Slav’s blog

This is the last word focusing on Kyle being the Bears Quarterback.

Bottom line is Kyle is doing as good of a job or better than what the Bears need right now.  I like Rex and I think Rex is going ot be a good QB in the league, but Kyle has done the deed and deserves to continue as the Bears QB.  The last two games for Kyle have been pretty good.  Kyle was really good against the Lions, but it was against the Lions so take that with a grain of salt.  Against the Falcons Kyle was good.  He engineered a drive that should have been the winning drive in the final minutes of the game, were it not for a banged up secondary and a blown coverage on the sidelines with 6 seconds to go, it would have been the game winnning drive.  But alas it was not meant to be.

Kyles strengths so far this year have been his pocket presence and not turningthe ball over a lot.  His weaknesses have been throwing the long ball with any consistency.  This fact alone makes me feel that Orton is not going ot be a premeir QB in the NFL.  But he looks like a QB that can win in this league as long as the defense is sound and the running game is sound.  So far this year the Bears defense has been inconsistent and sloppy, the running game is good enough to cause teams to scheme to stop it, and as long as Orotn continues to develope as a passer, and make the plays that are there to be made, he will win more often than not.  My biggestconcern about Orton was the ability to produce at the end of the game with the game on the line.  He has done so twice this year, and looked good doing it.  As long as he doesn't take a step back, I am on board with Kyle running this team. 

Now, anybody got a cornerback that the Bears could borrow?

So we reach the end of the first quarter of the Bears football season and what have we learned about them?

1. The defense can be as dominant as ever and at the same time they can be just as disinterested.
2. Matt Forte looks like a real NFL running back.
3. The Bears O-Line wasn't' as bad as last year suggests and not as good as it was in previous years
4. Kyle Orton is still a work in progress.

Kyle Orton has shown some flashes of brilliance among his inconsistencies so far this year.  But he hasn't put it all together yet.  In the last game against the Eagles he gravitated from looking horrible to looking great.  He threw 3 TD's, with 2 INT's and two fumbles lost.  In the second half he and the Bears offense could do next to nothing.  Credit a good Eagles defense, best in the NFL at stopping the run, but Kyle made some bad decisions too.

Bottom line is that Kyle has shown potential to be a decent QB in this league, but hasn't shown a lot of ability to make plays that win games.  When he has to make a play, he hasn't yet.  He might, so far no.  He is supposed to protect the ball, and he has sort of.  But in at least one game, you could point to one of his interceptions as a major factor in the Bears losing.  He is good enough to keep the job, but he hasn't benn  all that great. 

The fun part for me is watching my friends who were so anti-Rex try and goad me every time Kyle does something well.  "Rex can't do that!" they say, smugly.  And when Orton overthrows a receiver or throws a pick that is returned for a TF or fumbles the ball away, I stay quiet, and notice their silence.  I'm not saying Kyle is worse than Rex was or that Rex was better, but given the same criteria that had peopel calling for Rex to be exiled to Siberia, I don't see Kyle doing anything better than Rex did.  So why not call for Kyle's head like Rex's?  To which O get no intelligble reply.  Oh well.

Kyle is our quarterback and I hope he improves.  I see signs that he may, and maybe the Bears receivers will not let him down when he does have a chance to make a play.  But it's not going to be a pretty year for the Bears, and I wonder if and when the Rex haters turn on Kyle and call for Caleb to "be our QB."  If the Bears lose to Green Bay and Orton has a bad game, my guess is that is when it will start.

So the Bears have a 10 point lead in the final 6 minutes of the game and can't hold on only to lose in overtime to a not so good Tampa Bay Bucs team.  Where to start.  I'll start with the Bears defense that looked pretty porous in the 4th quarter yesterday.  Ex bear Brian Griese threw the ball 67 times yesterday and the Bears defense managed 0 sacks. 

Z E R O sacks.

This is not acceptable for a team that paid as much money to keep so many players on the defense.  There was little to no pressure on the Bucs QB all game.  The only time pressure came was on stunts and blitzes.  That will happen in a game sometimes, coaches need to adjust and call different plays when what you wanted to do from the beginning does not work.  The Bears D-Line is designed to create pressure without the need of blitzes and stunts and the like, but when that doesn't work, you have to adjust.  The Bears did that early in the game with added pressure from the linebackers, the safeties and the corners.  And it worked.  Late in the game however, they played "prevent defense" and in turn the Bucs marched down field without much resistance.  A costly and stupid penalty by Peanut Tillman (who had a stellar game up to that point) gave the Bucs a new life in OT and the rest of the Bears defense responded like cheap lawn furniture.  Ball game.

