"The Pen:" Live NLHE Chat Thread
It's been about 9.5 years and 350K posts of epicness, but "It Lives, It Lives" can live no more. The OG LLSNL Chat Thre
Here. Try this entry that shows you that plate mail is not a thing. Additionally, ring mail has only been seen in art, not in any extant pieces, and is probably an artist's shorthand for regular (or "chain") mail because they were too lazy to draw all the interlocking links.
Wikipedia purports that "mail AND plate" armor was a thing. But I don't see standalone plate mail mentioned.
Yeah, you can find that stuff in Eastern Europe, likely from influence from the Mongols. In Western Europe, plate was often worn with mail underneath, either in the form of a shirt, or at least in patches to cover up spots like the armpits, but they weren't attached like that. You can find similar stuff in India,with plates permanently attached to mail in the most vulnerable spots. Usually it was attached over the mail, but occasionally it replaced a spot in the mail, which attached to the plates via a bunch of little holes around the edges of each plate.
But mail is mail (the interlocking rings) and all those other words that end in mail are ones made up in the Victorian era, including chain-mail as a name for the interlocking rings, though only the most pedantic correct that one.
Garrick, are you writing/have you published a book or just academic papers? No need to dox yourself just curious.
I am writing a book. It's been through two rounds of peer review, and I've been putting off doing the (hopefully last) set of revisions because I've been really busy and also because I really don't think some of the stuff one of the reviewers asks for actually makes it better. So it's been a tough slog.
Just finished my heavy teaching load for the school year, though. Going camping for a week and then hitting revisions hard.
Here. Try this entry that shows you that plate mail is not a thing. Additionally, ring mail has only been seen in art, not in any extant pieces, and is probably an artist's shorthand for regular (or "chain") mail because they were too lazy to draw all the interlocking links.
Yes I misread that. Ring mail appears to have been a misperception. But Banded Mail was just a broad description of what the wikipedia calls "transitional armor" like brigantine. Anyway he is clearly knowledgeable about the subject. His posts are bit long for the medium, a blog is not a journal article.
There's a lot of disagreement about what the "banded mail" that the Victorians talked about actually represents, but the majority opinion is that it was just a new artistic shortcut for representing mail.
As for so-called transitional armors (I say so-called because some of them go way back but in Western Europe their heyday was between mail and plate), there are a ton of variations on the theme of "rivet some plates to a flexible backing." Brigantine's are small plates between two layers. The same thing with the plates on the outside is sometimes called scale. Bigger plates on the inside is called a coat of plates. Little plates laced together is called lamalar, etc., etc.
How often are people topping up while playing live with ~100bb effective? If you lose a couple small hands, are you always immediately topping up?
Most regs do. Lots of recs don’t.
Overall i think doing it as a strategy depends on where you see yourself/your play vs the other players at the table. Plus relative positions.
Obvs your play will need to change at 60 or 80bb eff stacks vs 100 and more
Just discovered Utopia - Aussie show
Is that a big hit in Tomorrowland?
I’ve just seen some YouTube shorts with scenes from the show - looks absolutely brilliant
How often are people topping up while playing live with ~100bb effective? If you lose a couple small hands, are you always immediately topping up?
I don't see good reasons to not sit at the stack I think is best for me as often as possible. So I top up to my desired stack size (a ~shortstacking $200 in my 1/3 NL game) after every hand (simply using spare chips I keep in my pocket).
GcluelessNLnoobG
Most regs do. Lots of recs don’t.
Overall i think doing it as a strategy depends on where you see yourself/your play vs the other players at the table. Plus relative positions.
Obvs your play will need to change at 60 or 80bb eff stacks vs 100 and more
I don't see good reasons to not sit at the stack I think is best for me as often as possible. So I top up to my desired stack size (a ~shortstacking $200 in my 1/3 NL game) after every hand (simply using spare chips I keep in my pocket).
GcluelessNLnoobG
Thanks, gentlemen.
I'm trying to focus on 100bb+ play. No real interest in short stacking. I just ended up topping up a couple times to get back to 100bb, but I was the only one at the table doing that.
I always top up because I like 100BB as a stack size.
Spoilered strat talk cuz obviously gross in chat thread...
Spoiler
I always used to keep top upped to 100bb (the max BI in my game at the time) until I realized that 100bb is an awkward stack to play, especially if already playing a tight style (which I am). At 100bbs, it is actually quite difficult to setup comfortable stack off situations postflop with TP hands and awkward SPRs will often be created (small enough where anyone can easily make us play for stacks postflop while getting ~ok IO preflop). Sitting at 66bbs is much easier in this regards.
But obviously I'm a shortstacking super nit, which isn't for everyone.
GcluelessingeneralnoobG
Thanks for the response.
Spoiler
This seems game dependent, no? For example, a loose, splashy 1-3 game with 4 limpers calling a $20 raise leaves an SPR of 2.8-1 at 100bb. A nitty 1-3 game where only 1 or 2 limpers call a raise of $9-$12 leaves 8-1 or more. I would think we can avoid committing with TP here while being able to get stacks in by the river with our sets, 2pr, etc.
