Yep, in response to the question of what poker pros produce, the only compelling thing I've heard is "entertainment." To extend your analogy in a different direction, away from a battle-o'-wits: a pro, like a whore, is paid to keep company with her customers, many of whom are entitled, annoying, and unsavory cardplayers she'd never want to spend time with elsewhere.
+1000. To add to the above : entertainment is such a MAJOR part of first world expenses, so I do not think it can be overstated, on the contrary! That said, so many (young) pros do not get it and act like the entitled/arrogant f**ks that they are suppose to cater to - imho, a pro should cater to the VIPs (in an authentic way) much like the casino does.
I also need to watch Poor Things, but did catch Dune 2 though
So I watched it now too cos late last evening, I was like f*that, that's not how it's gonna be, spoilers ahead
Spoiler:
I agree with suited for the most part and also the description of Villenveuve, it's a movie to watch. But quite honestly I liked the first part moar. I like scenic, epic, transcending, or whatnot. The second part was much moar of a regular action movie, k, nothing wrong with that but not exactly what I was looking for.
And tbqh after watching that, I looked up most of the backstory on wiki, now I understand it much better, before that a few things were quite a bit questionable or underdeveloped or whatever. It's still way above average so there's that.
One more criticism, that Austin Butler guy (didn't know him before) seems to have been one of the worst casts ever. That guy was like way too cute (for lack of a better word, FWIW, I'm not gay) for the role he was supposed to portray. He seemed like a love parade techno dancer, he didn't seem like anything remotely close to what he was supposed to play. Anyways looking forward to watchin the closing part of the trilogy
So I watched it now too cos late last evening, I was like f*that, that's not how it's gonna be, spoilers ahead
Spoiler:
I agree with suited for the most part and also the description of Villenveuve, it's a movie to watch. But quite honestly I liked the first part moar. I like scenic, epic, transcending, or whatnot. The second part was much moar of a regular action movie, k, nothing wrong with that but not exactly what I was looking for.
And tbqh after watching that, I looked up most of the backstory on wiki, now I understand it much better, before that a few things were quite a bit questionable or underdeveloped or whatever. It's still way above average so there's that.
One more criticism, that Austin Butler guy (didn't know him before) seems to have been one of the worst casts ever. That guy was like way too cute (for lack of a better word, FWIW, I'm not gay) for the role he was supposed to portray. He seemed like a love parade techno dancer, he didn't seem like anything remotely close to what he was supposed to play. Anyways looking forward to watchin the closing part of the trilogy
Sting played Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen in the David Lynch version, so I took Butler as an improvement on that. I think that Lynch's Dune was underrated to a certain extent, especially after seeing the full version—the original screen release was butchered in editing to the point of incoherence. His was an ambitious and fascinating failure...but Sting? Nah.
Spoiler:
I WILL KILL HIM!!!!
We should also note that Kyle MacLachlan's and Timothée Chalamet's Pauls were both pretty boys, so we could see Feyd-Rautha as sort of a comparable foil. I think the Baron does make some remarks about Feyd's beauty in the book, but don't hold me to that.
Last edited by suitedjustice; 03-15-2024 at 09:40 AM.
I've started rereading Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace. Both the book and the late author have become fraught with a lot of handwringing in recent years, and rightly so over several facets. I'll get to that business if I write a review when I finish the book. It is over 1000 pages long, with another 200+ pages of endnotes, so it's going to be weeks or months before I finish.
For now, I'd like you to take a look at how a master constructs sentences and paragraphs with dialog. This is from the first few pages of the book.
'The issues my office faces with the application materials on file from you, Hal, involve some test scores.' He glances down at a colorful sheet of standardized test scores in the trench his arms have made. 'The Admissions staff is looking at standardized test scores from you that are, as I'm sure you know and can explain, are, shall we say...subnormal.' I'm to explain.
It's clear that this really pretty sincere yellow Dean on the left is Admissions. And surely the little aviarian figure at right is Athletics, then, because the facial creases of the shaggy middle Dean are now pursed in a kind of distanced affront, an I'm-eating-something-that-makes-me-really-appreciate-the-presence-of-whatever-I'm-drinking-along-with-it look that spells professionally Academic reservations. An uncomplicated loyalty to standards, then, at center. My uncle looks to Athletics as if puzzled. He shifts slightly in his chair.
The incongruity between Admissions's hand- and face-color is almost wild. '—verbal scores that are just quite a bit closer to zero than we're comfortable with, as against a secondary-school transcript from the institution where both your mother and her brother are administrators—' reading directly out of the sheaf inside his arms' ellipse— 'that his past year, yes, had fallen off a bit, but by the word I mean "fallen off" to outstanding from three previous years of frankly incredible.'
'Off the charts.'
'Most institutions do not even have grades of A with multiple pluses after it,' says the Director of Composition, his expression impossible to interpret.
