Slav’s blog

So the NFL draft is over and done with and my beloved Chicago Bears didn't draft a QB at all when they have an obvious need.  That seems to be the prevailing thought in the media the past couple of days, no QB drafted when they have an obvious need.  I look at it a little differently, they had more pressing needs elsewhere and when they addressed those needs, why bother wasting a pick on a QB in a year where this is considered a very weak QB class?

Who did the Bears draft?  What needs did they fill?  Well first and foremost they drafted a left tackle with their first pick to fill a gaping hole in their O-Line.  Second pick they drafted a running back to help their anemic rushing attack.  With Cedric Benson recovering from a broken foot/leg, who knows how productive he is going to be coming off that injury?  So right off the bat they picked up a player who by all accounts should be able to start right away on the O-Line and a running back that should be able to compete with Benson as the starter.  They drafted a Wide Receiver to round out their top three picks.  Mooooose was a complete non factor at WR last season.  So now the Bears addressed three of their top needs in the first three rounds.  Not bad, I say, not bad at all.  What QB was available in the top three rounds that could make more of an impact than the players they drafted instead?  I don't see any. 

Last year I made a comment that the Bears needed to address a number of things before they made a change at QB. 
1) Fix/Upgrade the O-Line
2) Fix/Upgrade the running game
3) Fix/Upgrade the WR position

And in this draft the Bears did just that.

Until the season starts, there is no way to know if the guys that were drafted will make any type of impact, but for better or for worse the Bears signed Rex and Kyle to compete at QB this year.  Whoever plays best will be the starter.  But if the Bears don't fix the O-line, don't get a real running back, and don't put NFL caliber WR's out there, it won't matter if Tom Brady, Peyton Manning or the next incarnation of Joe Montana play for this squad, they won't win.  Let's see if the Bears did fix the problems of last year and then see if either Rex or Kyle have better success.  My bet is that if the Bears O-Line improves as a result of the draft, the rest of the offense will respond.  I like the kid they drafted at RB (Forte) he looks like the kind of guy that will help this teams running game.  Once the Bears can start running again, the passing game will improve tenfold.

Whether you like or hate Rex as "our QB," this is the kind of Draft the Bears needed to have.  They were not going to find a QB in the draft this year.  But they did get a guy who can play left tackle for the next 5-10 years.  The did get a running back who should pound the ball and be a difference maker.  They did get a Wide Receiver who should make plays. Look at what the Bears did on offense in '06 when they went to the Super Bowl.  The O-Line was playing great and they could run the ball and pass the ball.  Yes Rex had an inconsistent year, but overall he was very effective when the O-Line was playing well and the team was good enough to go to the Super Bowl.  Look at the Bears last year.  The O-Line sucked, they could not run the ball and all three QB's were inconsistent.  It starts from the line. 

Bottom line is I think the Bears did exactly what they needed to do to put a competitive team on the field THIS year.  They drafted the right positions for sure, now we wait to see if the players they drafted were the right ones for those positions...

Apparently Marty Brennaman, announcer for the Cincy Reds doesn't like Cubs fans much.  Apparently he called the Cubs fans the most obnoxious fans in the entire league because of a twist some fans took to the Wrigley Field tradition of throwing the baseball back when an opposing player hits a home run.  Apparently these fans conspired and brought with them their own supply of baseballs and when the inevitable happened and the Cubs pitchers gave up a home run, not only was the offending ball thrown back, but around 15 of these smuggled balls as well.  So instead of having to pick up one ball, the grounds crew has to scrounge for the dozen or so more balls on the field.  For this heinous crime, Marty thinks the worst of us Cubbie fans.

I have to say I am a little perplexed at this.  Of all the things to get wound up about that Cubs fans do in Wrigley, adding this twist to the home run ball tradition seems the the most innocuous thing to rant about.  The droves of pass-out-drunk twenty-something kids that march out of there probably do many more obnoxious things within Wrigley and when they exit en mass to wreak their young drunken mischief on the Cubs neighbors in Lakeview.  Guys running on the field charging at players, that's obnoxious and not something to tout.  Cursing to the point of making Howard Stern blush, is obnoxious.  What these guys did was take the Wrigley tradition of throwing the home run ball hit by an opposing player to the next level.  It required some forethought and planning.  I mean how many people walk around with a sack of baseballs?  Was it obnoxious?  Of course it was, but isn't that the freaking point?

Heckling opposing players is obnoxious, ever see Ferris Beuler's Day Off?  I was irritated by the nasaly, "Heyy batter batter batter .... SAWiiing, batter!" chants from the two protagonists.  And I was rooting for the same team they were!  Fans are supposed to be obnoxious to the other team.  It's part of the price of admission, the ability, no the right to heckle and annoy and try to disrupt the opposing teams concentration.  It's part of the freaking game!

So back to this stunt.  First of all you have to look at the original stunt and the tradition that it has become.  Way back when, some fan thought it would be cute, or clever, or fun, or maybe out of disgust at the amount of home runs that were hit by opposing players, decided to throw the ball back on to the field.  A defiant gesture basically saying, "I don't want it,Go ahead and keep it!"  Or some such.  this snowballed to the point where fans who refused to throw the ball back, (I mean seriously, what are the odds that you are going to be in the spot to catch a freaking home run ball anyway, and you want me to do what with it once i catch it?  No-Freaking-WAY!) were heckled and abused by the local bleacher fans who wanted to keep the foundling tradition going.  It grew and grew, and commentators made their comments on it over the years, fans argued over the value of such a tradition, Sox fans ridicule their North side counterparts for continuing such a foolish tradition.  But such as it is, it is a tradition at Wrigley, and the Cubs organization has done NOTHING to discourage it from continuing.  To the point that ushers would go to the dugout to ask a player to give up a bat or batting glove or something to give in exchange so the lucky fan who caught the ball could get something as a keepsake and still throw the ball back in keeping with the tradition.  For better or for worse it has become a Wrigley tradition.

