It has been a day of ups and downs.
Early this morning (or I guess late last night), I gave Fishman three thirds of a beer in beeramid, and then was able to will him to call bullshit on me. I had the three twos, and he was stuck with two full beers to shotgun. Most spilled on his shirt, but the victory was mine nonetheless.
We also were able to relive the historic slowplay of three queens that Lacker pulled on Ben in AC. That story never gets old.
However, Fishman then got back at me by taking me down in high card.
This afternoon, I was absolutely elated to discover that the first episode of The Wire is now available on HBO on Demand. This was an extra critical find, because I will be in Cinnaminson this weekend. My Mom does not have HBO, so I would have had to wait a week or so before seeing the season premier. I won't give away anything from the first episode, but I was very happy with it.
Bringing me back down to earth, however, was an absolutely terrible beat that cost me a $47 pot on Pokerstars. I found pocket aces in the big blind, and raised it to 4x the blind. The small blind called, and the flop was K/2/2 rainbow. The small blind led out with a couple dollars, and I raised it. I hoped he had a king, and his call of my raise indicated to me exactly that. The turn was a blank, and I shoved the rest of my money into the pot. He called.
Unlike in tournament play, when a player is all in a cash game, he is not obligated to turn over his cards. Still, I knew I was goosed when the river flipped a king. His K/J, a 19-1 shot to beat me when the money went in on the turn, collected the pot.
Bad beat stories are usually of this pathetic nature, but this one actually has a point. It is to contrast how happy I was to find The Wire's Episode 51 on demand. I would say that losing that pot exactly offset how happy I became by finding that episode on demand. That speaks worlds to how great The Wire is. Best show on TV.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Movie Review: Juno
If you look at the movie reviews for Juno, you will see a ton of As, which means that at the least, critics really like the movie. The lowest grade is a B+, which is kind of incredible. You would think that this movie is going to be hilarious, tear-jerking, and provide some lesson on morality, all at the same time.
And in a way, it is. But if you were expecting a 9 or 10 in all of those categories, you would be wrong. You get a 6.
The movie is funny, sort of. It has its moments, mainly with the awkward interactions between Juno and the various people involved with her pregnancy. Juno is a bit of a bitch, and thus doles out a constant stream of one liners. Some of them work very well, but others miss completely.
Michael Cera is the father of the child, and his awkwardness seems a little bit forced. Juno's father (J.K. Simmons) does provide some intentional comedy with similar one-liners, and some very unintentional comedy for those who know Simmons better as Schillinger from Oz. I kept expecting him to order a hit or to promulgate some White Supremest propaganda, but unfortunately he did not.
The movie is also sad, sort of. There are some issues with the prospective parents, and also between Juno and Cera. These issues are fairly predictable and are resolved in similarly predictable ways. It did elicit some tears from Kim, but she cries during most movies, so I don't think thats a real good indicator.
Lastly, some critics say the movies skirts the whole pro-choice / pro-life issue that has to come up in a movie like this:
Director Jason Reitman and screenwriter Diablo Cody really don't give a hoot what you think about the right to life/right to choose/right to make jokes about teen sex. Their movie...leaves political debate at the ticket counter and focuses solely on what it's like for Juno MacGuff to be Juno MacGuff.
I disagree with this. The movie gives an incredibly peachy view of teen pregnancy. Juno's world involves:
1) Juno, who doesn't care about having a kid, giving away a kid, and is all for never seeing this kid again
2) Cera, who doesn't care about the kid either
3) Juno's parents, who don't care that she's having a kid
4) Cera's Mom, who doesn't like Juno but doesn't seem particularly fazed by this pregnancy
5) The prospective parents, who were relatively easy to find.
I may be biased because I am so wholly against teen pregnancy (and am pro-choice), but this seems to paint an ultra unrealistic view of having a kid when you are sixteen. And it is naive to say that this movie, in which the protagonist bears virtually no consequences of having a child as a sophomore in high school, doesn't make a statement regarding teen pregnancy and the whole abortion debate.
The movie is okay. I'd rate it a B or B-. It had its some enjoyable scenes, and wasn't really bad at all. But it seems like this may be the movie of the year that it is "cool" to like because it is quirky and has an unusual plot. There are probably better choices out there.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Kim is a big fan of reality TV shows. Thus, when quality programming such as basketball, Survivorman, or WWE are not on TV, the cable box is invariably turned to some god awful insult to human intelligence.
Some of the shows are "tolerable," and I mean that in the loosest way possible. For example, some of the shows actually have a point. In a show like The Inferno, two teams are competing for cash and prizes. In Flip This House and shows like it, individuals are trying to make a profit by renovating a run down piece of junk. In Cheaters, a woman or man uses the Cheaters PI team to investigate the always cheating significant other, usually resulting in hilarity. If Kim turns these shows on, its not the end of the world.
On the other hand, there are the shows that are painful to watch because they have no point whatsoever. A fine example of this is The Hills. Now, some of the girls on The Hills and its kin are hot, and if the point of these shows is to make these hot girls more famous, then okay. But these shows really seem to exist only to show the "relationships" of these random spoiled girls from California. And I again am being far too generous in the use of a term, in this case "relationships," since even though this is supposed to be reality, most of it is very scripted.
I recently was introduced to the worst show of the lot. Its called The Bad Girls Club, and men, if you ever even see a female stop on this show on the channel guide, you need to run away screaming as quickly as possible. Much like The Hills and its spinoffs, this show does not even try to pretend it has a point. However, instead of having reasonably hot girls in it, this show places seven or eight psychotic / severely damaged women in one house. The reason why? I have no idea. Look at the wikipedia entry and notice how even that description gives no information as to what the point of this social experiment is.
