Sunday, August 31, 2008
A while ago, I was chatting with good2cu, and I was remarking on the unbelievable rise of theASHMAN103 on FullTiltPoker. Good2cu suggested the possibility of multiple people using the account or the presence of a financial backer. Neither situation bothers me in the least because a) poker action is likely to be greater, b) any prohibition would not be enforceable with appropriate evidence, and c) there does not seem to be anything intrinsically wrong with it, given the anonymous nature of Internet services.
Having been in professional poker for more than four years, I am aware of both meteoric rises and collapses. A review of stevesbets' play would show he has played low stakes to the highest limits offered at a variety of game types, all within the past year! As I have been developing my no-limit game within the past several months, I have become familiar with several regulars. It is both inspiring and noteworthy when I see a few of these regulars in higher games as time passes and presumably, their bankrolls increase. So it took me completely aback when I started observing theASHMAN103 playing $200-$400 PLO, when I used to sit with him at $2-$4 6-max not too long ago! I have discovered that the identity of this player is Ashton Griffin, a kid who recounts honestly in his blog how he went from less than $300 a year ago to some ungodly number. A year from now, there will be a new small crop of young guns who are playing the highest stakes.
Having been in professional poker for more than four years, I am aware of both meteoric rises and collapses. A review of stevesbets' play would show he has played low stakes to the highest limits offered at a variety of game types, all within the past year! As I have been developing my no-limit game within the past several months, I have become familiar with several regulars. It is both inspiring and noteworthy when I see a few of these regulars in higher games as time passes and presumably, their bankrolls increase. So it took me completely aback when I started observing theASHMAN103 playing $200-$400 PLO, when I used to sit with him at $2-$4 6-max not too long ago! I have discovered that the identity of this player is Ashton Griffin, a kid who recounts honestly in his blog how he went from less than $300 a year ago to some ungodly number. A year from now, there will be a new small crop of young guns who are playing the highest stakes.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
My friends complain that John Phan takes too long making decisions in tournament poker. Phan has had fantastic results in tournaments, especially this year. At the most recent WPT event, at least one player suggested that Phan act faster when it is his turn. My friend stevesbets gives the apperance of not even thinking when he plays online and suggests that everyone act as fast as possible. Generally, I agree with his philosophy, as I believe fake-thinking is pointless and pretentious. Since the blind levels in tournaments are adjusted according to time and not the number of hands, a lesser player reduces the advantage a good player has by decreasing the number of hands to the end of the tournament.
This weekend was the start to the college football season, which I follow closely. Teams know before the game starts how big of a favorite or underdog they are. They can also reassess their win equity according to the score, injuries, possession, field position, etc. Underdogs should employ John Phan tactics and wind down the game clock every possible chance. With every second that is played, the more likely that the long-run edges will hold true. So much of the game is less about talent and execution and more about real coaching directives. I have also been a big proponent of sabermetrics in baseball, but teams are still slow to adopt the right plays in football. There are many people say that the media would crucify coaches who go for risky fourth-down plays. If the coaches are doing their job correctly, this aspect should be irrelevant.
Latest viewing: The Wire: Season Five (2008).
This weekend was the start to the college football season, which I follow closely. Teams know before the game starts how big of a favorite or underdog they are. They can also reassess their win equity according to the score, injuries, possession, field position, etc. Underdogs should employ John Phan tactics and wind down the game clock every possible chance. With every second that is played, the more likely that the long-run edges will hold true. So much of the game is less about talent and execution and more about real coaching directives. I have also been a big proponent of sabermetrics in baseball, but teams are still slow to adopt the right plays in football. There are many people say that the media would crucify coaches who go for risky fourth-down plays. If the coaches are doing their job correctly, this aspect should be irrelevant.
Latest viewing: The Wire: Season Five (2008).
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Piggybacking on stevesbets' Latest Post
My close friend stevesbets' latest post might have been his longest. I often struggle to find topics to write about under the pressure of issuing new posts. I have decided to cover several topics that Steve has. Please read his blog post for full reference.
