22 July 2005

Treading Water

I won't start with bad beat stories. Suffice it to say I had pocket aces four times in two hours: won the blinds twice, then lost $150 twice. Got down to where I could see the felt, built back up to +350, then worked my way down, giving away $140 on the last hand. Three diamonds on flop (raised with KdJs UTG), Jd was highest on board, immediate left raised my flop bet, I re-raised. Diamond on turn made his ace, and I check called to the river. Losing so many monster hands was particularly brutal. I've been able to significantly change my online game, getting in the 17-22% hands played, so these solid hands need to hold up. Getting rivered should help me in the long run, getting paid off by the chasers, but the short term fluctuations don't help matters. Up $57 for the session, which I would call a disappointment (one big bet per hour).

Final poker note: going on tilt for laying down hands pre-flop. Dealt KJo in middle position, raise to me, I fold, button re-raises. Flop is KJJ. Button has AA, early raiser has KQ. KJo is a marginal hand for me, and I'll play it suited probably three times more than I will play its offsuit variations. It normally is a hand that can just cause leakage or get you into trouble, similar to A8, QTs, etc. Suffice it to say I picked the wrong time to lay it down...

4 Comments:

Blogger Scott Cunningham said...

A few thoughts. The polarization of the country isn't new. It's part and parcel of democracies as far as I can tell, and is definitely nothing new with Bush. Political theory predicts, in various "median voter" models, that politicians will move towards the middle to capture votes. In equilbrium, this would suggest a divided country - divided, at the very least, by political interest. But polarization is nothing new with the 21st century; it's as old as democracy itself, so Bush shouldn't be faulted. Particularly since the last election shows that a majority favored him.

Second, let me get this straight. You're anti-war, but think we should be imposing martial law in Iraq? Don't you think this is a bit contradictory? It's not clear to me why you think you're qualified (seriously) to be prescribing "solutions" to things like this. It's not your area of expertise, nor have I ever known you to have done even rudimentary study in Middle Eastern issues (contemporary or otherwise), or in wartime strategy.

But thirdly, why do you call it a quagmire, just out of curiousity? That's a common enough term thrown around by liberals, but I don't at all see things this way. We're at war. War is hell. We're not "stuck" in any sense; we're trying to build the insitutitons of democracy in an area while routing out insurgents.

As for conscription, Bush has repeatedly said he does not and will not support the draft. Interestingly, the only time I have ever heard anyone throw conscription out there, it's been Democrats or liberals more generally. And the reason they offer it is that they think Republicans would be far less likely to promote this war if there was some chance they or someone they know could be drafted. In other words, they promote it as a form of revenge on Republicans, and throw it out there for scaremongering tactics.

People who study this and are cognizant of the intricacies of this war (read Christopher Hitchens, for instance) do not see this as an unneccessary conflict, nor do they see it as a quagmire. Good grief - the Iraqi people had their first democratic election this year, with record turnout. Insurgents are being killed and imprisoned, as are bin Laden's henchmen.

And I don't really see the connection between importing British television shows and the 7/7 attacks. Why do you think we've not seen more attacks since 9/11? You don't think it's because the adminstration has so aggressively pursued homeland security and wiping out terrorist networks and putting pressure on rogue states overseas? Overthrowing Iraq has literally scared the crap out of all these fascist dictators. Do you think it was just a coincidence that in December 2003, Muammar Qaddafi announced that he would dismantle his weapons-of-mass-destruction programs? The "shock and awe" of Iraq did as much to shock and awe those outside of Iraq who were threats to us as it did Saddam's armies.

9:38 AM  
Blogger cc said...

So much for getting folks to the site...

OK, the reply:

>> I'll start with the second. You are right in that it is contradictory. I never felt the US should invade Iraq. We have, so I think we need to treat this place like it is: a conquered territory. Our citizens are being killed or are in significant danger, some individuals I saw as recently as a week ago, so by martial law I mean just what you would do in a time of war. We should never have been there, but we are. Timetables and PR imagery have no place for the task at hand, which I think first and foremost should be keeping our citizens safe.

>> Regarding the term quagmire, I think of it like quicksand which I associate the word quagmire with. I can't see a vision of how this turns out well for us specifically in the Middle East, as well as in the world in general. I think there is a real risk that when the troops leave, the nation reverts to either a Lebanon, a Russia, or an Iran. I would think the first two are the most likely.

