Saturday, May 14, 2011
Sheepville is back
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Zynga Poker
The place is full of idiots. If Zynga showed the true chip count of people including all of the chips they had to purchase no one would buy chips because it would show the millions in the hole they really are. You can spot these people easily just looking at chip count - they have 15k chips and once had a million plus. You slap a fish over their head and play them accordingly.
I was first introduced to Texas Hold'em as a teenager which sounds a bit odd until you realize my first job in life I worked for a bookie. In the 80s I started playing a poker game room on an online service called Delphi. It is the closest I have ever come to an online version being comparable to a real money game. You could not buy chips and there were no free chips. If you lost all you had then you went back to where you started, a once a day 100 chips from the game and play what we called the bot table, another words the computer. It was a long road building a chip stack and you paid by the hour to do so. I was well into six figures but even I rarely played the no-limit room because it was a huge risk if you brought your chips and if you brought a small stack you'd be eaten alive.
In Zynga being able to buy millions of chips for a few bucks completely changes the game. People play for the thrill of pulling the flush or something on the last card and sneaking in the win. With pocket aces against a table you have slightly less than a 50/50 chance to win. In Zynga people constantly go all in with crap like 10 3 off-suit, which means half the time some idiot is going to beat you doing that. They don't care, that 20k chips cost like 5 cents. Any good player knows you play tight to a loose table to win, and these tables are looser than $5 crack whores, but it is still a game of luck. My luck got so bad over the last few days that I started considering folding pocket aces. One hand I had pocket aces, another ace pops on the flop, fish goes all in, I of course oblige him. The flop also had two clubs. He had Jack 7 off-suit with the 7 as a club. The turn and the river both dropped a club, so he win with a flush. Joy.
The nice thing about these fish though is they all have one thing in common, they will pay anything to attempt to fill a straight or flush. Their play also never takes odds into consideration. An example of what will inevitably happen is I have 7 8 suited diamonds in the hole. Most everyone sees the $200 call for the flop. Two diamonds flop. Bozo the fish has to bet so bets another $200 seeing two diamonds and he has the ace of diamonds in the hole. At this point I know the following:
There are 9 diamonds possible out of the 47 unknown cards, so 9:47 or a little worse than 1:5 chance the next card will be a diamond and give me a flush. The pot is going to be about $2000 so my $200 bet will win 10 times the bet. There are no pairs on the table so placing this bet is in my favor, so I do.
The turn drops another diamond giving me my flush and there is still no pair on the table. No pair on the table is important because that means no possibility yet of a full house for someone. Bozo the fish opens with $1000 practically screaming to me he has the ace of diamonds. Bozo has now bet $1000 to win $2000 which is a bad bet in itself because he risking 1:2 and only had about a 1:5 chance to win.
I go all in with 20k because I know at this point the odds of me winning far exceed losing, so any bet on my part is a good bet. Everyone folds except Bozo who pauses a bit and hits the call button. Even if he thought I was bluffing he didn't have the hole cards to call, but he had that ace and he's hoping for a diamond on the last card. If I did flush that means 6 diamonds are gone leaving 7 which means the last card has a 7:44 chance of being a diamond or a 1:6 chance of him getting his ace high flush.
Since he called all in our cards turn up and he has that ace of diamonds and a 7 off-suit. The river drops a club, and he loses. He lost another 5 cents and I know was thinking, "yah, you're just lucky another diamond didn't drop!" And that's the deal, they just don't realize that I would have been UNLUCKY for another diamond to drop. And the real rub is with Zynga Poker it isn't unusual to have 3 or 4 fish trying thei "luck" on one hand and now there's 4 people with a 1:6 chance of getting lucky, and well, now suddenly the odds are....
I was first introduced to Texas Hold'em as a teenager which sounds a bit odd until you realize my first job in life I worked for a bookie. In the 80s I started playing a poker game room on an online service called Delphi. It is the closest I have ever come to an online version being comparable to a real money game. You could not buy chips and there were no free chips. If you lost all you had then you went back to where you started, a once a day 100 chips from the game and play what we called the bot table, another words the computer. It was a long road building a chip stack and you paid by the hour to do so. I was well into six figures but even I rarely played the no-limit room because it was a huge risk if you brought your chips and if you brought a small stack you'd be eaten alive.