Steve wrote about his business school application process. I also applied to several business schools and was rejected by all of them, including, Wharton, Sloan, Columbia, Chicago, and Kellogg. Truth be told, I did not actually put too much effort into the process, and my results showed. The primary reason I applied was I happened to post a decent 750 GMAT score, although it contrasted sharply with my mediocre 3.0 GPA. I know my effort was not all-out because of this story. When one applies to a top business school and looks for an interviewer in a workaholic city like New York or San Francisco, there are pages of alumni. When I interviewed with University of Chicago, there was only one (1) eligible alumnus in Las Vegas. I interviewed with him and was subsequently rejected. More than a year later, I received a blog-related email, which I get occasionally, about poker advice and such. The writer reveals that he has picked up poker as a hobby and realizes that he interviewed me for Chicago earlier! I agree to have a long meeting with him about business school and poker over a drink and sushi. He told me that he could definitely tell that my heart was not into business school. However, he strongly encouraged me to apply again, saying that Chicago values creative, unique individuals such as myself.
I agree with Steve in that all universities have it in their best financial interests to encourage as many applicants as possible. Aside from the minor immediate gains of application fees and tuition, their talent evaluation pool is likely to screen for future donations and fame. There is relatively little cost to universities for each incremental applicant, but potentially incremental millions of dollars in future donations.
I stand by my assertion that it is silly for Steve to take it out on Penn because they rejected him for the Wharton graduate school. Ideally, each academic department should be independent and fundraising and admission divisions should be corruption-free. On a side note, I have told several people, including stevesbets, that even if Wharton had admitted me, I would not give one penny to the institution. This is not out of any spite, but simply because Wharton and Penn (my alma mater) are home to the 10th largest financial endowment in the world, at $7 billion. Penn has a larger endowment than the GDP of Eritrea, Somalia, or Fiji, among other countries. Harvard has a larger cash fund than more than the GDP of more than half the countries in this world! The marginal interest on Harvard's endowment is enough to pay for the full four-year tuition of every one of its undergraduate and graduate students. I can name all sorts of absurd facts like this. I believe that one of the primary reasons for charity is to reduce the life variance of the citizens of this world. Feeding the richer in this instance does not provide correct incentives, and I am normally all about reducing taxes and whatnot. I was duped into giving a donation of $20.02 (my class year) a few years ago though. Good luck into extracting any more from me. There are people who would argue that being so strong in my alumni donation beliefs could hurt me with fellow alumni and with the university. My counter-argument is that what goes around comes around, and I would rather not dupe the university into thinking that I would donate ungodly sums should I found Microsoft 2.0 or whatever. If someone would rather not associate with me simply because of my alumni donation belief, then it is best to sever ties earlier than later, although a truly independent and objective institution will and should evaluate my candidacy exclusive of such a stance.
I have discussed with Steve his b-school process, but I do not recall his admissions rejection phone call. Assuming what he said was true, I totally agree with him. That is, universities can say all about unique unusual candidates are attractive, but truly they want mainstream investment bankers and consultants. I am not saying this as sour grapes. It is the best play for them. Why preempt any candidates? It is a freeroll for universities. Even not having a GPA minimum is window dressing. There are not too many admitted candidates below a 3.2 or so.
I also agree with stevesbets in saying that playing poker independently is a bigger challenge than what most people give credit for. I have several friends who make six figures in normal jobs. I would challenge them to make six figures without the benefit of a W-2, and several of them would agree that it is difficult. I am not going to say that being a poker player is harder than working on Wall Street. That is not my point. I am simply saying that I think lawyers, consultants, bankers, have a biased leg up on poker players and other non-traditional jobs in the arena of public perception. It is fine; I certainly did not enter my profession to please the world. I do disagree with those who say lawyers and doctors are here to save the world. I agree with doctors who admit they are simply businessmen in the field of medicine. I am no more a mercenary than a schoolteacher. I receive market wage and market prestige based on my contribution to society. Doctors do not work for free. People mention Médecins Sans Frontières as an honorable charity. Fuck, I am going to found the Poker Players Sans Frontières charity. I do not discriminate. I will take your money however.
Not so secretly, I am hoping Steve hates business school and drops out. He was enrolled in a Masters program at Penn that he dropped when he realized how he did not fit into the program. Business school is sort a joke though, so he could play online still and complete the program. I often joked that should I have matriculated to a top-flight business program, I would have taken my top-five MBA and gone right back to playing poker.
Steve tilts about kids. He is much harsher than I am. I have thick skin compared to stevesbets, whose tilts are legendary. I still think he should be more quiet in his online rants. He is lucky that all his opponents are thick-skinned and not genuinely offended.
