Back to work after the long holiday. I withdrew all my online balances while I was away, and I don’t like using the deposit button. That combined with the fact I felt I was playing badly at the start of the year and needed to remember how to bank slow steady wins again meant that I decided not to deposit very much and to start at 1/2 and work my way up. So its like a £3k spin up for the next two months.
Its not a managing a whole ‘bankroll’, because the old bankroll is still in reserve, meaning I don’t have to ensure a reasonable risk-of-ruin. So no problem starting with only 15 stacks, and its OK to play 2/4 and 3/6 if the line-ups make it a necessity.
It has gone well so far and I’ve run well above expectation finishing the month on about £8k (proper 2/4 roll, hurray!). I have been experimenting with playing up to 10 tables, so a lower win rate is expected and I’ll be keeping an eye on whether the hourly makes up for it.
I only ‘earned’ 12 stacks in 50k hands, which is just 2.4bb/100, which I suppose is fine if I am doing it on twice as many tables as usual. Playing twice as many hands in the month
I had to take a week off in the middle of this month for Jury duty, although I was never selected to sit on a trial. I was in the selection group of about 30 from which 12 were chosen for a long trial. They gave us a form to fill in asking if we knew anyone from HMRC, so presumably it was tax/fraud, the form also asked if we had any holidays booked or any surgery scheduled. One lady, who was selected for that jury, was baffled by those three questions and asked the judge if she could change her ‘incorrect’ answer at the last minute, then gave the form back unchanged after staring at it for a minute. This is someone you couldn’t trust with a shopping list and she is now in the process of starting to decipher 2 month’s worth of complex information in order to make a decision about somebody’s freedom. And that is why its not true that trial by jury should be something we are proud of and fight to keep in use as often as possible.
Furthermore, on getting sworn in each juror has to decide which oath or affirmation to read out. Only 4 of 12 picked the non-religious affirmation. The other 8 said this;
“I swear by almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence.”
A true verdict ‘according to the evidence’ sworn on their FAITH in ‘almighty God’. That’s such a gross evidence-evaluation failure right there that they should all be struck off immediately, and yet they are in a majority on that jury. These are people that think that the characters of millennia-old tales from goat-herders probably really do exist, and they are going to be left to decide whether someone is guilty of a crime for which the evidence takes 2 months to present.
Related Posts:
June 4th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
I often wonder about juries. Would love some serious studies into their inner workings. If you think about group psychology, there is no way you’re getting 12 equal voices, more like one or two. But then jury selection is a skill you pay for, so maybe there’s a consistency if not what you would imagine beforehand as ‘justice’.