Before talking about the new twist that set Marty off, lets examine the tradition itself.  I can only imagine why the first fan did it, I don'r recall their ever being an interview with that pioneer to find out why he did what he did and did he have any idea that it would take such root and become a thing all its own?  I can only guess that that fan may have sat in that same bleacher seat, dreaming of catching a home run ball from his favorite player back in the day, but alas it never happened.  Maybe he dreamed of Ernie Banks, or Billy Williams or Ron Santo hitting one out there to him.  MAybe it was Dave Kingman, of Jay Johnstone, or Bill Buckner, or Ron Cey, or Leon "Bull" Durham, or Rhyno, or Jody Davis, or whomever.  ALl those years of sitting and waiting for that ball to come off the bat of his favorite player and instead he finds the ball from Mike Schmidt, or Daryl Strawberry, or Mark McGuire or whoever the villain was, and maybe that fan was thinking, holy fucking shit, all the years I have come here waiting to catch a CUB home run ball and I catch the ball from the freaking opposition?  Are you fucking shitting me?  Funk that!  And threw it back.  Maybe he knew the chances of catching two home run balls in one lifetime was worse than getting hit by lightning, twice in ones lifetime and had a moment of clarity and then disgust.  And decided he was through with the Cubs and all things baseball and his first act of this exorcism was to throw the offending ball from that offending player back on the field.  Maybe he stands up and walks out of the stadium forever leaving the team that always broke his heart.  The final straw being that all he ever wanted was to catch a home run ball hit by someone on his beloved team, not minding that it may never happen in his life since the odds are not that good, but actually snagging one of the opposing team instead, was too much to bear.

Probably a little too melodramatic, but if Hollywood were to get the rights to this story I bet it would play out something like that...  But that is a separate topic...

Maybe what prompted this act was someting a little less dramatic and more Defiant.  Like, I'm a freaking Cub fan and I don't want any of this opposing team garbage in my stands.  take it back!  I love the Cubs, that I don't want this freaking souvenir form the other team, take it back! 

Or maybe it was supply and demand.   Like, OK, the pitching on the Cubs has been so horrible for so long that it's not that rare to catch a home run from the opposition, we get so many of these balls out here that we don't need it, and maybe the stadium will run out, so take it back.

Or maybe it was an act of solidarity with the Cubs, a fan who roots so much for the Cubs that he wouldn't dream of keeping this keepsake from the other team.  I'm a Cubs fan damnit!  And if I walk out of here with a ball it's going ot be one hit by a Cub!

The common theme is that the fan is somehow rooting for his team, the Cubs, but refusing to keep a valuable keepsake (a home run ball) if it was hit by the opposition.  Maybe it is dumb (I know my South side friends think so) but the sentiment is basically I am trying to support my team.  Would any of you South siders be caught wearing a Cubs hat or Cubs jacket or  the like?   Probably drop dead first, right?   What if it was puring rain and the only thing offering you  a small bit of respite from the elements was a Cubs jacket Or Poncho or umbrella?   You would rather look like a drowned rat and catch pneumonia and die than be caught wearing Cubs garb.  Is that rational?   Well it is about as rational as a Cub fan throwing the ball back...

OK, so the idea here is that Cubs fans don't want the home run balls from the opposition, it has turned into a tradition at Wrigley, if not openly endorsed by the Management, it is most certainly not discouraged.  So what did a few ingenious (is that sarcasm?  Maybe...) people did was put a new spin on it.  Instead of just throwing one back, we will bring in our own supply of baseballs and when the opposition hits a home run, we don't just throw it back, but a bunch of others too.  A logical progression of the tradition.  Maybe it symbolically represents all the balls that were caught years past that were never thrown back, or more likely it represents that the youth of today have too much time on their hands are not to funny.  I think it is a clever thing as a one time gag, a "funny once" type of joke.  You do it once you are a wit, you do it twice, you are a half wit.  The element of surprise, the players and the grounds crew were only expecting one ball and 15 came out.  "What the!"  OK, ha ha, we get it, funny, very funny.  Now stop.  But it doesn't have the simple elegance of the original tradition.  One could understand why a fan would love a team so much that he would not accept the home run hit by the opposing team, over and over again, it has a simple logic that is easy to understand and repeat.  But this one doesn't have the legs to stand on as an ongoing tradition.  What's the logic?  What's the joke?  What's the shtick?  One time is funny in a physical humor sort of way.  The reason that some Chris Farley movies get old after a while.  The same "Fatty Fall Down" jokes are not as funny the second time watching.  It's like a opening a box and having the spring loaded snakes fly out, it's funny once because of the element of surprise.  Repeating that gag again, is not funny as the element of surprise is gone and it becomes annoying.

So yeah, I get the original tradition, and I kind of like it.  You can build any type of story as to why you don't want to keep the home run ball.  And yeah, I thought that bringing in some of your own balls and throwing them back with the offending Home Run ball is funny, but only once.  A cute little gag, akin to a clown sprinkling your face as you go in to smell the flower.  OK opening a can full of snakes, WAHHH!  Surprise!  Ha ha ha, OK next joke.  Let's keep it a funny once type of thing and not beat a dead horse, OK?

But does that make Cubs fans the most obnoxious in the entire League?  I mean seriously, that?  Marty your Freudian slip is showing on this one.  What lurks in your closet?  Got some Cubbie baggage?  Cubbie envy?  I don't get why this stunt would make Cubs fans the most obnoxious.  I mean it was sort of clever, not really funny, and yes, it is supposed to be obnoxious, that's the whole point of throwing the ball back.  Support your team, be obnoxious to the other team.  That's what all fans do in all ballparks.  This one stunt was a little clever and silly and stupid and it will get old fast if it keeps up, but deserving the most obnoxious fans in the league?  Come on now! 

Now it's use is relegated to describing my poker play.  Up and Down, around and around, walk the dog...

Why is it that after a tough losing streak I suddenly hit my outs?  Or get a goofy call or raise when I obviously have the nuts?  Why is it that after I have a nice winning streak I suddenly seem to get sucked out time and again by the calling stations?

