You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
Back to the SPTs, I will be in Cardiff. The Welsh ones are great and I'm wondering who I'm going to see wandering outside my hotel drunk and thirsty this year (you know who you were last year). I'm also going to be in Blackpool to look at the young and thin new forms of Greg and Dylan. Hopefully.
Played some HU cash against a well known reg today. Match report is I booked a win but I won't get big headed about it, I was dealt plenty of good hands and I have no illusions about how much better than me this guy is. I got away with one against someone with a good sized edge on me.
What's playing on my mind is that I left first, something I hardly ever do. The match started on a 6max table. This reduced to the two of us for a decent while then another player joined but his slow play and probably dodgy connection grated on both of us. I was about to stand when the reg suggested we play heads up for 30 minutes max. I broke my own rule by answering yes at the poker table.
We played for a little over an hour on two tables. I had gotten off to a good start on both but after 40 minutes or so while one table went very well I fell behind on the other by a smaller margin. I was starting to make mistakes, mainly due to tiredness, and I could see me giving make all of the profit up to that point. So I stood, the reg tried to convince me to stay but tiredness and to be frank acknowledgement that the better player was starting to show stopped me.
It's playing on my mind a bit that I ran away, haven't done that before. I normally keep going until either they leave or I do all of the profits back plus a little more. It was probably smart to leave but for some strange reason it just doesn't feel right.
I'd love some HU cash guys to give their thoughts on this and when they decide to leave a game.
1) The script needed a complete rewrite. They tried to combine two classic Batman stories which could have been stand alone movies in theselves as well as adding a third film worth of plot they came up with (the two stories I am referring to are 'The Killing Joke' graphic novel and 'The Long Halloween' twelve part limited series, two absolute classics in Batman comic cannon). They tried to cram two much in and these classic stories got a little muddled and lost as a result.
2) The film is too much about The Joker and not enough about Batman. It's the same trap the original Keaton Batman movie fell into, although that is a much worse offender. The Joker is a great character and Heath Ledger was awarded a very much deserved Oscar (which he wouldn't have received had he not died, but IMO would have received at some point later in his career), but it's all tpo easy to let that character over power a movie.
3) The film is baggy and you feel a little repetition with the big set piece scenes.
4) Bale has not nailed the Wayne/Batman divide. Reeve understood it in Superman. You are playing two different characters. When you see Clark Kent on screen, it's Clark Kent, not Superman with glasses on. Bale does a decent turn, but you don't really see two characters, you see one with or without gadgets. There are much worse offenders (for this please see Toby Maguire play Toby Maguire and Toby Maguire in spandex).
Talking of Spiderman, I am really looking forward to The Amazing Spiderman, for me Andrew Garfield has been excellent in the two movies I have seen him in (Social Network and Never Let Me Go) and might just be a perfect pick for Parker. Fingers crossed.
its not like you played for 5min won a buyin then snap left which is pretty scummy imo
Talking of comic books, are there any other series you would like to see made into a film or even TV series?
I have a couple by JM Straczynski (he of Babylon 5 tv series and The Changeling (Angelina Jolie) film fame) called Rising Stars and Midnight Nation. he also did Spiderman for a while.
Or maybe Fathom and a better Witchblade/Darkness series.
Haven't seen many of teh recent films, but I thought Watchmen was OK. You been watching The Walking Dead on TV?
The joker is wayyyy cooler than batman, end of.
How are they really 2 different characters, spiderman is Toby maguire dressed as a g|mp. Surely they should share a lot of traits?
I'd like to see the Daredevil classic storyline's brought to film (Fall from Grace, Born Again, Guardian Devil). Also if the Tom Jane Punisher didn't ruin half of the storyline, Garth Ennis's first Punisher run would be so cool to see on film.
The main problem is bits and pieces of the classics have been cannibalised in the movies, kind of ruining them for other people.
Watchmen is a very tricky book to put on screen, just the back story behind the movie will tell you that. I'm a big fan of the book, I liked the film mainly because I thought I was going to hate it, it was all about expectations. I'm very glad they didn't bottle on the fate of the character you can see as my forum avatar.
Walking Dead is a great book and a very good series, I like how they are so different from each other. There are some touchstones but they are going so far away from the books that they really are two different story arcs.
2) Then call the movie 'The Dark Joker' then. Yes the Joker is cooler, but I don't think people should be rooting for the bad guy.