The Bears defense should have been fresh in the second half.  The Bears offense controlled the clock much of the game and really held on to the ball in the second half.  Not sure what this awesome Bears defense had to complain about.  Bottom line is that they did not get the job done in the second half.  Period.  A ten point lead is something that a Bears defense should be able to protect.  A team that took the ball away four times in the game up to that point has to be licking their chops waiting for the ball to be thrown up in the air because you know they are not going to be running the ball.  Where was the big stop?  Where was the big sack?  Where was the turnover that should have and could have sealed the game?  Big time defenses make those plays when the game is on the line.  This is not a big time defense.  Two games the Bears could have won that they didn't, and in this one the Bears defense simply didn't get it done.

Special teams was OK today.  Danieal Manning and Nathan Vasher were adequate if not spectacular in filling inn for an injured Devin Hestor.  Brad Maynard had a very good day pinning the ball inside the 10 in OT that should have given the Bears a great chance to stuff the Bucs and take over around midfield. Talk to Peanut and the rest of the bears D on how that worked out.  Gould missed a long field goal (49 yards?) that might have been the difference in the game, but otherwise had a very nice day hitting two 40+ yard field goals along with a chip shot and his kickoffs were good as well.  But that 49 yarder would have been nice to get.  A missed field goal and an illegal block in the back penalty that called back a nice run on a Bears return put a blemish on what was otherwise a very good day for special teams.

Which brings us to Kyle and the Bears JV offense.  Kyle had a horrible first half and a great second half.  Or so it seems at first glance, but when looking closer at the second half stats it took a couple of acrobatic plays by Brandon Lloyd to bail out some shaky throws by Kyle.  Lloyd made the play and as a result Kyle looked good.  Makes we wonder why Lloyd isn't getting the majority of looks as a receiver for the bears because no one else is jumping up demanding the ball on offense (with the exception of Matt Forte, but more on him later.)

Orton looked awful in the first half.  When he needed to make a play he couldn't and his ill advised pass attempt that turned into interception that was returned for a TD was reminiscent of a certain QB that took this team to a Super Bowl but now is relegated to the bench.  Kyle looked good on the short passes and more than a little shaky on the long passes.  The Bears were not able to establish a dominant running game early, so they incorporated a little swing pass to the RB coming out of the back field that was good for 4-9 yards a pop.  I love this wrinkle in the Bears offense as that pass to the RB is just as effective as a run.  It eats up the clock and moves the ball.  To me that pass is more part of the running game than the passing game.  Having a RB that can run and catch the ball is a great weapon to have on offense.  He reminds me a lot of Brian Westbrook of Philly.  A smallish back who can run the ball inside, outside and is effective at passing those short swing passes or screens or can take a linebacker deep and create a mismatch.  Matt Forte is the lone bright spot for this Bears offense.  Brandon Lloyd is getting close to being a bright spot, but show me this kind of production three games in a row like Fort has and then we'll anoint you the next best thing...

But back to Orton and his problems.  Using the same criteria that the Rex haters haters have used on judging Rex's performance, I see a lot of negatives.  But first the positives.  Kyle does have a better pocket presence than Rex has shown.  Kyle can step up in the pocket and scramble more ably than Rex.  Kyle throws the short pass better than Rex, and the majority of his passes have been the short outs and swing passes in the flat as a result his overall accuracy seems better, but his effectiveness at moving the offense down field has been spotty at best because he can't consistently get big chunks of yards to move the offense.  That's about it when it comes to what Kyle does better than Rex so far.  Once the pass attempts get longer than 10 yards, Orton's accuracy is simply not there.  He hit Brandon Lloyd with a pass that Lloyd made a great play to catch, however the pass was so high and close to the sidelines that it was all Lloyd could do to make the catch and keep his feet in bounds before having his momentum take him out of bounds.  Lloyd was W I D E open on the play and could have easily got more yards after the catch if he is hit in stride.  And if Lloyd can make a move on a defensive back he is looking at a possible TD there.