The last few months have been one long win streak followed by a short but devastating, tilt filled losing streak where all my winnings go away, followed by a small buy in and another big win streak, followed by a cash out and another brutally devastating tilt and angst filled losing streak, followed by some more buy ins and a modest winning streak.  What the hell is happening?

I talked about patience in my previous post (an eon ago) and I'm wondering how much patience really plays into my success.  Patience works when I have it and my opponent loses it, and when I have a premium hand and my opponent doesn't, AND when my opponent doesn't suck out.

Here are a couple of typical situations.

The Hero (me) : AKs
The Villain       : small pocket pair (7's or lower)

The result when I am patient?  Flop hits the Hero and misses the Villain.
The result when I am impatient? Flop doesn't hit the hero and the Villain takes it down.
The result when I am a fingernail width away from complete tilt meltdown?  Flop hits the Hero and the turn or river spikes the set for the Villain.

Or does it?

Last night I had a really good session, I played a few sng's and finished in the money in most of them.  The two that I didn't finish in the money, I got sucked out MAJOR BIG TIME.  Here are the two hands that knocked me out.

Both hands were against very loose aggressive players, their chip stacks fluctuated wildly the entire time I was at the table with them.  Making bluff raises, making position moves and simply making really bad calls on re-raises that hit.  This is what I remembered about their play.  They called with inferior hands and hit, a lot.  Two things that bothered me about this, first that they were so loose with their calls and raises that I could not get a handle on what they are holding at any given time.  The second is that they were hitting so frequently that they had HUGE chip stacks that they were able to wield effectively like a bludgeon.  Can't raise with a mid pocket pair, Throw away A-10 or lower.  QJ almost unplayable, forget about low suited connectors.  Both games had this guy at the table.  No, he waqsn't actually the "same" player, but they played almost identical games.  Very loose and almost suicidally aggressive.

So I waited, I waited until a situation called for making a big strong play to take away a big chunk of those bludgeoning chips.

Here is the first situation.

I'm in early position, second from the button.  I find pocket rockets (why do all bad beat stories start off with pocket rockets?) so I decide I will try to induce a bluff by the (P)sycho (A)ggressive (N)imrod who has all the chips at the table.  I get another limper and then the expected raise by PAN.  There are 5 or 6 of us left at this point and I am either second or a close third in ship count at this point.  PAN has me covered but if I win the hand I will cripple him down to last chip position.  The blind levels are $100-$200 with a $25.00 ante.  I have roughly 3000 in Chips, PAN has a little more than 4000.  There is around 450 or so in the pot from the blinds, another $200 from me, and another $200 from the limper to my left, for a grand total of around $850.  PAN raises another $600. for a total of about 1450 (just about what we each started with.)  I decide that the pot is good enough and I don't want to play against two people so I do the all in re-raise.  I really just want to win the pot right there, I don't mind a call from either the limper or PAN, but I just want the money that is already in the pot.  Limper followed my script with a fold, but PAN does not oblige.  He calls my all in with J 10 suited.  And no he did not hit a runner runner flush to win the pot.

Flop comes Q-10-9.  He picked up an open ended straight draw with the pair of tens.  Turn comes a rag, and I'm thinking, don't hit the freaking straight on the river.  The river obliges by spiking a 10.  He made three of a kind on the river to knock me out fifth or sixth.  And I'm trying to figure out why he would call an obvious over pair or at worst two over cards to his J 10.

Very next game I find myself in an almost identical situation.  This time however I am the small blind.  Again there are about 5-6 people left in the tourney, Blinds are at 100-200 with no ante, I am third or fourth in chips to PAN2 (The Return of PAN!  Once is never enough.)   I have about 2200 in chips, PAN2 has about 3100.  But in the last few hands his stack went from 5000+ to to about 850 back to it's current 3200 or so.  I had a feeling he would not back down to any hyper aggression so again I wanted a really premium hand to knock him on his arse.  And no sooner than I ask am I dealt AKo.  I would have preferred aces or kings (queens or jacks would have sufficed too I think) but Big Slick should work against the weak ass junk that he has been playing (and hitting I have to admit) with.  So there is an early position limper, and then a raise from PAN2, folds to me in the small blind where I go all in.  Limper folds and Pan calls with the monster of all monsters 10-9s!  I am feeling really good especially when an  Ace AND a 10 hit the flop.  No way another 10 hits again!  I believe the board even paired up (8's I think, but I'm not sure) so I'm not worried that he will hit a 9 for 2 pair.  When the lucky, donkey hits a third 10 on the river.  Two freaking times in a row I have top pair and I get called all in with a weak 10 and the donks make trips to knock me out.  TWO FREAKING TIMES IN A ROW.

So I got have a couple of cigarettes and play another game and I notice that I am not playing against the opponents at the new table, I am still playing against PAN and PAN2.  Mind you neither of these two numbnutz are sitting at the new table, but I am constantly looking to make raises against the first person I see make a questionable call with a weak assed hand.  And I stop myself.  I actually stopped a tilt from getting way out of control.  Or did I?  I did stop making super hyper aggressive lead plays, but I did make a very questionable call of an all in by the short stack at the table when I was comfortably in second chip position out of 4.  I'm in the small blind, and I just took a huge stack off the current short stack by calling an all in with AQ to his pocket 9's.  I hit the queen and he didn't improve and he was close to the felt.  He goes all in a few times and survives to bring his stack back up to above 1k, when we find the fateful hand.  First off this guy is a good player, I have played against him before and he is no slouch, I looked up his stats and they confirmed what I figured out by playing against him.  He knows how to play well.