The gist of what I got from watching one episode is that the women are there to antagonize each other, and if any of them physically assaults any of the others, they are kicked out of the house. Thus, I assume it is some sort of "last woman standing" show where eventually everyone goes crazy and someone eventually gets stabbed to death. While that sounds okay, they don't actually do anything except yell at each other in incredibly annoying high-pitched voices. And even though some of the women are strippers, they would be the day shift weekday girls at best.
The real kicker concerning these shows is that they are always on in some form or incarnation. Kim thinks wrestling is on too much? Raw is on Monday, ECW (which I don't watch) is on Tuesday, and Smackdown is on Fridays. That is five hours of programming per week. On the other hand, at any time of the day, there are at least four reality shows on tv. For example, right now at 4 PM on a Friday afternoon, the following shows are on:
1) A Shot at Love with Tila Tequla
2) Bridezillas
3) The Bad Girls Club
4) Flip That House
And this isn't even counting what we are actually watching - Oprah interviewing some woman who tried to jump off a bridge to kill herself, wasn't even able to do that right, and then wrote a book about it.
We need a second TV in the worst way.
Some of the shows are "tolerable," and I mean that in the loosest way possible. For example, some of the shows actually have a point. In a show like The Inferno, two teams are competing for cash and prizes. In Flip This House and shows like it, individuals are trying to make a profit by renovating a run down piece of junk. In Cheaters, a woman or man uses the Cheaters PI team to investigate the always cheating significant other, usually resulting in hilarity. If Kim turns these shows on, its not the end of the world.
On the other hand, there are the shows that are painful to watch because they have no point whatsoever. A fine example of this is The Hills. Now, some of the girls on The Hills and its kin are hot, and if the point of these shows is to make these hot girls more famous, then okay. But these shows really seem to exist only to show the "relationships" of these random spoiled girls from California. And I again am being far too generous in the use of a term, in this case "relationships," since even though this is supposed to be reality, most of it is very scripted.
I recently was introduced to the worst show of the lot. Its called The Bad Girls Club, and men, if you ever even see a female stop on this show on the channel guide, you need to run away screaming as quickly as possible. Much like The Hills and its spinoffs, this show does not even try to pretend it has a point. However, instead of having reasonably hot girls in it, this show places seven or eight psychotic / severely damaged women in one house. The reason why? I have no idea. Look at the wikipedia entry and notice how even that description gives no information as to what the point of this social experiment is.
The gist of what I got from watching one episode is that the women are there to antagonize each other, and if any of them physically assaults any of the others, they are kicked out of the house. Thus, I assume it is some sort of "last woman standing" show where eventually everyone goes crazy and someone eventually gets stabbed to death. While that sounds okay, they don't actually do anything except yell at each other in incredibly annoying high-pitched voices. And even though some of the women are strippers, they would be the day shift weekday girls at best.
The real kicker concerning these shows is that they are always on in some form or incarnation. Kim thinks wrestling is on too much? Raw is on Monday, ECW (which I don't watch) is on Tuesday, and Smackdown is on Fridays. That is five hours of programming per week. On the other hand, at any time of the day, there are at least four reality shows on tv. For example, right now at 4 PM on a Friday afternoon, the following shows are on:
1) A Shot at Love with Tila Tequla
2) Bridezillas
3) The Bad Girls Club
4) Flip That House
And this isn't even counting what we are actually watching - Oprah interviewing some woman who tried to jump off a bridge to kill herself, wasn't even able to do that right, and then wrote a book about it.
We need a second TV in the worst way.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
We got Kim's nephew a Nintendo DS for Christmas, and that act had the fortunate side-effect of making his Game Boy largely obsolete (to him). Why was this fortunate? It meant that I could use his Game Boy Advance all day. While I was not interested in playing Pokemon, he did have a copy of Super Mario Brothers 3, which piqued my interest.
For those of you with poor memories, Super Mario Brothers 3 is one of the greatest games ever made. It came out for the Nintendo, whose heyday was in the late 80s and early 90s. The fact that the game still is playable 17 years later is a testament to its incredible design and solid gameplay.
The game appears to be your basic platformer, but there are numerous variations on the standard platformer action, with some levels that move on their own, forcing you to keep up. There are also a ton of puzzle levels, some being so difficult that you are virtually guaranteed to lose a few lives by running out of time (unless you recall, that you had to go through a certain door, hit a p-switch to reveal a hidden door, but then realize that you have to run past that hidden door to find another hidden door, which leads to the boss of the castle).
The enemies are also nice and varied. You have your standard koopas, goombas, and piranha plants, but you also have walking bombs, bullet bills that will take a u-turn at you, and little critters that will throw ice blocks at you. The bosses are not particularly difficult, but some battles become tense, as if you screw up and lose, you may have to do a particularly difficult airship level all over again.
I played the game for most of the day, and was amazed at how well it held up over time. I found it to be more enjoyable than numerous other games I've played in the last year, including Halo 3. If you have a Wii (SMB3 is available on the virtual console) or a DS or even a Game Boy, I highly recommend you get this game and take a stroll down memory lane.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Santa: Let's see who's been naughty, and who's been naughty! [He pushes a button and Clamps and Joey Mouse Pad appear on the screen, beating a man. The man screams in pain.] Mobsters beating up a shopkeeper for protection money. Very naughty! [He writes.] Shopkeeper's not paying their protection money. Exactly as naughty! - A Tale of Two Santas, Futurama Season 4.
Merry Xmas! (Even though you've been naughty)
Sunday, December 23, 2007
I was watching the NFL Network's showing of Dallas / Carolina last night when I realized something strange. I actually liked the commentators - Bryant Gumbel and Cris Collinsworth. Which is odd, because I almost always hate whatever commentators are calling an NFL game.
