Where things can get pretty igry ...Rick's Cafe Americain

I bought in for 50 (the minimum) and played limit hold ‘em for an hour or so, just to try out the pretty nifty 3-D interface.  After getting pocket aces cracked by trip eights on the river after trying to slowplay them UTG, I decided it was time to pack it in.  But I got decent cards behind the BB, and got sucked into a couple more hands, and then I got dealt pocket cowboys in late position. 

So I raised, and got a bunch of callers.  The flop came with garbage (9 high), and somebody bet into me.  I raised, and got a few callers.  The turn helped nobody and my bet knocked out the remaining stragglers, leaving me and my caller heads up. the river’s a 10, and I bet into him.  He raises, and I call, wondering if he didn’t get trip 10’s.

Hardly.  My little friend called me to the river with 9/10o, and cracked my KKs.  With 5 dollars left, I got shitty cards and one shitty flop, and I was done.  Fifty bucks gone in less than two hours.  I’m going to bed now, but I have a message for that little chaser: I know what you look like, man, and if I ever run into you on the street (it will be hard to miss a giant silver android with glowing red eyes), you’ll see what chasing really is.

Online Tournaments

Bugsy’s Club is holding a three-round WSOP qualifying event and this weekend is part of Round 2.  Round 1 had a $1 tournament fee and the top finishers in each $1 qualifier, in addition to the cash prize pool, gained free entry into at least 1 Round 2 tournament.  I did not earn one of the freebies; instead, for my shot at the Round 3 tournament I paid the $10 entry fee and played in the Saturday and Sunday tournaments.  It had been a while since I played NL Hold ‘Em in a multi-table tournament so I wasn’t particularly optimistic, but I needed to get back into the game.

In the Saturday tournament I played tight and won all my showdowns.  My positional play was strong and I was able to steal blinds and push around limpers after the flop from the button.  Along the way I only one hand that I shouldn’t have.  A short stack went all-in with KK, but my 8♠8 took the pot when the 9♠ on the river gave me an unlikely flush.  In the end, what killed me was that I wasn’t aggressive enough.

The blinds had advanced to 400/800 and I was sitting in the BB with ~25K.  The board limped around to me, so I was able to see the flop with J9o.  And what a flop it was: J-9-6. With my two pair, I bet 800 and got called by the button (juggler32). The turn was a 7, I bet 1600 and juggler32 called again.  The river was a 3, I bet another 1600 and juggler32 raised me ~14K.  Dilemma.  Should I reraise?  I did have top two pair, and all of juggler’s previous calls suggest discomfort with the strength of his hand.  But my inner voice said “Fold.  If he’s been stringing you along, don’t let it cost you the tournament.”

So I called. And juggler flipped over 33 and showed me the set he made on the river. 

So, I ask again, should I have reraised? Certainly a reraise is a far riskier move than a call, but I was in a good position to represent strength: I had bet out UTG every round since the flop, and juggler may not have felt so confident with the lowest set on the board.  I still can’t decide which was a bigger mistake: failing to make the turn and river more expensive for him or failing to reraise all-in.

A little while later I busted out when I went all-in preflop with AK, only to lose when Shadowfax put ~25% of his stack on the line to call with A4o.  I was encouraged, but the turn was a 4 and no other help was forthcoming for Big Slick. (At least Shadowfax apologized in the chat.) 51st place out of 157. 

While playing, I kept my eye on on Rick’s wife’s table.  I think she ran into three full houses in a row and busted out somewhere in the 140s.  Unfortunately (for journalistic reasons) I have no idea what Ilsa was playing because all of the hands I saw were calls and she didn’t show after she lost.

In the Sunday tournament I played very strong out of the box and built a very solid table image for myself.  Unfortunately, my strong play and solid table image was mostly built on rock solid cards.  When the cards stopped coming my chips slowly melted away.  As the game wore on solid starting hands began getting undermined by the flop and I had to lay down hands after making considerable preflop raises.  Down to 9K (when the average player held over 20K), I was dealt cowboys. I made a modest preflop raise from under the gun, fearing that if I went all-in I would squander any value the cards had when the whole table folded.  I wasn’t looking to merely steal blinds.  My wish came true when another short stack reraised me all in. Of course I called.  My KK was facing AK.  I smiled in the comfort of my home, but the smile evaporated when an A on the turn ended my day.  81st out of ~160.  (Again, Rick’s wife was in the game.  I never really saw her involved in a pot when I peeked in on her table, but things must have gone better than Saturday.  She finished up in the 40s.)

