One of the questions I am frequently asked is some form of "do you wish you were still in the markets?"
Former colleagues that I speak to assure me it is pretty hellish, which makes sense. I'm sure morale is very low, and making lots of people redundant is never fun.
I have not really missed work, as such, since I left. I do miss the people, and I don't like being out of touch with what all those people are doing now. I am loosely in touch with quite a few, but it's not the same as being in daily contact.
But, even though I loved what I was doing for nearly 20 years, I'm not pining for the actual job itself.
I think if I had still been in situ when the worst hit, I would have felt compelled to stay aboard for the sake of the rest of the team (if I wasn't fired !). Since we are not remotely near coming out the other side this would have led to many months of long hours and hard work for (relatively) little reward. It would have been less painful for me than for many people, of course, and I think I would have come to terms with the "game change".
It would have been / is pretty miserable out there, but there is definitely a part of me that would have found it exciting to trade through these historic conditions.
A lot of people, when I left, assumed that I intended to come back fairly quickly. This was never my plan, although I equally never ruled out a return. Of course, the situation has changed so much that it's not clear what I would return to !
Overall, I would say 1 part in 10 really regrets not being there for the show, but actively seeking to get back in would be another matter altogether !
Sunday, 4 January 2009
Saturday, 3 January 2009
Seat of Learning
We haven't bought a lot in the recent sales (and firesales). What we did buy was some new office chairs.
Karen needed a new one due to a broken wheel. A correctly fitting castor for a chair is, I suspect, high up in the list of low-value items that you want to buy to avoid the replacement of a much higher-value item (the whole chair) but the chances of doing so are inversely-proportional to the theoretical cost of the spare part.
The problem is exacerbated nowadays by the excessive cheapness of the "whole thing". We bought office chairs for the boys for about £30 - nice-looking faux-leather swivelling-and-titling ones. I have probably spent £100 in hourly-charged time looking for a spare wheel for Karen's chair. I think our solution is going to be to throw it away but keep the 4 remaining wheels for spares - that seems to be a reasonable approach !
So, the boys' chairs needed assembling. On the whole I was very impressed with the instructions. And the packing. And the lack of missingness of small parts.
It was a straightforward task, really. However, when I had finished Harry's and was tightening all the bolts, I tested the chair out. It seemed a little upright, and it didn't seem to tilt. No, it did have some tilt, but it only tilted forwards. Odd. Of course, I realised I had assembled it "back to front". Not an easy thing to do, you might think, especially as I had taken some trouble to match "front" with "front" markings.
This always seems to happen in DIY. You take great care to - say - measure the distance between 2 holes and make it dead level. Then, when you drill, the wall collapses making the hole 2inches wide and the whole exercise pointless. Or, you construct the object with precision only to find that one part had to be put in place at the very beginning.
In this case, the manufacturers had cleverly designed the whole kit to be symmetrical (so no need to fabricate different "Left" and "Right" arms. This meant it was possible to put the thing together more or less perfectly whilst still being inside out, so to speak.
The good news was that I had a second one to put together, so that the learn-by-doing exercise was not put entirely to waste.
Karen needed a new one due to a broken wheel. A correctly fitting castor for a chair is, I suspect, high up in the list of low-value items that you want to buy to avoid the replacement of a much higher-value item (the whole chair) but the chances of doing so are inversely-proportional to the theoretical cost of the spare part.
The problem is exacerbated nowadays by the excessive cheapness of the "whole thing". We bought office chairs for the boys for about £30 - nice-looking faux-leather swivelling-and-titling ones. I have probably spent £100 in hourly-charged time looking for a spare wheel for Karen's chair. I think our solution is going to be to throw it away but keep the 4 remaining wheels for spares - that seems to be a reasonable approach !
So, the boys' chairs needed assembling. On the whole I was very impressed with the instructions. And the packing. And the lack of missingness of small parts.
It was a straightforward task, really. However, when I had finished Harry's and was tightening all the bolts, I tested the chair out. It seemed a little upright, and it didn't seem to tilt. No, it did have some tilt, but it only tilted forwards. Odd. Of course, I realised I had assembled it "back to front". Not an easy thing to do, you might think, especially as I had taken some trouble to match "front" with "front" markings.
This always seems to happen in DIY. You take great care to - say - measure the distance between 2 holes and make it dead level. Then, when you drill, the wall collapses making the hole 2inches wide and the whole exercise pointless. Or, you construct the object with precision only to find that one part had to be put in place at the very beginning.