So He raises all in, and the button folds and I find myself in the small blind with pocket 7's.  I think I decided that I was going to raise with these if it folded to me when this guy went all in.  I didn't even think, I simply called, I reacted.  I didn't give it a second thought, I told myself I have the best hand right now, and if he sucks out he sucks out.  Why did I think I had the best hand?  Not entirely sure, because he was short stacked and it smelled of a desperation play.  any face card, any ace, got to make a stand before i get blinded out.  In that situation I have to think that my pocket pair is good.  So I call without hesitation.  Big blind quickly gets out of the way and folds.  So Mr Premier Good Player turns over pocket Jacks.  JJ -vs- 77.  Not looking too good for me I must say.  And then the flop comes out and I am thinking can it get worse without him hitting a jack?  10 -9 - Q.  He picks up an up and down straight draw in addition to having the over pair.  Well fate didn't wait until the river to add drama to this one, the turn brought me my miracle 7 and an innocuous 10 on the river giving me a boat and the rest of his chips.

So what gives?  I think I'm making the right play but it turns out to be the wrong play but I suck out and win.  Is that other player writing a blog about the donkey who knocked him out with an improved under pair against his over pair like I was earlier?  Was it a good play on my part?  It turns out that I ended up winning this tournament.  But if that 7 doesn't hit, I'm very easily looking at being knocked out of the money.  So what the fuck?  Do you have to play "bad" to win the tournament?  When I play with "patience" like I was espousing in the previous post, I often finish in the money, but rarely win it all, when I play like this, I find that when I do make it to the money I win it or finish third.  All or almost nothing.  When I play "safe" (i.e. with patience) I'll finish 2nd or 3rd more often than not.  I looked at some other hand histories of tournaments that I had won. I found a lot more questionable calls on my part than I remembered when I won the damn thing.  In one I was chip leader with 4 or 5 remaining and it is folded to me in the big blind, and I find A-3s (clubs.)  The small stack is in the big blind.  I figure my ace is good since it is folded to me, and since it is suited it is even more of a reason to raise and bully the small stack.  Well he re-raises all in and I quickly call only to find a small pocket pair.  I won the hand in the worst and cheapest way that a small pocket pair can be beaten.  I counterfeited his pair.  The flop comes with an over pair to his pair and the river brings the second over pair to his.  So my Ace out kicked him for two pair.  I didn't give that hand a lot of thought after the fact.  But why did I think that my A-3 was so good?  What if he had an Ace with a better kicker?  Why didn't I even consider the possibility of him having a pocket pair?  TWO over cards are almost equal against an under pocket pair, not ONE over card,  Why did I assume I had the best hand without analyzing the situation, and why did I forget about it so quickly after winning the damn thing?  After all, I was just randomly going through my tournament win hand histories to remember that hand.  At the time of that win, I walked away from that game pleased with my play and result, but after further review found a big blunder that could have cost me the game.  In fact it is that very blunder that cost me lots of games in my losing streak.  Over valuing hands that I had no business over valuing.  That time it didn't cost me and it actually propelled me to the win.  Does a win like that cause you to change how you play the next time?  More loose, take more chances, make more plays (i.e bluff) etc...?  Is that why I play with more patience after a losing session?  Back to the basics?  If back to the basics works so well then why does it seem that I change my style after a winning streak?  I know that you have to adjust your style of play to the opponents, but you have to start somewhere, right? 

So what the hell gives with my game?  I am a lot better than I was when I first started playing a few years ago.  I'm playing for bigger stakes and taking more money home than I did in the past.  I've had two very successful months playing, and all of a sudden I start chasing and making a lot of plays, and playing at higher stakes than I should be, and I got spanked.  What the freaking fuck is going on with my game?  I want to ask where my game went but now I'm wondering if I ever had it at all.  I thought I was recognizing when I make a bad play and get rewarded, but now I am not sure.  How quickly confidence turns to overconfidence turns to abject uncertainty.  Got to keep that yo-yo from dancing in my head.

No more chasing for me.  No I will chase the occasional flush or straight draw, I won't chase the higher stake game to make up for a bad session.  If I win this one game at this higher level, I'll cover my losses, and then when that goes south, It becomes, well if I win this one, then I can lessen my losses...  That's where the tilting causes the worst chasing, not when the cards fall, but what table I chase them at.  I'm still a little fish in a little pond, and I have to remember that when this game I love comes so easy.  So no more big ponds for a while.  No more chasing those barracuda's when I should be frying the pan fish.  Each pond has them, fish.  I just have to stop being one of them. 

If only it were that easy.

Patience is not my forte.  And it has been killing me at the poker tables.

I'm not sure when exactly it happened, but my game has gone all over the place the last few months.  I think it happened when I started to play at the cash tables in addition to my usual sit and go tables.  The dynamic at a $20 or $30 or $50 or even (gasp) $100 dollar SnG is much different than at a $.25 - $.50 or $.50 - $100 NL cash game.  Playing in the cahs games, I have watched guys go all in with second or third pair with a board that has straight and flush possibilities only to be called by someone with nothing better than Ace high that it affected my game and not in a good way.  I found myself chasing and calling when I should be folding or raising.  I inevitably find myself with a pair of Queens and having to decide pre-flop whether the joker who called an all in with bottom pair a couple of hands ago is tilting when he re-raises me 4 times my raise.  Do I Call or Raise or Fold?  I raise all in and find that this time he has pocket Aces.  This chasing and overplaying has unhinged my game to the point that I found myself playing A-2 off suit in early position for a raise early in a SnG tournament.  Needless to say, I didn't make the money very often with this strategy.  When I play well in a SnG is when I wait for my opportunities and not try to outplay my opponents or overplay my hands.  Pushing a flush draw or open ended straight draw is a good way to bust out early in a tournament, and the loose way people were playing in the cash games, got me to chase those draws and the infrequent catches I got in playing that way, further reinforced this gamble first mentality.  My SnG game has unfortunately suffered as a result.

So I decided to give myself one last chance at getting on track.  I loaded up some money and decided to play some SnG's when I had the time to sit and play.  At least a couple hours uninterrupted.  So I decided to rip some MP3's while playing to clear the pile of CD's from my desk.  My strategy?  Be Patient.  Be very very patient.  I wouldn't play anything but premium hands in early position and I wouldn't call re-raises with anything but a super premium hand in any position.  I only bet or bluffed at a pot if I felt there was real weakness or disinterest by the other players and I wasn't afraid to drop if I didn't think I had the best hand.  I would push people out when I made my hand and there may have been an attractive draw on the board.   I really paid attention to my position and when I would bluff or semi-bluff and got raised or re-raised, I would drop the hand and not chase.