I played tight and solid through both tournaments.  I didn’t place, but I usually feel much worst after I’ve busted out.  Either I’m improving and maturing or just growing numb.

Coach’s Low Stakes Home Game

I’m sure this won’t be the only write-up, as Pauly was at the game and is sure to report.  Actually, you should look to him for the game results because only one of us remembered to bring a pen to the game.  He’ll probably have all of the results up before this is posted, so head over there.  (Yep. Pauly’s got a report. And he’s got the results.)

In any event, I can’t really complain about my cards.  If you play tight, you are going to have to wait for cards.  And so I waited.  Got paid off almost every time also.

I decided to loosen up and play Ace-rag from any position because I promised that I would lay it down if I decided that the kicker would be important.  I laid down A4 when sombody bet the K on the flop.  Played A9 into a decent early pot when nobody raised my bet when I paired the A. Won some more when I bluffed with A6 and a K hit the board and Coach laid down his flush draw when it missed on the river.  Finally, one hand should have made me more money but didn’t because of some conservative play by PhD. 

I went in with A8.  The flop came A-8-x and I was sitting on Dead Man’s Hand, which was also the top two pair.  Ferrari bet, I raised and got two callers—PhD and Ferrari.  The turn was another A, giving me Aces Full of eights.  Ferarri bet again, I raised again and again PhD and Ferrari both called.  The turn was a 9, and I was sweating about possible kicker issues.  Could it be that either of them was hanging around with A9?  Nope, neither raised and I took the pot.  PhD showed his hand—88.  He had trips on the turn and, most surprisingly, didn’t raise with them, nor did he raise when the ace on the turn gave him Eights Full. 

I once read an old saw “if you don’t lose a lot of money with a set on the flop, you didn’t bet enough.” I think that is right.  Given the lack of preflop raising, it was unlikely that either Ferrari or I were holding AA. Since PhD had the best hand after the flop, he should have made the turn as expensive as possible and maximized his potential winnings when the odds were in his favor.  He probably should have raised on the turn also - if only to see if I was willing to tolerate a raise. 

Ferrari let himself be dragged to the river with A2, which is uncharacteristic of him.  Man, I wish the river had been a deuce.  Ferrari would have paid dearly and PhD would have had no choice but to call all the way.  But that is just getting greedy.  And between the greed and the advice that the good hands should be expensive if played correctly ...

Coach is known for calling “non-traditional” games and last night was no exception.  He called 7stud, H/L Push - a game in which every player is given one chance to “push” an up card to the left for .50 per round of betting.  I was dealt a spectacular low hand, and by the time all of the down cards were dealt I was showing the table 3♦5♦6♦K♥.  I had the T♦2♦ underneath.  From fourth street on I represented that I had both a killer low and a flush in progress and I bet accordingly. I was bluffing the low, of course, but what was showing was so good, who could doubt me? The last down card was the A♦, giving me the diamond flush to the Ace, and filling an A2356 low.  I got what I “said” that I had all along.  Swish and Brother of Coach both had pairs showing, but had been betting so conservatively I wasn’t worried about full houses.  Big Mike was clearly going low, but I was sure that his best low was an 8 or 9.  That left Coach.

