So let's start with the most obvious question. Why are humans so incapable of minimizing a bottleneck in traffic situations? The intelligence of the human race really comes to fruition when faced with such a daunting task of merging into one lane from two freeway lanes. There is the obvious sign something along the lines of "left lane closed 1/2 mile" or the obvious merge sign. While most patient humans sit in the lane that is actually open, thousands of rude humans with no idea how to act continue to symbolically say "F&$# you" to the rest of us. Even when there appears to be no cars in the lane, idiot humans either say "I'm going to cut because someone will let me in" or "durrrrr look at that lane there are no cars in it, I must be a genius because I'm the only one noticing." Sorry sir or madam, but you are helping no one but yourself and ruining thousands of people's days. Luckily for everyone who reads this blog, I have come up with a solution to this problem and a way that we can all make everyone's life easier. I have a few solutions to this problem and both take courage and leadership, but I can assure you that we will break this as a human race. We will siphon out the greed whenever presented with this situation and we will say "F&$% you" right back. Now, if you are a person who tries to get to the last possible point and cut over thus increasing the bottleneck, I have nothing to say for you except enjoy the fires of hell. Only a terrible, inconsiderate person would do such a thing (exceptions do include an expecting mother or dying passenger).
I have come up with 2 main strategies to minimize this bottleneck.
1. As soon as you recognize what lane is closed immediately merge to that lane and then continue to follow the pace of the car to your right. Make sure the car to your right knows that you are helping him or her by clogging the bottleneck. Hand signals, a good thumbs up or a smile will let them know perfectly well that you are on their team. Now, every single car behind you is going to be super pissed now. I mean why are you blocking their God given right to cut every other patient person off. You have to hold your ground. Honking and swearing and even the occasional swerve around cannot unnerve you. You do, however, have to do your best to block the traffic from passing because as soon as one greedy, incompetent human gets an idea, everyone behind him is likely to follow. Remember that this is truly for the benefit of every single person. Traffic is slow because people have to stop and go and wait for last second merges. If people merge prior to the bottleneck, the bottleneck will increase and time will be cut in half.
2. The only other strategy to combat this and I don't believe it is possible is to never let anyone into the line after the lane closed sign. This can only be done by universal discipline by every driver. Unfortunately, I think this will lead to bad results in terms of crashes and road rage deaths. Strategy 1 is possible, but if it does not work, it is perfectly fine to not let a single person in and stare that them with disdain as you don't let them in.
Moving on, I'm not sure how I feel about the election results from yesterday. Congratulations to John McCain are certainly in order, but I don't know who to believe is the actual winner of the Democratic primaries and caucuses. If Obama maintains a large enough lead, it's almost mathematically impossible to beat him in delegates with as close of a race as it is, yet superdelegates are going to rally around a winner. Hillary has won every single big state. I just don't think you can ignore that. While she is completely unelectable, she apparently has a passionate following in the big states. Now California and New York really don't matter that much because despite what the Governator does with California, in a close national race, it will never go Republican. If California goes Republican, it will likely be a landslide. What I don't know how to process is Obama's success in the deep South. Are these states even winnable for Democrats ever? I can only imagine if these states went Democratic what it would do to the landscape of America. Either way, the Democrats are probably gaining a lot of excitement from voters on each side and I think a long race has pros and cons like everything. You can't just say the longer they stay away from McCain the more it will hurt them because the more interested people are in a part race, the stronger the party base will be when one candidate finally emerges.
Cleveland Browns
Let's get down the to real business. Cleveland has a QB controversy for another 3 years guaranteed, we just gave a lazy D lineman a 6 year huge contract and we traded our best cornerback. I suppose that is a negative way to look at things. I want to address all the big moves.
Derek Anderson: I think it was a win-win situation, but I do believe that one side was better. It is nice to have a proven average starter though when you are developing a possible star. It's also nice to have a guy that knows the system. The money we paid for him is steep, but I don't think the Browns care. A consistent playoff football team in Cleveland would be the best thing in sports in Cleveland since probably the '48 World Series.
