. Let me not hear anything approaching reason or logic regarding this issue. What use are reason and logic if they directly contradict hate, fear and ignorance?
Imagine it: gay people holding hands and kissing and having wedding receptions. Oh, it makes me so mad, even though I have nothing directly to do with it. In fact, it makes me so mad, I can’t stand it. What on earth do they do behind closed doors? Distrusting and now, they can do it—sodomy and whatever else—legally. OMG!
Have you ever considered that some of the people most fiercely against gay rights, and specifically gay marriage, are themselves complete flamers? Ted Haggard, Larry David, George Rekers, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy, Mark Foley and on and on the list goes. All Republican cocksuckers to be sure. Perhaps, they might consider getting together for a circle jerk—it seems to fit.
The argument against gay marriage is specious; it has no validity at all, except if one considers hate, fear and ignorance. But this is America, where the Tea Party flourishes and the Supreme Court Justices hang out, some at least, with the same folks who truck in hate, fear and ignorance.
The locus for denying gay people the ability to marry can be found in hate, fear and ignorance—plain and simple. And of course, we certainly want those characteristics in abundance when making legal decisions, or decisions that deny people civil liberties. Let me not hear anything approaching reason or logic regarding this issue. What use are reason and logic if they directly contradict hate, fear and ignorance?
Imagine it: gay people holding hands and kissing and having wedding receptions. Oh, it makes me so mad, even though I have nothing directly to do with it. In fact, it makes me so mad, I can’t stand it. What on earth do they do behind closed doors? Distrusting and now, they can do it—sodomy and whatever else—legally. OMG!
Have you ever considered that some of the people most fiercely against gay rights, and specifically gay marriage, are themselves complete flamers? Ted Haggard, Larry David, George Rekers, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy, Mark Foley and on and on the list goes. All Republican cocksuckers to be sure. Perhaps, they might consider getting together for a circle jerk—it seems to fit.
The argument against gay marriage is specious; it has no validity at all, except if one considers hate, fear and ignorance. But this is America, where the Tea Party flourishes and the Supreme Court Justices hang out, some at least, with the same folks who truck in hate, fear and ignorance.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Oil and The Slow Death of Addiction
The argument against the off shore drilling moratorium reminds me of an addict. There are alcoholics, for example, that will drink themselves to death. Even after the alcoholic has had a 'scare' and been hospitalized with a serve health concern. And once released, he still continues his deleterious ways, until he dies. I had an uncle like this.
The same idea can be applied to a smoker. Everyone understands that smoking slowly kills you. In addition, it makes one smell like shit and look worse. It discolors teeth and skin and makes one look like a leather mitt. Have you ever seen a 20 year smoker? Nasty.
And yet the argument against off shore drilling is being made because of jobs. I understand that folks need to live, but do we have to continue to destroy ourselves in the process? Let's face it, the oil spill says more about us than it does about anything else. The destruction is ours, collectively. And so the argument is made that we need to continue drinking, even though we have slcerosis, or that we should continue to smoke, even though we have lung cancer, so that we may pay the bills. We are killing a part of us, the Gulf, so that we may have oil, our addiction. If we are sick, shouldn't we stop and diagnose the problem then take steps to correct it? A moratorium makes all the sense in the world, but I am sure it will be lifted to allow us to continue the slow death.
The same idea can be applied to a smoker. Everyone understands that smoking slowly kills you. In addition, it makes one smell like shit and look worse. It discolors teeth and skin and makes one look like a leather mitt. Have you ever seen a 20 year smoker? Nasty.
And yet the argument against off shore drilling is being made because of jobs. I understand that folks need to live, but do we have to continue to destroy ourselves in the process? Let's face it, the oil spill says more about us than it does about anything else. The destruction is ours, collectively. And so the argument is made that we need to continue drinking, even though we have slcerosis, or that we should continue to smoke, even though we have lung cancer, so that we may pay the bills. We are killing a part of us, the Gulf, so that we may have oil, our addiction. If we are sick, shouldn't we stop and diagnose the problem then take steps to correct it? A moratorium makes all the sense in the world, but I am sure it will be lifted to allow us to continue the slow death.
Friday, June 11, 2010
ESPN Can't Trick Me Into Caring About the World Cup
ESPN and other corporate interests can try to convince me to pay attention to the World Cup, but it won't happen for this sports-minded American. Even with the rage against BP(I say seize the company), I still won't be interested in the outcome of the USA v. England game. Indeed, the US could lose or win every World Cup game, and I still would not be interested. But, boy oh boy, do corporate interests try to convince us that we should care. "It's the most popular sport on the planet," is often the fallacious bandwagon appeal these interests make. "Yes," I say that may be true, but so what--it's also the most boring. I can no more watch a soccer game than I could watch old people watch Wheel Of Fortune. Boring and more boring.