In Zynga being able to buy millions of chips for a few bucks completely changes the game. People play for the thrill of pulling the flush or something on the last card and sneaking in the win. With pocket aces against a table you have slightly less than a 50/50 chance to win. In Zynga people constantly go all in with crap like 10 3 off-suit, which means half the time some idiot is going to beat you doing that. They don't care, that 20k chips cost like 5 cents. Any good player knows you play tight to a loose table to win, and these tables are looser than $5 crack whores, but it is still a game of luck. My luck got so bad over the last few days that I started considering folding pocket aces. One hand I had pocket aces, another ace pops on the flop, fish goes all in, I of course oblige him. The flop also had two clubs. He had Jack 7 off-suit with the 7 as a club. The turn and the river both dropped a club, so he win with a flush. Joy.
The nice thing about these fish though is they all have one thing in common, they will pay anything to attempt to fill a straight or flush. Their play also never takes odds into consideration. An example of what will inevitably happen is I have 7 8 suited diamonds in the hole. Most everyone sees the $200 call for the flop. Two diamonds flop. Bozo the fish has to bet so bets another $200 seeing two diamonds and he has the ace of diamonds in the hole. At this point I know the following:
There are 9 diamonds possible out of the 47 unknown cards, so 9:47 or a little worse than 1:5 chance the next card will be a diamond and give me a flush. The pot is going to be about $2000 so my $200 bet will win 10 times the bet. There are no pairs on the table so placing this bet is in my favor, so I do.
The turn drops another diamond giving me my flush and there is still no pair on the table. No pair on the table is important because that means no possibility yet of a full house for someone. Bozo the fish opens with $1000 practically screaming to me he has the ace of diamonds. Bozo has now bet $1000 to win $2000 which is a bad bet in itself because he risking 1:2 and only had about a 1:5 chance to win.
I go all in with 20k because I know at this point the odds of me winning far exceed losing, so any bet on my part is a good bet. Everyone folds except Bozo who pauses a bit and hits the call button. Even if he thought I was bluffing he didn't have the hole cards to call, but he had that ace and he's hoping for a diamond on the last card. If I did flush that means 6 diamonds are gone leaving 7 which means the last card has a 7:44 chance of being a diamond or a 1:6 chance of him getting his ace high flush.
Since he called all in our cards turn up and he has that ace of diamonds and a 7 off-suit. The river drops a club, and he loses. He lost another 5 cents and I know was thinking, "yah, you're just lucky another diamond didn't drop!" And that's the deal, they just don't realize that I would have been UNLUCKY for another diamond to drop. And the real rub is with Zynga Poker it isn't unusual to have 3 or 4 fish trying thei "luck" on one hand and now there's 4 people with a 1:6 chance of getting lucky, and well, now suddenly the odds are....
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Star Trek Online - Fail
My first MPG was a Star Trek type game - STRSHP. 300 baud and you preferred playing it on a smart terminal over a dumb one. The guy that wrote it was a friend of mine and he won the Westinghouse Science award for it that year. I'm also a Star Trek fan. The fact I have absolutely no interest in playing this game doesn't bode well for it. There's something about 10,000 Captain Kirks running around in a Starship Enterprise that just doesn't seem like it will cut it as an MMO.
What makes a mpg successful? Game mechanics and it should have some wow factor. GemStone was by far the most popular of its day. The mechanics based on Rolemaster were sound, the environment was great and people actually roleplayed their characters, and the big quest events like Black Swan Castle were more intricate than anything else I've played since. It was almost like a second home.
The wow factor for Everquest was a stunning world design. I was on the edge of my seat trying to hunt as a young Erudite at night (you couldn't see but a small area around you your torch lit up). I remember my first run from Qeynos at night in the rain with that little torch trying to make it safely to the other side of the continent that someone had said it would be safe to do, just stay on the path. It wasn't until after I started out that someone in the guild said to watch out for hill giants. For years Everquest was a great game but unfortunantly eventually became bogged down with what turned out to be bad mechanics.