In this case, the manufacturers had cleverly designed the whole kit to be symmetrical (so no need to fabricate different "Left" and "Right" arms. This meant it was possible to put the thing together more or less perfectly whilst still being inside out, so to speak.
The good news was that I had a second one to put together, so that the learn-by-doing exercise was not put entirely to waste.
Friday, 2 January 2009
Virtuous Cycle
Amongst the New Year's resolutions, I have decided that it would be a good idea to do a bit of cycling every day. Karen says I may last a week, but I think I can do better than that!
Yesterday, on day 1 of X, the only cycling I actually managed to fit in was to bike down to Halfords to buy two new inner tubes for the boys' bikes. I had been doing the decent thing and pumping up the tyres ahead of a planned cycle ride today, when one burst with irreparable damage and the valve broke on another.
I had just spent an age trying to adjust the front derailleur on my bike - the mechanism is only slightly less unintuitive than those hinges in kitchen cabinets. As a result it was pretty late when I finally set off
Bedford is very cycle-friendly: you can get almost anywhere without the need to cycle actually on the road, which was handy in the dark. Mind you, I picked up a bright yellow-shiny jacket in Halfords which I put to use on the ride back. It turns out it is even shinier if you don't wear it inside out !
Today's planned trip to Grafham Water to cycle was scaled back to a trip down to Bedford Marina due to concern over Harry's injury from the "tube game". Karen also didn't seem all that keen when we actually got there, but after a few miles everyone was in the spirit !
Admittedly the preparations and all the loading/unloading took twice as long as the cycle ride, but now we're used to it !
Other New Year's resolutions include more regular posting on the blogs, so watch this place !
Yesterday, on day 1 of X, the only cycling I actually managed to fit in was to bike down to Halfords to buy two new inner tubes for the boys' bikes. I had been doing the decent thing and pumping up the tyres ahead of a planned cycle ride today, when one burst with irreparable damage and the valve broke on another.
I had just spent an age trying to adjust the front derailleur on my bike - the mechanism is only slightly less unintuitive than those hinges in kitchen cabinets. As a result it was pretty late when I finally set off
Bedford is very cycle-friendly: you can get almost anywhere without the need to cycle actually on the road, which was handy in the dark. Mind you, I picked up a bright yellow-shiny jacket in Halfords which I put to use on the ride back. It turns out it is even shinier if you don't wear it inside out !
Today's planned trip to Grafham Water to cycle was scaled back to a trip down to Bedford Marina due to concern over Harry's injury from the "tube game". Karen also didn't seem all that keen when we actually got there, but after a few miles everyone was in the spirit !
Admittedly the preparations and all the loading/unloading took twice as long as the cycle ride, but now we're used to it !
Other New Year's resolutions include more regular posting on the blogs, so watch this place !
Thursday, 1 January 2009
Games People Play
I have always loved games. Card games, certainly, but also board games and puzzles and quizzes etc. It would be an exaggeration to say I love sport, but I do enjoy watching and following sports for some of the same reasons I like playing games.
Clearly, poker and bridge are the main games holding my attention recently. However, when I was at school, I used to play scrabble, backgammon, chess etc.
I enjoyed them all although I wasn't all that good at them, I suppose. Good enough to beat most people I played against, certainly, but you come to realise that this is a long way from actually being good.
In chess, where I was definitely only average+, it is relatively easy to appreciate that the good players are far better. But in a game like scrabble, without strong competition, it is easy not to realise just how good the good players can be.
In fact, it was only recently when I read a Times scrabble column that I began to see that there are levels and levels beyond just knowing a lot of words and being quick to spot where to play them.
The situation posed did not ask which was the best score we could make, but invited us to consider - based on our inference on which letters our opponent probably held - where to play defensively to prevent him from making a powerful move on later turns.
It never occurred to me to be counting the letters, let alone for tactical defense ! When I was playing at school I am not sure I even knew about the 50-point bonus for using all 7 letters, which seems to be a vital weapon in a competitive match.
I haven't played scrabble for ages. I am only thinking about it now because someone on facebook challenged me. In that game, I have already played "LANDINGS" for the 7 letter bonus and also some very odd 2 letter words including "CH".
The online game handily has a listing of all the 2 letter words. I always knew that a full knowledge of these was important, but I had never actually got around to learning them.