D Line moves: Pro: We have two starters that we can plug in right away. Cons: We paid a steep price for them. We lost 2nd and 3rd round picks this year. With the ability of Savage to draft, I like my chances in the draft that we gain a large amount of talent. Leigh Bodden is also our best cornerback at a position with no depth. If we can't put together another free agent acquisition here, we have a big glaring hole in our defense. Can Wright and McDonald fill this gap? I don't know the answer to that. I do think that on average our cornerbacks don't have to be as good because we will theoretically be getting more pressure on the quarterback.
Nick Sorenson: Who?
Donte Stallworth: I love this move. In my opinion, Stallworth will thrive here for the next 6 years. Joey J. will likely be retiring at the end of this season leaving a glaring hole in our receiver core. We don't have a good third receiver. We don't even have an average third receiver. Josh Cribbs will never be a receiver in the NFL. He will always be an explosive return guy. Tim Carter stinks. Travis Wilson never developed into anything, and you can't count Winslow because he's a tight end (although he should play receiver and can't block). This secures another quality receiver in an offense that has come to be explosive.
Kellen Winslow: He will be a problem this offseason. The audacity of this guy astounds me. After further proving that nothing good comes from "the U" by destroying his knee in a motorcycle accident, his contract should have never been honored. Cleveland showed a ton of good will and faith in this guy and he has played well, but don't you think you need more than one good season to prove you have arrived in Cleveland? I have never trusted this guy, but I've always loved his heart on the field. Let's just hope he really cares about the Browns and not just about using his high profile agent to start a war with the front office.
Poker
I just finished my second article in the 2 part series for Pocketfives. It should be up in the next couple of weeks. I'm still upset at how close I was to winning the Pokerstars Nightly the other night. 21k between 1st and 3rd is a big difference, but I can't complain too much. I'm a very emotional player. It's something I've come to terms with, but something that can absolutely not affect your play. At times, I really let it effect me, especially on large losing streaks. I can think of several times in the last 2 weeks where I was in multiple tournaments and with one tournament left, I just simply gave up and made a dumb move. At the same time, I'm struggling with always having a short stack. I want to do more things to give myself a better chance from dodging my tournament life. When you are losing races, having a short stack ensures your demise. I'm really not sure where to take this blog on a poker level. Any suggestions or questions would be great to know because I feel like to make a great poker blog you have to do much more than complain about bad beats and say how well you play. I pretty much never stick with a poker blog because it's always the same. I want to avoid that with my blog.
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Age of Turbulence and Questions
So I've been able to knock off reading from the book Age of Turbulence by Alan Greenspan. Greenspan, I hope as everyone knows, was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve for a long period of time and involved in many of the underlying economic decisions of this country since even before he was sworn in as Chairman. I can't really go into too much detail about all the parts I love in this book because it's highly economic based, but I do think I got the answer to one question that everyone seems to know the answer to one way or the other, but no one knows why. That question is why was Bill Clinton a good President? Most of the answers to this are along the lines of "he was outstanding and look at the economic boom we had while he was in office" or "he was terrible and used a cigar for something other than smoking." Most people don't have a clue why he was great or why they think he was terrible, but I think I finally found my answer in the way Greenspan recounts their interactions throughout the years. First, Clinton made many promises throughout his campaign that were lofty and would cost a lot of money. When Clinton met with Greenspan on their first meeting, Greenspan recalls one meeting that was highly intellectual. Clinton asked poignant questions and really grasped the advice of the Chairman. The advice was in a nutshell, the government had to curb spending, all his campaign promises would cost a lot of money, but for the long term economic health of the country, the government needed to put the brakes on deficit spending that marked the Reagan years. In the coming years. Clinton understood the big picture, and despite being painted by Republicans as a liberal, the most important first decisions of fiscal conservatism were carried out by him. This action along with the action of the fed paved the wave for the technological change and explosive growth that we came to know in the 90's. Essentially, a President was able to be intelligent, take advice of an adviser closest to the action and make something happen. It's apparent from Greenspan that this was the total opposite of the current Bush Administration. While our budget surplus grew and grew throughout the late 90's and early 2000's, Greenspan continued to support fiscal conservatism with Clinton to a point where early in the Bush Administration the Fed was actually worrying about a government surplus. This paved the way for rhetoric leading to the Bush Tax Cut. While he supported a tax cut, Greenspan was not happy about the way this tax cut took place because the discussion did not focus on the fiscal conservatism that got to this point, but rather took a highly politicized route. Further, the administration was stubborn in their spending that when renewed estimates about the budget came out, spending remained high while tax cuts continued. The work of Clinton and Greenspan over the course of 8 years had been undone by an irresponsible Congress and President.