On the first interception Orton threw, my man Matt Forte had his defender beat by at least a couple of steps, but he had to stop and go back for the ball.  Forte made a great adjustment on an under thrown ball and if not for a great or lucky play by the defender, who blindly stuck his hand out to break up the pass, it would have been a TD.  However, had Orton thrown the ball accurately in the first place, the defender doesn't have that chance because Forte had him beat by at least two steps.

On the great come drives in the second half, Orton threw the ball consistently inaccurate requiring the receivers to make great plays.  Lloyd had to literally jump over a defender and reach behind his own head to make a catch on a ball that Orton again under threw.

On one of the few passes that Orton did manage to throw right on target, Rashied Davis lets the ball go through his hands which brings us to my final point on the Bears offense.  They do not have NFL caliber wider receivers to catch the ball.  It's hard for a QB any QB to make plays consistently when the guys who are making the plays can't consistently make the routine ones.  This problem has been around for a while on this team.  Brandon Lloyd is making a case that he is a legitimate receiver in this league, let's see if he can repeat his success next week.

I wonder which is easier to do for a QB, develop pocket presence or accurately throw the deep pass?  This seems to be the problem with our two QB's.  One is apparently too short and doesn't move around the pocket well, while the other is comfortable with handling the pressure in the pocket but can't hit a pass over 10 yards with any real consistency.  Right now the Bears are banking on the latter, I have my doubts, but we shall see what we shall see.

The Bears have left too many plays on the field the last two games.  Plays that could have been made that weren't.  On offense, on defense and on special teams, the Bears are simply not executing consistently enough to be considered a serious team.  If a player can't make the plays that are there to be made, then find someone else who can.  How long are we going to wait on a team that can't execute a play when it matters? Kyle?  Rashied Davis?  Greg Olsen?  The entire Bears Defensive line?  When do you decide that this is for real and you will make the plays in front of you?

The Bears are 1-2 and should be at least 2-1 and very realistically could be 3-0.  What I see is a team that is either woefully overrated or one that is afraid to be successful.  What I see is a QB who is trying to elevate his game to the next level and hitting some growing pains along the way.  How fast can he "Grow u" and make the plays that the big boys make?  Orton tried to make some big plays and he got burned early and bailed out by Lloyd late.  He did a great job not letting his poor start affect his finish.  I see that as a big plus in his development.  The next phase is to start hitting some receivers in stride on deep passes.  If he can't do that consistently, this offense will never be better than 1 or maybe 2 TD's a game.  Make the plays, score some points.  Throw the ball, catch the ball, run the ball.  Make the damn plays that are there to be made.

So game two came and went for the Bears and this time they lost the game after having it seemingly won.  This was a tale of two halves for the Bears.  The first half was the Bears special teams making plays, blocking a punt and returning it for a score.  It was the bears moving the ball and controlling the clock on offense.  It was about a dominating defense that stopped the Panthers when they weren't stopping themselves with stupid penalties that a good team doesn't make at home.  It was a game that a Bears team full of question marks could not afford to drop.

This game showcased what it means to have Kyle Orton at Quarterback for the Bears.  A guy who won't make a lot of mistakes that will hurt the team, but can't or won't make the plays to help this team.  It didn't help Orton that Greg Olsen fumbled the ball twice (forced fumbles by a certain Chris Harris that the Bears felt couldn't play for them l, he sure looked good in a Panthers uniform.  But that is a thought for another day...)

Orton didn't play bad except when it mattered that he does not play bad.  He overthrew Marty Booker who beat the defender by three steps at least.  A NFL quarterback makes that throw.  The Bears receivers do not get that open that often that you can afford to not make a play like that when it is there to be made.  Orton was really good at the short passes until it really mattered that he was good at the short passes.  He under threw Rashied Davis for a first down in the last drive.  He under threw a pass that went about 6 yards.  Not.  Good.

Then an ill advised play call that was a screen pass to Marty booker at the line of scrimmage that was read and broken up and almost intercepted.  Again, probably not Orton's fault, because it was a bone headed call from the coaches, but Orton did not get it done when it mattered.