In poker there is no shortage of strong competition to spur one on. But whereas in scrabble (like poker, a skillful game, with a luck element) you're going to get the message very quickly, in poker there is so much "noise" that any skill deficit is often disguised.
But there should be no doubt that proper and effective study of the game is going to make a big difference. I still haven't done enough of that, I know.
Karen, Harry and I went to a friend's house on New Year's Eve (12 of us altogether aged 12 - 50ish). It was a very successful evening, and memorable for the games Sarah and Derek came up with.
I thought they were very suitable. They weren't lewd, didn't involve drinking, were genuinely open to all ages and non-threatening (no forfeits) and didn't require any specialist knowledge.
There was Pictureka! (an actual board game), Chase the Ace (a well-known and very easy card game, that works with any number of players), Spoons (not sure I have ever played that before, but it was fun !).
Then there was the "tube game". You must pick up a cardboard tube with your mouth (using no hands, your knees cannot touch the ground, neither you nor the tube can fall over during your go). The tube is cut after each turn, so it gets shorter and shorter (harder and harder to pick up). Realistically the game can only be won by the youngsters, although anyone can manage it in the early stages.
Cameron won, but not before Harry put up a really spirited 2nd-place effort. He accidentally invented a new technique (I liken it to the innovation that was the Fosbury Flop). He was able to just reach the tube, then grab it with his mouth and perform a forward roll to land safely with the tube in mouth. This was judged valid.
Then there was the "chocolate game" - involving dice, hats, scarf and gloves, chocolate and mayhem !
One excellent feature of all the games - an ingredient of the best "fun" games - is that the rules were somewhat fluid. It's important that there are enough agreed rules to allow the games to get underway, but it's even better if the rules are then argued about and developed in a friendly way as the game proceeds.
In "spoons" there were debates over "feinting", and the speed of the pass, and the positioning of the spoons relative to the players and so on. In "chocolate", the requirement to throw a double six was quickly re-negotiated. In "tube", Harry's flop-tactic was allowed, and then Cameron won back the final advantage by successfully lobbying to remove the tray on which the tube had stood, allowing him to place his feet nearer the target.
These adaptations added greatly to the success of all the games.
Today, Harry is back on the XBOX360. I maintain that those are not real games. It may be another 364 days until we can play some proper games again !
Clearly, poker and bridge are the main games holding my attention recently. However, when I was at school, I used to play scrabble, backgammon, chess etc.
I enjoyed them all although I wasn't all that good at them, I suppose. Good enough to beat most people I played against, certainly, but you come to realise that this is a long way from actually being good.
In chess, where I was definitely only average+, it is relatively easy to appreciate that the good players are far better. But in a game like scrabble, without strong competition, it is easy not to realise just how good the good players can be.
In fact, it was only recently when I read a Times scrabble column that I began to see that there are levels and levels beyond just knowing a lot of words and being quick to spot where to play them.
The situation posed did not ask which was the best score we could make, but invited us to consider - based on our inference on which letters our opponent probably held - where to play defensively to prevent him from making a powerful move on later turns.
It never occurred to me to be counting the letters, let alone for tactical defense ! When I was playing at school I am not sure I even knew about the 50-point bonus for using all 7 letters, which seems to be a vital weapon in a competitive match.
I haven't played scrabble for ages. I am only thinking about it now because someone on facebook challenged me. In that game, I have already played "LANDINGS" for the 7 letter bonus and also some very odd 2 letter words including "CH".
The online game handily has a listing of all the 2 letter words. I always knew that a full knowledge of these was important, but I had never actually got around to learning them.
In poker there is no shortage of strong competition to spur one on. But whereas in scrabble (like poker, a skillful game, with a luck element) you're going to get the message very quickly, in poker there is so much "noise" that any skill deficit is often disguised.
But there should be no doubt that proper and effective study of the game is going to make a big difference. I still haven't done enough of that, I know.
Karen, Harry and I went to a friend's house on New Year's Eve (12 of us altogether aged 12 - 50ish). It was a very successful evening, and memorable for the games Sarah and Derek came up with.
I thought they were very suitable. They weren't lewd, didn't involve drinking, were genuinely open to all ages and non-threatening (no forfeits) and didn't require any specialist knowledge.
There was Pictureka! (an actual board game), Chase the Ace (a well-known and very easy card game, that works with any number of players), Spoons (not sure I have ever played that before, but it was fun !).