On another note, the book is extremely readable even if you aren't an economics major or know the slightest thing about economics.
Novels or Questions?
Dave, the legendary party spot host that we addressed in a few blogs asked, "How would your fix the primary process so that states could still receive individual attention from their candidates while making sure that every vote has equal weight in determining a nominee and also do you think that my frustrations will be shared by many and if so, how might this feeling of disenfranchisement affect Republican turnout in the general election?"
First off, calling me a "liberal ass" is extremely ignorant considering I continuously promote a conservative economic policy. Just because I support some more progressive issues out there, does not make me a liberal ass. To address the first question, it is apparent our primary process needs a fix as judged the number of states that illegally moved their primaries to try to be a greater factor in the process. I think the primary process should be selected arbitrarily with 10 states being selected in 5 bi-weekly voting blocks. A random drawing will draw 10 states together before each Presidential primary process two weeks before the first primary. Here are my two main reasons.
1. It will allow each state their own fair allotment of time over 2 weeks. Candidates will have to choose which states they campaign for all the time prior to the "draft." This allows them to pick which states they believe will be important (one's with more delegates obviously), but gives smaller states 2 weeks of time split between 10 states.
2. States can no longer argue since it's luck of the draw and in the next election, they might be the first up. I think it adds some more fun to the process too that can really get people engaged in the political process. If more people are interested in the process, we get a more democratic election.
The fact is that everyone will have a complaint about any process we choose, but I certainly think that having the same states decide every single time is ludicrous. McCain would probably not be in this if it wasn't for his win in little New Hampshire of all places.
To the second part of your question, I think voter turnout will be about the same for Republicans, but if you get two candidates like McCain-Obama that appeal to moderate, different voters, you will get a big turnout from the moderate demographic.
Adam B. asked "Is the Democratic party going to beat themselves before November?" By this, I mean will this heated battle in the primary campaign between Obama and Clinton be too much of a burden on them when they face a very-beatable John McCain / Huckabee (speculation) in November, or will the winner get a much needed boost into the ultimate campaign?
I think the Democratic Party will lag behind if their process goes all the way to convention. It's just a matter of focus and time rather than a war of words. Obama and Clinton have really been more civilized towards each other for both their interests after heated media and debate battles earlier in the process. What will hurt though is McCain having the entire focus of the Republican party, while I can assume many voters on the Democratic side would feel disengaged and exhausted if their candidate lost a long battle for the nomination.
Adam B. also asked when referring to the NIU shooting "Can these kind of things be stopped on one of the most unprotecting and naive places in a city, a college campus? I have been thinking about this all morning, and I still have no answer as to a solution or means of security. Any thoughts?
My thoughts on these things other than imagining what it would take in someone to really do something like this is how have individuals become so disconnected with one another that we can't stop this on a personal level. I think one trade off of becoming so technologically dependent is our necessity for quickness and society when human relationships are nothing resembling the microwave society we expect. These things really can't be stopped and playing them on the news only furthers the problems like many of the terrible things in the world, but as idealistic as this sounds, this kind of thing would rarely happen if people just connected with their family, friends and other humans. How that happens? You know as well as I do.
Adam B. also asked about the C.C. Sabathia contract talks in Cleveland. My opinion on this whole topic is that I trust the Indians. I think Shapiro had his price and C.C. had his and they were worlds apart. C.C. will likely be gone next year. I believe that the Indians and any baseball team should spend money on pitching if anything. The problem with the Indians is that they don't have the fan support and revenue any more to go throwing $100 million contracts around on one player. That being said, if the Indians are a contender, ride C.C. out and let him redeem himself. If they Indians are not a contender, let's rob the shit out of the Yankees. I've seriously learned my lesson from pitchers like Bartolo Colon. Long term consistency is what makes pitchers great and C.C. isn't there yet. I would, however, take a championship with his help and have him be gone next year, then to hurt our chances in 1 year.
