My A - Z of poker is available (in supposedly daily instalments) on poker actually and also on my gutshot.com blog.
I am planning to blog from Vegas itself of course.
Saturday, 27 June 2009
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Karma Chameleon
I had made my plans for Vegas well in advance this year.
My plans were to NOT play the $10,000 world championship main event. Instead, I booked a mid-June trip for 7 nights. My aim was to play in 2 or 3 of the side events and play some cash.
However, fate intervened. A friend qualified for the main event in a "double shootout" event. To succeed in this, one must win two consecutive 1-table tournaments, effectively beating 80 other players who each put up $200 or so.
As I didn't have $200 in my account, I played a double shootout to qualify for the double shootout.
To cut a long story short, I won 4 consecutive single-table tournaments to turn an $8 investment into a $12,000 WSOP package ! The long story is on my poker blog.
With the karma running this well, I certainly had to change my plans. It was possible to take a cash alternative but of course I chose to play the event.
Last year I qualified for an investment of $5. This year, $8.
This doesn't quite tell the whole picture, but it's going to be a pretty amazing story if I go on to win $10million in July !
More realistically, I do hope to make the money places this year - a tough but achievable goal.
My plans were to NOT play the $10,000 world championship main event. Instead, I booked a mid-June trip for 7 nights. My aim was to play in 2 or 3 of the side events and play some cash.
However, fate intervened. A friend qualified for the main event in a "double shootout" event. To succeed in this, one must win two consecutive 1-table tournaments, effectively beating 80 other players who each put up $200 or so.
As I didn't have $200 in my account, I played a double shootout to qualify for the double shootout.
To cut a long story short, I won 4 consecutive single-table tournaments to turn an $8 investment into a $12,000 WSOP package ! The long story is on my poker blog.
With the karma running this well, I certainly had to change my plans. It was possible to take a cash alternative but of course I chose to play the event.
Last year I qualified for an investment of $5. This year, $8.
This doesn't quite tell the whole picture, but it's going to be a pretty amazing story if I go on to win $10million in July !
More realistically, I do hope to make the money places this year - a tough but achievable goal.
Friday, 29 May 2009
Eggs Marks The Spot
Friday 29th May, Central London
Lights, Camera, Action !
Rather unbelievably I am here to audition for the BBC2 quiz show "Eggheads".
I can safely say that I have no ambitions to be famous for 15 minutes, or indeed any number of minutes. I did not apply to be on the show. In fact I don't want to be on it at all, so why am I here ?
I had reluctantly agreed to be a 2nd-sub for a team that was put together by members of the Gutshot forum. It seemed a distant prospect that I would actually need to take part.
For a start, it wasn't certain that a new series of the show would be commissioned. Then, our team might not be selected even to audition. If the team were called up, then at least I would be a reserve reserve.
Well .... of course the 11th series was given the go-ahead, and "Team Gutshot" was selected to audition. It then turned out that I was first reserve (6th of 5, rather than 6th of 4) and that the team captain had (unbeknownst to me) promoted me to the front bench on account of one member being noticeably unreliable.
To be fair, this was still an audition. I can still hope that we do not get to appear on the real show!
The nuts and bolts of the reality of TV is pretty mundane. We had to fill our names & other details for the umpteenth time, and then we actually answered some general knowledge questions. Next, a practice quiz against another auditioning team.
I actually won my round on science which included the poser: "What tiny ocean creature makes up the main diet of Wales ?". Once I realised that Lauren was talking about "whales" I was able to find the right answer.
Finally, we were filmed talking about the team and chorusing "Hello, We're Team Gutshot And We're From London".
It was all pretty low key. The "Green Room" was more of a "Green Kitchen" really. Actually it was a kitchen and it wasn't green although the chairs were a pale lime colour. The coffee machine didn't work. We stars shouldn't be treated like this !
After our turn on camera we were not given the results of our written general knowledge quiz, we weren't shown the footage which was for the eyes of the producers only, and we were told "we'll call you". The "don't call us" was of course understood.
Lights, Camera, Action !