Reinforcing my positive attitude towards these commentators was something I found out this morning - if you google "nfl network commentators," you will find a ton of websites denouncing these commentators as "boring" and "having no chemistry." Given my general aversion to whatever the majority thinks, I thought more about why I liked last night's broadcast so much.
One reason was that they were actually critical of some of the players. In most NFL broadcasts, the commentators fall all over themselves to compliment players. The reason I think is simple - they need to keep those same players happy in order to get access to them for sideline interviews, post-game interviews, and whatever. If a player hears that the commentators were ragging on him the whole game, he may be reluctant to give that network and its reporters access. Furthermore, you just don't make a whole lot of friends if you're saying that a particular player sucks. The reward for being critical of a player is that you are being a solid commentator. The downside is that you could really hurt your career. The downsides clearly outweigh the upside, so you rarely see any disparaging comments.
The moment that stuck out to me the most was their description of Roy Williams. Gumble and Collinsworth had a little exchange where they talked about his one-game suspension, and then specifically brought up how none of his teammates came to his aid in the media. Fair enough; there are probably some other commentators who would do this, because everyone recognizes how dangerous the horse-collar is. But then one of them asked, "Are the Cowboys really worse off with him out of the lineup?" And the other replied, "Not at all." And then, "His coverage skills are suspect at best." I can't remember the last time I heard a play-by-play man and a color guy coming right out and saying a guy sucks.
Gumble and Collinsworth also (from what I recall) did not make much of the Cowboys going for it on 4th and 1 from the Carolina 24 in the first quarter. If you were watching this game on say Fox, you would have Siragusa or Buck saying that the call was either "a gamble," "risky," or "gutsy." A huge to do would be made of the decision to go for it, even though it is clearly the correct move. What did the NFL Network guys say about it? They said it was "smart" and left it at that. Perfect.
This could have been a one-game aberration, or maybe not even that, as I only watched the first half. But hopefully its not, and maybe its even a trend. My dream one day is that you'll have a statistical guy in the booth, basically denying anything said that is stupid. If a color guy said that Andy Reid calls too many pass plays, the stats guy can say - yup, just like the Patriots. If a play-by-play man ignored a punt on 4th and 2 from the opponent's 40 yard line, the stats guy could chime in and say what a terrible move it is. If Siragusa said a QB's job is to just win the game, the stats guy could cite Kyle Orton. He would be sarcastic, snarky, and belligerant. It would be great.
Reinforcing my positive attitude towards these commentators was something I found out this morning - if you google "nfl network commentators," you will find a ton of websites denouncing these commentators as "boring" and "having no chemistry." Given my general aversion to whatever the majority thinks, I thought more about why I liked last night's broadcast so much.
One reason was that they were actually critical of some of the players. In most NFL broadcasts, the commentators fall all over themselves to compliment players. The reason I think is simple - they need to keep those same players happy in order to get access to them for sideline interviews, post-game interviews, and whatever. If a player hears that the commentators were ragging on him the whole game, he may be reluctant to give that network and its reporters access. Furthermore, you just don't make a whole lot of friends if you're saying that a particular player sucks. The reward for being critical of a player is that you are being a solid commentator. The downside is that you could really hurt your career. The downsides clearly outweigh the upside, so you rarely see any disparaging comments.
The moment that stuck out to me the most was their description of Roy Williams. Gumble and Collinsworth had a little exchange where they talked about his one-game suspension, and then specifically brought up how none of his teammates came to his aid in the media. Fair enough; there are probably some other commentators who would do this, because everyone recognizes how dangerous the horse-collar is. But then one of them asked, "Are the Cowboys really worse off with him out of the lineup?" And the other replied, "Not at all." And then, "His coverage skills are suspect at best." I can't remember the last time I heard a play-by-play man and a color guy coming right out and saying a guy sucks.
Gumble and Collinsworth also (from what I recall) did not make much of the Cowboys going for it on 4th and 1 from the Carolina 24 in the first quarter. If you were watching this game on say Fox, you would have Siragusa or Buck saying that the call was either "a gamble," "risky," or "gutsy." A huge to do would be made of the decision to go for it, even though it is clearly the correct move. What did the NFL Network guys say about it? They said it was "smart" and left it at that. Perfect.
This could have been a one-game aberration, or maybe not even that, as I only watched the first half. But hopefully its not, and maybe its even a trend. My dream one day is that you'll have a statistical guy in the booth, basically denying anything said that is stupid. If a color guy said that Andy Reid calls too many pass plays, the stats guy can say - yup, just like the Patriots. If a play-by-play man ignored a punt on 4th and 2 from the opponent's 40 yard line, the stats guy could chime in and say what a terrible move it is. If Siragusa said a QB's job is to just win the game, the stats guy could cite Kyle Orton. He would be sarcastic, snarky, and belligerant. It would be great.
Friday, December 21, 2007
From Bill Simmons' latest column, categorizing NFL QBs:
FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS
Marc Bulger, Donovan McNabb, Jon Kitna, Jake Delhomme, Kurt Warner, Jake Plummer (in absentia), Drew Bledsoe (in absentia)
Comments: You'd never want to settle down with them, and you'd constantly disparage them to your friends ... but as soon as they're not around for a week or two, you end up wishing they were around for a drunken 3 a.m. booty call. To my knowledge, nobody has ever married an FWB or won a Super Bowl with them. There's a lesson here.
Yes. The lesson is that Bill Simmons can't recall that Kurt Warner won a Super Bowl with the Rams. Well done Bill, and well done Bill's editor.
I was going to let the first thing slide, but Simmons used this line yet again:
On to the Week 16 quick picks, and by the way, I'm guaranteeing at least 10 wins this week or your money back (home teams in caps)
And that will not stand.
FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS
Marc Bulger, Donovan McNabb, Jon Kitna, Jake Delhomme, Kurt Warner, Jake Plummer (in absentia), Drew Bledsoe (in absentia)
Comments: You'd never want to settle down with them, and you'd constantly disparage them to your friends ... but as soon as they're not around for a week or two, you end up wishing they were around for a drunken 3 a.m. booty call. To my knowledge, nobody has ever married an FWB or won a Super Bowl with them. There's a lesson here.
Yes. The lesson is that Bill Simmons can't recall that Kurt Warner won a Super Bowl with the Rams. Well done Bill, and well done Bill's editor.
I was going to let the first thing slide, but Simmons used this line yet again:
On to the Week 16 quick picks, and by the way, I'm guaranteeing at least 10 wins this week or your money back (home teams in caps)
And that will not stand.
*At the end of the Duke-Pitt game last night, we were up by 1 and had the ball with like 34.5 seconds to go. We obviously were going to get fouled. So we had our best foul shooters out there - Singler, Paulus, Scheyer, Henderson... DeMarcus NELSON? Nelson is like a 50 percent foul shooter, and he almost airballed two free throws earlier in the game (they ended up barely grazing the front rim). I was screaming for Coack K to take Nelson out. Unfortunately, since we had the absolute worst seats at MSG (last row, highest deck), it fell on deaf ears. Incidentally, the worst seats in the garden are still okay. Much better than in the Meadowlands. You can see everything pretty clearly.
I was debating with Fishman how it boggles my mind that any basketball player be so beyond terrible at shooting free throws. I mean, I used to give Shaq the benefit of the doubt because maybe his hands were too big or something. But then I see Yao hitting 86 percent of his free throws... and you think maybe its not size that has anything to do with it. Its probably that their form is bad, and they practice their bad form. Its not practice that makes perfect, its perfect practice that makes perfect.
They should probably take a look into this guy. The Mavericks are the best free throw shooting team for the last 8 years.
*I'm on the worst run I've ever had in online poker. If I hadn't had such a good extended run before this terrible stretch, I definitely would be broke right now. I'm getting horrendous cards and am getting unlucky. Jacks run into queens. Draws are hitting against me every time. Even non-draws like backdoor flushes have become commonplace. I'm playing super tentative and expecting guys to pick off my bluffs and semibluffs. I guess everyone goes through these bad stretches (even pros).
I did get my autographed copy of The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky in the mail from PokerStars. Its even personalized. Maybe I need to reread it.
*My Razr is now on the verge of complete breakdown. The outside screen will either:
1) Be completely blank
2) Be upside down, forcing me to turn my phone upside down to read what time it is; or
3) Be half upside down and half correct (or some fraction, as it is currently 3/4 correct 1/4 upside down), making it pretty much impossible to read at all
There is no rhyme or reason as to why it does this. There is now a little blue streak at the bottom of the outside screen too. Suffice to say, I hate this phone.
*I'm currently writing a paper on diversity in law firms (or the lack thereof), and it is actually kind of interesting. I get to take potshots at the whole "diversity is good because it is the right thing to do" argument, while analyzing the business case for diversity, which is very strong.
One interesting note - diversity managers in DC area law firms make an average salary of $255,000. If you had asked me the over/under on that before I read that article, I would have taken "under a first year associate's total compensation."
I was debating with Fishman how it boggles my mind that any basketball player be so beyond terrible at shooting free throws. I mean, I used to give Shaq the benefit of the doubt because maybe his hands were too big or something. But then I see Yao hitting 86 percent of his free throws... and you think maybe its not size that has anything to do with it. Its probably that their form is bad, and they practice their bad form. Its not practice that makes perfect, its perfect practice that makes perfect.
They should probably take a look into this guy. The Mavericks are the best free throw shooting team for the last 8 years.
*I'm on the worst run I've ever had in online poker. If I hadn't had such a good extended run before this terrible stretch, I definitely would be broke right now. I'm getting horrendous cards and am getting unlucky. Jacks run into queens. Draws are hitting against me every time. Even non-draws like backdoor flushes have become commonplace. I'm playing super tentative and expecting guys to pick off my bluffs and semibluffs. I guess everyone goes through these bad stretches (even pros).
I did get my autographed copy of The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky in the mail from PokerStars. Its even personalized. Maybe I need to reread it.
*My Razr is now on the verge of complete breakdown. The outside screen will either:
1) Be completely blank
2) Be upside down, forcing me to turn my phone upside down to read what time it is; or
3) Be half upside down and half correct (or some fraction, as it is currently 3/4 correct 1/4 upside down), making it pretty much impossible to read at all
There is no rhyme or reason as to why it does this. There is now a little blue streak at the bottom of the outside screen too. Suffice to say, I hate this phone.
*I'm currently writing a paper on diversity in law firms (or the lack thereof), and it is actually kind of interesting. I get to take potshots at the whole "diversity is good because it is the right thing to do" argument, while analyzing the business case for diversity, which is very strong.
One interesting note - diversity managers in DC area law firms make an average salary of $255,000. If you had asked me the over/under on that before I read that article, I would have taken "under a first year associate's total compensation."
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Here's a tip from some random E! show that Kim made me watch. The segment was about how to not gain weight over the holidays by watching what you eat.
Drink wine instead of vodka. A glass of wine has 80 calories, while the same amount of vodka has 220.
Um, won't the same amount of vodka get you like three times as drunk? And in the end, isn't that the real concern?
Drink wine instead of vodka. A glass of wine has 80 calories, while the same amount of vodka has 220.
Um, won't the same amount of vodka get you like three times as drunk? And in the end, isn't that the real concern?
