Christmas Film Festival

Not to turn my blog into a dedication to holiday film festivals, but I've been a little overwhelmed at work, and upkeep has been a problem. And quite frankly, I wrote this entry about two months ago. (Admittedly, if there's any doubt about my penchant for watching holiday-appropriate films, see here and here.)

I love the Christmas season, with all it's clichés. And part of the season, for me, is watching Christmas movies, from the conventional to the unconventional. Here are some weekend suggestions for Holiday fare:

December 1-2. Start with some lighter fare:
Elf
Grumpy Old Men
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
The Santa Clause

December 7-9. Some classics to help you get in the holiday spirit:
The Bishop's Wife (1947 version)
A Christmas Carol (1951 version)
Holiday Inn
Miracle on 34th Street
White Christmas

December 14-16. Break up the standard Christmas theme with some unconventional, even noirish, choices -- as well as action flicks that we all forgot take place on Christmas:
Bad Santa (a "Christmas comedy noir" if there ever was one)
Die Hard
Go
The Ice Harvest (underrated film, actually)
Lethal Weapon
Love Actually
Scrooged

December 21-23. It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas, so let's go with some obvious Yuletide tales:
A Charlie Brown Christmas
A Christmas Carol (1984 version, my personal favorite)
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1966 version)
It's a Wonderful Life

December 24-25. Let's be honest. You're not going to do anything except watch A Christmas Story on TNT for 24 hours.

Thanksgiving Film Festival

I'm not as dorkily emphatic about movies on Thanksgiving as I am about Halloween, but sometimes it's nice, after the football game is over, to watch a flick that's set during the Thanksgiving holiday. Thanksgiving is a pretty social day, so I'd mostly stick with comedies.

Honestly, the best choice is probably Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, but here are some other ideas for November 22-25:

Hannah and Her Sisters
Home for the Holidays
The Ice Storm
Miracle on 34th Street
Pieces of April
Scent of a Woman

And, I almost hate to do this, because I'm not exactly a fan, but: Son in Law. Hey, don't blame me: it is a Thanksgiving movie. Whatever happened to that guy, anyway?

An Open Letter to Hollywood

Dear Hollywood,

We, the moderately intelligent viewers of your films, would like to ask a favor: Please stop with the diarrhea of special effects.

We get it, Hollywood. You like your new toys. And now that you've played with them for the past decade, please lay off for a while, will ya? Not to lecture, but please try to wrap your dollar-sign addled brain around the idea that visual effects are simply meant to add to the dramatic impact of the film. Special effects are the means, not the ends. They are there to augment, not replace, the core artistic and entertainment values like story, character, and theme.

Hollywood, do you honestly believe that Jaws would have achieved the same powerfully thrilling effect if the audience saw a CGI shark constantly peppered throughout the entire film? If you think the answer to that question is "Yes," well, then, I direct your attention to the unintentionally hilarious Deep Blue Sea.

Please, listen to one of your own. The late, great Alfred Hitchcock revealed the difference between surprise and suspense, and it's certainly applicable today. If a bomb hidden under a table suddenly goes off, that's surprise. But if the audience already knows there's a bomb under the table, but doesn't know when it will go off, well, that's suspense.

Of course, Hitchcock said that to Francois Truffaut thirty years ago. Today, the movie wouldn't just have a bomb going off under the table. It would be a tactical nuclear bomb that transforms everybody within a one-mile radius into evil CGI zombies that eat man-flesh and fornicate with other little CGI monsters with two CGI heads.

Modern movies stupidly rely on sudden surprises to jolt the audience into a momentary, fleeting emotional response, and unfortunately that's what most special effects are used for. But real satisfaction comes not from effects-driven jolts, but from a more sustained feeling that is driven by more compelling values I mentioned earlier.

So, pretty please... with sugar on top. Cut it the fuck out.

Sincerely,
CP

Tuesday

Ugh. It's Tuesday. I'm sorry, but it's an utterly pointless day. For once, I think Newman got it right:

Kramer: What's today?

Newman: It's Thursday.

Kramer: Really? Feels like Tuesday.

Newman: Tuesday has no feel. Monday has a feel. Friday has a feel. Sunday has a feel....

Kramer: I feel Tuesday and Wednesday...

Jerry: All right, shut up the both of you.

Halloween Film Festival

Alright, it's a little extreme, but I absolutely love Halloween. And I love it when two things I love come together: Halloween and film. At the beginning of October, I usually bump a bunch of Halloween-related flicks to the top of my Netflix Queue.