Everquest 2 never had a chance. It is by leaps and bounds the best at player housing. The player housing there is so good that I would say it is the single best feature of any MMO out there. The quest lines and lore are also very well done. Game mechanics suck and they have not improved one bit since launch. First the Alternate Advancement does very little to change your character there - it only improves attributes. I have fairly equivelent classes maxxed in both games - a warlock (pet class) in WoW and a necromancer (pet class) in EQ2. Both have pets that tank, magic dps, and melee dps.
In EQ2 if my necro gets aggro I'm toast in a couple of hits - and I'm talking about solo play. The only feasable option is to pet tank and do dps and feign death if you get aggro. Trying to use the mage or scout pets solo is so out of whack from the tank pet that you don't even bother. As for the pet void beast you get from AA, I have no clue exactly what that is good for.
In WoW my warlock can use any of her pets while soloing. There are three distinct talents trees she can choose (the WoW AA) - affliction (vampire health sucking mode), demonology (powerpet class including a felguard pet that you actually use instead of whatever that void beast is), and destruction (fireballs!). All three trees are distinctly different from each other but completely viable in solo or raid play.
Lastly is the raids - I went to an epic x 4 raid (the highest in the game) recently in EQ2. I remember more tactics being used in EQ1 than that had. The raid mechanics designs in WoW are still the best out there of any game I've played. Yeah, WoW is cartoonish, but those mechanics are the real meat of any game and is why WoW is still on top after all this time.
I have played 15 to 20 MMO's since EQ1 and I would have to say EQ1 still ranks second in design behind WoW. I wonder why some of them were even released and I wonder why it is so hard for them to actually improve and come out with a better game.
What makes a mpg successful? Game mechanics and it should have some wow factor. GemStone was by far the most popular of its day. The mechanics based on Rolemaster were sound, the environment was great and people actually roleplayed their characters, and the big quest events like Black Swan Castle were more intricate than anything else I've played since. It was almost like a second home.
The wow factor for Everquest was a stunning world design. I was on the edge of my seat trying to hunt as a young Erudite at night (you couldn't see but a small area around you your torch lit up). I remember my first run from Qeynos at night in the rain with that little torch trying to make it safely to the other side of the continent that someone had said it would be safe to do, just stay on the path. It wasn't until after I started out that someone in the guild said to watch out for hill giants. For years Everquest was a great game but unfortunantly eventually became bogged down with what turned out to be bad mechanics.
Everquest 2 never had a chance. It is by leaps and bounds the best at player housing. The player housing there is so good that I would say it is the single best feature of any MMO out there. The quest lines and lore are also very well done. Game mechanics suck and they have not improved one bit since launch. First the Alternate Advancement does very little to change your character there - it only improves attributes. I have fairly equivelent classes maxxed in both games - a warlock (pet class) in WoW and a necromancer (pet class) in EQ2. Both have pets that tank, magic dps, and melee dps.
In EQ2 if my necro gets aggro I'm toast in a couple of hits - and I'm talking about solo play. The only feasable option is to pet tank and do dps and feign death if you get aggro. Trying to use the mage or scout pets solo is so out of whack from the tank pet that you don't even bother. As for the pet void beast you get from AA, I have no clue exactly what that is good for.
In WoW my warlock can use any of her pets while soloing. There are three distinct talents trees she can choose (the WoW AA) - affliction (vampire health sucking mode), demonology (powerpet class including a felguard pet that you actually use instead of whatever that void beast is), and destruction (fireballs!). All three trees are distinctly different from each other but completely viable in solo or raid play.
Lastly is the raids - I went to an epic x 4 raid (the highest in the game) recently in EQ2. I remember more tactics being used in EQ1 than that had. The raid mechanics designs in WoW are still the best out there of any game I've played. Yeah, WoW is cartoonish, but those mechanics are the real meat of any game and is why WoW is still on top after all this time.