Monday, December 17, 2007
Two incredible time management plays in the Eagles shocking upset of the Cowboys.
1) Andy Reid with the dreaded and idiotic double timeout challenge (which he of course lost).
2) Brian Westbrook's super heady falling down at the one yard line to ensure victory play.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Movie Review: The Marine
When finals time comes around, people do lots of things to avoid studying. For example, I elected to lose a large amount of money playing poker. Charles bought Super Mario Galaxy. The Preston girls come over to play board games.
And we also watch movies we wouldn't otherwise watch.
Like The Marine.
For those of you who don't know what The Marine is, it is a WWE-produced movie starring John Cena. It also has Kelly Carlson (from Nip/Tuck) and Robert Patrick (Terminator 2) in it, so it has more star power than other WWE produced movies like The Condemned and See No Evil. It is probably the WWE's most ambitious movie project to date.
And it is so hilariously terrible, you have to wonder how bad the other WWE movies are.
It starts out with John Cena serving as a marine in Iraq. He ends up finding 5 of his captured comrades, and then defies orders to wait for backup. He literally, busts through a wall, shoots or stabs all the terrorists, and saves the day. He is then discharged from the marines for defying orders.
He comes back to wherever he is from, and reunites with his wife (Kelly Carlson). What then follows fails to make much sense from any viewpoint. As a security guard, John Cena beats up some guy and his cronies. Then, while Cena and Carlson are getting gas, this bunch of criminals decides to shoot the cops who are casually chatting them up. This leads the criminals to take Carlson hostage for some unknown reason. John Cena hops in a cop car and gives chase, at one point holding up a bulletproof vest with one arm (to deflect the machine gun fire coming at him) while driving with the other.
The criminals then end up having to travel, by foot, though the swamps of South Carolina. John Cena is chasing them down. While this is going on, the movie for some reason tries to add humor into the equation. At one point, while Robert Patrick is on the phone double crossing his partner in crime, he gets a beep and asks the guy to hold on. The guy says okay, and then Patrick engages in a conversation with his cable provider, asking them if he gets all the sports channels.
There are also many odd exchanges with Anthony Ray Parker, one of Patrick's henchmen. They can best be described as awkward.
Eventually, Cena kills everyone, including chokeslamming one guy off a dock into a wooden crate. Unfortunately, this is the only recognizable wrestling move in the movie; I really wanted to see the FU or maybe a Cena signature powerbomb. The Marine is, without a doubt, the worst movie I've seen in a long time. And I'm a wrestling fan.
It did stop me from studying for an hour and a half though. So, mission accomplished.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
One of the more interesting books (okay, the only non-legal book) I've read recently is The Myth of the Rational Voter by Bryan Caplan. In it, Caplan attempts to explain why democracies, such as our own, end up with bad policies winning again and again. This is because voters actually believe these bad policies are not bad, and thus they vote them into existence. It reminds me of a passage from Starship Troopers (the book by Robert Heinlein, not the movie with Denise Richards):
"The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority... other than through the tragic logic of history... No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead."
The most interesting chapter in Caplan's book to me was chapter 5, entitled Rational Irrationality. I'm always interested in why people act the way they do, especially when they act in a manner that I think is suboptimal (read: dumb). Caplan argues that individuals consume "irrationality" just like they would consume apples. People will tend to consume irrationality if the price is low, but if the price is high, they will tend to reevaluate, which will lead to rationality. They consume irrationality because people want their beliefs to be correct (like say, on the economic merits of protectionism) regardless of whether or not they actually are correct. Caplan breaks down a five step process for what individuals go through:
1) Be rational on topics you don't care about
2) On topics you do care about, look out for questions that would imply a substantial cost to you if you are wrong
3) If there are no substantial costs to a wrong belief, believe whatever the hell you want
4) If there are substantial costs to a wrong belief, become more objective and reevaluate
5) Balance the "emotional trauma of heightened objectivity - the progressive shattering of your comforting illusions" - against the costs of your error
I found this to be very interesting. It seems to explain a lot to me. For example, on the online poker tables, people will constantly berate other players about their own superiority or their opponent's poor play. Of course, I'm playing ten dollar tournaments and maybe fifty dollar buy in cash games, so the stakes are relatively low. But most of these individuals clearly have a belief that they are very good poker players. Yet, I doubt that if the costs of a false belief are raised (if they were forced to buy into a 100 dollar tournament, or sit in a cash game with five hundred dollars), these loudmouths would be quite so sure about their abilities. They might become more objective and check out a site like Sharkscope to determine just how bad or good they really are. Or, those who cannot bear to think of themselves as bad players, would simply go broke and chalk it up to bad luck.
This rational irrationality ties into the myth of the irrational voter in a relatively straightforward manner. Your vote will never be decisive in an election. Thus its value is basically zero, and the cost to the voter of an "incorrect" vote is zero. Therefore, individuals can vote for whoever they hell they want, no matter how stupid it is to do so (like say, a state senator whose goal is to raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour). Bad policies win out, because the cost to the individual voter is zero, even though the cost on society is a ton.
The book is a good read overall, although it gets a bit dry at points. If you have an economics background it is I think even more interesting at certain points, and dryer in others, so there's more variance. In any event, its worth a read, so buy it or borrow it from a friend if you can (thanks Vito).
"The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority... other than through the tragic logic of history... No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead."