Rather unbelievably I am here to audition for the BBC2 quiz show "Eggheads".
I can safely say that I have no ambitions to be famous for 15 minutes, or indeed any number of minutes. I did not apply to be on the show. In fact I don't want to be on it at all, so why am I here ?
I had reluctantly agreed to be a 2nd-sub for a team that was put together by members of the Gutshot forum. It seemed a distant prospect that I would actually need to take part.
For a start, it wasn't certain that a new series of the show would be commissioned. Then, our team might not be selected even to audition. If the team were called up, then at least I would be a reserve reserve.
Well .... of course the 11th series was given the go-ahead, and "Team Gutshot" was selected to audition. It then turned out that I was first reserve (6th of 5, rather than 6th of 4) and that the team captain had (unbeknownst to me) promoted me to the front bench on account of one member being noticeably unreliable.
To be fair, this was still an audition. I can still hope that we do not get to appear on the real show!
The nuts and bolts of the reality of TV is pretty mundane. We had to fill our names & other details for the umpteenth time, and then we actually answered some general knowledge questions. Next, a practice quiz against another auditioning team.
I actually won my round on science which included the poser: "What tiny ocean creature makes up the main diet of Wales ?". Once I realised that Lauren was talking about "whales" I was able to find the right answer.
Finally, we were filmed talking about the team and chorusing "Hello, We're Team Gutshot And We're From London".
It was all pretty low key. The "Green Room" was more of a "Green Kitchen" really. Actually it was a kitchen and it wasn't green although the chairs were a pale lime colour. The coffee machine didn't work. We stars shouldn't be treated like this !
After our turn on camera we were not given the results of our written general knowledge quiz, we weren't shown the footage which was for the eyes of the producers only, and we were told "we'll call you". The "don't call us" was of course understood.
Sunday, 24 May 2009
Luck Of The Oar
Friday 22nd May, National Schools Regatta at Nottingham.
A full day of racing starting at 10:00, up until 18:27. BMS had crews potentially rowing in both the first and last races, so a long day's spectating in prospect.
First off at 10:00, the girls J14 Quad missed out on qualification in the time trials by a second or so.
Matt's first outing was at 11:30; 17 B-class boats took part in a "processional" along the short course (1km) on Holme Pierrepoint's specialist rowing lake (2km is the full distance). The top 12 crews (racing against the clock) qualify for the semis, which are raced side-by-side.
They seemed to put in a good row, but we didn't get to find out the result for an hour or so (when they duly had qualified).
The A boat, in their processional, overtook the boat in front so they were fairly clear qualifiers. 18 from 30 to progress to their semis.
In the "B semi, windy conditions meant the crews had a "free start" when the officials judged the 6 boats were in line. As it was, BMS were over a length down when they went off and they struggled to catch up. They finished 6th of 6, with the top 3 to go through. However, their time would have been enough to put them in the top 3 in the second semi. So, a very tough draw finished off their regatta.
Meanwhile, the A boat easily finished in the top 2 in their semi (3 semis with top 2 only to qualify). They ought to have a good chance in the 6-boat final - the last race of the day.
However, luck intervened. The #6 in the boat cut with hand in the semi, lost a fair amount of blood and went into shock. He had to be substituted. As the crew rowed up to the start, one of the gates holding the blades broke. The boys had to row back the length of the course to replace the part. On the way back they collided with Hampton and this resulted in another crew member sustaining a race-ending injury (and a trip to hospital).
The race start was delayed for up to 20mins under the regulations and a 2nd substitution was made. The re-organised crew rowed back to the start line again and having already covered about an extra 1500metres of water they finally lined up.
The final was close, and the crew put in a valiant effort to finish a solid 5th only a couple of lengths behind the leading boats. The winning crew from King's Chester may have been too strong in any case but mishaps definitely cost them a medal.
A full day of racing starting at 10:00, up until 18:27. BMS had crews potentially rowing in both the first and last races, so a long day's spectating in prospect.
First off at 10:00, the girls J14 Quad missed out on qualification in the time trials by a second or so.