That's correct people, 3 questions in one comment on 3 different topics from one Adam B.
Keith J. asked "Do you think that the Cavs have any chance to win an NBA title this season?"
I may shock people with this answer, but I do believe we can win a title. I put the odds at something like 60 to 1, but I think out of 60 times, we should win 1. I think people underestimate Lebron in this league. He single-handedly dismantled Detroit last year. He runs the show and he always shows up in the playoffs. The Cavs have beat Boston twice this year. We have been playing solid despite having 2 of our better players gone for most of the season, and I think Lebron would own Detroit in a seven game series. Against the West, it would just be a matter of match ups against the right team. There are teams in the West that we play great against, and other's that we don't. We can't beat the Suns, Rockets, or Spurs in a seven game series ever ever ever. We would have a shot against the Lakers or Jazz, and I'm not sure about the Mavs. I would probably say we can't beat them if I had to pick. The fact is though that the chances are slim because the team is basically Lebron and his bums. We need to clean out the bums and bring in one star to replace Hughes and a solid point guard to become a consistent contender year in and year out. With our potential in James we should have 5 rings by the end of his career if he stays here.
Mike Z. asked two questions:
1. Where do you think Terrelle Pryor will go to college and why?
Here is what I think he should think about his options.
Oregon--an athletic Vince Young like QB in Dennis Dixon just had tremendous success and a potential national championship before his injury. I like Oregon.
Penn State--I would have a 4 year starting ticket and could bring glory back to a program that hasn't been a force in the Big 10 for a while. I'm closer to home, but I'm choosing this over two better programs at Michigan and OSU
Michigan--I'm heading to play for a coach that just had his actions define what kind of character he is. I'll probably end up on the cover of ESPN not for my play, but for violating NCAA rules. They have lost to OSU 4 straight years, but I could bring back the glory to this team and begin building the program from scratch.
OSU-They have been embarrassed in two straight title games, but have nevertheless been there. A mobile QB with an arm like Troy Smith had great success here along with the Heisman. This team recruits the best OL in the land, so I'll always have protection. Todd Boeckman looks like Charlie Frye compared to me, but the coach may still have me wait a year.
Moral of the story-he's picking Oregon or OSU for the above reasons, but I'm going to side with my heart here and say OSU can have hope for the next 4 years as it tries to avenge itself against the SEC because this QB is going to OSU.
2. Who won the Tiff beer pong tournament? I totally forgot.
To this I say, are you going to brag in 70 years?
Finally, Tyler from the city of Brotherly Love said "I would love to know your opinion on this years dunk contest along with your top 5 dunk contest dunks of all time."
I really enjoyed this year's dunk contest because I thought it was the revenge of Dwight Howard who got completely shafted out of last year's contest. His dunk last year was a sticker on one hand of his face that he put high on the backboard and then dunked. It was extremely creative and still a good dunk, but the judges didn't like it so out in round 1. This year he kept up the creativity and did some great dunks. The volleyball tap off the backboard was his best dunk followed by the behind the basket dunk (if he makes it first try it's the most difficult dunk in history. I also like when a star wins because it makes it more memorable. I hate players that win this and are extremely forgettable. The best dunkers should be in every competition, but there has to be a great balance with the best players. Who would not be thrilled to watch a dunk contest with Lebron, Kobe, Vince Carter, Dwight Howard?
I'll get to the second part of this question after some research.
On another note, the book is extremely readable even if you aren't an economics major or know the slightest thing about economics.
Novels or Questions?
Dave, the legendary party spot host that we addressed in a few blogs asked, "How would your fix the primary process so that states could still receive individual attention from their candidates while making sure that every vote has equal weight in determining a nominee and also do you think that my frustrations will be shared by many and if so, how might this feeling of disenfranchisement affect Republican turnout in the general election?"
First off, calling me a "liberal ass" is extremely ignorant considering I continuously promote a conservative economic policy. Just because I support some more progressive issues out there, does not make me a liberal ass. To address the first question, it is apparent our primary process needs a fix as judged the number of states that illegally moved their primaries to try to be a greater factor in the process. I think the primary process should be selected arbitrarily with 10 states being selected in 5 bi-weekly voting blocks. A random drawing will draw 10 states together before each Presidential primary process two weeks before the first primary. Here are my two main reasons.