The most interesting chapter in Caplan's book to me was chapter 5, entitled Rational Irrationality. I'm always interested in why people act the way they do, especially when they act in a manner that I think is suboptimal (read: dumb). Caplan argues that individuals consume "irrationality" just like they would consume apples. People will tend to consume irrationality if the price is low, but if the price is high, they will tend to reevaluate, which will lead to rationality. They consume irrationality because people want their beliefs to be correct (like say, on the economic merits of protectionism) regardless of whether or not they actually are correct. Caplan breaks down a five step process for what individuals go through:
1) Be rational on topics you don't care about
2) On topics you do care about, look out for questions that would imply a substantial cost to you if you are wrong
3) If there are no substantial costs to a wrong belief, believe whatever the hell you want
4) If there are substantial costs to a wrong belief, become more objective and reevaluate
5) Balance the "emotional trauma of heightened objectivity - the progressive shattering of your comforting illusions" - against the costs of your error
I found this to be very interesting. It seems to explain a lot to me. For example, on the online poker tables, people will constantly berate other players about their own superiority or their opponent's poor play. Of course, I'm playing ten dollar tournaments and maybe fifty dollar buy in cash games, so the stakes are relatively low. But most of these individuals clearly have a belief that they are very good poker players. Yet, I doubt that if the costs of a false belief are raised (if they were forced to buy into a 100 dollar tournament, or sit in a cash game with five hundred dollars), these loudmouths would be quite so sure about their abilities. They might become more objective and check out a site like Sharkscope to determine just how bad or good they really are. Or, those who cannot bear to think of themselves as bad players, would simply go broke and chalk it up to bad luck.
This rational irrationality ties into the myth of the irrational voter in a relatively straightforward manner. Your vote will never be decisive in an election. Thus its value is basically zero, and the cost to the voter of an "incorrect" vote is zero. Therefore, individuals can vote for whoever they hell they want, no matter how stupid it is to do so (like say, a state senator whose goal is to raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour). Bad policies win out, because the cost to the individual voter is zero, even though the cost on society is a ton.
The book is a good read overall, although it gets a bit dry at points. If you have an economics background it is I think even more interesting at certain points, and dryer in others, so there's more variance. In any event, its worth a read, so buy it or borrow it from a friend if you can (thanks Vito).
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Most people tend to learn from their mistakes and avoid making the same blunder twice. Now research reveals a genetic mutation that helps to determine the extent to which certain people are doomed to repeat history.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Exam time is here, so here are some tips for individual classes that will get you through your finals.
Evidence; Trusts and Estates; Corporations; and Copyright
Advanced Trusts and Estates; Professional Responsibility; Employment Law: Contracts, Torts, and Statutes; Employment Law: Health and Safety; Law and Psychology; Remedies
And for this semester:
Patent - Patents are a right to sell your invention.
Employment Discrimination - Affirmative action has a very sound statutory basis.
Evidence; Trusts and Estates; Corporations; and Copyright
Advanced Trusts and Estates; Professional Responsibility; Employment Law: Contracts, Torts, and Statutes; Employment Law: Health and Safety; Law and Psychology; Remedies
And for this semester:
Patent - Patents are a right to sell your invention.
Employment Discrimination - Affirmative action has a very sound statutory basis.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
I consistently marvel at the stupidity of NFL head coaches, and this year they really have stepped it up a notch. Usually it regards their refusal of going for it on fourth and short, but this year it has focused on timeouts. I have yet to see an economic paper on the value of timeouts (I contend, without any research, that they are much more valuable than say, a 5 yard delay of game on 1st and 10 in the 3rd quarter, but we almost always see qbs call timeout when the clock is ticking down), but anecdotally it seems that every week a team loses because it is missing one crucial timeout at the end of the game.
Coaches have been particularly egregious in their timeout usage this year, as the new trend seems to be to call a timeout to decide whether to challenge a call. The stupidity in this move is obvious to everyone except the coach - you use a timeout to challenge the call anyway! So just challenge the call! Granted, there is the small possibility that a coach will use up his two challenges in a half, and thus wants to save those crucial challenges. But you can only challenge if you have a timeout, and I would wager that the benefit of saving that extra timeout far outweighs the miniscule possibility that you use up your two challenges, still have a timeout, and are stuck without one at a crucial moment late in the game.
And this isn't even getting into the Joe Gibbs "I didn't know the rule fiasco" from the Bills / Redskins game. Note that in the game recap, Gibbs claims that he asked the official if it was okay to call consecutive timeouts, and he "thought" the official said yes. Note that there is no evidence the official said yes, and the official is not going to come out and say anything either way. Nobody is to blame for sure!
The worst error of the week though (not in absolute terms, that goes to Gibbs, but just because this coach is always on the ball), goes to Bill Belichick. After the moronic and hilarious double personal foul penalty on the Ravens, and an offsides on the extra point, the Patriots were kicking the ball off on the Raven 35 yard line. Gostkowski kicked the ball through the end zone, and the Ravens started with the ball on the 20. However, the NFL rulebook states:
When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted. In this case, the kicking team is penalized five yards and the ball must be kicked again.
Thus, what Gostkowski should have done is clear. Kick the ball out of bounds somewhere between the 10 yard line and the goal line! The Ravens would have the choice of either taking the ball at the five, or where the ball went out of bounds. In any event, it would be better than the 20. Belichick should have known better. It didn't end up costing them, but certainly could have been huge had Kyle Boller not been so crappy.
Coaches have been particularly egregious in their timeout usage this year, as the new trend seems to be to call a timeout to decide whether to challenge a call. The stupidity in this move is obvious to everyone except the coach - you use a timeout to challenge the call anyway! So just challenge the call! Granted, there is the small possibility that a coach will use up his two challenges in a half, and thus wants to save those crucial challenges. But you can only challenge if you have a timeout, and I would wager that the benefit of saving that extra timeout far outweighs the miniscule possibility that you use up your two challenges, still have a timeout, and are stuck without one at a crucial moment late in the game.