'This kind of...how shall I put it...incongruity,' Admissions says, his expression frank and concerned, 'I've got to tell you sends up a red flag of potential concern during the admissions process.'
'We thus invite you to explain the appearance of incongruity if not outright shenanigans.' Students has a tiny piping voice that's absurd coming out of a face this big.
Last edited by suitedjustice; 03-15-2024 at 10:20 AM.
I started tonight's poker session with a bluff that didn't go through.
Here Villain in MP is fishy but not terribad. Effective stack is around $300. MP limps, folds to me on the BTN, I make it $12 with 99, SB folds, BB calls, folds to MP, who calls.
Pot ($37) - three players
Flop: J84
BB checks, MP donks $20, I call on the BTN, BB folds.
Pot ($77) - heads up
Turn: 4
MP checks. Normally I should check back to get my 9s to showdown cheaply. I shouldn't bluff hands with showdown value, but the action so far gives MP a narrow and face-up range. He really should be leading with a boat or trips here on the turn, and he may never have limped 88 to begin with, so he may not have a boat. 44 might want to slowplay, but that's an exceedingly rare holding.
Likely he has an 8x or Jx, given the action. I bet $35 to get value from the 8x, or to set up a bluff on the river vs a J with a bad kicker. MP calls. He doesn't checkraise me, and this serves to further cap his range, as I think that J8 might have checkraised here, along with most of the other value holdings.
Pot ($147) - heads up
River: 2
MP bets $35
Blocker bet! He has a jack, bad kicker! A good player holding 44 might induce with this bet, but MP is not a good player. I raise to $125. I can have AJ or QQ-AA all day given the action.
Pot ($307) - heads up - MP tanks and tanks
Spoiler:
MP calls with JT. The blocker bet triggered my pounce reflex and I ignored the fact that bad players cannot bet/fold top pair on the river. They just can't, even when they are almost sure that they're beat. You don't bluff in this spot; you make it to this spot with better than top pair, and you bet or raise for value, and you print money.
MGM Springfield $1/$2 poker: 6 hours
+$286.00 MGM Springfield Slots: 2 hours
(-$31.41)
I did it. I put in my first 40 hour week of this year. Next week—that is, starting later today—I'm going to move from five 8-hour days to four 10-hour days in order to save gas and wear and tear on my old Jeep. The same rules will apply: I can check out any time I like, but I cannot leave the casino until the 10-hour shift is over.
The slot floor yesterday was—swarming is not the best word; teeming is better, I'll go with that—teeming with slot grinders. Advantage slots are dead. Long live advantage slots. I'm still going to do my rounds on the floor, because that process yields higher EV than just the zero EV of goofing off on my phone while I wait to get on a poker table, and there are still a few occasional slot plays, and one of those may give up the Big Score one day.
The St. Patrick's Day poker promo runs later today. $100 for any club flush, and $2024 for any club straight flush. I will be open/raising and calling open/raises with hands like 63 and 74. Weeeeeeeee.
MGM Springfield $1/$2 poker: 6 hours
+$100.00 MGM Springfield Slots: 2 hours
+$5.75
I started tonight's poker session with a bluff that didn't go through.
Here Villain in MP is fishy but not terribad. Effective stack is around $300. MP limps, folds to me on the BTN, I make it $12 with 99, SB folds, BB calls, folds to MP, who calls.
Pot ($37) - three players
Flop: J84
BB checks, MP donks $20, I call on the BTN, BB folds.
Pot ($77) - heads up
Turn: 4
MP checks. Normally I should check back to get my 9s to showdown cheaply. I shouldn't bluff hands with showdown value, but the action so far gives MP a narrow and face-up range. He really should be leading with a boat or trips here on the turn, and he may never have limped 88 to begin with, so he may not have a boat. 44 might want to slowplay, but that's an exceedingly rare holding.
Likely he has an 8x or Jx, given the action. I bet $35 to get value from the 8x, or to set up a bluff on the river vs a J with a bad kicker. MP calls. He doesn't checkraise me, and this serves to further cap his range, as I think that J8 might have checkraised here, along with most of the other value holdings.
Pot ($147) - heads up
River: 2
MP bets $35
Blocker bet! He has a jack, bad kicker! A good player holding 44 might induce with this bet, but MP is not a good player. I raise to $125. I can have AJ or QQ-AA all day given the action.
Pot ($307) - heads up - MP tanks and tanks
Spoiler:
MP calls with JT. The blocker bet triggered my pounce reflex and I ignored the fact that bad players cannot bet/fold top pair on the river. They just can't, even when they are almost sure that they're beat. You don't bluff in this spot; you make it to this spot with better than top pair, and you bet or raise for value, and you print money.
MGM Springfield $1/$2 poker: 6 hours
+$286.00 MGM Springfield Slots: 2 hours
(-$31.41)
Nice recovery, SJ, despite the failed bluff early. Re. that hand, you kinda already said it, but important to remember that usually you can only bluff a good player. Bad players are too call-happy, and should be value-bet to the ends of the earth.