1. It will allow each state their own fair allotment of time over 2 weeks. Candidates will have to choose which states they campaign for all the time prior to the "draft." This allows them to pick which states they believe will be important (one's with more delegates obviously), but gives smaller states 2 weeks of time split between 10 states.
2. States can no longer argue since it's luck of the draw and in the next election, they might be the first up. I think it adds some more fun to the process too that can really get people engaged in the political process. If more people are interested in the process, we get a more democratic election.
The fact is that everyone will have a complaint about any process we choose, but I certainly think that having the same states decide every single time is ludicrous. McCain would probably not be in this if it wasn't for his win in little New Hampshire of all places.
To the second part of your question, I think voter turnout will be about the same for Republicans, but if you get two candidates like McCain-Obama that appeal to moderate, different voters, you will get a big turnout from the moderate demographic.
Adam B. asked "Is the Democratic party going to beat themselves before November?" By this, I mean will this heated battle in the primary campaign between Obama and Clinton be too much of a burden on them when they face a very-beatable John McCain / Huckabee (speculation) in November, or will the winner get a much needed boost into the ultimate campaign?
I think the Democratic Party will lag behind if their process goes all the way to convention. It's just a matter of focus and time rather than a war of words. Obama and Clinton have really been more civilized towards each other for both their interests after heated media and debate battles earlier in the process. What will hurt though is McCain having the entire focus of the Republican party, while I can assume many voters on the Democratic side would feel disengaged and exhausted if their candidate lost a long battle for the nomination.
Adam B. also asked when referring to the NIU shooting "Can these kind of things be stopped on one of the most unprotecting and naive places in a city, a college campus? I have been thinking about this all morning, and I still have no answer as to a solution or means of security. Any thoughts?
My thoughts on these things other than imagining what it would take in someone to really do something like this is how have individuals become so disconnected with one another that we can't stop this on a personal level. I think one trade off of becoming so technologically dependent is our necessity for quickness and society when human relationships are nothing resembling the microwave society we expect. These things really can't be stopped and playing them on the news only furthers the problems like many of the terrible things in the world, but as idealistic as this sounds, this kind of thing would rarely happen if people just connected with their family, friends and other humans. How that happens? You know as well as I do.
Adam B. also asked about the C.C. Sabathia contract talks in Cleveland. My opinion on this whole topic is that I trust the Indians. I think Shapiro had his price and C.C. had his and they were worlds apart. C.C. will likely be gone next year. I believe that the Indians and any baseball team should spend money on pitching if anything. The problem with the Indians is that they don't have the fan support and revenue any more to go throwing $100 million contracts around on one player. That being said, if the Indians are a contender, ride C.C. out and let him redeem himself. If they Indians are not a contender, let's rob the shit out of the Yankees. I've seriously learned my lesson from pitchers like Bartolo Colon. Long term consistency is what makes pitchers great and C.C. isn't there yet. I would, however, take a championship with his help and have him be gone next year, then to hurt our chances in 1 year.
That's correct people, 3 questions in one comment on 3 different topics from one Adam B.
Keith J. asked "Do you think that the Cavs have any chance to win an NBA title this season?"
I may shock people with this answer, but I do believe we can win a title. I put the odds at something like 60 to 1, but I think out of 60 times, we should win 1. I think people underestimate Lebron in this league. He single-handedly dismantled Detroit last year. He runs the show and he always shows up in the playoffs. The Cavs have beat Boston twice this year. We have been playing solid despite having 2 of our better players gone for most of the season, and I think Lebron would own Detroit in a seven game series. Against the West, it would just be a matter of match ups against the right team. There are teams in the West that we play great against, and other's that we don't. We can't beat the Suns, Rockets, or Spurs in a seven game series ever ever ever. We would have a shot against the Lakers or Jazz, and I'm not sure about the Mavs. I would probably say we can't beat them if I had to pick. The fact is though that the chances are slim because the team is basically Lebron and his bums. We need to clean out the bums and bring in one star to replace Hughes and a solid point guard to become a consistent contender year in and year out. With our potential in James we should have 5 rings by the end of his career if he stays here.