Average games are probably somewhere between these two. But even then, it seems somewhat situational.
Fwiw, I fully admit to often ignoring SPR because I already struggle with my thought process while in a hand.
Spoiler
Yes, game dependent, but I play in a loose splashy game that much more leans to $20 4+ ways than $10 3ways.
At 100bbs, creating a 3 SPR and giving everyone fairly decent 19+:1 IO preflop is a horrific result we should be attempting to avoid at all costs... IMO... thus my limp/raisey style which sets up a very small SPR or a very big SPR (both of which I feel I have a very good handle on) and completely avoids stoopid middling SPRs (where I feel every postflop choice I have is horrible)... but obviously many disagree.
But... play to your wheelhouse (which might not be the same as mine, or anyone else's for that matter).
GgoodluckTurtle,we'reexpectingimpressiveincominggiraffes!G
If you want to read a novel that dramatises a part of war/history you might not be too familiar with, check out
‘the narrow road to the deep north’ by Richard Flanagan
It’s based in a Japanese POW camp in 1943 Burma. It’s a rarity for a Booker winner in that it is unpretentious and very readable as well as being beautifully crafted. And as well as being a rewarding story it tells in graphic detail of the extreme savagery of the Japs
Clavell's first novel, "King Rat", is an excellent example of that genre---though not an award winner---and theater as well. More tightly written than "Shogun" or especially "Whirlwind."
Thanks, gentlemen.
I'm trying to focus on 100bb+ play. No real interest in short stacking. I just ended up topping up a couple times to get back to 100bb, but I was the only one at the table doing that.
Top up every hand, wait till xbb before topping up...this is not what gets the $. Making quality decisions does. Over the years I have noticed that dudes trying to play well but dont will frequently rush their actions.
You have not played in a while so in addition to doing your best to pay attention ALSO do like they do in chess until you are feeling dialed in (winning piles), sit on your hands. Do NOT RUSH - this can be a MASSIVE LEAK thats ez to plug. Why did the dude whose chips have not moved suddenly decide to fire big multiway at me when I am holding AA and I was the aggressor, etc. The answer is obvious but when you take your time situations that are not exactly obvious can become pretty clear with taking a moment for solid review.
To be clear i am not saying tank every hand. I play quite quickly cuz Ive seen so many situations so many times they are very straight foreword to me. As you are getting your feet back and are looking to improve its just important imo to take a beat and make sure your thinking is clear and sound
The Economist had an article a couple of weeks ago about how long one should wait after the event before writing history about it. Certainly on one end, people are already trying to write "history" about the Ukraine War. There was the point that was made that histories needed to be re-written in the 1970s after the Allies declassified their code breaking effort in WWII. And of course Chou En Lai's comment on the French revolution "too soon to tell" represents the other end.
What is the conside
The joke, that I'm shamelessly stealing from James Dunnigan, is that you have to wait for most of the participants to die before the truth starts to trickle out. There is quite a lot of self-serving, though largely accurate, analysis immediately following a major conflict like the World Wars. The Strategic Bombing Survey comes to mind.
Also, things that might cause problems for an armed service in budget struggles later, might get condemned to obscurity for awhile. Operation Starvation, and just how insanely effective aerial mining can be on littoral forces, also comes to mind. The US (along with everyone else) still has a rough time with demining.
Making quality decisions does. Over the years I have noticed that dudes trying to play well but dont will frequently rush their actions.
Thank you, Skwid. Much appreciated.
I will definitely try the hand sitting trick for a while. One of the biggest problems I seem to have is thinking through decisions postflop. Like any decision. I even wrote down a template of the questions I wsnt to ask myself. Then I see a flop, and it all goes away. I feel like the poker embodiment of that Mike Tyson quote, "Everyone has a plan: until they get punched in the face." Where every hand I play starts with me getting punched in the face.
This is the first time ever playing poker completely sober. I'm hoping my focus improves with time and experience. Sad to say, I have never played a hand in my life without at least cannabis and usually with lots of alcohol.
that's like my stop win.
Thank you, Skwid. Much appreciated.
I will definitely try the hand sitting trick for a while. One of the biggest problems I seem to have is thinking through decisions postflop. Like any decision. I even wrote down a template of the questions I wsnt to ask myself. Then I see a flop, and it all goes away. I feel like the poker embodiment of that Mike Tyson quote, "Everyone has a plan: until they get punched in the face." Where every hand I play starts with me getting punched in the face.
This is th
That's a step in the right direction. Now where is the postflop chart?
Squid face.
Why is my biggest strength not paying off?
It feels like me hand reading/situational reading/bet size reading/timing reads/expert player profilezation my opponents is double edged sword and I end up getting sucked out more often in poker.
In my experience, I’m rarely wrong on the exact hand or hand range he has, but it also puts me in situations where I feel uncomfortable being all in with the best hand (52 to 82% ahead most often), and it truly feels like I would have a better shot a displaying a wider array of better poker for a longer period of time while playing more “blind”.
Is there a higher Graal than the ultra exploitative yet crude of I have best hand I raise?