Last week I said that Orton looks good when the Bears have the lead, with this defense a "game manager" might be enough, but what happens when the Bears need him to lead the team on a drive to win or tie the game?  We saw what happens this week, he for various reasons did not make it happen,  The Panthers were very beatable this game, and the Bears let them off the hook on this day.  A game where Kyle needed to make a play that mattered more than not make a mistake that mattered, he couldn't do it.  I hope that Kyle learns from this and improves.  I hope that this isn't the peak of Kyle's progression as an NFL quarterback.  It's not enough to just "take shots" down field, they have to connect on those shots down field.  Sometimes a QB has to step up and make a play, and there were plenty of plays to be made in the second half for the Bears, and Kyle did not make them. 

Bottom line is that the Bears had a chance to put the game out of reach early and didn't.  The Panthers mistakes and the dominating defense kept covering up the fact that this offense has had several opportunities that it could not convert and it cost them a win.  Kyle "won" the QB battle, the Bears O-Line has done a lot better than anyone )including me) expected.  Matt Forte is looking like the real deal at running back.  The wide receivers are making plays that people thought they would not be making.  The one person who is not playing up to the level that he needs to be playing is Kyle Orton. He played good enough to ride the coat tails of his teammates last week.  He had a chance to bail out Greg Olsen this week and say, "It's OK Greg, I got this one."  But he couldn't do it.  I think Kyle showed a lot of promise in the first half and I wanted to see more of that in the second half, but he went into a shell and the Bears played not to lose and Kyle "managed" to fidn a way to lose a game that the Bears should have won.

Kyle and the Bears coaches need to learn from this game and they need to fix this now.  The Bears need to have the mentality on offense that they are supposed to win the games, not the defense.  The offense has scored 3 offensive TD's in two games.  Kyle has not thrown a TD pass yet this season.  This is not acceptable.  The Bears defense is very good this year, but not good enough to have the offense only score a TD and a half each game.  Bottom line is that the Bears have a running game that is for real.  The O-Line is better than expected.  The receivers are serviceable.  So far this year the QB play on offense has been sub-par, not because the QB makes too many mistakes, but because the QB hasn't been able to make the play that matters when it matters.  I would rather lose a game with a QB trying to make something happen then lose a game because you were afraid to make a mistake while trying ot make a play.  Kyle is going to lose this job if continues to play like he is afraid they will take it away if he makes a mistake. 

Kyle is playing afraid to fail instead of playing expecting to succeed.  Play to win, do not play to not lose.  The BEars played not to lose and could not make a play to win. 

What happened last night?  The Bears were supposed to fold like cheap lawnchairs.  The defense whas non exitant in the pre-season, the offense looked worse, it was supposed to be the men smacking the little bears around, so what the hell happened?

The Bears found a running game is what happened.  The Bears defense is what happend.  Peyton Manning was playing after recovering form knee surgery is what happened.  The Colts had two rookies playing in their O-Line is what happened.  What happened was that for the Colts, this was like a pre-season game, getting Manning up to speed and they played like it.  What happened is that the Bears took this seriously, like thefirst game of the season and played like it.

Kyle Orton was a non-factor in the game, and that is by design apparently.  The Bears apparently would rather have a QB who won't take a risk becaue the defense is so good, than have a QB who can make plays and take chances because of the risk of turnovers.  Kyle was efficient and effective, but totally underwhelming in his debut, compiling only 150 yards passing on a day when the Colts could do nothing consistent on offense.  Kyle relied on the new sensation at running back called Matt Forte.  This is what a running back should look like.  That 50 yard run on a 3rd and 6 draw play (did I hear everyone groan?) was pretty impressive and not seen in these parts since Adrian Petterson (the real AP) came into town from MN.

I don't mean to belittle what Kyle did at QB for the Bears, he did pretty much what everyone expected him to do.  Play a completely bland and boring QB.  The most exciting thing I saw him do was a nifty little dink screen to Matt Forte on a third and short.  And the niftyniess of the play had nothing to do with Kyle, it was forte selling the pass blocking and then turning around to receive the little Brett Favre-esqu dink pass from Kyle for a short pickup good for the first down.  Kyle ran for a big pickup and tried to get the first down without the QB slide, but was held short.  What impressed me as well as scared me was his willingness to take the contact for while trying ot get a first down.  that could have been a play where he gets his clock rung and (gasp!) Rex comes in while Kyle is attended to with smelling salts.  It was a nice display to the fans that Kyle isn't afraid to take a hit for the team, but I bet the coaches were on the sidelines saying, "Great Play Kyle!  Don't fucking do that again!"  His long passes were off target but his short passes were pretty effective.  He threw to seven different receivers, which was a nice distribution of passes, but I think his longest pass was 29 yards.  Not horrible, but you would like to see himm stretch the field a little more, especially since teams are going to gang up against the run now that the Bears proved they could "get off the bus running."