And this isn't even getting into the Joe Gibbs "I didn't know the rule fiasco" from the Bills / Redskins game. Note that in the game recap, Gibbs claims that he asked the official if it was okay to call consecutive timeouts, and he "thought" the official said yes. Note that there is no evidence the official said yes, and the official is not going to come out and say anything either way. Nobody is to blame for sure!
The worst error of the week though (not in absolute terms, that goes to Gibbs, but just because this coach is always on the ball), goes to Bill Belichick. After the moronic and hilarious double personal foul penalty on the Ravens, and an offsides on the extra point, the Patriots were kicking the ball off on the Raven 35 yard line. Gostkowski kicked the ball through the end zone, and the Ravens started with the ball on the 20. However, the NFL rulebook states:
When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted. In this case, the kicking team is penalized five yards and the ball must be kicked again.
Thus, what Gostkowski should have done is clear. Kick the ball out of bounds somewhere between the 10 yard line and the goal line! The Ravens would have the choice of either taking the ball at the five, or where the ball went out of bounds. In any event, it would be better than the 20. Belichick should have known better. It didn't end up costing them, but certainly could have been huge had Kyle Boller not been so crappy.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Evan Reviews the Various Vegas Things He Experienced
Bellagio
I was a bit tentative going into the Bellagio. On the one hand, it is obviously one of the best hotels in Vegas. On the other hand, because it is so high end, I thought that the table limits would be obnoxiously high, making it unable for me to play except during the lamest hours of the day. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the table limits were quite reasonable throughout the weekend. I never had a problem finding a 10 dollar craps table, and even was able to find relatively empty ones that allowed me to roll almost instantly. The dealers on the craps tables were all great - they knew their trade and plied it well. It certainly was not amateur night.
There were a fair amount of nickel and penny slots, and low limit blackjack as well. There were a ton of waitresses around, and they were very prompt in bringing drinks, even if you were putzing around on the penny slots. A classy institution that lives up to its reputation, I highly recommend gambling at the Bellagio.
The room was also very nice, with a great view of the Vegas strip. The TV channel options were a bit lacking, but that was probably the only thing wrong with the room. We didn't eat at the Bellagio other than a room service breakfast, so I can't really comment on the food options.
BOA Steakhouse
BOA Steakhouse is located at the Forum Shops at Caesar's, and it is well worth the walk. This place is phenomenal. The tables for two are set up in an interesting way - you have a U shaped booth, and the two people sit at the bottom of the U, giving them a great view of the rest of the restaurant. The lighting was just right, making it sort of dark, but giving you enough light to observe skanks as they walk by.
Of course, the food is the reason you go to a restaurant, and it is a great reason to go to BOA. We started with the kobe beef carpaccio, and holy crap it was phenomenal. Then I got a porterhouse. I elected to go with no rub or butter, just salt and pepper. It was the correct choice. The filet side was like butter, while the steak side was also super tasty. The highlight of the meal, however, might have been the truffled mac and cheese. I've had truffled mac and cheese at Smith and Wollys, and that's one of the main reasons to go there. I'd say that the truffled mac at BOA was slightly better. Why? It was shells and cheese! Truffled shells and cheese! Outstanding.
The servers were also very professional and attentive. You can't go wrong at BOA Steakhouse.
Caesars
Me and Kim really enjoyed our time at Caesars. I think most of it was because of this one slot machine, Riches of the Amazon, that we played and won a small amount on. It has a great feature - if you get three scattered pyramid things, you go into a free spin bonus. You start with 5 free spins, and get three picks that give you various things like extra spins, a multiplier, or the real prize - making one of your reels entirely wild for the free spins. Kim got "wild on 1" in one of the bonuses, and man it gave us a ton of credits.
Aside from that one slot machine, they have this area called the Pussycat Dolls Lounge. In this area, all of the dealers at the tables are attractive women wearing not very much in the way of clothing. Also, at night there are women dancing in cages above the tables. This is pretty much smack dab in the middle of the casino, and its pretty great. The only downside was a weird rotting egg smell that developed on two different occasions in the Pussycat Doll Lounge.
The sportsbook is very nice at Caesars too. It has six big screens, and is very wide open, giving pretty much everyone a nice view of any game they want. Also, it is near the Pussycat Doll Lounge. I recommend staying at Caesars for our next March Madness trip.
Mesa Grill
Inside Caesars is a nice little place known as the Mesa Grill, which is I suppose somewhat affiliated with Bobby Flay. We both got the Mesa Burger, which is a hamburger with two different cheeses on it, as well as grilled vidalia onions. It was cooked to perfection, and was a perfect lunch.
The Wynn / Red 8
We were extremely disappointed with The Wynn and Red 8. The Wynn is pretty far away from everything - its past the Venetian, and is more or less the last thing going up on the strip. The Wynn is supposed to be a competitor to the Bellagio, but you wouldn't know it inside there - its pretty empty. Furthermore, the table limits were obnoxiously high - the lowest craps table was $25 - and the tables were pretty empty! I mean, I wanted to play craps, but they didn't have any $10 tables, and not even one $15! Come on! There weren't even many waitresses milling about.
Red 8 is an Asian restaurant that Kim heard was very good in the Wynn, and the food was actually very, very good. The problem, however, was that the service was crappy. We had to ask for our water to be refilled after my water glass sat empty for like ten minutes, and our server was only partly interested in how we were doing. I guess this was all in contrast to how BOA and the Mesa Grill staff treated us, but this is Vegas and the Wynn. You expect to be treated well, not like you're in Chinatown.