I found myself making the money or bubbling out with a bad beat if I was short stacked.  My game was coming back to me.  I dropped A-10 in front of a raise, I would not call a re-raise with A-J, I wouldn't lose all my chips with Top pair and top kicker.  I was back.  I played what was probably my best game of poker in this run.  I stepped up to a bigger stake than I normally play and played my patient passive style and jumped in when I had good hands and found myself in the final 4, one out of the money.  I played very selective but aggressive, I was taking advantage of the fact that whenever I did show my hand it was always strong, and I started to raise with more frequency and I loosened my starting hand requirements in the short handed play.  I doubled up against one guy and then he got knocked out by the chip leader and it was down to 3 all in the money.  And I decided I was not going to be simply satisfied with finishing in the money, I wanted to win this one.  So I continued my very selective play.  I raised when I had good hands, but I didn't call raises with anything but super premium hands and I re-raised with selective hands as well.  It was a long time before anyone tried to show down against me.

The chip leader and I finally whittled the third guys chips and it was down to 2.  He had about a 2-1 chip lead over me but that didn't phase me.  He seemed to be a guy not used to playing in the higher stakes and was easily bullied off of hands.  He made a lot of minimum raises and would fold to re-raises or bets after the flop.  I won some chips and got to about even in chips and then lost a big hand but not all of my chips.  I had A 8 and I limped in form the button.  He raised me and I called.  The flop comes A high with two low cards and he bets into me.  I'm worried that he has a better kicker than I do, but i don't want to release the hand so I call.  I should have raised and then folded to a re-raise or maybe win the hand right there.  Calling was the wrong play I think.  Next card comes and it is a Jack.  This time he checks, and I am no convinced he has at least two pair, so I check behind him.  The river comes and it pairs the board (I think threes) and he makes a pot sized bet or there abouts and I am trying to figure out if what the hell is going on.  I decide that he has a better two pair than I do, and fold.  He was kind enough to inform me that he had pocket Jacks and hit a set on the turn and a boat on the river.  I was down to about the same 2-1 in ships like when we started heads up and I went back to work on winning small pots and not trying to get into too many show downs. 

I manged to get almost even in chips again, and I find myself with A-Q he raises and I decide that I this is a good enough hand to raise all in.  I don't expect a call in this situation as his standard response is to fold, but he calls and turns over A 8.  He doesn't improve and I win the hand and knock him out.  I forget exactly I think either the Queen or an Ace hit on the board.  He chats that he was getting impatient and that this was the toughest game he ever played in.  I thanked him and said he was playing tough as well, etc...  It was a nice feeling to walk away in first place after sticking to my guns and playing patient.  There were a couple of times where I did get a little lucky in show down situations, for instance, over cards hitting when the opponent had an under pair etc... but overall I didn't jeopardize my stack when I had the worst of it, and I was able to win a lot of showdowns by playing my good hands aggressively and folding my weaker hands before it got crazy.

The problem is when I go on runs like this, is I find myself playing more hands than I should.  Usually because I was rewarded for such play by in a previous game.  When you make it to the money round of a SnG you are playing more hands than when you were at the beginning of the SnG. So after finishing in the money and starting another tourney, you are in that zone when you do raise with Ace high, because you probably have the best hand against one opponent.  Against nine others, that Ace high is garbage.  So either don't play right away or be better about "down shifting" and playing patient.  We'll see how it goes the next time I play.  Whenever that is.

I have had one helluva month.  The holidays came and went, and they were nice.  but since then it has been one big roller coaster.  Work has recently really started to get under my skin and with the snow falling outside after the arctic blast we endured here in Chicago this past week, I decided to do some surfing at lunch.

I regularly try to read the tao of poker and when I get caught up on that I sometimes randomly select blogs Pauly has listed on his site, and I ran across this one with a meme in it.  Now I don't know how the rules of a meme work, but it sounded fun so I decided to do it anyway...

Here are the rules: Put your music player on shuffle. Press forward for each question. Use the song title as the answer to the question even if it doesn't make sense.  (I Added the group as a referent in case someone was thinking I was making up a song title...)

1. How am I feeling today? No Name, No Slogan - Acid Horse

2. Will I get far in life? Fatherland - Die krups

3. What's your current state of mind? Nothing's Impossible - Depeche Mode

4. How do my friends see me? Unfit - KMFDM

5. Where will I get married? Ornaments of Gold - Siousxie and the Banshees

6. What is your view of marriage? Big Man with a Gun - Nine Inch Nails

7. What is my best friend's theme song? Rush - Project Pitchfork

8. What is the story of my life? Very - Moby

9. What is/was high school like? In the Walls - Quantum Dots

10. How can I get ahead in life? Comatose - Front Line Assembly

11. What is the best thing about me? Play with Me - the Thompson Twins

12. What is today going to be like? Goodnight Lover - Fluke

13. What is in store for this weekend? Animal - Front 242

14. Describe my parents? Roll the Dice - Lunatic Calm

15. Describe my grandparents? Mesh - New Order

16. How is my life going? Bruise - Rose Chronicles

17. What song will they play at my funeral? She Left (French Version) - C-Tec

18. How does the world see me? Let your body Learn - Nitzer Ebb

19. Will I have a happy life? You Could be the one - The sisters of Mercy

20. What do my friends really think of me? I Sit on Acid - Lords of Acid

21. Do people secretly lust after me? Want - The Recoil

22. How can I make myself happy? I want you now - Depeche Mode

23. What should I do with my life? Golden Playpen - INXS

24. Will I ever have children? Avalanche - New Order

25. What is some good advice for me? Outside the Wall - Pink Floyd

26. How will I be remembered? Under the Gun - Sisters of Mercy

27. What is my signature dancing song? Violent Peace - Excessive Force

29. What is my current theme song? Laughing Cavalier - Ladytron

30. What do people think my current theme song is? Last Call - Project Pitchfork

31. What type of men/women do you like? Pale Shelter - Tears for Fears

OK that was fun, here are the ones that stand out to me for whatever reason:

4. How do my friends see me? Unfit (No explanation needed I think...)
6. What is your view of marriage? Big Man with a Gun (Shotgun?...)
10. How can I get ahead in life? Comatose (seems counter-intuitive, and it hasn't worked for me as of yet...)
11. What is the best thing about me? Play with Me (I can be a fun guy!)
12. What is today going to be like? Goodnight Lover (hmmm....)
16. How is my life going? Bruise (I feel beat up lately)
17. What song will they play at my funeral? She Left (French Version) (shouldn't that be, I left?)
20. What do my friends really think of me? I Sit on Acid (???)
22. How can I make myself happy? I want you now (Hedonists of the world unite!)
24. Will I ever have children? Avalanche (hmmm, as a result of number 22 above?...)
26. How will I be remembered? Under the Gun (poker reference, or something worse?)
30. What do people think my current theme song is? Last Call (maybe five years ago, I've been remarkably dry lately...)

So this Sunday marks the end of one of the most disappointing NFL seasons I have ever experienced.  I was sky high going into the football season this fall, the Bears were going to finish the job they couldn't last season.  Wow was I wrong.  They couldn't even win two games in a row this year.  Yuck.

I watched the game last Sunday with a few friends and let me say it was very satisfying to watch the Bears beat the snot out of the Packers like that.  And make no mistake about it, the Bears did beat the snot out of the Packers last week, in every conceivable way the Bears just pounded the Packers.  It was really fun to watch.  But I thought about it afterwards and I think I would rather lose to the Packers twice and win the Division (i.e. make the playoffs,) than beat the Packers twice and not make the playoffs.  Call me crazy. 

I don't think the biggest need the Bears have is getting a new QB.  The Bears woes on offense was not because of the QB position.  The Bears have started all 3 of their QB's this year and they all have been inconsistent.  When the O-Line and running game worked, the Bears QB's played well, when the O-Line played bad, the QB's played bad.  Look at how well the Bears ran the ball against the Packers.  The Bears didn't rush for a lot of yards, but they were getting first downs and keeping possession of the football.  Orton only had to throw the ball 14 times because they were CONTROLLING THE CLOCK by running the football.  Exactly how you win games in inclement weather.  The first Bears drive was over 10 minutes, that has not happened before this year.  It was funny that Orton was starting because this looked exactly like a game from the '05 season.  Tough, opportunistic defense, great special teams play, and a very plain run oriented offense (granted this was  due to the horrible wind conditions at game time, but still...)  Very reminiscent of 2005. 

Going back to the QB play, I don't think that is the biggest priority for the Bears.  I think the QB position is maybe 4th or 5th in priority for the Bears offense.  Here is my Bears priority list for improving the offense.

1. Improve the O-Line.  The Bears need 2 maybe 3 players on the O-Line.  A left tackle and a Guard at least.  Draft a tackle with the Bears first pick and sign a free agent or two.

2. Get a running back.  Sign Michael Turner from the Chargers to big bucks and bring him to Chicago.  Keep Ced as a backup for the remainder of his contract and then let him go.  Turner and a revamped O-Line will be just what the doctor ordered for this offense.

3. Get some NFL wide Receivers.  Moose is done.  He hasn't done anything to justify spending all that money on him a few years ago.  Bernard Berrian is a good number 2 receiver, but he hasn't shown that he can consistently make the big play.  Mark Bradley, umm who?  He has been invisible.  Davis made some big catches last year, but not nearly enough this year.  Hester is the best Kick Returner in the game, but he is a long way from being a viable everyday option at wide receiver.  Not sure if there is someone in the draft or free agency that could come in and produce, but the Bears sure could use an upgrade in that department.

4. Some changes to the coaching staff need to happen.  I'm not sure if Turner is responsible for all the play calls or if Lovie Smith has his fingerprints in their during the game, but some of the in game coaching decisions have been mindboggling.  I'm not advocating firing Ron Turner or any of the other coaches, but something has to give.  There has been not enough improvement of the skill players on offense coupled with the head-scratching play calling this year makes me think that the coaches need some help.  Maybe hire a couple more coaches, an assistant Offensive Coordinator, or something like that.  Do something with the receiver coaches, because those receivers just look bad.  Dropping balls, running short routes, it's just brutal.

5. Take a look at the QB options available.  If you can't get a difference maker like McNabb from Philly, then re-sign Rex and let him and Kyle battle it out in training camp.  Because if the Bears fix items 1 -4 on the wish list above, either Rex or Kyle can get the job done for the Bears.

The bottom line is that as inconsistent as The QB's for the Bears have been this year, the play from almost every other position (except Tight End) was far worse.  Number 1 culprit is the O-Line, then the running game, then the receivers, then maybe the QB's.

So the Mitchell Report on performance enhancing drug usage in Major League Baseball was released yesterday and the media and MLB response in my opinion has been tepid at best. 

When the "Black Sox" scandal happened in was it 1919?  The newly instated Commissioner of Baseball gave a lifetime ban to the implicated players to protect the integrity of the game.  The Comish made a swift and very punitive move to protect MLB from the impression of being corrupt.

Pete Rose was permanently banned from baseball for betting on games.  A big no-no.  Subsequently the Baseball Hall Of Fame voted to formally exclude individuals on the permanently ineligible list from being inducted into the Hall of Fame.  He was banned to protect the integrity of the game.