I have played 15 to 20 MMO's since EQ1 and I would have to say EQ1 still ranks second in design behind WoW. I wonder why some of them were even released and I wonder why it is so hard for them to actually improve and come out with a better game.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Pimp and Ho?
A couple of months ago I went outside to smoke at work and this chick wanders out of the alley and comes over and bums a light off of me. This chick being a 5 foot 100 pound Asian girl wrapped up like Julia Roberts was on the street in Pretty Woman. She proceeds to tell me that she’s pissed because her boyfriend swiped $40 out of her purse. Yes, I immediately thought, “If you need $40…” She wanders off and I drool a bit more and then go over to one of the techs that was outside and saw this and was grinning ear to ear. He says, “I started to tell her she shouldn’t be talking to you dressed like that.” I’m like, “No dude, she was dressed just right!” The people I work with know me and I think his concern was for the girl.
Leaving yesterday I see her coming down the sidewalk and though she might not have much for cleavage, she was showing every bit of it she could possibly show. This time the aforementioned boyfriend seemed to be following her about 5 feet behind and looking just like a 70s pimp – hat with a feather and carrying a cane that he didn’t need but would occasionally set it on his shoulder. He was missing the mink stole but I think only because it was warm out. They went half way down the sidewalk, turned around and went back up to the corner. I’m half way home before thinking to myself, “Why in the hell didn’t you stay and see what happened?” It’s so over the top I would expect a film crew there. If I see them again I’m going to hang around and see if someone gets arrested and if not find out if that $40 she brought up is her going rate.
Leaving yesterday I see her coming down the sidewalk and though she might not have much for cleavage, she was showing every bit of it she could possibly show. This time the aforementioned boyfriend seemed to be following her about 5 feet behind and looking just like a 70s pimp – hat with a feather and carrying a cane that he didn’t need but would occasionally set it on his shoulder. He was missing the mink stole but I think only because it was warm out. They went half way down the sidewalk, turned around and went back up to the corner. I’m half way home before thinking to myself, “Why in the hell didn’t you stay and see what happened?” It’s so over the top I would expect a film crew there. If I see them again I’m going to hang around and see if someone gets arrested and if not find out if that $40 she brought up is her going rate.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The winner writes the history
I saw some line similar to that in something recently. I also recently saw a program on the two fast food leaders, Burger King and McDonalds. The biggest part of the program was the innovations these two giants had brought to the fast food industry. I guess the post baby boomers would assume it was fact, after all it IS television, and carry the assumptions on. No, neither of these two giants (or winners of the fast food race) were as innovative as one might believe. To me the show's biggest accomplishment was to show how history is re-written by those that survive.
If you're old enough, and not from Hawaii, you may remember Burger Chef. A little younger than McDonalds, it came along in the same year, 1954, as Burger King. Burger King's biggest innovation and what makes it stand out from the others is of course the flame broiled burger. The flame broiler was patented in 1954 and used to start the fast food restaurant Burger, umm, Chef? Yep. Though still in use today by Burger King, they didn't invent it.
Although today it's more "have it our way" 30 years ago there was a much friendlier and well known slogan Burger King used, "Have it your way." Burger King no longer has to suffer with you demanding a burger your way because you can't go to Burger Chef, order a burger "without" and wander over to the works bar and put on a dozen pickles and a stack of onions if that's what you want on your burger. The "fixins bar" (I think that was what they called it) that Burger King grudgingly put out was of course quickly snatched back from under your nose when they no longer had to indulge you because of the competition. Oh, and the salad bar mentioned in that Burger Chef commercial - they were the first with that too.