Not just scary movies, though. Watching only horror flicks for an entire month will probably start to make you either paranoid or psychotic. So, I mix it up with comedies, camp, and thrillers. Here are some recommendations to for the five weekends before Halloween, plus the 31st itself:

September 28-30. Ease your way in, with thrillers that are only slightly related to Halloween:
Alien
Psycho (1960)
Seven
Signs

October 5-7. Punch it up with some genuine horror-thrillers:
The Blair Witch Project
Bram Stoker's Dracula
The Devil's Backbone
Christine
Nosferatu
The Sixth Sense

October 12-14. Lighten up a bit, with some comedies:
Arsenic and Old Lace
The Nightmare Before Christmas
Plan 9 from Outer Space
Shaun of the Dead
Teen Wolf
Young Frankenstein

October 19-21. Throw in some camp and classics, from the '50s through the '80s:
Bride of Frankenstein
The Evil Dead
Evil Dead 2
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
Night of the Living Dead
Village of the Damned

October 26-28. It's getting really close to Halloween now, so let's go for some robust horror:
The Exorcist
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
The Omen (1976)
Poltergeist
The Ring
Rosemary's Baby
The Shining

October 31. If you're looking to have something to have on in the background while trick-or-treaters are ringing your doorbell, I'd pick something family-friendly. On the other hand, if you might want to want a to watch a movie with adults, I'd up the ante.

For Children:
Hocus Pocus
It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown

For Adults:
Carrie
Halloween (No shit.)
Scream

You're Either With Us Or Against Us

Holy shit! So I just got done watching the second of Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry movies, Magnum Force. Toward the end, the bad guys (a group of murderous vigilante cops) tell Harry, when he refuses to join their crusade to murder criminals without a trial, "You're either with us or against us."

Although I despise this administration, I'm not one to call President Bush the personification of expedient evil. But damn:

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

It begs the question, Does Bush actually ever pay attention to what he's saying?

Pretty good movie, by the way.

Poker Guideline 1.5: "...BUT AGGRESSIVE"

My previous poker post was only half of the "Play Tight, But Aggressive" formula. Some situations I described might actually call for a raise, rather than a fold. But my goal was to emphasize that, far too often, too many people stay in hands they should bail on.

Moving on. Let's assume that you're not folding. Of course, staying in raises several possibilities: check, raise, or call. And if you raise, how much? But first, to lay the groundwork for "Aggressive," here's the flip side to my "Fold Early, Fold Often" maxim:

"RAISE EARLY, RAISE OFTEN (if you stay in)."

Let's again walk through the crucial decisions in Texas Hold'em.

POCKET CARDS: Raise, Raise, Raise
You're sitting there with your two pocket cards. Nobody's seen a flop yet, and now it's your turn to call, raise, or fold. What do you do? If you have a decent (or possibly decent) hand, you'll probably decide to stay in. And for most people, the thinking process ends there. They'll call the Big Blind. They'll say, "I only have two cards. What's the point of raising if you don't know what you have yet?"

Wrong. What these "callers" fail to understand is that everyone else is in the same boat. Everyone (except the few who are staring at a pair) at the table is thinking about their possible hands (Will this make a straight? A flush?). The strategic failure of the callers is that they don't use this fact to their advantage.

How? By raising. Calling should not be your default bet. I'm not saying you should never call. But you should have a deliberate purpose behind calling. On balance, however, it's better to raise. Here's why:

1. Force Tough Decisions: By raising early, before you've even seen the flop, you force others into making tough choices. If you raise, someone who would've called with only a marginal hand will, instead, likely fold. If the guy sitting to your left is facing a raise, suddenly his Queen-8 suited isn't looking so spectacular. Raising also will encourage the Big Blind player to get out, since odds are he was hoping for a free ride anyway. Getting other people out of the hand automatically increases your odds of winning the pot -- which is, ultimately, the point, isn't it?

2. Gather Intelligence: Raising early also serves as an intelligence-gathering operation. If someone calls your raise, then you know they have something good. And if someone raises your raise, well, then, give serious consideration to getting out now unless you're really confident in your hole cards. Yeah, you'll lose the amount you just bet, but you'll save a lot of dough that you would otherwise waste calling this guy's raise.

3. Avoid Bad Beats: In the "Turn and River" section of my previous post, I hinted that you can improve your chances of avoiding bad beats. Raising early is the key. If, in the example above, you only call, rather than raise, then the player with the Queen-8 suited is more likely to stay in, especially if he's the Big or Small Blind. Since he has both a straight draw and a flush draw at that point, (not to mention a Queen that could pair or triple up), this automatically reduces your odds of winning the pot. And if he makes a hand, then suddenly the two Jacks that you simply called with are outclassed.

The Bottom Line: Have courage. You may be reluctant to raise, because that means you're putting more of your chips at risk. But you're not thinking big-picture. Unless someone raises before you (a situation we'll get to in my next poker post), the cost of an individual raise is relatively small. But the payoff -- in terms of (1) getting people out of the hand, and (2) information -- is very high. And this, in turn, dramatically increases you odds of winning the pot.