What does "integrity of the game" actually mean?  And how is steroid use among players different than wagering on a game or influencing the outcome of a game to affect wagering results?  Isn't the desired result of using a performance enhancing drug to influence the outcome of a players performance within a game?  Doesn't a players performance on the field affect the outcome of a game?  How many games did Barry Bonds affect in his (alleged) post steroid use career?  What about 7 time Cy Young winner Roger Clemens?  How is this any different than Pete Rose and the 1919 "Black Sox?"  Most sports ban performance enhancing drugs for a variety of reasons.  Their use distort the competitive balance among the games players and they tend to be unhealthy for the users, seem to be two of the most prevalent reasons for their ban.  Why did Baseball drag it's collective feet on this issue where other sports were quicker to adopt stricter policies against their use?

The most obvious difference is viewed when you follow the money.  Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa are often credited for "saving Baseball" after the strike and lockout years with their Home Run race in '98.  In the last 10 years or so, not coincidentally since the time of the great home run race,  MLB has increased from a 1 billion dollar industry to over 6 billion dollar industry.  a Six fold growth in around 10 years.  Not bad, and it just so happens that that growth coincides with the so called "steroid era."  Do the ends justify the means here?  The tepid response by MLB and the Commissioners office regarding the Mitchell Report tells me that is just the case.  The juiced players are bringing in the fans in droves; MLB merchandise is flying off the shelves and money is rolling in.  What's not to like?  MLB at worst endorsed the drug use, or at best looked the other way because the profits were increasing and the fans were coming back in flocks.  The Pete Rose and Black Sox scandals could have potentially cost MLB money and fan support, while the so called "steroid era" brought fans back to the ballpark in record numbers.

Protecting the integrity of the game was a term used in the movie Eight Men Out by the judge who would become the commissioner.  It described the idea that fans would not continue to watch or be interested in baseball if they believed it wasn't on the "up and up."  Modern day baseball found out that in betraying that trust be "enhancing" the game with steroids and other PHE's that they were actually able to increase fan interest and thus revenue.  MLB doesn't want to implement strict testing and overly punitive actions against the players because it's obvious that the increase in performance directly translated to increased revenue and interest in the sport.  The players don't want stricter testing because their salary potential grows with their increased statistics.  Owners and team officials don't really want it because when they sign a player to a guaranteed multi-million dollar contract because they are a superstar, they don't want to be stuck with an average player making super start money when they are forced of the "juice"  (just look at the Yankees and Jason Giambi ...)  It's the same reason why the spitball was outlawed, and the mounds were lowered, it made baseball more exciting to watch as teams scored more runs.  The same reason why smaller ballparks are being built everywhere, "Chicks dig the long ball."  The integrity of the game has always been tied to the prosperity and viability of the sport.  Rules changes are made that affect how the game is played to counteract any current negative sentiment among the fans.  You change the rules to accommodate what fans wanted.  Which usually translates into and more more scoring.  this is not unique to baseball, you see it in other sports as well, Football has stricter limits on what a defender can do, the 24 second shot clock in basketball was designed to keep the action going back and forth, even hockey changed its rules recently to make trapping illegal.  All designed to increase scoring which is what the fans want to see.

The difference between the gambling influence on the game and the performance enhancing drug influence on the game is that the juiced players actually brought more money (i.e.fans) to the game and it was feared that the specter of gambling would hurt fan interest and thus hurt revenue.  In my mind I see no difference in what the players actually did.  They cheated or they broke the rules and the result of their action somehow affect the game itself, whether it be actual results or cast doubt on the credibility of the results (though in Pete Rose's case there is no actual evidence that anything he did while betting on games adversely affected an outcome of a game he was involved in) they cheated.  With PHE's, how could the integrity of the game be compromised when fans were coming to the ball parks in record numbers?  Whether MLB was ignorant of the rampant use of PHE's or simply didn't think it would get so out of control so quickly doesn't really matter.  What matters is that all the phrase "Preserve the integrity of the game" really means is, keep the money flowing.

But it got out of control, didn't it.  Barry Bonds passing Hank Aaron was the final straw.  It really offended some people that a guy would get recognized for such a great achievement and break such a hallowed record, who cheated in order to do it.  You can ignore a guy like Raphael Palmiero for cheating, yeah, he hit over 500 homers, but you just don't vote him in the hall of fame.  He will eventually disappear and be forgotten, and we can ignore his cheating.  How can you ignore Bonds and his records?  How did we let this get so out of control where a record is made meaningless because it was achieved through dubious means?  How many guys who won MVP awards did so by cheating?  How many guys are we as fans revering for essentially breaking the rules to get ahead?

MLB is as much to blame for this mess as anyone (if not more.)  The commissioners office failed in its duty to "preserve the integrity of the game" by allowing this to go on for so long.  Oh they preserved the revenue stream, but in the process made a mockery of all those who came and played the game before.  They turned a simple sport of throw the ball, hit the ball, catch the ball and turned it into Professional Wrestling.  With Gargantuan bulging behemoths throwing the ball harder and smacking the crap out of the ball farther.  Hitting home runs were about how far it was hit, even though it still counted the same as the one that barely makes it over the fence.  It seems somehow wrong that the office responsible for banning the likes of Shoeless Joe Jackson, Buck Weaver and Pete Rose is allowed to operate after such a complete and utter failure to stop the runaway train that is performance enhancing drugs in the sport.  Selig should resign.  Or if not resign, then he should go the other route and say that steroids and other PHE's will not be banned, and run MLB like professional wrestling, where games are scripted and the fans wait in anticipation to see how many homers or strikeouts these gladiator-esque players will produce... 

Integrity of the game.  Performance Enhancing Drugs.  6 fold increase in revenue in around 10 years.  What does integrity of the game really mean?  Explaining this to my 12 year old Nephew feels like saying "Yes Virginia there really is no Santa Claus."

I played in a couple of poker games a week or so ago and had a couple of hands in early position that had drastically different results.  The first was in a live game I regularly play in with some friends, the second was in a Turbo NL SnG on Poker Stars.  In both hands I had a medium to small pocket pair and I was first to act.  First the good hand.