My prediction for the Bears this year after watching this defense and offense play is that they will get somewhere between 9 and 11 wins.  Probably good enough to win the division and then be a one and done in the playoffs.  As impressive as the defense was, this offense needs to do more than it has in week one for this team to succeed in the playoffs.  Kyle looks like a great QB when the Bears are not down by any more than 3 points during the game and leading most of it.  But what happens when the Bears are down 21-10, or 13-3 going into the final quarter?  What will he do then?  We shall see what happens if that situation ever arises, but so far I haven't seen much of a progression from Kyle.  Let's talk again after week 4 and see what Kyle has done then.

Enough about Kyle, because this day belonged to rookie Matt Forte.  His line for the day:  23 attempts, 123 yards, 1 TD. 5.3 yards per carry with a rush of 50 yards.  This is a stud line for a running back in the NFL, this is all-pro stuff.  This on an O-Line that is supposed to have one foot in the grave and another on a bannana peel.  This O-Line invokes dread in it's own team, not the opposition.  Yet with this O-Line, the Bears had a rookie 2nd round pick find a hole a truck could drive through and then make a move to cause a missed tackle, and find that gear to take it all the way for a score.  Pretty impressive.  If you look at his line without that 50 yard run, his stats become a little more pedestrian.  22 atemps, 73 yards for a 3.3 yards per carry.  Having a guy be able to break one for a huge gain opens up the field for everyone else on offense.  The colts shut down Forte a bit in the second half, because the Bears didn't need to throw the ball, they needed to protect the lead and control the clock, so his yards per carry took a hit when he ran the ball when everyone expected it, but it was a fantastic display of running from the rookie.

So what do the Bears do with this kid who can run and a QB who they are afraid to let throw?  If it goes like I think it will go, the Bears will be good enough to win the division and lose their first game in the playoffs.  They need to test Kyles ability to lead a team to a score.  I liked what I saw with the no-huddle to combat the noise, I liked What I saw in Matt Forte making people miss him as he sped by them.  I would have liked one less field goal and one more TD on offense.  I want teams to fear the Bears on both sides of the ball.  They already fear them on Special teams, and are begining to fear them on defense again.  Now we have to see Orton be able to move this offense when teams stack 8 in the box to stop Matt from breaking one open.  Once that happens (If that happens) I'll jump way on board the Kyle bandwagon.  For now, let's say I'm at the bus stop not sure if I want to get on that wagon.  Getting a team to the playoffs is one thing, getting them to win in the playoffs is another.  This team under Kyle looked good yesterday, poised and efficient.  Now I want them to raise the pressure a little more, and get teams to worry about blitzing Kyle because he will hurt them if they do.  I liked that the Bears threw to 7 different receivers, but I want them to worry about Forte, and Hester and Lloyd and  Olsen at the same time.  I want the Bears to move those chains in small chunks and in big ones so that the defense on the other side won't know who to cover more.  I want the team to go for the big play at least once a drive, not once a half and still move the chains if they miss it.  Big task, but if Kyle is going to be the QB that the Bears want and need, that is what he is going to have to do.  He has to do more than 150 yards.  I'll take an occasional interception if it means the Bears are taking more risks to put points on the board.  The defense will be able to handle the occasional miscue if the offense scores more points.

I liked what I saw in Orton, it was a very good start.  But he needs to kick it up a notch if the Bears are going to be a serious team to contend with.  Matt Forte can be the real deal that gives Kyle some protection (something that NO Bear QB had last year with Ced...) he has a talented group of Tight Ends and some serviceable receivers.  But he has to get more out of them.  He needs to be getting around 220+ yards passing a game.  He has to be comfortable taking the team down field when they need a score to win or tie.

The bottom line on Orton is I see a QB who won't hurt the team, he won't lose many games, but can he win some games?  We'll see, it was a great start.

So I have a funny story to tell about how I inderectly tormented my good friend about seeing a play she was performing in.  Here is the backdrop.