Then there was the "tube game". You must pick up a cardboard tube with your mouth (using no hands, your knees cannot touch the ground, neither you nor the tube can fall over during your go). The tube is cut after each turn, so it gets shorter and shorter (harder and harder to pick up). Realistically the game can only be won by the youngsters, although anyone can manage it in the early stages.
Cameron won, but not before Harry put up a really spirited 2nd-place effort. He accidentally invented a new technique (I liken it to the innovation that was the Fosbury Flop). He was able to just reach the tube, then grab it with his mouth and perform a forward roll to land safely with the tube in mouth. This was judged valid.
Then there was the "chocolate game" - involving dice, hats, scarf and gloves, chocolate and mayhem !
One excellent feature of all the games - an ingredient of the best "fun" games - is that the rules were somewhat fluid. It's important that there are enough agreed rules to allow the games to get underway, but it's even better if the rules are then argued about and developed in a friendly way as the game proceeds.
In "spoons" there were debates over "feinting", and the speed of the pass, and the positioning of the spoons relative to the players and so on. In "chocolate", the requirement to throw a double six was quickly re-negotiated. In "tube", Harry's flop-tactic was allowed, and then Cameron won back the final advantage by successfully lobbying to remove the tray on which the tube had stood, allowing him to place his feet nearer the target.
These adaptations added greatly to the success of all the games.
Today, Harry is back on the XBOX360. I maintain that those are not real games. It may be another 364 days until we can play some proper games again !
Saturday, 20 December 2008
Group Theory
Soon after I joined facebook back in August, I tried an experiment.
I had discovered "groups" on facebook, and joined a few myself. These were either poker-related groups like "gutshot" or ones to do with Bear Stearns like "Equity Division alumni."
It got me thinking that it would be interesting to form a group for those who had played in one or more of the 8 BSPT (Bear Stearns Poker Tour) events.
I could see that quite a few of my friends would qualify for the group, and that probably a good proportion of the "qualifiers" were facebook members.
One approach would have been to invite all those people into the group. This would probably have resulted in quite a strong take-up, and then the long tentacles of facebook could get to work.
I opted for a minimalist approach. I didn't announce the group at all and relied on the idea that someone would notice (from my profile, or those facebook alerts) that the group had been created and that once a couple of people had signed up, it could start the ball rolling.
I was pleased to see that one person did do this - within about 48 hours - but the next step never happened.
It was tempting to now kick off the invites, but I decided to be really patient. I think about 3 months must have passed now with the membership stuck at 2 !
So, I think I will now deem that the experiment in mode1 was a relative failure. It is still possible that it might spark off at any time but I will probably go to mode2 where I invite people to the group and see how quickly and how far that takes things.
I had discovered "groups" on facebook, and joined a few myself. These were either poker-related groups like "gutshot" or ones to do with Bear Stearns like "Equity Division alumni."
It got me thinking that it would be interesting to form a group for those who had played in one or more of the 8 BSPT (Bear Stearns Poker Tour) events.
I could see that quite a few of my friends would qualify for the group, and that probably a good proportion of the "qualifiers" were facebook members.
One approach would have been to invite all those people into the group. This would probably have resulted in quite a strong take-up, and then the long tentacles of facebook could get to work.
I opted for a minimalist approach. I didn't announce the group at all and relied on the idea that someone would notice (from my profile, or those facebook alerts) that the group had been created and that once a couple of people had signed up, it could start the ball rolling.
I was pleased to see that one person did do this - within about 48 hours - but the next step never happened.
It was tempting to now kick off the invites, but I decided to be really patient. I think about 3 months must have passed now with the membership stuck at 2 !
So, I think I will now deem that the experiment in mode1 was a relative failure. It is still possible that it might spark off at any time but I will probably go to mode2 where I invite people to the group and see how quickly and how far that takes things.
Friday, 19 December 2008
And The Winner Is ...
A post from the poker world here. On 17th December, the world-famous (well, it depends what world you move in) GOSCARS awards were held at The International club.
Awards of a poker nature, obviously. Best tournament player, best "moodies" (that's speech play designed to confuse, intimidate or coax your opponents into making mistakes), best woman player (controversial one that !) and so on.
I was nominated (controversially!) for best internet player, but I actually won in the category of Forum Poster of the Year 2008. To be fair, I did deserve that award on quantity (and grammar) of posts !
Anyway, I am pleased to have won as a little recognition is always welcome no matter how parochial the award.