Matt's first outing was at 11:30; 17 B-class boats took part in a "processional" along the short course (1km) on Holme Pierrepoint's specialist rowing lake (2km is the full distance). The top 12 crews (racing against the clock) qualify for the semis, which are raced side-by-side.
They seemed to put in a good row, but we didn't get to find out the result for an hour or so (when they duly had qualified).
The A boat, in their processional, overtook the boat in front so they were fairly clear qualifiers. 18 from 30 to progress to their semis.
In the "B semi, windy conditions meant the crews had a "free start" when the officials judged the 6 boats were in line. As it was, BMS were over a length down when they went off and they struggled to catch up. They finished 6th of 6, with the top 3 to go through. However, their time would have been enough to put them in the top 3 in the second semi. So, a very tough draw finished off their regatta.
Meanwhile, the A boat easily finished in the top 2 in their semi (3 semis with top 2 only to qualify). They ought to have a good chance in the 6-boat final - the last race of the day.
However, luck intervened. The #6 in the boat cut with hand in the semi, lost a fair amount of blood and went into shock. He had to be substituted. As the crew rowed up to the start, one of the gates holding the blades broke. The boys had to row back the length of the course to replace the part. On the way back they collided with Hampton and this resulted in another crew member sustaining a race-ending injury (and a trip to hospital).
The race start was delayed for up to 20mins under the regulations and a 2nd substitution was made. The re-organised crew rowed back to the start line again and having already covered about an extra 1500metres of water they finally lined up.
The final was close, and the crew put in a valiant effort to finish a solid 5th only a couple of lengths behind the leading boats. The winning crew from King's Chester may have been too strong in any case but mishaps definitely cost them a medal.
Friday, 15 May 2009
Magic Marker
Recently one year elapsed since my departure from Bear Stearns.
All the anniversaries have now passed: one year since (i) I decided to resign, (ii) I actually tendered my resignation, (iii) my resignation was accepted, (iv) my actual last day in the office, (v) the day that would have been my last day (had the firm not collapsed), and finally (vi) my official last day of employment.
The anniversary tournament "BSPT9" was a great success: 104 people turned up (90% of whom were Bear alumni).
Somehow, passing the magic one year mark has caused me to reconsider my decision to leave the markets. My original plan was to leave "indefinitely" and 1 year away was certainly a minimum.
I am now looking actively. We do know that I won't be returning to Bear Stearns, which formally ceased to exist sometime in June last year. However, with former colleagues scattered in dozens of firms now, there are obviously rather better chances that I end up working with some of the same people.
All the anniversaries have now passed: one year since (i) I decided to resign, (ii) I actually tendered my resignation, (iii) my resignation was accepted, (iv) my actual last day in the office, (v) the day that would have been my last day (had the firm not collapsed), and finally (vi) my official last day of employment.
The anniversary tournament "BSPT9" was a great success: 104 people turned up (90% of whom were Bear alumni).
Somehow, passing the magic one year mark has caused me to reconsider my decision to leave the markets. My original plan was to leave "indefinitely" and 1 year away was certainly a minimum.
I am now looking actively. We do know that I won't be returning to Bear Stearns, which formally ceased to exist sometime in June last year. However, with former colleagues scattered in dozens of firms now, there are obviously rather better chances that I end up working with some of the same people.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Good as gold
My Gold membership of Virgin's Flying Club expires at the end of June. A year of no business travel, and using BA on our Californian holiday, meant that my qualifying flights were limited to a couple of Vegas trips.
I thought it was worth a try ... I asked that they waive the qualification based on a long history of loyalty to the airline and a vague promise of future travel. And, somewhat to my surprise, they agreed !
I suspect it has more to do with tough conditions in the airline industry, but it's good news in any case.
I thought it was worth a try ... I asked that they waive the qualification based on a long history of loyalty to the airline and a vague promise of future travel. And, somewhat to my surprise, they agreed !
I suspect it has more to do with tough conditions in the airline industry, but it's good news in any case.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Balls Up
I played a practice round of golf recently in preparation for our Spain trip. I hadn't hit a single ball in 6 months, so a quick hack around the academy course at the Bedfordshire was just the thing.