Finally, I agree with Steve about service people and their gratuities. I have agreed with this all the time. In poker, if I have 60% equity, I get 0 or everything. In restaurants, a waiter could have 56% service equity and get 100% of his expected tip. I want service people to suffer the same volatility that I do. I rarely leave a tip below 15%, but I am gradually mustering more courage. I want to leave a 0-40 range, not the low-variance 15-20 range. If there is no fear, then there is little incentive to perform. The tip differences between the best and worst waiters in a restaurant is tiny. I hold the same stances with all unions, schoolteachers, etc. I had some terrible teachers in high school. I couldn't believe they earned even $1000 annually. I felt like my parents' property tax payments were simply thrown in the garbage. We should have high school teachers that make $250k and some who make $10k. No, I am not kidding. High-pressure environments are best for performance.
Steve wrote about his business school application process. I also applied to several business schools and was rejected by all of them, including, Wharton, Sloan, Columbia, Chicago, and Kellogg. Truth be told, I did not actually put too much effort into the process, and my results showed. The primary reason I applied was I happened to post a decent 750 GMAT score, although it contrasted sharply with my mediocre 3.0 GPA. I know my effort was not all-out because of this story. When one applies to a top business school and looks for an interviewer in a workaholic city like New York or San Francisco, there are pages of alumni. When I interviewed with University of Chicago, there was only one (1) eligible alumnus in Las Vegas. I interviewed with him and was subsequently rejected. More than a year later, I received a blog-related email, which I get occasionally, about poker advice and such. The writer reveals that he has picked up poker as a hobby and realizes that he interviewed me for Chicago earlier! I agree to have a long meeting with him about business school and poker over a drink and sushi. He told me that he could definitely tell that my heart was not into business school. However, he strongly encouraged me to apply again, saying that Chicago values creative, unique individuals such as myself.
I agree with Steve in that all universities have it in their best financial interests to encourage as many applicants as possible. Aside from the minor immediate gains of application fees and tuition, their talent evaluation pool is likely to screen for future donations and fame. There is relatively little cost to universities for each incremental applicant, but potentially incremental millions of dollars in future donations.
I stand by my assertion that it is silly for Steve to take it out on Penn because they rejected him for the Wharton graduate school. Ideally, each academic department should be independent and fundraising and admission divisions should be corruption-free. On a side note, I have told several people, including stevesbets, that even if Wharton had admitted me, I would not give one penny to the institution. This is not out of any spite, but simply because Wharton and Penn (my alma mater) are home to the 10th largest financial endowment in the world, at $7 billion. Penn has a larger endowment than the GDP of Eritrea, Somalia, or Fiji, among other countries. Harvard has a larger cash fund than more than the GDP of more than half the countries in this world! The marginal interest on Harvard's endowment is enough to pay for the full four-year tuition of every one of its undergraduate and graduate students. I can name all sorts of absurd facts like this. I believe that one of the primary reasons for charity is to reduce the life variance of the citizens of this world. Feeding the richer in this instance does not provide correct incentives, and I am normally all about reducing taxes and whatnot. I was duped into giving a donation of $20.02 (my class year) a few years ago though. Good luck into extracting any more from me. There are people who would argue that being so strong in my alumni donation beliefs could hurt me with fellow alumni and with the university. My counter-argument is that what goes around comes around, and I would rather not dupe the university into thinking that I would donate ungodly sums should I found Microsoft 2.0 or whatever. If someone would rather not associate with me simply because of my alumni donation belief, then it is best to sever ties earlier than later, although a truly independent and objective institution will and should evaluate my candidacy exclusive of such a stance.
I have discussed with Steve his b-school process, but I do not recall his admissions rejection phone call. Assuming what he said was true, I totally agree with him. That is, universities can say all about unique unusual candidates are attractive, but truly they want mainstream investment bankers and consultants. I am not saying this as sour grapes. It is the best play for them. Why preempt any candidates? It is a freeroll for universities. Even not having a GPA minimum is window dressing. There are not too many admitted candidates below a 3.2 or so.
I also agree with stevesbets in saying that playing poker independently is a bigger challenge than what most people give credit for. I have several friends who make six figures in normal jobs. I would challenge them to make six figures without the benefit of a W-2, and several of them would agree that it is difficult. I am not going to say that being a poker player is harder than working on Wall Street. That is not my point. I am simply saying that I think lawyers, consultants, bankers, have a biased leg up on poker players and other non-traditional jobs in the arena of public perception. It is fine; I certainly did not enter my profession to please the world. I do disagree with those who say lawyers and doctors are here to save the world. I agree with doctors who admit they are simply businessmen in the field of medicine. I am no more a mercenary than a schoolteacher. I receive market wage and market prestige based on my contribution to society. Doctors do not work for free. People mention Médecins Sans Frontières as an honorable charity. Fuck, I am going to found the Poker Players Sans Frontières charity. I do not discriminate. I will take your money however.