The evening itself was tremendous fun - firstly the champagne, buffet and awards. Then the Tag-team tournament (I played with Mat) and then the 10 hour PLO session ....
More details now, and more to follow, on Poker Actually.
Awards of a poker nature, obviously. Best tournament player, best "moodies" (that's speech play designed to confuse, intimidate or coax your opponents into making mistakes), best woman player (controversial one that !) and so on.
I was nominated (controversially!) for best internet player, but I actually won in the category of Forum Poster of the Year 2008. To be fair, I did deserve that award on quantity (and grammar) of posts !
Anyway, I am pleased to have won as a little recognition is always welcome no matter how parochial the award.
The evening itself was tremendous fun - firstly the champagne, buffet and awards. Then the Tag-team tournament (I played with Mat) and then the 10 hour PLO session ....
More details now, and more to follow, on Poker Actually.
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
No Further Interest
So, the US Fed has cut official interest rates to zero. The BoE has been cutting like there's no tomorrow (they may be right about that).
I am not an economist, but as far as I can imagine this will not work.
They are obviously all following the mantra "desparate times call for desparation".
Or perhaps they just want to be seen to be doing something. Now, of course, they have left themselves with nothing more that they can do.
I can empathise with their collective desire to do this, but I'm still a bit surprised.
Firstly, it obviously hurts savers and pensions considerably and that's not a good thing.
Secondly, it is far from obvious that it helps anyone that much when it is the availability of credit, not the price of it, that is the problem.
Insofar as the price of credit is a concern, lowering the official rate does not directly help anyway. The actual rate at which individuals and companies borrow is far divorced from the base rate and to a great extent, cutting the base rate just de facto increases that gap.
Inasmuch as the cut is designed to help/encourage people to borrow money, it's not entirely obvious that it's a valid aim as all economies need to reduce borrowing dramatically.
Meanwhile, the cut doesn't necessarily help the banks that much if the real objective is to make them lend money at extremely low rates. It may help them carry their assets at a less punitive rate, I suppose but only if credit is more available (not likely to be a direct result) or if they can borrow from the Government at the new lower official rates (more likely).
The US market jumped on the rate cut yesterday, which is the usual first reaction to a rate cut. I would be surprised if that rally lasts a single day.
About the only way this cut actually works directly is that it does lower the outgoings of most mortgage borrowers, so it operates as a Government subsidy to all those households and that will have some impact, just like the VAT cut makes some impact. Like that cut, however, it leaves a big headache for later.
Overall, this move seems to me to indicate a state of denial. The assumption is that the credit problem can be fixed by dramatic steps whereas in fact it's mainly going to take time. About the best that can be said for this approach is that it might possibly shorten the time it takes, although I have a feeling it might do the opposite !
I am not an economist, but as far as I can imagine this will not work.
They are obviously all following the mantra "desparate times call for desparation".
Or perhaps they just want to be seen to be doing something. Now, of course, they have left themselves with nothing more that they can do.
I can empathise with their collective desire to do this, but I'm still a bit surprised.
Firstly, it obviously hurts savers and pensions considerably and that's not a good thing.
Secondly, it is far from obvious that it helps anyone that much when it is the availability of credit, not the price of it, that is the problem.
Insofar as the price of credit is a concern, lowering the official rate does not directly help anyway. The actual rate at which individuals and companies borrow is far divorced from the base rate and to a great extent, cutting the base rate just de facto increases that gap.
Inasmuch as the cut is designed to help/encourage people to borrow money, it's not entirely obvious that it's a valid aim as all economies need to reduce borrowing dramatically.
Meanwhile, the cut doesn't necessarily help the banks that much if the real objective is to make them lend money at extremely low rates. It may help them carry their assets at a less punitive rate, I suppose but only if credit is more available (not likely to be a direct result) or if they can borrow from the Government at the new lower official rates (more likely).
The US market jumped on the rate cut yesterday, which is the usual first reaction to a rate cut. I would be surprised if that rally lasts a single day.
About the only way this cut actually works directly is that it does lower the outgoings of most mortgage borrowers, so it operates as a Government subsidy to all those households and that will have some impact, just like the VAT cut makes some impact. Like that cut, however, it leaves a big headache for later.
Overall, this move seems to me to indicate a state of denial. The assumption is that the credit problem can be fixed by dramatic steps whereas in fact it's mainly going to take time. About the best that can be said for this approach is that it might possibly shorten the time it takes, although I have a feeling it might do the opposite !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)