3) An alter ego is a different character from an actor's point of view. Don't judge it on Maguire's appalling performance (seriously, for a guy with a secret identity he was on and off with that mask ten to the dozen). Just watch Christopher Reeve in Superman, it's so much better.
In comic fiction on many occasions the alter ego is a different character side taking control. Take Spidey, as Parker he is awkward, shy and a little fearful. As Spidey he's fearless and confident. Superman is the big boy scout, Clark Kent is still trying to cope as an alien in a human world.
Probably a bit harsh to lay this at Maguire's door, just the way Hollywood works.
If you've seen the new Spiderman movie trailer then it looks like the same thing will be happening.
I really enjoyed Captain America: The First Avenger and thought it was easily the best of the recent comic book adaptations.
The way Chris Evans was digitally shrunk to appear as the weedy Steve Rogers has to be one of the most amazing digital effects seen in a film, you really can't tell that it 's actually a special effect. Amazing.
Question: Which is worse, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, or, Superman Returns?
Captain America was lovely, I really liked it. It was perfect that they set it in WW2, really gives you the whole back story. I also liked Thor, mainly because Tom Hiddlestone plays a very tricky and often maligned bad guy in Loki to devious perfection.
Green Lantern sucked so much it made me cry.
Back on Maguire, ok, I'll allow the mask problems, but how about the voice change, or lack of, between identities. There was just no difference. I'm very hopeful for the new Spidey, mainly because of Garfield but also they are going the Gwen Stacey route. No spoilers, but they need to complete her story exactly like it is in the comics. Sadly I don't think they'll have the guts to.
Have you seen it?
@Tommy,
The first trailer for Dark Shadows is here...
http://t.co/5efux6Eh
The reality is you have to have quite a big edge over your opponent to make a profit at poker. Sometimes you may have to make 10 big blinds per 100 hands to merely break even (due to rake). To illustrate.you may need to win the following
£5 per 100 hands at 50 NL.
£50 per 1,000 hands (1 full buyin)
£5,000 per 100,000 hands (100 buy ins)
Important to bear in mind that you will be playing against an intelligent person, and weaker players will get the same strong hands as you, and quite often you will have to pay them off if you have a strong hand as well.
If you get your money in three times in a row as a 2 to 1 favourite, you will only win 1 buy in not 3.
Therefore quite a big edge can be required to merely break even let alone make a profit. Therefore their shouldn't be any guilt in leaving ahead, in almost any circumstances especially if you think the other person have an edge over you or you do not believe your edge will be sufficient to make a profit long term (if this is your aim)
Good poker players make money by identifying significantly weaker players, isolating them if possible and avoiding playing pots with other good players if at all possible.
TABLE SELECTION TABLE SELECTION TABLE SELECTION.
if you have a smalledge on someone and you keep hit and running them there is a very good chance that they will just refuse to play you, and then you have just cut off a potential income stream.
thinking about the game longterm is a really smart idea if you are playing for a living
The aims of my post were
1 To illustrate how much of an edge people need to be profitable at poker.
2 To stop people guilt tripping themselves about leaving ahead.
3 To prevent people from playing higher stakes without enough concrete evidence that they can be profitable at the higher stakes, ie having a decent win rate at lower stakes. over a very large sample size (10 s of thousands of hands maybe as much as 100,000 hands or more).
If a player thinks that they have an edge in a game, that is marginal and they are unsure if their edge is sufficient to make a profit long term , I would recommend they play someone else who they think they have a bigger edge against.That's the great thing about the internet, their is so much action and one can pick and choose their spots.
For the best long term benefit i would suggest that people only play other people when they are very confident they have enough of an edge to overcome rake.(if they are looking to make a profit from poker that is). By having a high volume of heads up tables open and a diversity of poker skills in their arsenal eg NL PLO they should be able to find enough good action and decline marginal tables An added benefit is their variance will be minimal.
and the bolded part is really not true
Discuss......
1) Original Batmans were Cac k and the new ones are darker and better for it !
2) Superman until it got a tv series (apart from the Richard Pryers character) was Sh ite.
3) Babylon 5 was a classic for its time.
4) Battlestar Gallactica ! Do you prefer the original with Starbuck as a man(Dirk Benedict) or the newish! incarnation with starbuck as a woman but hugely better story lines and cooler cylons and special effects....(Sad confession have both the original and new series on dvd and love them both!(maybe more newer version,but close call!))
5) All the Star Wars movies were Shi te and not just the new ones...........(I'll get in my bunker for the responses!)
Good luck at the tables, may play your level in 10 years or a drunken weekend soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers Dave.