It was clear that Coach was betting a spade flush and the highest spade he had showing was a Q.  It was a declare game, so I had to decide if I should take the certianty of a low pot against Big Mike or roll the dice and go H/L.  I rolled the dice.  When I bet after the declare Swish (high) and Brother of Coach (high) folded.  Big Mike (low, natch) called and Coach called and said “You don’t have a straight flush, do you?” - and flipped up the A♠. A♦2♦ 3♦5♦6♦ lost to A♠Q♠x♠x♠x♠ and I lost my both-ways bet.  Which leads to another question for the assembled masses:

Does Coach get the whole pot or just the high portion? Obviously I take nothing.  But Coach and I felt that since my low beat Big Mike, Big Mike “lost” the low and Coach, as the sole winner at the table, should get the whole pot.  Brother of Coach and Big Mike disagreed (Thanks, bro!) and Coach decided not to push the issue, opting to split the pot and preserve relationships.  We are truly cut from different cloth, coach and I. Ferrari sided with the split-pot crowd when asked about it the next day.  I couldn’t figure out where Rick stood.

Some final notes about the home game:

Rick never made it, trapped in the office.  Ferrari left almost immediately after I arrived, claiming other plans. 

Once again, Ferrari lost money when Coach was at the table. 

Pauly briefly tried to front Bronx tough, but failed miserably as he had already copped to (a) growing up in Riverdale and (b) attending the top academic Catholic school in NYC.  While the chances that he can kick my ass are still decent, that is not a particularly high bar. 

PhD gets a serious gold star for having honor trump cash.  He bet a considerable amount of money on a low hand, declared low and won low - until he was the only person at the table who remembered that the dealer had called the hand with a qualifying low - and his hand didn’t qualify.

Lots of laughing, a good burger from Jackson Hole, and - for the first time in ages - a woman at the game.  A good night for poker, even if once again I ended up essentially even for the night.

Conclusion

In sum, my play is getting better but my wallet isn’t getting fatter.  I feel that things are going to change, however, and my first chance to show it comes tonight at Ferrari’s game.  Keep your fingers crossed for me, everyone.

The first time I saw Citizen Kane I was probably somewhere between 10-12 years old.  My parents were going to watch it on video and they told me that it was an “adult” movie and that I’d probably be bored.  Well that, of course, guaranteed I would watch (I have always wondered if my parents were using reverse psychology on me there), but I still was expecting to be bored.  Instead, I was absolutely enthralled.  To be able to watch a movie like Citizen Kane for the first time without the burden of expectations or knowledge was a truly wonderful thing.

I may have seen part or all of Citizen Kane one more time in between, but it certainly had been many years since I had seen it and I was curious to see my reaction to it with the full burden of memories, expectations and Rick’s take.  I was enthralled again.  Citizen Kane fully deserves its laudatory status in the annals of filmmaking.

The cinematography in Citizen Kane is amazing.  Welles use of light and camera angle is far more technically and artistically accomplished than the vast majority of movies made today with the benefit of modern techniques and knowledge.  Citizen Kane deserves consideration as a great movie on this basis alone.

I found the story of a man with nearly limitless amounts of money, who sets out to change and mold the world with a “I don’t care what other people think” attitude (because he expects everyone will eventually think what he thinks and, later, what he tells them to think), but painfully learns that he does care when he discovers the limitations of his power and influence, to be engrossing and fascinating.  It is not told in a traditionally dramatic fashion and lacks the sappy Hollywood happy ending.  Some might interpret this as a weakness as the movie does not “flow” in the way one typically expects a movie to, but I view this as a great strength.  It is easy to follow the traditional formulaic pattern of a dramatic movie, but Citizen Kane disrupts us and challenges our expectations, while not losing any of its power.  That is talent.

The acting is also excellent.  Welles is magnificent and the rest of the cast is, for the most part, strong.  The only possible criticism of Welles’ acting is that, at twenty-five, he didn’t fully pull of Kane in his later years. 

I also found Citizen Kane to be remarkably timely, with many modern parallels.  For example, the examination of a media mogul (modeled on William Randolph Hearst) is relevant to considerations today of media titans such as Murdoch and Bloomberg.  The corrupt and unscrupulous Boss Gettys’ use of Kane’s affair to topple his run for governor—with Kane believing, incorrectly, that the people wouldn’t care—brought to mind the Clinton witch-hunt.  And Kane’s retreat to his reclusive fantasy world of Xanadu still only scratches the surface of the King of Pop.  Also, Welles’ examination of the degree to which money, power and the media can dictate what people think is relevant to this year’s election.  Welles suggests that while people can be greatly influenced by such things, there is a point where “the people” will see through the bullshit, but that those who spout it often fail to realize this point exists (let’s hope Welles is right).