So my friend R is one of the people that has been involved in our weekly Pub Trivia addiction known as Quizzo.  But the last few weeks she has been unable to participate in Quizzo because of her work in the play.  SHe is one of the creative directors over at WNEP theater here in Chicago and she really really liked this play and was very excited at being cast in it.  She mentioned that for the next few weeks she needs to cut back on her trivia participation and concentrate on this play, and it was fine for us trivia players because everyone was a little burned out after our trip in the RF to Atlantic city.

So she makes a comment about how I should go see the play, something about how I need some "culture."  And in a particlarly flippant moment on my part, I respond something to the effect of "If I need more culture in my life, I'll eat yogurt."  In my head I was thinking of how busy I am and that with everything going on I really didn't think I would have a lot of time to go see the play, but my comment came out like a gauntlet being thrown to the ground.  Well, R picked that gauntlet right up and pointed it at me and said.  "Oh, you are going to go see this play."

This kind of banter went on for a while.  My girlfriend ended up going to see it on a night where I was really busy and couldn't make it and I thought, that was that.  But no.  THe next time I run into R she is "wondering" when I will see this play.  Over the next couple of weeks she gravitates between impassioned pleas about how much it would mean to her for me to see the play because "Your sister was the one who got me into acting and it is so much a part of my life that you really need to come and see me perform since it is the first time in years that I ahve ben infront of the stage..."  To threats of bodily harm (something involving my junk being detatched and forcibly shoved down my throat if I don't make it out to see the play...)

Initially I was really non-plussed at the idea of seeing the play, I do enjoy live theater and I am almost never disappointed when I see a show that R recommends.  But seeing theater requires an active attention and I honestly was feelign extremely burned out and not wanting to be around people that I knew, much less be required to pay attention and think about what I was seeing.  But she was on a mission to get my ass in a chair at the theater to witness this play.  When I realized just how much of a mission she was on to go see this play, I decided that I wanted to see how far she would go and how much I could push it.

So at this point I was thinking, well yeah I probably could go see the play, but now it had become almost as entertaining to see what lengths R would go to get me to see the play.  But I was having so much fun with her quest that I was totally like, "NO, I'm not going.  Period.  End of Line."

At this point my girfriend (who was quoted in the tribune, not relevant to this story, just cool that she was interviewed and then printed in the paper...) started to get involved and let out how R was ranting to her and her freinds about how I wasn't going to go see the play.  Apparently I had gone too far, she was becomming unhinged I feared.  So I relented and decided to buy a ticket ot see the play.  But I wasn't going to tell her that I capitulated.  I wanted to see if she was going to spontaneously combust out of pure frustration.

So Yesterday I finally made it out to see the play, this is the last week and it won't be extended.

It was  f a n t a s t i c. 

Seriously I thought it was fucking awesome.  It was a DADA styled play and that was the first time I had seen such a beast, and it really was a lot of fun.  Intelligent, very funny, relevant, and very thoughtful or rather thought provoking.  A very very enjoyable way to spend the evening.

So the moral of the story is that while it was a lot of fun making R squirm, it was more fun to go see the damn play. 

So go see it you have two days.

METALUNA AND THE AMAZING SCIENCE OF THE MIND REVUE

Been a loooong time since I posted a new entry here.  Let's jsut say that my employer has been increasing the number of sites that are blocked by our firewall to prevent the kind of slacking that allowed me to be a more prolific poster.  One side effect is that any time I am researching a technical problem, almost all of the sites that have some kind of solution to the problem I am researching are blocked.  The other side effect is that I don't post as much because when I get home from work I have too much to do and not enough time to do it.  Well I found a work around at work, and now I am going to post something.

What's been going on since my last blog?  Well lot's actually.  A bunch of us have been playing Quizzo at the Celtic Crown in Chicago on Wednesday nights and I managed to convince most of them that it would be a good idea for us to compete in the championship held in Atlantic City, and it would be even more fun if we rented an RV and drove there instead of flying.  Well it was a lot of fun, so much fun that I think we all agreed never to attempt something like this again...  We plan on having a big party in a few weeks to rehash all the stories for those who did not make it out there.  It was a lot of fun, but one thing I did learn from the trip is that if you have no specific reason to go to Atlantic City, there is really no need to go there at all.  Anything you can do in AC, you can do in Vegas, and it's nicer and cleaner with a lot more options.  So unless you are planning to compete in a World Poker Tour event at the Borgatta, stay at home or go to Vegas instead.  'nuff said.