THE FLOP: Raise-Reraise and the Slow Play
There are two raising strategies: Raise-reraise and the slow-play.

1. Aggressively Raise-Reraise: The lessons described above are even more important on the Flop. If you connect on the Flop, or have a legitimately strong draw, then don't call. Raise. Reraise.

The key benefit of raising here is to force out players on a draw who were planning to check or call. Get them out now, before they connect on the Turn or River. Of course, you'll probably need kick it up a bit, because most of the remaining players are feeling increasingly pot-committed at this point. Thus, you're going to have to make a larger raise to induce them to fold.

Obviously, if everyone folds, then you've won the pot. You might ask, "Yeah, but if I called instead of raised, then couldn't I have won more money from them on the Turn or River?" The answer is "Usually, no." If you're asking that question, then you're making the dangerous assumption that you currently have the best hand. Statistically, it's better to get people to fold now, rather than running the risk that they connect with a better hand later. A bird in the hand...

Finally, as with the first betting round, the intel-gathering value of raising is obvious. If someone calls your raise, or reraises, then odds are they Flopped something good. Unless you think they're full of shit, then you'd better have a really good hand before calling a reraise.

2. The Slow Play: When should you call (or check) on the flop, rather than raise? One reason is to keep 'em guessing, which I'll get to Guideline #3. But the primary reason to check/call is if you have the nuts. If you have the best possible hand on the flop, or very close to the best possible hand, then you should strongly consider "trapping" the other players by pretending, through your betting actions, that you have a weak hand.

For example, if you flopped an Ace-High Flush, now there are only three highly-improbable hands that can beat you: Full House, Four of a Kind, or Straight Flush. Take a look at the board now, and watch for those possibilities on the Turn or River. (We'll discuss watching the board in Guideline #2). But unless possibilities materializes on the board, you're sitting pretty with the Ace-High Flush.

Does it make sense to bet big in these nut circumstances? Probably not. Unlike the raise-reraise situation described above, if you have the nuts, you don't want to scare people out of the hand. You want them to do the betting. Let your opponents think they have the better hand. If you're lucky, then somebody might have straight, or a (lower) Flush. Or they may have tripled-up their pocket pairs. Either way, you're well ahead now. Let them become more pot-committed through the Flop and Turn, and then raise the stakes on the River -- as we'll get to shortly.

Note: You should slow-play only when you have a nearly-unbeatable hand, and even then, not every time. Never forget that you could catch a bad beat, and get caught in your own slow-play trap.

TURN & RIVER: Raising, Finishing the Slow Play, & Late Folds
At this point in the hand, you should be confident that you have a strong hand, and are playing either raise-reraise or slow-play. Let's look at both in turn.

1. Raise-Reraise (Mostly): On the Turn, you should continue to play very aggressively (unless you're slow-playing). If you believe that you have a good hand, and there's a good chance you have the best hand, it's still in your interest to raise big on the Turn.

You raised on your Pocket Cards. You raised even more on the Flop. Now (generally) you should raise at least as much on the Turn. You want to force out the fools who stayed in too long, and win more money from those who decide to soldier on to the River (assuming, hopefully, that you have the best hand in the showdown). Obviously, as the bets go up, so do the risks. You'll lose some, but statistically, you win long-term by raising on the Turn.

What about the River? Here, the calculation is different from the Flop and Turn. It's now so late in the hand that it's extremely hard to make a big enough bet to scare anyone out. So, here's my (rather obvious) formula for River play:

The stronger you believe your hand is, then the bigger your River bet should be. You need to take advantage of the fact that the other players will feel pot-committed and focus on their sunk costs. You may lose individual hands, but in the long run, if you're raising with strong hands, you'll come out ahead.

The weaker you believe your hand is, then the smaller your River bet should be. You may be worried that someone connected with a better hand. Since it's harder to force anyone out at this point, you should either call or, if you're first to act, make a more modest bet. This is a safer route that will allow you to avoid massive chip losses. Of course, don't bet so small that it induces the other players to raise you. After all, I'm assuming at this point that you've been playing right by playing tight: You may still have the best hand, and you don't want to be forced out by another player's bluff.

That's the most general of formulas, I realize. But at base, the only way you can get good at making the right call is a combination of experience and judgment. Have at it.

2. Finishing the Slow Play: Let's say you've been slow-playing, and further, that the Turn card confirms your belief that you have the nuts (or close to it). Should you continue to slow play on the Turn?

No. Typically, the flop is where you should start a slow-play. There are excellent reasons why you should not slow-play the Turn, and I strongly agree. Instead, you should take advantage of the fact that, after the Flop, most players now feel pot-committed, and more more likely to call your raise. If you continue to slow play the Turn, you're simply forgoing the opportunity to make some additional money.