It was also interesting to watch this movie with the knowledge of who or what Rosebud is/was (if you haven’t seen Citizen Kane, don’t worry, I’m not telling).  Watching Citizen Kane as a child, I remember going “Ah ha” when Rosebud was revealed and feeling that it completed the movie and made sense.  Watching it a second time, knowing who or what Rosebud is/was and, thereby, knowing the parable Welles is telling actually made the movie more profound.  Welles’ depiction of what a man of tremendous power and influence misses, regrets and longs for on his death bed is quite powerful. 

To be fair to the critics, there are a few instances in the movie where it drags a bit and I can see how someone could get bored if they were not focused in on or engaged in the movie and didn’t particularly care about the movie’s artistic elements.  Also, we never fully understand why Kane “losses it” to the degree to which he does, but, then again, does anyone understand why Howard Hughes or Michael Jackson became such wackos?  Answering that question, it seems to me, is beyond what we can reasonably as of Welles.  One might the depiction is unrealistic, but for the fact that real life icons of power, wealth and influence have made Charles Foster Kane look quite balanced in comparison. 

I am not going to argue that Citizen Kane is the greatest movie of all time.  I don’t believe in such a thing as an objectively “greatest” movie.  But because of the combination of a great story, a non-formulaic style of telling it, tremendous technical and artistic quality, relevance 60+ years later and influence on future filmmakers, Citizen Kane absolutely deserves to be on any all time Top Ten list and gets the rare 5 stars (out of 4) on Signor Ferrari’s rating system (description forthcoming).

The first time I saw Citizen Kane I was probably somewhere between 10-12 years old.  My parents were going to watch it on video and they told me that it was an “adult” movie and that I’d probably be bored.  Well that, of course, guaranteed I would watch (I have always wondered if my parents were using reverse psychology on me there), but I still was expecting to be bored.  Instead, I was absolutely enthralled.  To be able to watch a movie like Citizen Kane for the first time without the burden of expectations or knowledge was a truly wonderful thing.

I may have seen part or all of Citizen Kane one more time in between, but it certainly had been many years since I had seen it and I was curious to see my reaction to it with the full burden of memories, expectations and Rick’s take.  I was enthralled again.  Citizen Kane fully deserves its laudatory status in the annals of filmmaking.

The cinematography in Citizen Kane is amazing.  Welles use of light and camera angle is far more technically and artistically accomplished than the vast majority of movies made today with the benefit of modern techniques and knowledge.  Citizen Kane deserves consideration as a great movie on this basis alone.

I found the story of a man with nearly limitless amounts of money, who sets out to change and mold the world with a “I don’t care what other people think” attitude (because he expects everyone will eventually think what he thinks and, later, what he tells them to think), but painfully learns that he does care when he discovers the limitations of his power and influence, to be engrossing and fascinating.  It is not told in a traditionally dramatic fashion and lacks the sappy Hollywood happy ending.  Some might interpret this as a weakness as the movie does not “flow” in the way one typically expects a movie to, but I view this as a great strength.  It is easy to follow the traditional formulaic pattern of a dramatic movie, but Citizen Kane disrupts us and challenges our expectations, while not losing any of its power.  That is talent.

The acting is also excellent.  Welles is magnificent and the rest of the cast is, for the most part, strong.  The only possible criticism of Welles’ acting is that, at twenty-five, he didn’t fully pull of Kane in his later years. 

I also found Citizen Kane to be remarkably timely, with many modern parallels.  For example, the examination of a media mogul (modeled on William Randolph Hearst) is relevant to considerations today of media titans such as Murdoch and Bloomberg.  The corrupt and unscrupulous Boss Gettys’ use of Kane’s affair to topple his run for governor—with Kane believing, incorrectly, that the people wouldn’t care—brought to mind the Clinton witch-hunt.  And Kane’s retreat to his reclusive fantasy world of Xanadu still only scratches the surface of the King of Pop.  Also, Welles’ examination of the degree to which money, power and the media can dictate what people think is relevant to this year’s election.  Welles suggests that while people can be greatly influenced by such things, there is a point where “the people” will see through the bullshit, but that those who spout it often fail to realize this point exists (let’s hope Welles is right).