What else has been going on?  Oh yeah, the Cubs have been in First place since like forever this year.  Just when it seems like they are going ot do their traditional swoon, someone on the team picks them up and staves of the advances of the Brew Crew or the hated Red Birds.  Last week in Milwaukee was a great example of that.  The Cubs have not been a great team on the road, and they just went through a two week long hitting slump where they have not been scoring a lot of runs.  They go on this 4 game swing up in Miller park, only to face CC Sabathia and Ben Sheets for the first two games of the series.  These are not the pitchers you want to be facing when you are in a hitting slump.  Turns out the Cubs outscored the Brewers something like 31-11 in the 4 game set.  Milwaukee was one game behind the Cubs in the standings before the series and ended up being 5 games behind afterwards.  I was trying to predict what would happen in the series before hand, and I honestly felt that whichever team won the first game was going to roll to a sweep.  My thinking as simply that the Brewers were playing some very impressive ball going into the series and the Cubs were not, the Brewers had lined up the pitching matchups FOR this series, the Cubs had not, the Cubs have been the toughest team in the National League this year and were in a mini slump coming from the All Star Break, while the Brewers were underachieveing most of the year until they pulled of a great trade to get Sabbathia at the beginning of July.  Lot's of weird and contradictory things were going ot be resolved between these two teams after this series.  But back to my prediction.  I really felt like everythign was riding on the first game of the series.  The Brewers lining things up to try and finally overtake the Cubs, and the Cubs trying to right the ship and go back to playing the kind of dominant baseball that got them 20 games over .500 before the All Star game.  If the Brewers could keep the Cubs bats quiet with the first two games (Sabathia and Sheets), I felt like that would have a numbiung effect on the Cubs.  It would break the aura of the big Cub machine that really took a strangle hold on the National leage before the All Star Game.  The Cubs looked like they were sleep walking after the All Star game, and if the Brewers pitching could keep them that way, I really felt like the Cubs would stay hypnotized.  But if the Cubs could out play them in the first game, it would break this spell that Sabathia had over the NL since the trade from Cleveland.  It would be a slap in the face and a wake up call for a team that has been a steam roller for most of the year and decided to take an ill timed nap after the all star game.  It just looked like the winner of the first game was going to walk away with a sweep.  Ted Lilly pitched one of the games of his life against Sabathia, and the Cubs took advantage of every break they got and really stole a game they might have lost.  Dempster and Zambrano and Harden then pitched some of the finest games I have seen and the Cubbies retake control of a division that they almost lost.  It was a thorough spanking they put on the Brewers.  After 100 years, I have no way of knowing if this is the year or not, but after that series, I decided that the Cubs Starting Rotation from 1-4 looks tougher than any rotation in the league.  Keep this jugernaut rolling.