Supersize me! Umm, no, Burger Chef didn't innovate blubbering America, McDonalds can have the credit for that one, or whoever else wants to claim it. Burger Chef did however create the first "value meal". Oops, "value combo", "value meal" is of course McDonalds' renamed stolen idea. McDonalds was no less "innovative" than Burger King in swiping Burger Chef ideas and repackaging them as their own. Burger Chef's frustration finally boiled over into a lawsuit when McDonalds dropped the "Happy Meal" on the public. Note the Wikipedia link not only has no mention of the lawsuit, but in the History section says it was the "brainchild" of a St Louis advertising manager named Dick Brams. I thought maybe Dick went into politics and changed to a stage name of Al Gore. There was not one original idea with this theft including the mentioned tying it in with a movie (Star Trek) as Burger Chef had already done that with their Funmeal using Star Wars.
Burger Chef eventually lost the lawsuit and went on to be sold to Hardees who converted most of the stores to Hardees and those that were near a Hardees the franchisees given a limited time to change their name to something else. In only a generation we are already giving the credit for these innovations to the current giants and it probably won't be too much longer before Burger Chef is written out of history altogether. Although I guess it is much more difficult to do now with things like the web, what matters the most is it will be written out of people's memories as time passes, so the end result is the same. The real lesson is probably to learn what went wrong for a company that was truly the innovator and went from being second only to McDonalds to oblivion in a single generation.
If you're old enough, and not from Hawaii, you may remember Burger Chef. A little younger than McDonalds, it came along in the same year, 1954, as Burger King. Burger King's biggest innovation and what makes it stand out from the others is of course the flame broiled burger. The flame broiler was patented in 1954 and used to start the fast food restaurant Burger, umm, Chef? Yep. Though still in use today by Burger King, they didn't invent it.
Although today it's more "have it our way" 30 years ago there was a much friendlier and well known slogan Burger King used, "Have it your way." Burger King no longer has to suffer with you demanding a burger your way because you can't go to Burger Chef, order a burger "without" and wander over to the works bar and put on a dozen pickles and a stack of onions if that's what you want on your burger. The "fixins bar" (I think that was what they called it) that Burger King grudgingly put out was of course quickly snatched back from under your nose when they no longer had to indulge you because of the competition. Oh, and the salad bar mentioned in that Burger Chef commercial - they were the first with that too.
Supersize me! Umm, no, Burger Chef didn't innovate blubbering America, McDonalds can have the credit for that one, or whoever else wants to claim it. Burger Chef did however create the first "value meal". Oops, "value combo", "value meal" is of course McDonalds' renamed stolen idea. McDonalds was no less "innovative" than Burger King in swiping Burger Chef ideas and repackaging them as their own. Burger Chef's frustration finally boiled over into a lawsuit when McDonalds dropped the "Happy Meal" on the public. Note the Wikipedia link not only has no mention of the lawsuit, but in the History section says it was the "brainchild" of a St Louis advertising manager named Dick Brams. I thought maybe Dick went into politics and changed to a stage name of Al Gore. There was not one original idea with this theft including the mentioned tying it in with a movie (Star Trek) as Burger Chef had already done that with their Funmeal using Star Wars.
Burger Chef eventually lost the lawsuit and went on to be sold to Hardees who converted most of the stores to Hardees and those that were near a Hardees the franchisees given a limited time to change their name to something else. In only a generation we are already giving the credit for these innovations to the current giants and it probably won't be too much longer before Burger Chef is written out of history altogether. Although I guess it is much more difficult to do now with things like the web, what matters the most is it will be written out of people's memories as time passes, so the end result is the same. The real lesson is probably to learn what went wrong for a company that was truly the innovator and went from being second only to McDonalds to oblivion in a single generation.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Lord of the Rings Online
A couple of friends and I recently started playing this game and I was pleasantly surprised at just how good of a game it is. I was thinking last night as I was trundling through the Shire how Tolkein might have felt seeing his world created. Both the dark side of that world in the movies and the bright side of that world in LOTRO. I thought EQ2 was an amazing world but now that I’ve seen LOTRO I realize too much of EQ2 was oppressive and bleak. What would you expect with zones called Swamp of No Hope though. It’s not that EQ2 was bad and LOTRO doesn’t have some “dark” places, but I think too much was put in EQ2. The environment for LOTRO was really done well and you just enjoy the landscape. There are actual constellations in the night sky to see. One of the problems with EQ2 is all the mob placement seems artificial – not so with LOTRO. The combat system is nothing to write home about but is adequate. I highly doubt there is much replay in the game. First, once you’ve been through the main storyline (the game follows along with the books) and I don’t think there’s much breadth of game play.