The academy course is a 9 hole "par 3" course. There is one short par 4 at the end, but essentially it is a glorified pitch-and-putt.
Naturally, it is described as "challenging" by the club. Such a description is de riguer for any golf course and should not be taken too seriously. Having said that, it is a useful place to work on the short game.
OK. On the 1st tee. 7 iron. Straight up the middle, on the green! Of course I three-putted, but basically I was very happy. My brand-new-just-purchased-in-the-pro-shop golf balls were working well.
The 2nd hole wasn't so good, but I did rescue a 4 there as well.
Then, quite incredibly, I managed to lose three balls in three holes. The course has no meaningful hazards, and is - basically - short and flat ! This is a pretty depressing outcome.
Now, I did find four balls, so that was some consolation. And, to be strictly accurate, 2 of the 3 balls were not entirely lost. One was in plain view on the other side of a stream that I might have jumped if I had been younger. A second was reachable in another watery landing spot if I only had longer arms or more tenacious intentions.
The four that I found were of course even less hard to reach.
It got me to wondering about the found/lost ratio. Mine was a 1.33 today. What determines the statistic for a particular player?
Skill: a poor player will lose a lot of balls. An excellent player may lose almost none. However, the bad player has a lot more opportunity to come across new ones, whilst the good player does not want to waste time looking (and has no need to). So, low ratios are associated with very poor or very good players, with a peak at the "average".
Of course, a good player going round with a bad player may lose none, whilst picking up some extras as he helps his partner looking.
Age: The younger player is more willing and able to get involved with a tricky recovery, so fewer errant balls will stay lost. Meanwhile more new balls will be turned up during the search. The older player has probably found and lost so many balls that the novelty has faded.
Attitude: Some players simply will not give up on a ball. This may be due to miserliness, but equally it can reflect a tenacity that is an asset in the game itself. Others, of course, easily resign themselves to a loss.
The function certainly has some interesting characteristics. Perhaps if I was spending less time thinking about this then I would have been able to focus more on not losing balls in the first place !
The academy course is a 9 hole "par 3" course. There is one short par 4 at the end, but essentially it is a glorified pitch-and-putt.
Naturally, it is described as "challenging" by the club. Such a description is de riguer for any golf course and should not be taken too seriously. Having said that, it is a useful place to work on the short game.
OK. On the 1st tee. 7 iron. Straight up the middle, on the green! Of course I three-putted, but basically I was very happy. My brand-new-just-purchased-in-the-pro-shop golf balls were working well.
The 2nd hole wasn't so good, but I did rescue a 4 there as well.
Then, quite incredibly, I managed to lose three balls in three holes. The course has no meaningful hazards, and is - basically - short and flat ! This is a pretty depressing outcome.
Now, I did find four balls, so that was some consolation. And, to be strictly accurate, 2 of the 3 balls were not entirely lost. One was in plain view on the other side of a stream that I might have jumped if I had been younger. A second was reachable in another watery landing spot if I only had longer arms or more tenacious intentions.
The four that I found were of course even less hard to reach.
It got me to wondering about the found/lost ratio. Mine was a 1.33 today. What determines the statistic for a particular player?
Skill: a poor player will lose a lot of balls. An excellent player may lose almost none. However, the bad player has a lot more opportunity to come across new ones, whilst the good player does not want to waste time looking (and has no need to). So, low ratios are associated with very poor or very good players, with a peak at the "average".
Of course, a good player going round with a bad player may lose none, whilst picking up some extras as he helps his partner looking.
Age: The younger player is more willing and able to get involved with a tricky recovery, so fewer errant balls will stay lost. Meanwhile more new balls will be turned up during the search. The older player has probably found and lost so many balls that the novelty has faded.
Attitude: Some players simply will not give up on a ball. This may be due to miserliness, but equally it can reflect a tenacity that is an asset in the game itself. Others, of course, easily resign themselves to a loss.
The function certainly has some interesting characteristics. Perhaps if I was spending less time thinking about this then I would have been able to focus more on not losing balls in the first place !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)