Thus, at the Turn, you should raise -- but only a moderate amount. Don't raise too much, because you don't want to scare them away. Raise just enough to add money to the pot, while keeping the other players in through the River.

On the River, if you still have the strongest hand, then it's time to unleash Hell. You've trapped your opponents. If they stayed in this long, then they have what they believe to be a good hand and often feel pot-committed. In addition, there's a good chance that they'll think you're trying to bluff your way out -- especially if they're holding a reasonably good hand. Now's the time to maximize your winnings by raising. And reraising. Bring down the hammer on them.

To sum up the Slow Play: Call or check on the Flop. Raise a little on the Turn. Raise big-time on the River.

3. Late Folds: I mentioned in Guideline #1.0 that, in most circumstances, if you're folding on the turn or river, then you're folding too late. I'd like to discuss the exception.

Let's use the example from above. You're holding King-10 of Hearts, and the board Flopped Ace-8-3 of Hearts. You have an Ace-High Flush. Let's say that an opponent with pocket Aces stays in the hand. He thinks he's doing really well on the Flop, with Trip-Aces.

Then comes an improbable Turn card: 8 of clubs. Oops. If you're paying attention to the board (something we'll get to in Guideline #2), you should notice that the board has a pair of 8s. This should tell you that you're facing a Full House possibility. And indeed, in this example, the 8 of clubs is devastating for you. Your opponent now has a Full House, beating your Flush.

If your opponent raises big time on this Turn card, and you don't think he's bluffing to create the mere appearance of a Full House, then accept the bad beat and FOLD NOW. Of course, at the time it's impossible to know if you're right, so, as with all things, this will become clearer with experience.

The point is, if you truly think you're going to lose, then fold on the Turn (or River), my advice in my previous post notwithstanding.

A Film That Will Live in Infamy

Pearl Harbor
*****

I hereby nominate Pearl Harbor as the Worst Film of All Time. It has a lot of competition, I know. But hear me out. I’m sure there are objectively worse films. But doesn't it makes sense to judge a film not solely relative to other movies, but also against what that film could, and should, have been? Imagine, for a moment, what this movie have been in the hands of a more capable cast and director.

Let's face it: this three-hour waste of time should be renamed Weird Love Triangle in 1941. As Bill Maher might put it: New Rule: If you decide to title a movie after a historical event, then you have a special obligation not only to do the film well, but also to actually focus on that event. If the filmmakers decided to name a movie Pearl Harbor, it should actually be about Pearl Harbor, simply because now it is “The” film about the event. Instead, the Pearl Harbor attack looks like a random scene dropped-in from an entirely different film. Viewers watched a bunch of CGI bombs falling, people running around, and suddenly it was over.

The rest of Pearl Harbor focused on an inane love story in a pathetic attempt to make the audience identify with the characters. I suppose one could level the same criticism at Titanic, but at least that film actually focused on the sinking ship, and interwove the love story in a somewhat sensible way with the sinking of the doomed vessel. But with Pearl Harbor, it’s as though the central historical event bore no relationship to the rest of the film. I guess that's the point, isn't it? The special effects trump character yet again.

To be honest, long before the end, I was hoping that all three of the main characters would die -- and thereby spare me the continually agonizing reminder that I wasted $9 to watch what amounted to the celluloid equivalent of excrement.

Wine and Pizza and Olives, Oh My

Last week I tried the Au Bon Climat 2005 Pinot Noir, and I have to admit that I loved it. Yet, Wine Spectator rated it only 83 points. While WS's rating are usually dead-on, this is the perfect example of how, when it comes to wine, personal taste trumps all.

After pouring, it smelled deliciously fruity, which was revealed upon tasting as a mix of raspberry and mild black pepper flavors. The finish was particularly satisfying, and all in all, I'd push the rating up to WS's "very good" range, say, an 86.

The bottle went down particularly well with a pepperoni and black olive pizza. OK, so I drink wine with pizza. Chill out. They tell me that the '05 Pinot is ready to drink, and is peaking sometime in the next year or so, so give me a break. I have to drink it with something.

So, if you have a bottle of this, give it a whirl, and hopefully, you'll be pleasantly surprised. I find myself wishing that I purchased more than just two bottles.

McCain Heart Bush

McCain has so wedded himself to Bush that now he makes Bush-like jokes that belittle the questioner. Nice guy.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/5222.html

Arguing numbers with conservatives

Almost nothing is more frustrating than listening to the Bush Administration's continuous barrage of baldfaced lies. But few realize just how insidious the Bushies are. I mean, there are the obvious lies and fabrications that we can all point to, but there are more hidden (and costly) bullshit stories that the public hasn't begun to think about.