Crafting is done well and is the first game that I’ve actually used the items I’ve crafted. The three of us have chosen professions to compliment each other so we can pretty much be self-sufficient in what we need. The main quest lines are the books and chapters of the story everyone knows. Where the movies concentrated on the central characters in LOTRO you see the story unfold as a peripheral character. You do see and interact with the likes of Gandalf and company and see the story progress without being the main story. Best way to describe it. There are also tons of regular quests to do as well. He player population also seems much friendlier than in any other game I’ve played.
Crafting is done well and is the first game that I’ve actually used the items I’ve crafted. The three of us have chosen professions to compliment each other so we can pretty much be self-sufficient in what we need. The main quest lines are the books and chapters of the story everyone knows. Where the movies concentrated on the central characters in LOTRO you see the story unfold as a peripheral character. You do see and interact with the likes of Gandalf and company and see the story progress without being the main story. Best way to describe it. There are also tons of regular quests to do as well. He player population also seems much friendlier than in any other game I’ve played.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Hell's Kitchen, Season 5
I posted about this show when I saw it during its first season. If people hadn't heard of Chef Ramsey then, they most likely have now. Seeing him for the first time, or maybe even after a hundred times, you'll think he's an ass. I'll admit his personality will be a lot for some people to swallow and get past and they will always say, "he doesn't have to be that mean." This guy is the most successful restrauntuer in the world now and there's a reason for that. He's not just an amazing chef, he has an amazing business mind. If you watch his other shows, like Kitchen Nightmares, you'll come to realize that. His other show, The F Word, shows more of him and even brings his family in, and he's really not as bad as he seems to be in other shows.
The first three seasons of this show were good. Last season was a disappointment. The Next Food Network Star - this show picks the very best to join the show. Hell's Kitchen picks bad people because they need them for the friction. It just wouldn't be the same if Chef Ramsey didn't have people to scream at for their screw-ups. Last season they went too far and really had no one there worth winning the show. In the end the guy "won" but lost because he was old and just didn't have the work habits Chef Ramsey was looking for. The girl didn't perform as well but Chef Ramsey said in the end he chose her for her potential and longevity. I read later she didn't even get the promised head chef position for winning the show but a secondary position somewhere.
This season once again looks to have some talent mixed in with the fodder. The fodder that stood out this week was the culinary school teacher who isn't a trained chef. After trying her signature dish, spitting it out, and commenting that he felt he should probably wrap his ass in saran wrap after eating it she says, "I teach manners too, chef." Great moment for the TV audience, I laughed out loud, but Chef Ramsey just painted a target on her. She followed this up with a performance in the kitchen that left in question if she should even be teaching Sandwich Making 101.
It looks like another entertaining season. :)
The first three seasons of this show were good. Last season was a disappointment. The Next Food Network Star - this show picks the very best to join the show. Hell's Kitchen picks bad people because they need them for the friction. It just wouldn't be the same if Chef Ramsey didn't have people to scream at for their screw-ups. Last season they went too far and really had no one there worth winning the show. In the end the guy "won" but lost because he was old and just didn't have the work habits Chef Ramsey was looking for. The girl didn't perform as well but Chef Ramsey said in the end he chose her for her potential and longevity. I read later she didn't even get the promised head chef position for winning the show but a secondary position somewhere.
This season once again looks to have some talent mixed in with the fodder. The fodder that stood out this week was the culinary school teacher who isn't a trained chef. After trying her signature dish, spitting it out, and commenting that he felt he should probably wrap his ass in saran wrap after eating it she says, "I teach manners too, chef." Great moment for the TV audience, I laughed out loud, but Chef Ramsey just painted a target on her. She followed this up with a performance in the kitchen that left in question if she should even be teaching Sandwich Making 101.
It looks like another entertaining season. :)