I managed to find some time to play a little poker at one of those Rockford Charitable games things.  IT was out in Palatine or Arlington Heights, can't remember exactly, but man was that fun.  I haven't been playing a lot of poker lately as I might have mentined, I've been really busy lately.  But it was nice t oplay against complete strangers and after only a couple of games get that table feel right back.  I played 3 sit and go's that day.  A $50.00 a $25.00 and another $50.00.  The first game was tough, I was a little out of practice, and I hadn't played live in a venue like this in a while, so I didn't feel settled.  The first game I was not getting great hands and not playing a lot of hands and I decided to force the issue a little prematurely and I got knocked out pretty early.  I was 6th when I was knocked out.  I went out with an AQ -vs- A-10 and the guy sucked out on me hitting a 10.  I stepped into a %25 dollar table after that and I noticed a trend where people were going all in pre-flop in an unraised pot with the blinds only 25-50 or something rediculous like that.  A girl went all in with a KJ and was called by an AQ and was almost knocked out (She did this maneouver once before and won the blinds so she had a small and a big blind left over...)  I saw this other kid, he couldn't have been more than 18 ot 19 years old do this twice as well this time with people folding to him, and I decide that I will try and double up if I have a solid hand if someone tries this on me.  Well the kid tried it yet again, and I was sure he had a week ace or small pockets and I look down and see AK I decide to go all in as well.  He turns over pocket 8's.  I hit my Ace on the flop or Turn, I forget which, and he doesn't hit the miracle 8 and I double up early.  My intention was to try and take control of the table after this and play position and try and knock people around which worked for one or two hands, but the $25 dollar buy-in simply prevented anyone from being intimidated for long, and I found myself getting re-raised and I slowly pissed my chips away went all in AGAIN with AQ -vs- A10 and I hit my Queen, only to have it complet the straight for him...  K on the flop, Jack on the turn and the Queen on the river.  The idiot kept saying, give me a ten, give me a ten.  And I said after the turn, yeah give him the ten, give him the ten.  The lucky donk.  It seems that when I go all in with the A-10 I never suck out against a better hand, and I always lose to a lessor hand.  That hand simply does not work for me at all.  This time I was on the bad side of a suck out twice.  After that game I realized that I was giving my opponents more credit than they deserved.  I was treating them like I treat the guys I play with regularly, i.e. with respect.  After the first two games I recognized that they did not deserve that respect. I was trying ot decide if I should play for one more game or call it a night when I spotted a $50 table that needed one to fill up, so I sat down.  At this table I was really trying to pay more attention to how my opponents played than the hands I was getting.  I played pretty tight at first, a lof because I was getting crappy hands, but I noticed one guy who made a raise early was re-raised by one guy, and pushed all-in by another guy the first re-raiser then floded.  He called the All in without thinking about it, and I figured him for a big hand, AK, KK or AA, turns out he had QJ. The all in raiser had AK, and he hit one of his cards, but the QJ sucked out by filling up I think.  I don't remember the details of the hand except that the guy called a re-raise and an all in with nothing better than a QJ.  I wanted to play hands against him.  And I did, it was really fun to knock him out when I re-raised him with AK in the big blind.  He called and there was an A on the flop.  I check to him and he checks behind.  A blank comes on the river, and I decide I need to see how good my AK is so I bet a decent amount (a little less than the pot and he cold calls) a K comes on the river and I check, because I am sure that he is going to bet it out if I do, and I want to re-raise him all in with my top two pair.  So I check, he bets, I go all in he calls and turns over an A 4 off.  I turn over my two pair and take him out.  I didn't have many good hands after that, but I played my positions well.  I had pocket queens in later position and decided to raise one limper, it folded around and I won the small pot.  I had a really nice hand against a guy who was plying pretty well.  He limps in on the button, and I look at A J of diamons in the big blind.  I decide that he has a weak hand because it seems like a strange play to limp on the button.  I raise the pot, and he quickly calls.  Curiousor and curiousor.  Flop comes nine high rainbow, and I don't even think about it, I fire out a bet that is almost pot sized and he thinks about it and reluctantly folds.  My guess was he had a weak A, and was fishing and wished he folded to my pre-flop raise.  I won a few more pots and found myself the chip leader in a big way.  I knocked out a calling station.  She was a young girl, probably just out of high school that would call and check and fold almsot every time she was in teh pot.  She didn't play all that many pots, but she seemed like she had no feel for what a bet meant.  She kept bleeding money away, and I found myself in a few pots with her, where she would call a preflop raise and then ceck and fold to any post flop bets.  I won a few off of her and finally knocked her out when she was pot commetied with her blind and I had A4 suited (clubs I think) she called with KQo the flop comes with both a K and a Q but with two clubs as well, and when the third club hit on the river I knocked her out.  We are finally down to three handed and the two short stacks ask if we can make a deal where third place gets their money back, I readily agree despite haveing almsot a 3-1 chip advantage of the second stack.  I've been there too many times where I catch a couple of bad flops...  Anyway, I call an all in against the small stack.  I have pocket 10's he has AQ and he catches an Ace and he is right back in it.  He knocks the other guy out, and I find myself down 2-1 in chips.  The dealler asks if we want to chop the pot or play it out.  I ask him if he would agree to a chop and he says, absolutely, "You cut me a break when you agreed to third place when I was the small stack and you ahd a HUGE chip advantage."  I smilled and laughed at it, and we split the prizes evenly.  So I ended up winning about 50 bucks for the night after all was said and done, and to celebrate I went out with a buddy who met me there for some of the best sushi I have ever had in the Chicago Area.  Goos night all around.

Well that is about it for this post, I'll get caught up on some other things later in the week.  Just had to get back in the saddle and resurect this blog from the dead.

Later skaters

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.