Last fall, Jonathan Chait of The New Republic went after an old conservative standby: "Tax cuts increase revenues." A nerdy topic to be sure, but since all of us (at least those of us who came after the Baby Boom generation) are going to have to pay for the titanic mountains of debt the Boomers have racked up to pay for their Bush tax cuts, it's, well, kind of important.

Here's the article, and the comment board where I (chrisprend) got into a debate about numbers with a couple conservatives.

http://www.tnr.com/doc_posts.mhtml?i=w061023&s=chait102306

Poker Guideline 1.0: "PLAY TIGHT..."

Playing "tight but aggressive" is a general strategy, which obviously makes it contingent on the circumstances of each particular hand you're in. But I believe tight-but-aggressive is the strongest default approach to each hand, and the best way to achieve the ultimate goal in poker: Maximizing your winnings when you have the best hand, and minimizing your losses when you don't. Today, I'd like to describe the "tight" half of that maxim, which is best summed up as:

"FOLD EARLY, FOLD OFTEN."

Like the song says, "You got to... know when to fold 'em." Playing tight means entering few hands. If you're staying in too many hands -- playing loose -- then you're foolishly bleeding money. If you're going to err on one side or the other, it's better to err on the side of tightness than looseness. Unfortunately for them, most people err on the latter side, and die a death by a thousand cuts -- or bets.

You must let this sink in: Folding is not a sign of weakness. It is, instead, a sign of wisdom. Folding is the most crucial decision you can make in the game of poker. And the earlier you fold, the better. Statistically, the more hands you stay out of, the lower your chances of losing money on a bad decision later in the hand.

Let's run through the crucial decision points in Texas Hold'em as an example. (For now, we'll only talk about whether you should stay in the hand. We'll get to calling and raising later.)

POCKET CARDS: Possibilities, Position, & Patience
1. Possibilities: The first crucial decision is what to do with your two hole cards. Generally, you should only stay in the hand if you're looking at: (1) a pair (the higher the better), (2) suited connectors (again, higher is better), or (3) a face-card/lower-card combination (preferably suited and within striking distance of a straight). If you have one of these combinations, then consider staying in the hand. If you don't, then fold immediately.

Yet, having one of those three possibilities is not reason enough to stay in the hand. If someone else in the hand is betting big on their own hole cards, odds are that they have a high hand as well. If you see some big bets, then you'd better have something really good to stay in. Unfortunately, most people refuse to fold in the face of big bets, simply because they've become wedded to what appears to be a good starting hand.

2. Position: Location, location, location. Position matters a great deal in the first round of betting. If you're one of the last to bet in a hand, then you've already had a chance to watch to see how everyone else has bet, and you're in a position to fold if you've seen some big bets from others.

However, if you're among the first to act, then you're at a huge disadvantage. The first player to act hasn't seen anyone's bet yet. Imagine that you're first to act, and you call on a moderate hand, Jack-9 suited. You're opening yourself up to a situation where one of many players betting after you decides to raise big-time. Unless he's bluffing (unlikely, since he's seen you call and assumes you have at least something good), I'd put the him on a high pair, say, Queens. At that point, you could stay in and hope for a lucky Flop, but you'd be smart to fold.

Of course, you may be "smart" to fold at that point, but you're no genius -- because you should've folded in first position to begin with, and avoid losing the money you called with.

The point is, you should bet differently depending on your position at the table in each hand. For the hands where you're among the first to bet, you should play even more tightly. If you're among the last to bet (particularly if you're the Dealer, Small Blind, or Big Blind), then you have the advantage, and you can play (slightly) more loosely -- and aggressively (which we'll get to tomorrow).

3. Patience: It's crucial to be patient. Too many players get impatient after they find themselves getting shitty hole cards a dozen times in a row, and so they decide to bet on their thirteenth shitty hand, and then wind up losing. You must be patient, and wait for the good cards to come to you. Everyone's luck evens out in the long-run.

THE FLOP: Draws & Sunk Costs
The Flop is where folding becomes really important, because five of the seven cards you'll have to make a hand have now been dealt. In other words, more than 70 percent of the cards are on the table, either in your pocket or on the board. At this point, if you don't "have it" -- either a good hand or a really solid draw -- then get out. Now. Otherwise, statistics are working against you.

1. If You're on a Draw: If you're on a draw, and already have four of the five cards you need to make a good hand -- say, a straight or flush -- there certainly is a strong temptation to stay in for the Turn. However, you should still strongly consider folding right now, on the Flop, particularly if: (1) someone is betting big at this point, (2) you can see some potentially good hands on the board, and/or (3) there are still a lot of players in the hand.