It was also interesting to watch this movie with the knowledge of who or what Rosebud is/was (if you haven’t seen Citizen Kane, don’t worry, I’m not telling).  Watching Citizen Kane as a child, I remember going “Ah ha” when Rosebud was revealed and feeling that it completed the movie and made sense.  Watching it a second time, knowing who or what Rosebud is/was and, thereby, knowing the parable Welles is telling actually made the movie more profound.  Welles’ depiction of what a man of tremendous power and influence misses, regrets and longs for on his death bed is quite powerful. 

To be fair to the critics, there are a few instances in the movie where it drags a bit and I can see how someone could get bored if they were not focused in on or engaged in the movie and didn’t particularly care about the movie’s artistic elements.  Also, we never fully understand why Kane “losses it” to the degree to which he does, but, then again, does anyone understand why Howard Hughes or Michael Jackson became such wackos?  Answering that question, it seems to me, is beyond what we can reasonably as of Welles.  One might the depiction is unrealistic, but for the fact that real life icons of power, wealth and influence have made Charles Foster Kane look quite balanced in comparison. 

I am not going to argue that Citizen Kane is the greatest movie of all time.  I don’t believe in such a thing as an objectively “greatest” movie.  But because of the combination of a great story, a non-formulaic style of telling it, tremendous technical and artistic quality, relevance 60+ years later and influence on future filmmakers, Citizen Kane absolutely deserves to be on any all time Top Ten list and gets the rare 5 stars (out of 4) on Signor Ferrari’s rating system (description forthcoming).

Matthew, a 21 year-old American, goes to Paris in 1968 to learn French.  Obsessed with movies he frequently views old classics at museum.  At a protest over the theater’s closing, he meets Theo and Isabelle, attractive twins who he had observed but never approached before.  They immediately bond with Matthew, inviting him to their house for dinner and then to stay indefinitely when their parents leave for a long trip.  As Matthew discovers, the twins’ relationship is a fair bit closer than most brother/sister relationships and this creates tension as Matthew’s relationship with them, and especially Isabelle, develops.

The first half of The Dreamers is an interesting coming of age movie, but ultimately the storyline starts to drag and the relationships between the three becomes less interesting.  The movie is visually engaging at times and the early references to old movies and the demonstration of their influence on the characters (which fades away in the second half) is the movie’s most interesting motif.  By the end, I was losing interest and did not find the abrupt ending to be satisfying. 

What I liked most about this movie was the frankness and directness with which Bertolucci’s shows the three in their more intimate and less clothed moments (and no, I am not just talking about sex).  Taking the slightly odd context of their relationships as a given, the characters act on screen as we would expect them to act in real life.  There is no fake Hollywood sensuality and no distinction between male and female nudity.  The Dreamers is unquestionably an “adult” movie, but I am disturbed that a movie like this garners an NC-17 rating, whereas movies with callous violence, demeaning depictions of women and much more raunchy sexuality garner R ratings.  The Dreamers probably gained an NC-17 simply because Bertolucci showed people naked, without hiding their genitals. 

Ultimately, The Dreamers might be worth a viewing artistically, but don’t be distraught if you miss it.

Matthew, a 21 year-old American, goes to Paris in 1968 to learn French.  Obsessed with movies he frequently views old classics at museum.  At a protest over the theater’s closing, he meets Theo and Isabelle, attractive twins who he had observed but never approached before.  They immediately bond with Matthew, inviting him to their house for dinner and then to stay indefinitely when their parents leave for a long trip.  As Matthew discovers, the twins’ relationship is a fair bit closer than most brother/sister relationships and this creates tension as Matthew’s relationship with them, and especially Isabelle, develops.

The first half of The Dreamers is an interesting coming of age movie, but ultimately the storyline starts to drag and the relationships between the three becomes less interesting.  The movie is visually engaging at times and the early references to old movies and the demonstration of their influence on the characters (which fades away in the second half) is the movie’s most interesting motif.  By the end, I was losing interest and did not find the abrupt ending to be satisfying. 