So go on spend and spend some more to convince me that the World Cup matters, that I should be interested, that I should join the rest of the world and give a shit by painting my face and chanting sing-alongs and assaulting my rival countries fans. I won't, I can't care. Please give me something worthwhile, like real football, American Style, then I will pay attention.
By the way, did you see the Rachel Nichols report today--terrible.
So go on spend and spend some more to convince me that the World Cup matters, that I should be interested, that I should join the rest of the world and give a shit by painting my face and chanting sing-alongs and assaulting my rival countries fans. I won't, I can't care. Please give me something worthwhile, like real football, American Style, then I will pay attention.
By the way, did you see the Rachel Nichols report today--terrible.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Favorite Movies
Some of my favorite films, in no particular order:
Memento
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Fargo (really any Coen film)
Henry V (Branagh’s version is best)
Citizen Cane
8 ½ weeks (Fellini)
Amadeus
One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest
Thirty-two Short Films About Glen Gould
The Last Detail
Chinatown
Five Easy Pieces
Se7en
Platoon
Raging Bull
Annie Hall
Manhattan
Mulholland Drive
Double Indemnity
The Pianist
Short Cuts
Mosquito Coast
Inglorious Basterds/Jackie Brown (best of Tarantino)
Capturing the Friedmans
The Matrix
There Will Be Blood
Midnight Cowboy
The Empire Strikes Back
30 Days Later
Frenzy
Saving Private Ryan
Midnight Cowboy
Which ones have I missed?
Memento
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Fargo (really any Coen film)
Henry V (Branagh’s version is best)
Citizen Cane
8 ½ weeks (Fellini)
Amadeus
One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest
Thirty-two Short Films About Glen Gould
The Last Detail
Chinatown
Five Easy Pieces
Se7en
Platoon
Raging Bull
Annie Hall
Manhattan
Mulholland Drive
Double Indemnity
The Pianist
Short Cuts
Mosquito Coast
Inglorious Basterds/Jackie Brown (best of Tarantino)
Capturing the Friedmans
The Matrix
There Will Be Blood
Midnight Cowboy
The Empire Strikes Back
30 Days Later
Frenzy
Saving Private Ryan
Midnight Cowboy
Which ones have I missed?
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Grand Series at the Nugget--Awesome
Now that the WSOP is in town, many other poker rooms are offering ‘special’ tournaments, I assume, to capture the influx of players. The buy-ins for the WSOP are prohibitive for many, though this year there are several $1,000 tournaments. Still a grand is too much, so it is nice to see that there are tournaments catering to the lower limit players, but still offering excellent structures and chip stacks.
There is hardly a paucity of tournaments to play year round, but for the lower limit player, these 40, 50, 60 dollar buy-ins offer terrible structures--usually 20 minute blinds and starting stacks of 3,000 to 4,000. Those games don’t allow any ‘play.’ After an hour the blinds have increase three-fold and one need to start pushing all-in.
This past Saturday, I played in a tournament that offered terrific blind structures and starting chip stacks: 40 minutes and 12,000 chips, respectively. These types of tournament are usually more expensive to play year-round, but not this time of year.
The Grand Series of Poker at the Golden Nugget offered the above tournament for $135. Truly awesome. It even received a ‘good luck’ and ‘hello’ from Phil Hulmuth, in person. The series continues through July with buy-ins ranging from 135 to 235 to 500 and the most expensive, 1,000. Every day there is one going on and most of the time two. The tournaments don’t just offer No Limit. There’s stud hi-low, Omaha, pot limit, HORSE, etc.
So when I played the room had two games going—stud high-low and no limit hold ‘em. The stud tournament had 119 players and the no limit had 372 players. As I was playing no limit, I really did not pay too much attention to the stud game, but did note how many players entered. The hold ‘em tournament paid out 37 places with 1st place offer $8,700—not too bad for 135 bucks.
I started playing at noon and busted out about 3:30 with still well over 260 players left—it’s a grind. My poker run is still going terribly wrong, and this tournament proved no exception as did the subsequent games I played over the weekend. What’s new there? Nothing. However, stupid is as stupid does and thus stupid will enter in another tournament. The Nugget is not the only place offering these ‘special’ tournaments, but it’s the best one for the price that I have found.
There is hardly a paucity of tournaments to play year round, but for the lower limit player, these 40, 50, 60 dollar buy-ins offer terrible structures--usually 20 minute blinds and starting stacks of 3,000 to 4,000. Those games don’t allow any ‘play.’ After an hour the blinds have increase three-fold and one need to start pushing all-in.