If someone is betting big, then they probably found what they were looking for on the Flop -- especially if you can see some powerful possibilities on the board (say, three suited cards). You'd better be damn sure that you run through all the possibilities in those Flop cards that might help your opponents. And if there are a lot of players calling or raising, that simply increases the chances that one or more of them "connected" with something powerful on the Flop. Bad news for you, unless you've connected too.

And, before you decide to chase a draw, keep this in mind: Statistically, the odds are low that what you're trying to draw toward will pan out.

2. If You flopped a Real Hand: Obviously there is an even stronger temptation to stay in the hand if connected, but the same considerations detailed above apply. If someone else is betting big, and there are cards on the table that could make up a hand that can beat what you're sitting on, then strongly consider folding.

3. Sunk Costs: The Flop is where many people make the classic, irrational, money-losing decision: "Well, I've already put so much money in the pot, I might as well stay in now." They believe they're pot-committed, so they call a bet that they shouldn't, simply because the believe they've already "invested" so much in the hand.

Bullshit. Stop and think. If you bought a lot of Enron stock, and then lost your shirt when the scandal broke, do you honestly believe that buying more Enron stock will help you get your money back?

The answer is Yes only if you believe that Enron's stock will rise again in the future. The same reasoning applies to poker. What you've already put into the pot is irrelevant to whether you should continue to put money into the pot. The money you've already bet is GONE -- sunk. You can't win it back unless you win the hand.

And that's the question: Are your odds of winning the hand greater than the amount that you're being asked to call relative to the pot? If Yes, then stay in. If No, then get out. Adding more losses to the pot won't help you get your money back, and hoping that the Turn or River will turn out the one card you might need to win is a fool's hope -- one that only materializes, on average, 7 percent of the time.

THE TURN & RIVER: Late Folds & Bad Beats
1. Late Folds: The simple fact is, if you're folding on the Turn or River card, then in most circumstances, you're folding much too late. You're playing too loose. In general, you should only be folding on the Turn or River if you coasted through the Flop cheaply, and then didn't reach what you were drawing for on the Turn/River, and then someone starts betting big. Get out, and don't lose any more money.

2. Bad Beats: Of course, there are situations where you Flopped a great hand (say, a straight), rightly stayed in for the Turn, and then all the sudden a the Turn cards reveals a more powerful hand possible for your opponent (say, a flush). And then, your opponent starts betting big, indicating that he does, in fact, have the flush. Tomorrow, I'll talk about how to reduce the chances of that happening, but for right now, it's probably a good idea to go ahead and fold -- assuming that you really believe that your opponent actually has the flush. Just remember to ignore sunk costs, chalk it up to a bad beat, and move on.

Time to Leave Planet Earth. Now.

The Vogons are coming. Dolphins are disappearing.

Looks like So Long and Thanks for All the Fish is really happening.

"You got to know when to hold 'em..."

There are a thousand books out there on "how to win at poker." All (well, most) of them are very useful in different ways. But as with all things, you aren't going to get good at poker by reading about it. You have to actually do it. And then do it again, and again, and again.

That said, in my experience there are three simple rules for long-term poker success. Well, maybe they're more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. After all, there are no absolutes.

Anyway, I'd like to lay out these three useful "guidelines" over the next three days. Not that I'm some kind of poker expert, but I've been generally successful at this game, and I though I'd share my insights in a forum that is shorter and more accessible than a poker book.

I should mention that this poker advice is not meant for serious, experienced players. But it is also not meant for people who have no idea how to play poker. I'm not writing a "poker rules guide." My posts, instead, are intended for those who have a basic understanding of the game, but haven't found a consistent measure of success at winning.

We Are (Almost) All Dilettantes

Research indicates that a person requires at least 10,000 hours of practice before developing a true expertise in a given activity. This pattern appears to be applicable to just about any activity, including sports, games, music... hell, maybe even our jobs.

Ten thousand hours is the equivalent of one hour per day for more than 27 years. Or, it's 3 hours per day for 9 years. And even if you dedicate an entire 40-hour workweek to an activity, it would still take you nearly 5 years to become a master.

That's why it's bullshit that Luke Skywalker basically became a Jedi in what appeared to be the space of one week.

Anyway, I suspect there may be some variance due to innate ability -- a person who has a natural talent for something may accomplish in, say, 8,000 hours what the average person might take 10,000 hours to accomplish -- but overall the implications are staggering. Essentially, this means that most of us do not excel in what we do. I've tried to look in the mirror at this, using my own "interests" that I listed in my blog profile. The results confirm it. I'm a dabbler:

Films: If you believe watching a larger number of films helps you develop some sort of "expertise" in film-watching and critical assessment of films, then I have a long way to go. On Netflix, I've rated more than 2,000 films. Assuming 2 hours per movie, I've watched 4,000 hours of films (not counting repeat viewings) -- and that's just watching films; I've spent comparatively little time actually analyzing them. Nowhere near being a real film critic.