What I liked most about this movie was the frankness and directness with which Bertolucci’s shows the three in their more intimate and less clothed moments (and no, I am not just talking about sex).  Taking the slightly odd context of their relationships as a given, the characters act on screen as we would expect them to act in real life.  There is no fake Hollywood sensuality and no distinction between male and female nudity.  The Dreamers is unquestionably an “adult” movie, but I am disturbed that a movie like this garners an NC-17 rating, whereas movies with callous violence, demeaning depictions of women and much more raunchy sexuality garner R ratings.  The Dreamers probably gained an NC-17 simply because Bertolucci showed people naked, without hiding their genitals. 

Ultimately, The Dreamers might be worth a viewing artistically, but don’t be distraught if you miss it.

For starters, let me say that I didn’t find it anti-semitic.  Sure, the Temple Elders were a touch unsympathetic, but so were the British in Braveheart, the Romans in Gladiator, the Germans in . . . well . . . pretty much every movie.  Remember, folks, this is a movie—and a Mel Gibson picture, at that.  Hollywood meets the Vatican: think Braveheart, without a storyline or epic battle scenes or even a terribly sympathetic hero, and you get to see the drawing and quartering.  Actually, think Braveheart where the drawing and quartering lasts two and a half hours.

My only real complaint on a “historical accuracy” level is that Pilate is easily the most likeable character.  That’s problematic for two reasons.  First, historical accounts don’t make him seem like quite the honorable, fair, thoughtful man he is in the film.  Second, in a film about Jesus, why is Pilate the only one with depth?

And he is.  Everyone else is a caricature (Judas is a cowering simp who becomes a babbling maniac—at least that’s growth of a sort; Mary and Mary are kind of like Jesus’ backup singers—they follow him around, making soft noises but not really doing much of anything; Peter does a lot of staring; and the Rabbis ride around on mules and generally look smug and vicious; Satan (yes, Satan) is a dead ringer for Emperor Palpatine, and mostly just sulks around looking smug and vicious.  Wait a minute . . .

Did I leave anyone out?  Oh, yeah, Jesus.  See, despite being the focus of the film (and a major religion, incidentally), he’s not really a character.  And that’s the part that really bugged me.  This film reduces Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God, King of the Jews, Prince of Peace, to nothing more than a fetish object: a body that we can watch be torn apart on screen for two hours.

I wouldn’t say that this movie was about Jesus.  In fact, I wouldn’t say this movie was “about” anything.  Instead, of being The Greatest Story Ever Told, it’s an extended scene from one of the Hellraiser movies, with Roman soldiers as the Cenobites.  In my opinion Gibson has done for Catholicism what Tobe Hooper did for the Texas Tourism Board.

The movie doesn’t really teach you anything about who Jesus was, what he did or said, or what it meant.  It just shows you how he died.  And boy, was it gory.  When it was over, I didn’t think to myself “Hey, that Jesus was quite a guy!” or “Hmmm, what a great message he had!” In fact, it didn’t make me think at all, except to marvel at how much the blood looked like barbeque sauce.  There is no message of peace and love, no theological, philosophical or even political statement made or question posed.  Just lots and lots of blood.  And I think I saw a rib.

Also, the end is crap.  I don’t recall ever reading that when Jesus finally died, the earth shook, and the Temple was cracked in two (I think Mel got that from an Indiana Jones film).  That may also have been a touch anti-semitic, now that I think about it.  Editor’s Note:  I have been informed (by Pauly) that this is in fact in the gospel.  Still, the scene with Satan screaming and writhing in defeat was pure cheese.

Bottom line:  if you get off on watching someone get tortured and die slowly and gruesomely, this is the flick for you.  Otherwise, rent The Last Temptation of Christ. 

As for Gibson, his punishment should be to be placed in the Harrow and have “Stick to Action Flicks” inscribed on his body

On the other hand, British Airways has some fine movie selections.  On the way home I got to see Cool Hand Luke and Dog Day Afternoon.  Those are some amazing movies, and they get better with each viewing.