The Refs in the Cleveland Browns Game
I had bet on both the over (50) and the Browns +1 in the Browns / Cardinals game. With the Browns down 27-21, they had a minute thirty to drive the length of the field with no timeouts. Things looked bleak for me and most of the sportsbook (the Browns were clearly the pick of the fans), as Derek Anderson and the Browns had 4th and 10 35 yards from the end zone with 5 seconds left. Anderson then threw the ball to Kellen Winslow in the front left corner of the end zone, and miraculously he outjumped the two Cardinal DBs and caught the ball. He was then pushed out of bounds, but still got one foot in. Inexplicably, the ref watching the play said incomplete, and did not make the "forced out of bounds" call that everyone was waiting for.
An anguished cry erupted form the sportsbook.
BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
I was heavily involved in both of those.
Bellagio
I was a bit tentative going into the Bellagio. On the one hand, it is obviously one of the best hotels in Vegas. On the other hand, because it is so high end, I thought that the table limits would be obnoxiously high, making it unable for me to play except during the lamest hours of the day. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the table limits were quite reasonable throughout the weekend. I never had a problem finding a 10 dollar craps table, and even was able to find relatively empty ones that allowed me to roll almost instantly. The dealers on the craps tables were all great - they knew their trade and plied it well. It certainly was not amateur night.
There were a fair amount of nickel and penny slots, and low limit blackjack as well. There were a ton of waitresses around, and they were very prompt in bringing drinks, even if you were putzing around on the penny slots. A classy institution that lives up to its reputation, I highly recommend gambling at the Bellagio.
The room was also very nice, with a great view of the Vegas strip. The TV channel options were a bit lacking, but that was probably the only thing wrong with the room. We didn't eat at the Bellagio other than a room service breakfast, so I can't really comment on the food options.
BOA Steakhouse
BOA Steakhouse is located at the Forum Shops at Caesar's, and it is well worth the walk. This place is phenomenal. The tables for two are set up in an interesting way - you have a U shaped booth, and the two people sit at the bottom of the U, giving them a great view of the rest of the restaurant. The lighting was just right, making it sort of dark, but giving you enough light to observe skanks as they walk by.
Of course, the food is the reason you go to a restaurant, and it is a great reason to go to BOA. We started with the kobe beef carpaccio, and holy crap it was phenomenal. Then I got a porterhouse. I elected to go with no rub or butter, just salt and pepper. It was the correct choice. The filet side was like butter, while the steak side was also super tasty. The highlight of the meal, however, might have been the truffled mac and cheese. I've had truffled mac and cheese at Smith and Wollys, and that's one of the main reasons to go there. I'd say that the truffled mac at BOA was slightly better. Why? It was shells and cheese! Truffled shells and cheese! Outstanding.
The servers were also very professional and attentive. You can't go wrong at BOA Steakhouse.
Caesars
Me and Kim really enjoyed our time at Caesars. I think most of it was because of this one slot machine, Riches of the Amazon, that we played and won a small amount on. It has a great feature - if you get three scattered pyramid things, you go into a free spin bonus. You start with 5 free spins, and get three picks that give you various things like extra spins, a multiplier, or the real prize - making one of your reels entirely wild for the free spins. Kim got "wild on 1" in one of the bonuses, and man it gave us a ton of credits.
Aside from that one slot machine, they have this area called the Pussycat Dolls Lounge. In this area, all of the dealers at the tables are attractive women wearing not very much in the way of clothing. Also, at night there are women dancing in cages above the tables. This is pretty much smack dab in the middle of the casino, and its pretty great. The only downside was a weird rotting egg smell that developed on two different occasions in the Pussycat Doll Lounge.
The sportsbook is very nice at Caesars too. It has six big screens, and is very wide open, giving pretty much everyone a nice view of any game they want. Also, it is near the Pussycat Doll Lounge. I recommend staying at Caesars for our next March Madness trip.
Mesa Grill
Inside Caesars is a nice little place known as the Mesa Grill, which is I suppose somewhat affiliated with Bobby Flay. We both got the Mesa Burger, which is a hamburger with two different cheeses on it, as well as grilled vidalia onions. It was cooked to perfection, and was a perfect lunch.
The Wynn / Red 8
We were extremely disappointed with The Wynn and Red 8. The Wynn is pretty far away from everything - its past the Venetian, and is more or less the last thing going up on the strip. The Wynn is supposed to be a competitor to the Bellagio, but you wouldn't know it inside there - its pretty empty. Furthermore, the table limits were obnoxiously high - the lowest craps table was $25 - and the tables were pretty empty! I mean, I wanted to play craps, but they didn't have any $10 tables, and not even one $15! Come on! There weren't even many waitresses milling about.
Red 8 is an Asian restaurant that Kim heard was very good in the Wynn, and the food was actually very, very good. The problem, however, was that the service was crappy. We had to ask for our water to be refilled after my water glass sat empty for like ten minutes, and our server was only partly interested in how we were doing. I guess this was all in contrast to how BOA and the Mesa Grill staff treated us, but this is Vegas and the Wynn. You expect to be treated well, not like you're in Chinatown.
The Refs in the Cleveland Browns Game
I had bet on both the over (50) and the Browns +1 in the Browns / Cardinals game. With the Browns down 27-21, they had a minute thirty to drive the length of the field with no timeouts. Things looked bleak for me and most of the sportsbook (the Browns were clearly the pick of the fans), as Derek Anderson and the Browns had 4th and 10 35 yards from the end zone with 5 seconds left. Anderson then threw the ball to Kellen Winslow in the front left corner of the end zone, and miraculously he outjumped the two Cardinal DBs and caught the ball. He was then pushed out of bounds, but still got one foot in. Inexplicably, the ref watching the play said incomplete, and did not make the "forced out of bounds" call that everyone was waiting for.
An anguished cry erupted form the sportsbook.
BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
I was heavily involved in both of those.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)