This past Saturday, I played in a tournament that offered terrific blind structures and starting chip stacks: 40 minutes and 12,000 chips, respectively. These types of tournament are usually more expensive to play year-round, but not this time of year.
The Grand Series of Poker at the Golden Nugget offered the above tournament for $135. Truly awesome. It even received a ‘good luck’ and ‘hello’ from Phil Hulmuth, in person. The series continues through July with buy-ins ranging from 135 to 235 to 500 and the most expensive, 1,000. Every day there is one going on and most of the time two. The tournaments don’t just offer No Limit. There’s stud hi-low, Omaha, pot limit, HORSE, etc.
So when I played the room had two games going—stud high-low and no limit hold ‘em. The stud tournament had 119 players and the no limit had 372 players. As I was playing no limit, I really did not pay too much attention to the stud game, but did note how many players entered. The hold ‘em tournament paid out 37 places with 1st place offer $8,700—not too bad for 135 bucks.
I started playing at noon and busted out about 3:30 with still well over 260 players left—it’s a grind. My poker run is still going terribly wrong, and this tournament proved no exception as did the subsequent games I played over the weekend. What’s new there? Nothing. However, stupid is as stupid does and thus stupid will enter in another tournament. The Nugget is not the only place offering these ‘special’ tournaments, but it’s the best one for the price that I have found.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Why Rachel Nichols Sucks
ESPN tends to be a bore in the summer, namely because football season is over, and I am really no basketball fan. The only thing the network covers is basketball seems like. Where’s hockey? They do offer token coverage, but the coverage seems be treated like the annoying uncle that has to be tolerated during the holidays than wanting him to attend because the family likes him. The network seems simply apoplectic about basketball, Kobe and LeBron. And I don’t care how many promos the network produces about the World Cup and soccer. I don’t care if the USA loses every game, or wins every game, I won’t be interested. But, I really wanted to discuss Rachel Nichols.
She seems to report on every big story and thus is always on the channel. Her reports are terrible, both in content and delivery. In fact, I almost always change when she comes on. However, I have suffered through many of her lame reports to assert that she is terrible. I know with certainty that she will communicate nothing interesting or worthwhile. Her cream puff reports are almost infantile in their content. I am really surprised that her reports qualify as reports—it’s more like gossip than actual sporting news. But it’s the delivery that I find insufferable.
Next time watch her mannerisms and inflections and ask yourself if you really would want someone to talk to you in that way. For example, she shimmies her shoulders and raises her eyebrows all the while cooing with a soft, fake voice. Last night she was on live after the Celtics domination, and she was terribly stiff and mannered. Fake, really. She struck me as someone who really has no interest in sports—it’s something she does but has no interest in the subject—this undoubtedly explains the content of her reports. I know that reporters exaggerate mannerisms so to ‘connect’ with the audience, but she seems to play to a high school telecommunications class: really obvious, fake and overly mannered gesticulations of a neophyte learning how to ‘report.’ She is terrible and I vow to turn off her reports. Do you agree
She seems to report on every big story and thus is always on the channel. Her reports are terrible, both in content and delivery. In fact, I almost always change when she comes on. However, I have suffered through many of her lame reports to assert that she is terrible. I know with certainty that she will communicate nothing interesting or worthwhile. Her cream puff reports are almost infantile in their content. I am really surprised that her reports qualify as reports—it’s more like gossip than actual sporting news. But it’s the delivery that I find insufferable.
Next time watch her mannerisms and inflections and ask yourself if you really would want someone to talk to you in that way. For example, she shimmies her shoulders and raises her eyebrows all the while cooing with a soft, fake voice. Last night she was on live after the Celtics domination, and she was terribly stiff and mannered. Fake, really. She struck me as someone who really has no interest in sports—it’s something she does but has no interest in the subject—this undoubtedly explains the content of her reports. I know that reporters exaggerate mannerisms so to ‘connect’ with the audience, but she seems to play to a high school telecommunications class: really obvious, fake and overly mannered gesticulations of a neophyte learning how to ‘report.’ She is terrible and I vow to turn off her reports. Do you agree
Friday, June 4, 2010
Apocalypse of capitalism
Doesn’t the oil spill feel apocalyptic? The oil spill is killing everything it touches: animals and plants. It robs the ocean of oxygen and thus kills everything in it. It will kill the islands and destroy the beaches it washes upon. The oil is likely to get around Florida and up the east coast destroying animals and plants along the way. Although I am no religious guy, this seems apocalyptic. The end is near. The spilling may well continue until the end of the year, as the ‘relief’ well is the only way to stop the leak that oil companies know work. Everything that is being tried is guess work. So the oil spills until the end of the year—how much killing will it do? How much will it kill in its aftermath?