Poker: This is tougher to estimate, so I whipped out the calculator. Adding up my current poker night (4 hrs x 26 games x 6 yrs = 624 hours), my high school lunchroom game (.6 hrs x 5 days per week x 35 wks x 2 yrs = 210), random games throughout college, law school, business school, work, and Vegas trips (3 hrs x 10 games/year x 14 yrs = 420), and finally, online play (3 hrs x 52 wks x 4 yrs = 624), my total is about 1,878 hours. Huh. Not sure how I keep winning. ;)

Baseball: I'm not sure I want to touch this. Watching baseball? Yeah, I might be an expert. Playing? I think the results would be too embarrassing to contemplate.

Wine: Sadly, I haven't spent 10,000 hours tasting wine, no matter how liberally you count the three years I spent in law school.

Politics: Since that's my job, I suppose you could count my number of work hours. Counting all the extra campaign hours, I've racked up about 9,000. Only problem is that "politics" is too broad and includes too many separate activities to assume that I'm anywhere near becoming an expert in any one of those activities.

Unless you're accounting for the fact that, more than anything else, the nature of the job lends itself to developing an expertise in dealing with idiocy. If that's the case, I have a fucking Ph.D.

Let Wild Hogs Lie

Huh. I was randomly perusing Netflix last night, and I noticed something that's pretty telling: The abominable, career-handicapping Wild Hogs has an average member rating of 4.0 stars (out of 5). In contrast, an intelligent comedy like Sideways has a rating of only 3.4 stars.

And the Member Reviews are even worse, with Sideways apparently on the receiving end of a non-consensual rear-entry offensive, while reviewers saw fit to shower Wild Hogs with sunshine and puppies.

OK, so, let's say Sideways isn't your cup of tea? Reasonable people can certainly disagree.

Alright then, let me hit you with some knowledge: In the estimation of the average film rater, Wild Hogs is also superior to real comedies like Annie Hall (3.6), Groundhog Day (3.8), The Producers (3.5), A Fish Called Wanda (3.8), and Ghostbusters (3.8).

Now does that make a damn bit of sense?

Actually, maybe it does. All in all, I'd say this state of affairs is probably a pretty good proxy for the capabilities of the average filmgoer in a country that elected George W. Bush.

Twice.

Of course, I realize that I'm making a ridiculous argument, and I'm sure some of my own Netflix ratings might register a "Huh?" But we're not talking about only one person's ratings here. We're looking at the average of thousands of ratings. Hopefully as more people see Wild Hogs (my condolences in advance), the 4-star rating will drop. Until then, you have to admit this is worth at least a mild "wtf?"

Vandelay Industries

I think it would be hilarious to really flesh out George Costanza's résumé -- especially the tortured explanations of how he got fired from each job, particularly Pendant -- and then actually submit it to a bunch of employers and see what the responses are.

Imagine what his cover letter would say. I'd write it, but I think I've already spent a little too much time working on this.

George L. Costanza

c/o Frank Costanza

7 Vandelay Blvd

Queens, NY 10152

Career Goal: To found my own architectural firm.

EXPERIENCE

Krueger Industrial Smoothing: Vice President, 1997-1998

Serenity Now Computers: Salesman, 1997

Play Now: Disability Bathroom Supervisor, 1997

New York Yankees: Assistant to the Traveling Secretary, 1994-1997

De Granmont Brassieres, Inc.: Sales Representative, 20 mins., 1993

New York Modeling Agency: Hand Model, one week, 1993

NBC: Writer, 1992-1993

Pendant Publishing: Reader, 1991

Sid’s Parking Service: Car Parking Facilitator, one week, 1991

Rick Barr Properties: Real Estate Agent, 1989-1991

EDUCATION

Queens College: B.S. in Accounting, 1986

Summer Job, 1984: Dairy Queen – Soft Serve Machine Operator.

Summer Job, 1985: Fat Camp – Waiter.

Culinary Couture

One of my friends started a food blog. Well, not just food. More like food+self deprecating humor. Check it out: http://culinarycouture.wordpress.com. She's hilarious.

The Iliad for Dummies

Troy
*****

Wow. What can I say? One might say that this film serves as The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Iliad, but that would be an insult to idiots everywhere. I say that both as an accused idiot, and as a huge fan of quasi-historical epics. I loved Gladiator, Spartacus, Ben-Hur, and Braveheart. But Troy was an abomination. Bad directing, mediocre acting, and a horrible screenplay. Someone should have petitioned Wolfgang Petersen to go out on a high note and stop making movies after the nearly-perfect Das Boot.