Mike Z. asked two questions:
1. Where do you think Terrelle Pryor will go to college and why?
Here is what I think he should think about his options.
Oregon--an athletic Vince Young like QB in Dennis Dixon just had tremendous success and a potential national championship before his injury. I like Oregon.
Penn State--I would have a 4 year starting ticket and could bring glory back to a program that hasn't been a force in the Big 10 for a while. I'm closer to home, but I'm choosing this over two better programs at Michigan and OSU
Michigan--I'm heading to play for a coach that just had his actions define what kind of character he is. I'll probably end up on the cover of ESPN not for my play, but for violating NCAA rules. They have lost to OSU 4 straight years, but I could bring back the glory to this team and begin building the program from scratch.
OSU-They have been embarrassed in two straight title games, but have nevertheless been there. A mobile QB with an arm like Troy Smith had great success here along with the Heisman. This team recruits the best OL in the land, so I'll always have protection. Todd Boeckman looks like Charlie Frye compared to me, but the coach may still have me wait a year.
Moral of the story-he's picking Oregon or OSU for the above reasons, but I'm going to side with my heart here and say OSU can have hope for the next 4 years as it tries to avenge itself against the SEC because this QB is going to OSU.
2. Who won the Tiff beer pong tournament? I totally forgot.
To this I say, are you going to brag in 70 years?
Finally, Tyler from the city of Brotherly Love said "I would love to know your opinion on this years dunk contest along with your top 5 dunk contest dunks of all time."
I really enjoyed this year's dunk contest because I thought it was the revenge of Dwight Howard who got completely shafted out of last year's contest. His dunk last year was a sticker on one hand of his face that he put high on the backboard and then dunked. It was extremely creative and still a good dunk, but the judges didn't like it so out in round 1. This year he kept up the creativity and did some great dunks. The volleyball tap off the backboard was his best dunk followed by the behind the basket dunk (if he makes it first try it's the most difficult dunk in history. I also like when a star wins because it makes it more memorable. I hate players that win this and are extremely forgettable. The best dunkers should be in every competition, but there has to be a great balance with the best players. Who would not be thrilled to watch a dunk contest with Lebron, Kobe, Vince Carter, Dwight Howard?
I'll get to the second part of this question after some research.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Super Tuesday
I don't know if this title refers to my upcoming PL Omaha w/ Rebuys win in the Venetian Deep Stack Extravaganza or the second biggest political event of the year. Great to see that Ohio gets to vote after the candidates will probably already be decided. Our system is super unfair and undemocratic as I've stated in previous blogs.
Tyler from Philly wrote in "I am about to jump aboard McCain and Giuliani. In your opinion what are the chances that Giuliani becomes VP for McCain and how do you feel about it as a whole?"
Tyler, I love the political question and a perfect time to ask this. If I had to assess a percentage, I would give it about a 3% chance. First, McCain needs to come through on Super Tuesday and win the nomination. Assuming that he continues his momentum and gets the nomination, he faces some tough questions. First off, the conservative base of the party has seemed to turned their back on McCain. All of the psycho-conservatives (Ann Coulter, Russ Limbaugh) hate McCain. I even read that Ann Coulter would rather have Hillary than John McCain. I see Guiliani as almost the same type of candidate as McCain. He's a very moderate Republican and at times liberal in his views. McCain was picked as that candidate in this primary which is why Guiliani could never gain steam. I would imagine that McCain will be politically savvy if he wins this and pick someone that appeals more to the Republican conservative side as his running mate. What's that equate to? Sorry Tyler, I just don't see a good chance of it happening. I really do think though that if it were to happen, it would throw this race up in a storm.
I'm pulling for Obama on the Democratic side and it should be very close. I just think he has a stance and vision that all American can buy into and support going forward.