Not so secretly, I am hoping Steve hates business school and drops out. He was enrolled in a Masters program at Penn that he dropped when he realized how he did not fit into the program. Business school is sort a joke though, so he could play online still and complete the program. I often joked that should I have matriculated to a top-flight business program, I would have taken my top-five MBA and gone right back to playing poker.
Steve tilts about kids. He is much harsher than I am. I have thick skin compared to stevesbets, whose tilts are legendary. I still think he should be more quiet in his online rants. He is lucky that all his opponents are thick-skinned and not genuinely offended.
Finally, I agree with Steve about service people and their gratuities. I have agreed with this all the time. In poker, if I have 60% equity, I get 0 or everything. In restaurants, a waiter could have 56% service equity and get 100% of his expected tip. I want service people to suffer the same volatility that I do. I rarely leave a tip below 15%, but I am gradually mustering more courage. I want to leave a 0-40 range, not the low-variance 15-20 range. If there is no fear, then there is little incentive to perform. The tip differences between the best and worst waiters in a restaurant is tiny. I hold the same stances with all unions, schoolteachers, etc. I had some terrible teachers in high school. I couldn't believe they earned even $1000 annually. I felt like my parents' property tax payments were simply thrown in the garbage. We should have high school teachers that make $250k and some who make $10k. No, I am not kidding. High-pressure environments are best for performance.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Cheating
One of the stories about world-class sports competitions, such as the Olympics, is the prevalence of performance-enhancing drugs. To me, discussion around drugs is silly. There are many people who scream at the top of mountaintops in a self-righteous holier-than-thou fashion that performance-enhancing drugs taint the sport(s). I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs, not that I competed in any meaningful manner. But the athletic feats are impressive regardless of any drugs involved. When you look at the roster of most athletes caught for cheating, most are not that successful. For every Barry Bonds, there are ten thousand Randy Velardes.
The definition of drugs is somewhat arbitrary. I could easily argue that good nutrition is more of an advantage than taking drugs. Taking drugs is definitely not an unfair advantage; it is available to everyone. People may argue, it is unfair since it is illegal. I would argue that athletes factor in their own guilt, rewards, risks, shame, talent, etc. to make their decisions. Therefore, nothing is truly unfair. Some athletes will cheat blatantly, with a poor risk-reward situation. However, even the athletes who absolutely detest performance-enhancing drugs would do so, given the right circumstances. When I see my favorite athletes do amazing things, I think that the feats are executed in an environment of angling for every edge, including training, nutrition, and supplement/drug use. I still do not understand what makes certain drugs "unfair" and the fact that certain people can more easily eat particular foods not to be an equally "unfair" advantage.
For example, there are performance-enhancing drugs in the regular workforce too. There are millions of businessmen, bankers, lawyers, etc. who require morning caffeine, prescription drugs, and illegal drugs to function properly. Does society make a big stink of how the productive people of this world create ideas and solve problems by working unfathomable hours under grueling stressful conditions? Of course not. And it should not. There are many online poker players who use drugs to play all day and night. Do I think it is unfair? That would be stupid; I could do it myself, I simply choose not to for a variety of reasons. Now, if there was drug testing among businessmen or poker players, and my peers were still using the substances, would that be unfair? Still no. That would be like whining when an opponent makes a bad call and gets rewarded with an improbable card. People make decisions based on certain risks/rewards. The primary reason why I have not attempted to rob more banks is because the punishment for getting caught is severe and the likelihood of getting is high. If either factor were sufficiently low, I would have a ski mask on right now. So I wish people would get off this stupid moral high horse about taking performance-enhancing drugs. The decision is mostly financial.
Most of my theories about human behavior center on economic theory. One of my favorite ideas is that everything has a price. People can say a possession is invaluable, but money can sway opinions easily. Of course, money is only one form of exchange. You may say that there is nothing you would receive in exchange for the Mona Lisa painting. An economist would simply offer, "How about the Mona Lisa painting + $1 trillion?" Obviously, this is theoretical, but it makes sense that nothing has infinite value; I could simply offer said invaluable object + 1 in return, which is clearly greater.