I did it. I put in my first 40 hour week of this year. Next week—that is, starting later today—I'm going to move from five 8-hour days to four 10-hour days in order to save gas and wear and tear on my old Jeep. The same rules will apply: I can check out any time I like, but I cannot leave the casino until the 10-hour shift is over.
Noteworthy, but not worth celebrating. An aside...I was a very good student growing up. Friends would take home report cards with one or two A's and be rewarded with a treat, a few bucks, or some other congratulatory prize. I would mention this to my parents while presenting a straight-A report card, and the usual response, always from my father, was something along the lines of "You're supposed to get A's, aren't you?" While the young me wasn't at all happy with this response, I do believe it taught me to do the right thing. or what needs to be done, not because of an anticipated reward, but because it's the right thing/what needs to be done.
Also, nice nod to the Eagles/Hotel California. I wonder where that will show up on the Top 500.
I would love to reread this, but I don't think it will happen unless there is another plague and I am holed up in a mountain cabin.
How do you eat an elephant?
The good thing is that DFW is easy to read compared to other 20th century literary giants. He occasionally sends me to the dictionary, but I always enjoy learning a new word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golddog
C'mon clubs!
What's the relationship there? St. Patrick's walking stick like a club or something?
Could be the head of a shillelagh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by REDeYeS00
guessing three leaf clovers
Could be 75% of a four-leaf clover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TopGun in VA
Noteworthy, but not worth celebrating. An aside...I was a very good student growing up. Friends would take home report cards with one or two A's and be rewarded with a treat, a few bucks, or some other congratulatory prize. I would mention this to my parents while presenting a straight-A report card, and the usual response, always from my father, was something along the lines of "You're supposed to get A's, aren't you?" While the young me wasn't at all happy with this response, I do believe it taught me to do the right thing. or what needs to be done, not because of an anticipated reward, but because it's the right thing/what needs to be done.
Also, nice nod to the Eagles/Hotel California. I wonder where that will show up on the Top 500.
I believe that self-praise levels should correlate with personal difficulty levels. If you ask Gargamel to be nice to the Smurfs, and he somehow pulls it off, then he should be quite chuffed with himself, even though it would be plain easy for many of us to be kind to the Smurfs.
As for Hotel California, I would think that a committee voted for the top 500. If the realists within it prevail, it ought to be in the low 2-digits; if the snobs prevail, it might be in the 100s.
My days of prematurely calling out the end of advantage slots are coming to a middle.
This wasn't the Big Score, but it was a nice one. I set it up by accidentally misclicking on the previous hand. At the time, the board only had one upcoming 3x multiplier on it, which is a marginal play 10-handed. You don't see it here, but it read "Next hand 3x" on the board. The correct play was to bet 5 coins per hand and collect whatever came down, and hope that something nice hit on the 3x hand. Betting only 5 coins per hand resets the screens to no multipliers for the next hand.
The game, however, makes it easy to misclick and accidentally max bet 10 coins per hand. That costs twice as much, but it potentially activates the multipliers for the next hand. I max bet the previous hand by accident and got the 10x multipliers you see on the board for this hand. Then I bumped it down to 5 coins and hit a nice hand. Easy game.
MGM Springfield $1/$2 poker: 8 hours
+$130.00 MGM Springfield Slots: 2 hours
+$758.39
I believe that self-praise levels should correlate with personal difficulty levels. If you ask Gargamel to be nice to the Smurfs, and he somehow pulls it off, then he should be quite chuffed with himself, even though it would be plain easy for many of us to be kind to the Smurfs.
The good thing is that DFW is easy to read compared to other 20th century literary giants. He occasionally sends me to the dictionary, but I always enjoy learning a new word.
This. I find Proust easy to read. I even find Joyce easy to read, but I have to read him out loud. If I don't, my head starts swimming.
For some inexplicable reason, my days of reading fiction have come to an end.
This. I find Proust easy to read. I even find Joyce easy to read, but I have to read him out loud. If I don't, my head starts swimming.
For some inexplicable reason, my days of reading fiction have come to an end.
I won't be rereading Proust's In Search of Lost Time any time soon. Those several hundred pages of him whining about his lost Albertine—after only a few pages of him barely acknowledging her while she was alive—wore me down.
I mean, I get it. Lost opportunities in romances have shaped the course of my life as well, but I've never been able to get more than 10 pages out of any of those before even I got bored with them.
I've read and enjoyed Joyce's The Dead and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, but Ulysses has eluded me so far and Finnegan's Wake was just appalling gibberish. As always, your mileage may vary.
Last edited by suitedjustice; Yesterday at 05:51 PM.
Then the non-fiction of the Bible should be next, old man.
I read the bible. I read Job in the Hebrew Bible and I read the gospels of Mark and Thomas in the Christian Bible, but try as I may, I haven't found any non-fiction yet.
Stick with the Tao Te Ching and the Analects if you want non-fiction.