I had pocket fives and limped in UTG.  The blinds were at 75-150 and I had a little more than what we started with.  There were two more callers after me, when it gets raised to 600.  Folds back to me, and I call.  The other limpers both fold.  I was very suspicious of the raise, the guy who raised is a really good player.  Based on what I have seen him do in the past, I got a vibe that he was playing position and wanted to win the pot uncontested pre-flop (which he would have done had I folded...)  The flop comes K 6 7 rainbow.  I didn't hit my set and I had runner runner straight possibilities and not a lot else.  The king on the flop also worried me, so I decided to check.  He immediately bets another 600.  I thought about it and almost folded when found myself pushing all of my chips in and announcing  unnecessarily, "All in."

That slowed him down and he thought about it for a while and reluctantly mucked his cards with a "Good Bet."  Probably not the text book way to play low pocket pairs in early position especially after calling a raise and not hitting my set. But I got a feeling that he wasn't that strong and I felt I could push him off the hand with the check raise.  The cards didn't matter, it was just the way the hand played out.  Something about his play screamed "he is playing position and will let the hand go if you go all in."  So I did, and now as I write about it, I wonder if I really did pick up on some kind of tell, or if I am rationalizing the wacky play on my part...

In any event, I made it to the money and finished third out of 11 players.

The other story ended up worse for me.  The first hand of the 1 table turbo sit and go tourney started with my getting pocket nines.  I usually don't like to play turbo SnG's because they tend to be a lot looser at the start and I don't find myself pressured to make a play later in the tourney when I have less than average chips.  Turbo SnG's are an action junkies dream, because a lot of people play any two cards and somehow manage to hit a lot.

Anyway, I get dealt pocket nines and I raise about 4 times the blind, I get two callers; the first is  immediately to my left and the button is the second.  The flop comes 5 4 4.  I bet the pot figuring that no one hit and I want to take it down now.  Both guys call.  Now around half my stack is in the pot.  We started with 1500 in chips.  Blinds start at 10-20.  I bumped it to 120, got two callers so there is around 390 in the pot including the blinds pre flop.  After the flop there is over 1500 in the pot.  The turn brings a five and I slow down, I check and it checks around.  Now I'm thinking that these two guys have over cards and are simply looking to hit.  A 7 comes on the river and I go all in figuring (incorrectly) that I have the best hand.  First guy folds, and the button of course calls and turns over a 3 4 off suit for the full house.

I let out a stream of words that I won't repeat here and now.  I was disappointed that my raise did not discourage this guy from calling with a pretty weak hand.  And more disappointed that I would not let myself believe that one of them hit either the 4 or 5.  I was honestly expecting him to turn over an A J expecting he would get a split pot.  I was wrong!

I thought about that hand a few times after that.  Was he a donkey?  Was he a shark?  Was that a good or bad play?  Playing in the turbo games is a little different than a normal SnG because the blinds go up so much faster.  I rarely successfully adjust my play to account for the wild variances in starting hands played.  3-4 has to hit rather specifically to bust out a hand worthy of raising pre flop.  Why play it?

I looked up this guys stats on an online poker stats DB called sharkscope and it turns out that he is a very solid player; at least according to his stats.  So I am trying to think why would he call the opening raise with a 3 4 on the button?  One reason to make that call is that if you hit with that hand, it is unlikely that you are going to be beat by a better starting hand.  Losing a little less than 10% of your chips is possible to overcome during the course of the game, when your potentially to double up is good if you hit your hand.  The key part to that is the "if."  He was in position so if he misses the flop he can drop, but that is a lot of money to risk.  Or is it?  How important is that 10% in a turbo game where the betting is much looser than in a regular SnG?  These are probably questions I should have been asking myself before I lost all my chips to him, but... 

Playing in early position is always an adventure.  Familiarity with my opponent helped me one time, and a bullheaded refusal to accept reality knocked me back a peg the other time.  I still like to try different stuff out from time to time, I feel like my game has gotten a little formulaic and predictable so I want to do things I don't normally do (like play a small pocket pair in early position for a raise...)  I'll let you know if I end up playing a 3 4 off suit for a raise and a call on the button and how I do after that.  My guess is that it will play out, call - flop - fold, but you never know...

I'm still trying to figure out that play.  Man, a 3-4.  Too bad a nine didn't come on the river, it could have been the lesson of "plays you don't want to make on the Button..."

Wow, what a horrible Bears Raiders game.  Boring and boring and boring.  3-3 into the 4th Quarter and Rex is back at QB after Griese gets knocked out of the game with a shoulder injury.  I was watching the game at a friends house and he had quite a few people over and it was funny, in a sad and pathetic way, how so many people turned on Rex the moment he came into the game.  Even after the game, the TV was showing him on the sideline and comments were being made about him, how he still sucks, blah blah blah.  He won the game people.  Plain and simple.  this is how the formula works.  Your team is losing.  You score the winning points.  Your team wins the game.  I.e. you won the game.  Rex threw a 54 yard TD pass to win the game for the Bears.  It wasn't an impressive win, and it wasn't enough to dispel the doubts and concerns about Rex as the Bears QB, but he won the freaking game people!  For real, I mean what does the guy have to do to get a smidgen of love from the fans?  My buddy that hosted the Bears watching last night, hosts a web site that is basically his forum to rag on all things Rex.  He seemed almost more upset that the Bears won with Rex, than losing with Brian.  Even after the game was over, people were making comments about Rex.  Talk about a tough crowd.  I just don't get it.

Go see this movie

Control

It's the story about Ian Curtis the singer of Joy Division who killed himself on the eve of Joy Divisions US tour back in 1980.  I really liked the film on a lot of levels.  It was shot in black and white, which really emphasized the bleak nature of the subject matter.  I left the movie theater both sympathizing with him and really angry with him.  Mostly angry, but I would imagine that is how someone might feel towards an individual who takes his life.

Anyway, I think it is a good movie to see whether you are a fan of Joy Division (or New Order for that matter.)  Not uplifting at all, but not oppressively depressing either.  Not all that thought provoking, just a peek into the life of a man who was on the road to success and stopped it and his life before it really got going.  Beautifully shot, a little sad, a very good movie.