The definition of drugs is somewhat arbitrary. I could easily argue that good nutrition is more of an advantage than taking drugs. Taking drugs is definitely not an unfair advantage; it is available to everyone. People may argue, it is unfair since it is illegal. I would argue that athletes factor in their own guilt, rewards, risks, shame, talent, etc. to make their decisions. Therefore, nothing is truly unfair. Some athletes will cheat blatantly, with a poor risk-reward situation. However, even the athletes who absolutely detest performance-enhancing drugs would do so, given the right circumstances. When I see my favorite athletes do amazing things, I think that the feats are executed in an environment of angling for every edge, including training, nutrition, and supplement/drug use. I still do not understand what makes certain drugs "unfair" and the fact that certain people can more easily eat particular foods not to be an equally "unfair" advantage.
For example, there are performance-enhancing drugs in the regular workforce too. There are millions of businessmen, bankers, lawyers, etc. who require morning caffeine, prescription drugs, and illegal drugs to function properly. Does society make a big stink of how the productive people of this world create ideas and solve problems by working unfathomable hours under grueling stressful conditions? Of course not. And it should not. There are many online poker players who use drugs to play all day and night. Do I think it is unfair? That would be stupid; I could do it myself, I simply choose not to for a variety of reasons. Now, if there was drug testing among businessmen or poker players, and my peers were still using the substances, would that be unfair? Still no. That would be like whining when an opponent makes a bad call and gets rewarded with an improbable card. People make decisions based on certain risks/rewards. The primary reason why I have not attempted to rob more banks is because the punishment for getting caught is severe and the likelihood of getting is high. If either factor were sufficiently low, I would have a ski mask on right now. So I wish people would get off this stupid moral high horse about taking performance-enhancing drugs. The decision is mostly financial.
Most of my theories about human behavior center on economic theory. One of my favorite ideas is that everything has a price. People can say a possession is invaluable, but money can sway opinions easily. Of course, money is only one form of exchange. You may say that there is nothing you would receive in exchange for the Mona Lisa painting. An economist would simply offer, "How about the Mona Lisa painting + $1 trillion?" Obviously, this is theoretical, but it makes sense that nothing has infinite value; I could simply offer said invaluable object + 1 in return, which is clearly greater.
Monday, August 11, 2008
My good friend stevesbets has been the subject of several long observation threads online. When working in a traditional workforce, there are no online gossip mills, discussing personal lives, making fun of physical features, or other forms of speculating. I do not mean to suggest that poker players are celebrities, but they are definitely farther along that spectrum than even many high-powered lawyers. If I worked in a business firm, it would be unthinkable for forums to exist where people discuss the lives of their coworkers. In my previous occupation, coworkers might have talked behind each other, but only with supreme secrecy. One thing I find entertaining about the poker world is that you can talk whatever you want about whoever you want, and it does not affect your chances of promotion, job security, or general income progression. In the slightest bit, I can totally understand how celebrities claim not to read the tabloids because I find myself avoiding forums simply to avoid the gossip surrounding my friends. Of course, I do keep this blog, which makes me aware that there are effective limitations on freedom of speech in many workplaces. I do not see any honest blogs about the regular workforce, probably because there is this fear of the big bad boss with whom they have to curry favor.
Poker has been lackluster lately. I find myself waffling between 6-max and heads-up play, and although I wish to be competent at both, I have been much more successful in the latter format. I have been watching the Olympics, and most events, even within sports, are specialties. In poker, it is hard to be great at multiple games, or even one. I have always been a huge fan of Lebron James, and he made a few ridiculous plays in the China-U.S. game. It made me think, Lebron James could probably be competent in more athletic disciplines than any other individual in this world. He could probably play football, as he would terrorize the defense. He would also be an imposing soccer player, with his size and agility. I have also been watching beach volleyball, and I honestly think he could have improvised and pulled off the rare double-gold-medal attempt of beach volleyball and basketball. He gets so high off the ground, it would be scary for the opposition. There are equivalents of Lebron in poker too. Most winning players are only good at one form, but there are guys who are true poker 'athletes' with natural card sense, the playing card equivalents of size, strength, speed, etc.
Some random notes about the Olympics:
--a few of the Korean women basketball players have the exact same haircut as Anton Chigurh, the psychopathic villain played by Javier Bardem in 'No Country for Old Men.' That haircut ranks as one of the worst in cinematography history, which is not saying good things for those women.
--It tilts me to no end how they purport a broadcast to be 'live', when it is such only for the East Coast time. I will adjust my work schedule for things I want to view, so I do not need to be spoon-fed this stupid schedule that ensures I go to bed early. The 'Today' show on NBC should come on at 4am real-time here. Tape-delayed programming is terrible for sports.