As I said, I will be playing the PL Omaha Rebuy event tomorrow at Venetian. This is my first PL Omaha tournament live, but I've had success in the big ones that I've played online namely in the FTOPS and WCOOP. I still am haunted by a hand in the WCOOP that occurred when I was chip leader. I raised in late position with a hand like AA109 Flop came down K 10 x. I bet after the flop and really felt like a player was ready to make a move. I didn't fall in love with my hand by any means hear, but I simply made a play based on my gut with about 24 players left in this tournament. He pushed the pot and I finished off his all in. He showed J 9 9 x for 5 outs since I had one of his nines. The river fell a 9 and I was devastated and could never recover. I finished 18th I believe out of maybe around 700 players. The event tomorrow should be fun and an experience if nothing else.
Today's event went terrible. I arrived a little too late 11:45 for the 12 start time. I did not anticipate the turnout. I was alternate 43 after they filled probably around 440 seats. I got in late in Level 2 with 5700 of the original 6k stack and blinds up to 50/100. I won a couple small pots, then folded AQ preflop after I raised to 600 w/ blinds at 100/200. Shortly after, I picked up KQ in the cutoff (button was away from table), so I had the best position and I limped in a multiway limped pot. Flop came down K Q 10. It checked to me and I bet 1000 into the 1300 pot. A shortstack that just arrived at the table as an alternate put all his chips in on a check raise. I thought for maybe 12 seconds and just thought my hand was slightly ahead of the hands he could be doing this with. He showed AJ and I was just about crippled. After a shortstack triple up and a failed all in I was sent home. Not a good start to this series of events, but that's a very tough situation early in a tournament.
Jay wrote in response to my top 5 poker players blog "What about Allen Cunningham?"
Jay, I totally overlooked Allen Cunningham. He is at least worth an honorable mention if not to be considered as one of the best. I would probably bump lilholdem954 and put him ahead of him if I had to put him in the top 5. I just think his experience in big events and consistent success speaks for itself. If the guy could have any luck at all, he may be main event champion as he was clearly the best player of the final 4 two years ago when Jamie Gold made a miracle call with KJ against his 10 10 and won a monster race.
I will remind you guys to keep those questions coming about anything because I love responding. Just put your question in the comments and I'd be happy to give my opinion.
Keith writing from BGSU wrote "When you look at the Cavs, do you think there is one specific move that will make them a true contender? I think that no matter what move Ferry makes, he will not put the Cavaliers in place to win it all this season."
Realistically, I believe it would take a miracle worker in order to make this team a contender. This team would be a contender with Carlos Boozer locked into a long term contract, and a solid point guard locked into our team. Now in retrospect, it's almost stupid throwing out what ifs, but hey why not. What if we didn't move Andre Miller for Darius Miles in order to try to make this team exciting for the fans? What if we had competent management that actually paid one of the top ten second rounders of the decade in Carlos Boozer?
PG: Andre Miller
SG: Who cares he is nothing to me
SF: Lebron James
PF: Carlos Boozer
C: Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Bench with key reserves including Andy V., Sasha, Daniel Gibson.
That's a contender in my opinion. Can the Cavs get back to that? I've heard Andre Miller trade rumors, but I don't think he or Jason Kidd is the long term answer to this team. I believe it's tough to not call the Cavs a contender since they did make the NBA finals last year, but I get the essence of your question. How do you beat the West and be one of the consistently top 5 teams in the NBA year in and year out? I think anyway that Ferry moves Larry Hughes and lifts the elephant out of the room is the best move. Will there be a blockbuster deal? No. We have what we have this year and probably next year for that matter. We have nothing to give to get another star in here but that's what we need. Lebron will make any player look loads better than they really are. I want to see what he can do with real talent.
That's all for now and keep those questions coming.
Tyler from Philly wrote in "I am about to jump aboard McCain and Giuliani. In your opinion what are the chances that Giuliani becomes VP for McCain and how do you feel about it as a whole?"
Tyler, I love the political question and a perfect time to ask this. If I had to assess a percentage, I would give it about a 3% chance. First, McCain needs to come through on Super Tuesday and win the nomination. Assuming that he continues his momentum and gets the nomination, he faces some tough questions. First off, the conservative base of the party has seemed to turned their back on McCain. All of the psycho-conservatives (Ann Coulter, Russ Limbaugh) hate McCain. I even read that Ann Coulter would rather have Hillary than John McCain. I see Guiliani as almost the same type of candidate as McCain. He's a very moderate Republican and at times liberal in his views. McCain was picked as that candidate in this primary which is why Guiliani could never gain steam. I would imagine that McCain will be politically savvy if he wins this and pick someone that appeals more to the Republican conservative side as his running mate. What's that equate to? Sorry Tyler, I just don't see a good chance of it happening. I really do think though that if it were to happen, it would throw this race up in a storm.
