Friday, October 13, 2006


It's been a while since I updated, so here it is:

It's not working.

To the extent I could do casino bonuses, bonus whoring mostly worked out great. I lost principal at a couple of sites, but this was more than balanced out by the sites where I cashed out significantly ahead due to bonus.

But I'm starting this at the wrong time. Even before the Safe Ports Act and the resultant "illegal gambling" ban, sites were blocking US players. Many of the sites I already did their bonuses, have since blocked US players.

I've also done some poker bonus whoring. And this has been a problem.

I'm not +EV. I'm not even break-even. Looking at PokerTracker data, it appears that I'm not paying enough attention to position, specifically, that I'm playing too many iffy hands up front, such as suited connectors. And, at first, when I tried to correct for this, I ended up way ahead, but then lost it all back the next day.

Variance? Possibly. But my bankroll is now in desperate enough condition that variance can kill me.

The point is, that while there are still a large number of poker bonuses available, I'm not +EV enough to chase them. I lost $325 chasing a $200 bonus at PokerRoom, and it took two weeks to earn out that $200 anyway (at $1/$2). Even if the first wasn't a problem, the second would be; bonus-whoring is too slow on poker sites. I'm better off playing strictly for EV, if I can find a game I'm +EV in.

With my remaining $400 or $500 (which, incidentally, is about what I started this with), I'm left to do what seemed to work before, for a limited number of hands: Play $1/$2 and below at Stars. Stars' player base should be expanding exponentially today, since today is the day that Party officially pulled the plug on US players.

Losing depresses me more than it should, because it makes apparent that this simply isn't working. I find getting a job to be a worse fate than death, literally, so I'm out of options.

(Have you noticed how many people use the word "literally" as an intensifier, meaning "very" or "extremely," and in cases where a literal reading of what they're talking about is impossible? Something like, "We waited in line for the movie for literally years." I wouldn't really have a problem with this, except that there isn't a different word to mean "I intend that you do a literal reading of what I am saying." In my example, that should mean something like, "I know it sounds like I'm exaggerating, but I'm not; we waited in line for years." If people are going to continue to misuse the word "literally," what word would replace it for people who mean something specific when they use that word?)

And so, I plug along, even though I'm about out of hope.


My problems with every other thing I've tried to do in my life, that is, with any of the twenty jobs I've held, make me ridiculously paranoid about the poker legislation. Even though I know how ridiculous it is, I can't help feeling that the legislation was aimed at me specifically. That is, that the world, in the person of Bill Frist, is telling me that no matter what I might think, this isn't going to work for me either. That might be true, but since I don't have any other options, I feel very put upon by Mr. Frist.

My reading of the legislation is that it doesn't change anything, because the people the law is aimed at aren't in the US and not subject to Congress. My hope is that the report coming from the WTO in November on the US' compliance with the rulings in favor of Antigua, will be enough to kick Washington into rescinding the law (and, incidentally, letting Harrahs and MGM into the online market). I think that the report will say that the US is not in compliance, but unless it gives Antigua what it's asked for—the right to abrogate US copyrights and patents—immediately, any changes here will be months or years in the making.