>> Regarding conscription, I think about my boys alot. Recruitment of armed forces are in decline, and the reserves and Guard will never be the same again. I don't particularly care about the next decade except for how it shapes my boys' lives, so that is what I mean by conscription.

>> Regarding the connection of British television and the terror events in London, I simply meant I hope what we're seeing there isn't a foreshadowing of what our lives here will be like over the next ten years. If my language didn't get there, then my apologies.

Regarding my beliefs in general: I hope I am able to craft them with my own values, experiences, and intellect. I don't watch the news, I read the AJC, Wall Street Journal, weekend NY Times once every six weeks (never have time to actually read it other than the Sports pages), and Yahoo news.

Gotta run, but good lively post.

2:29 PM  
Blogger Scott Cunningham said...

>> I'll start with the second. You are right in that it is contradictory. I never felt the US should invade Iraq. We have, so I think we need to treat this place like it is: a conquered territory.

To something you say later in your post - of course, it is your every right to say on your blog whatever you want. But I want to know why you think you are qualified to prescribe wartime strategy. That is, why do you have so much confidence about your judgment that martial law is an appropriate response to the conflict? You have not examined any of the relevant materials that would enable you to make such a judgment, nor do you have any training, yet you are able to casually play armchair general. Don't you find that just a wee bit odd? I, personally, do. The fact that you're advocating martial law, simply because we need to treat Iraq like "a conquered territory" is absurd on the face of it. It's not a conquered territory. It's the the United States, as well as the rest of our allies, to see an autonomous, stable, democratic Iraq. Why should martial law (a) further that goal, and (b) protect our soldiers anymore than the current approach?

In fact, this could easily flame up and do the opposite, helping to increase terrorist recruitment rather than decrease it. One of the common themese in terrorist firm's, as they hire terrorists, is that the US is an imperialist - and here you are actually advocating for that very thing. For someone who is opposed to our presence there, you're expressing it in a rather odd way.

But I do think I am posing a relevant question by asking you why you think reading six newspapers everyday somehow makes you qualified to pass judgment on the propriety of this war, or the current campaign's execution. I read from a dozen or more newspapers everyday, yet I don't pretend to know how to fly an airplane. And if I began to criticize someone flying an airplane, it'd be a legitimate question for someone to ask me what special insight I possess that informs those criticisms. In your case, and not to be rude, I don't see anything in your past that would lead me to believe you are competent to judge these matters. You're welcome to have opinions, but blogs are public spaces and if you're going to post opinions, you have to be prepared to provide answers.

Our citizens are being killed or are in significant danger, some individuals I saw as recently as a week ago, so by martial law I mean just what you would do in a time of war. We should never have been there, but we are. Timetables and PR imagery have no place for the task at hand, which I think first and foremost should be keeping our citizens safe.

Soldiers have been killed, yes, but you are aware that it is a fraction relative to the number of casualites in previous US wars. From a historical perspective, while each and every soldier who dies for his country is tragic, this war has definitely been on the light-side. And one reason for this, in my opinion (speaking as an economist) is that this war is being fought with volunteer armies. Volunteers are scarce in a way that conscripted armies are not. Because they're scarce, the US has chosen to substitute towards more capital-intensive fighting - using non-human machinery, in other words, to fight.

I understand that you're concerned about your children's future. I am, too. That's partly why I do support this war. I also care about the Iraqi children who because of the US's intervention actually have a future to look forward to. In their previous life, they had the prospect of being raped, plundered and murdered by a crazy dictator. Who is going to look out for them? A fight against terrorism and an international promotion of liberty, rule of law, and democracy is identical to promoting the end of poverty, in many important ways. This is something that is overlooked (amazingly) in many critics' words.

4:24 PM  
Blogger 伊凡姐姐 said...

酒店喝酒

酒店消費

喝花酒

粉味

酒店經紀



酒店經紀

酒店經紀

酒店經紀茵悅

酒店經紀

酒店經紀

酒店經紀

酒店經紀

酒店經紀


酒店經紀

酒店經紀茵悅

台北酒店經紀

台北酒店經紀人

酒店打工

寒假打工

1:51 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

FREE counter and Web statistics from sitetracker.com