Watching these athletes inspire me to get into shape. I am a little above 134 pounds now. I think I may get a gym membership, as I find the facility here to be uninspiring. I find drinking to be easier than eating, so I have been consuming these Naked Juice protein things. Each bottle is almost 900 calories, 32 ounces, and $6.50. I would love to be able to swim, but I move like a rock and have poor aerobic capacity. I do not get much conditioning here because it is too damn hot to run. I have yet to step on a track for fear that I may melt. Currently, I would struggle to break 6:00 in a mile time-trial. I want to install a pull-up bar in my living room, but I doubt I will get to that. I look at different athletes, and there are all sorts of sports that I want to try. I would like to learn to do a handstand. It seems so cool and simple, and yet it is something that I think only a small percentage of the U.S. population can do.
I have started watching Mad Men, the series on AMC. I will probably not bother to watch the first season, but this second season is spectacular. There is something glamorous about the depiction of alcoholism, womanizing, and nonstop smoking in the 1960s. When studios produce a period drama 40 years from now, what will be the themes? I think alcoholism, womanizing, and smoking will always be cool.
I also go through periods where I replay video games. I started Halo 3 although I bought it eons ago. I am about halfway through, but I am not good. I am also a third of the way through Grand Theft Auto IV, but I doubt I will finish the game. I get frustrated having to replay missions. The end of this random entry.
Latest movies seen: Secrets and Lies (1996); Lovely & Amazing (2001); 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (2007).
Poker has been lackluster lately. I find myself waffling between 6-max and heads-up play, and although I wish to be competent at both, I have been much more successful in the latter format. I have been watching the Olympics, and most events, even within sports, are specialties. In poker, it is hard to be great at multiple games, or even one. I have always been a huge fan of Lebron James, and he made a few ridiculous plays in the China-U.S. game. It made me think, Lebron James could probably be competent in more athletic disciplines than any other individual in this world. He could probably play football, as he would terrorize the defense. He would also be an imposing soccer player, with his size and agility. I have also been watching beach volleyball, and I honestly think he could have improvised and pulled off the rare double-gold-medal attempt of beach volleyball and basketball. He gets so high off the ground, it would be scary for the opposition. There are equivalents of Lebron in poker too. Most winning players are only good at one form, but there are guys who are true poker 'athletes' with natural card sense, the playing card equivalents of size, strength, speed, etc.
Some random notes about the Olympics:
--a few of the Korean women basketball players have the exact same haircut as Anton Chigurh, the psychopathic villain played by Javier Bardem in 'No Country for Old Men.' That haircut ranks as one of the worst in cinematography history, which is not saying good things for those women.
--It tilts me to no end how they purport a broadcast to be 'live', when it is such only for the East Coast time. I will adjust my work schedule for things I want to view, so I do not need to be spoon-fed this stupid schedule that ensures I go to bed early. The 'Today' show on NBC should come on at 4am real-time here. Tape-delayed programming is terrible for sports.
Watching these athletes inspire me to get into shape. I am a little above 134 pounds now. I think I may get a gym membership, as I find the facility here to be uninspiring. I find drinking to be easier than eating, so I have been consuming these Naked Juice protein things. Each bottle is almost 900 calories, 32 ounces, and $6.50. I would love to be able to swim, but I move like a rock and have poor aerobic capacity. I do not get much conditioning here because it is too damn hot to run. I have yet to step on a track for fear that I may melt. Currently, I would struggle to break 6:00 in a mile time-trial. I want to install a pull-up bar in my living room, but I doubt I will get to that. I look at different athletes, and there are all sorts of sports that I want to try. I would like to learn to do a handstand. It seems so cool and simple, and yet it is something that I think only a small percentage of the U.S. population can do.
I have started watching Mad Men, the series on AMC. I will probably not bother to watch the first season, but this second season is spectacular. There is something glamorous about the depiction of alcoholism, womanizing, and nonstop smoking in the 1960s. When studios produce a period drama 40 years from now, what will be the themes? I think alcoholism, womanizing, and smoking will always be cool.
I also go through periods where I replay video games. I started Halo 3 although I bought it eons ago. I am about halfway through, but I am not good. I am also a third of the way through Grand Theft Auto IV, but I doubt I will finish the game. I get frustrated having to replay missions. The end of this random entry.
Latest movies seen: Secrets and Lies (1996); Lovely & Amazing (2001); 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (2007).