Drill, baby, drill, indeed. And still there are some who believe that we should continue to drill and risk everything in the process. Yes, this is the beginning of the end. It may take some time, but we do not have the capacity to fight the corporations that will destroy the environment. Many believe that we should still not regulate corporations lest it stymie profits and innovation. So many will actively aid and facilitate the end.
Drill, baby, drill, indeed. And still there are some who believe that we should continue to drill and risk everything in the process. Yes, this is the beginning of the end. It may take some time, but we do not have the capacity to fight the corporations that will destroy the environment. Many believe that we should still not regulate corporations lest it stymie profits and innovation. So many will actively aid and facilitate the end.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Poker Gods Hate Me; or it is not a trend if it happens all the time
I decided to play a limit game for the hell of it. Try to refine some basic strategy as I had not been playing for a while. Easy myself back into playing, as it were. The trend last time I played was not good. Amazing suck outs, always on the wrong side. The bad beats simply forced me to stop playing for a good 6-7 months. It was not worth playing when miracles happen for everyone in a hand with me. So a limit game might help easy into the no limit game I normally play. Now I am coming, painfully, to the conclusion that I am not very good, and simply should stop playing al together. Or understand that when I do play, I won’t win, no matter how I play. I plan to give a deep stack tournament at the Nugget this weekend a go. If the “trend” continues, well, I must stop playing for good. It’s the only sensible thing to do.
So I am in a 2/4 game at the Green Valley. I think I won a hand or two and was up a bit. How misleading that was. The comes this gift.
I was in middle position, and look down at 10,10. Pretty good, but nothing to get crazy about. In a 2/4 game, there are always, always, multiple folks to the flop no matter if there is a raise or not. So I call and there maybe 3 or 4 to flop.
The flop comes 6,10,6
Holy shit, I flopped a full house. I have the best of it, unless someone has pocket sixes. Perhaps, I think, things are changing for me. This is the poker gods laughing at me and spiting my very attempt to play poker. Expect that I am an atheist. Quite a confusing state, to say the least. Fourth street is a blank, an 8. The board reads thusly:
6,10,6, 8
I raise the bettor. It is just the two of us at this point. The river is a six; the board is
6,10, 6, 8, 6
When the my heads-up player bets, I know, I know with certainly that she has a six. And sure enough, when I call her bet, she flips over 3,6. Sadly for me, awesome for every asshole that I wind up in a pot with, she has quad sixes.
The numbers:
Tens heads up, the odds are 86% to win against a 6,3. In a 2/4 game, one is never heads up before the flop. So the true odds are not known, but after the flop I was heads up.
So I had pocket 10s. After the flop I am 96% to win. So I raise her bet and a blank comes: 8. So now I am 98% to win. She checks and I bet; she calls
She has a 2% chance of winning and wins. The thing is that this happens all the time, and by all the time, I mean every time I play. At least every time that I can recall. This is why I have slowed down and have not played much at all.
So after this beat, I was cracked and proceed to lose. I buckled down and only played premium hands—did not matter. I then played rags, did not matter. More later
So I am in a 2/4 game at the Green Valley. I think I won a hand or two and was up a bit. How misleading that was. The comes this gift.
I was in middle position, and look down at 10,10. Pretty good, but nothing to get crazy about. In a 2/4 game, there are always, always, multiple folks to the flop no matter if there is a raise or not. So I call and there maybe 3 or 4 to flop.
The flop comes 6,10,6
Holy shit, I flopped a full house. I have the best of it, unless someone has pocket sixes. Perhaps, I think, things are changing for me. This is the poker gods laughing at me and spiting my very attempt to play poker. Expect that I am an atheist. Quite a confusing state, to say the least. Fourth street is a blank, an 8. The board reads thusly:
6,10,6, 8
I raise the bettor. It is just the two of us at this point. The river is a six; the board is
6,10, 6, 8, 6
When the my heads-up player bets, I know, I know with certainly that she has a six. And sure enough, when I call her bet, she flips over 3,6. Sadly for me, awesome for every asshole that I wind up in a pot with, she has quad sixes.
The numbers:
Tens heads up, the odds are 86% to win against a 6,3. In a 2/4 game, one is never heads up before the flop. So the true odds are not known, but after the flop I was heads up.
So I had pocket 10s. After the flop I am 96% to win. So I raise her bet and a blank comes: 8. So now I am 98% to win. She checks and I bet; she calls
She has a 2% chance of winning and wins. The thing is that this happens all the time, and by all the time, I mean every time I play. At least every time that I can recall. This is why I have slowed down and have not played much at all.
So after this beat, I was cracked and proceed to lose. I buckled down and only played premium hands—did not matter. I then played rags, did not matter. More later
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)