The writing. My God, man, the writing. Try to imagine if a line like this one were found in Braveheart: (Helen, to Paris) “Last night was a mistake.” Dialogue like that makes me give serious thought as to whether the writing staff of Sex and the City teleported back to the 10th Century B.C. And, since the movie did well in the theaters, it appeared to have worked. Unfortunately, it also seemed to have signaled the death-knell of the historical epic, as viewers of the vomit-inducing Alexander can also attest.

Avoid seeing this film at all costs.

Forrest Dump

Forrest Gump
*****

There is a great scene in The X-Files when Cancer Man, dejected after receiving some bad news, decrees that “Life is like a box of chocolates. It’s a cheap, thoughtless, perfunctory gift that nobody ever asks for. Unreturnable because all you ever get back is another box of chocolates, so you’re stuck with this unidentifiable whipped mint crap that you mindlessly wolf down when there’s nothing left to eat. Sure, once in a while there’s a peanut butter cup or an English toffee, but they’re gone too fast and the taste is fleeting. So you end up with up with nothing but broken bits with hardened jelly and teeth-shattering nuts. If you’re desperate enough to eat that, all you have left is an empty box filled with useless brown paper wrappers.”

Although that probably doesn’t reflect a healthy outlook on life, it does accurately describe the films released in 1994. There were a few “peanut butter cups”--gems like The Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, and Clerks--but most of the movies that year were best described as “unidentifiable crap that you mindlessly wolf down when there’s nothing left to watch.”

As it is, that phrase perfectly describes Forrest Gump. Forrest Gump is the film equivalent of a lobotomy.

Never has such a mindless film won the Oscar for Best Picture. The silly smiley face that the title character “invented” is a perfect metaphor for the film. As movies go, it was mildly entertaining, and Tom Hanks’ acting was good as always, but what was the point? That if we just stopped thinking about things, the world would become a better place?

But more than the movie’s hackneyed appeal to simplicity, I think Forrest Gump was so popular because of lingering Baby Boomer nostalgia for “the good ole days”--which, in case you weren’t paying attention, weren’t so good. The major social issues of the time, particularly Vietnam, Civil Rights, and the sexual revolution are painted with such meaningless and euphemistic strokes that you get the feeling the '60s were just bland feel-good years of no real significance.

The liberation of women is dealt a particularly nasty blow. The one character who pushed back against the film's onslaught of right wing values was Jenny, played by Robin Wright Penn. But what happens to her? Oh, well, we have to give her HIV. The liberated woman must be punished.

That Forrest Gump beat Shawshank and Pulp Fiction--two of the best movies of the decade, let alone of 1994--for Best Picture is a Hollywood travesty. It's shamefully ironic that a film with such a great soundtrack would so closely approximate an on-screen rendering of Muzak.

Chicago: All Sizzle. No Steak.

Chicago
*****
Chicago is an insult both to its audience and to the original play. The problem is not that the movie emphasizes style over substance. The best style-over-substance films transcend their genre. The Kill Bill films, for example, served as an homage to samurai flicks (and to the westerns that borrowed from them), and, through expert directing, acting, and dialogue, transcended them.

But Chicago was an homage to nothing. Or rather, an homage to itself. The film was a commercial for its own Oscar marketing campaign.

Chicago was made for one purpose only: to win Best Picture (read: make a ton of money) for its studio. Chicago swooped-in at the end of the year and immediately began billing itself in advertisements and trailers as an Oscar contender. The movie seemed to be released in December for the sole purpose of creating enough momentum to win best picture; if it had been released at the beginning of the year, rather than the end, it probably wouldn’t have won. The film itself looks dazzling on the big screen, and was sure to dazzle audiences. And that all that dazzle did a wonderful thing for the producers--and a terrible thing to audiences: It covered-up the stench of reality. Fundamentally, this is a terrible movie.

Am I supposed to be amazed by the fact that Catherine Zeta Jones & Co. can sing? Sing, they can, but does that make the film deserving of a Best Picture nod? That’s a different question. Overall, the film’s acting, directing, and screenwriting were mediocre at best. Rob Marshall’s rules seemed to be: (1) film on one soundstage with three sets; (2) paint all scenes completely black in order to hide any depth; and (3) use three white lights and three red lights. Such techniques were branded by many as “dazzling” and “innovative.”

They were neither. He might as well have just filmed the theatrical play being performed, and packaged that as the film. The producers clearly worked up an intentional “buzz” campaign, in the hopes that all the dazzle and buzz would carry it through to the Oscars. It seems to have worked. But Chicago has no purpose. It accomplished nothing, in terms of entertainment value or art.

I did not see the film on the big screen; I saw it for the first time on DVD. And I believe that allowed me to see the film for what it truly was: A failure, cloaked in protection of a brilliant marketing campaign. Chicago should never have been made.

There's nothing more fun than...

slamming an awful movie. Or better yet, slamming a crappy movie that everybody seems to love. To wit, my next post.