I'm pulling for Obama on the Democratic side and it should be very close. I just think he has a stance and vision that all American can buy into and support going forward.
As I said, I will be playing the PL Omaha Rebuy event tomorrow at Venetian. This is my first PL Omaha tournament live, but I've had success in the big ones that I've played online namely in the FTOPS and WCOOP. I still am haunted by a hand in the WCOOP that occurred when I was chip leader. I raised in late position with a hand like AA109 Flop came down K 10 x. I bet after the flop and really felt like a player was ready to make a move. I didn't fall in love with my hand by any means hear, but I simply made a play based on my gut with about 24 players left in this tournament. He pushed the pot and I finished off his all in. He showed J 9 9 x for 5 outs since I had one of his nines. The river fell a 9 and I was devastated and could never recover. I finished 18th I believe out of maybe around 700 players. The event tomorrow should be fun and an experience if nothing else.
Today's event went terrible. I arrived a little too late 11:45 for the 12 start time. I did not anticipate the turnout. I was alternate 43 after they filled probably around 440 seats. I got in late in Level 2 with 5700 of the original 6k stack and blinds up to 50/100. I won a couple small pots, then folded AQ preflop after I raised to 600 w/ blinds at 100/200. Shortly after, I picked up KQ in the cutoff (button was away from table), so I had the best position and I limped in a multiway limped pot. Flop came down K Q 10. It checked to me and I bet 1000 into the 1300 pot. A shortstack that just arrived at the table as an alternate put all his chips in on a check raise. I thought for maybe 12 seconds and just thought my hand was slightly ahead of the hands he could be doing this with. He showed AJ and I was just about crippled. After a shortstack triple up and a failed all in I was sent home. Not a good start to this series of events, but that's a very tough situation early in a tournament.
Jay wrote in response to my top 5 poker players blog "What about Allen Cunningham?"
Jay, I totally overlooked Allen Cunningham. He is at least worth an honorable mention if not to be considered as one of the best. I would probably bump lilholdem954 and put him ahead of him if I had to put him in the top 5. I just think his experience in big events and consistent success speaks for itself. If the guy could have any luck at all, he may be main event champion as he was clearly the best player of the final 4 two years ago when Jamie Gold made a miracle call with KJ against his 10 10 and won a monster race.
I will remind you guys to keep those questions coming about anything because I love responding. Just put your question in the comments and I'd be happy to give my opinion.
Keith writing from BGSU wrote "When you look at the Cavs, do you think there is one specific move that will make them a true contender? I think that no matter what move Ferry makes, he will not put the Cavaliers in place to win it all this season."
Realistically, I believe it would take a miracle worker in order to make this team a contender. This team would be a contender with Carlos Boozer locked into a long term contract, and a solid point guard locked into our team. Now in retrospect, it's almost stupid throwing out what ifs, but hey why not. What if we didn't move Andre Miller for Darius Miles in order to try to make this team exciting for the fans? What if we had competent management that actually paid one of the top ten second rounders of the decade in Carlos Boozer?
PG: Andre Miller
SG: Who cares he is nothing to me
SF: Lebron James
PF: Carlos Boozer
C: Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Bench with key reserves including Andy V., Sasha, Daniel Gibson.
That's a contender in my opinion. Can the Cavs get back to that? I've heard Andre Miller trade rumors, but I don't think he or Jason Kidd is the long term answer to this team. I believe it's tough to not call the Cavs a contender since they did make the NBA finals last year, but I get the essence of your question. How do you beat the West and be one of the consistently top 5 teams in the NBA year in and year out? I think anyway that Ferry moves Larry Hughes and lifts the elephant out of the room is the best move. Will there be a blockbuster deal? No. We have what we have this year and probably next year for that matter. We have nothing to give to get another star in here but that's what we need. Lebron will make any player look loads better than they really are. I want to see what he can do with real talent.
That's all for now and keep those questions coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)