Party Poker Blog

"Even if I was a losing poker player, so what? Is that supposed to make my dick shrink?"
Gary Carson

It's been a long nite/morning. I finally went back to the limit tables and got my brains bashed in. Good times, good times.

So forgive this crappy post. I need to blog some of this content I've got stored up and I need to do it fast.

The splogs have me on tilt. I could spend days on end going after these fools but it just never ends. It's like trying to stamp out cockroaches. I'm considering turning off my RSS feed, truth be told.

Enough whining, damnit.

Bleh. This post brought to you by Bonus Code IGGY on Party Poker, damnit.

For now, let's pick the low-hanging fruit. Some of this was content I didn't get up because of our Vegas get-together, so bear with me.

From one of my favorite blogs here's the lowdown on some spectacularly stupid poker marketing promotion. Good gravy, these guys are spamming all over RGP, too.

Poker Site Stoops to New Promotional Low

We know the Internet is full of lame, cheesy, oddball promotions but this one sure grabbed our attention. On SaveMyFinger.com an man calling himself Carl Valentine made a bet with his "internet marketer" millionaire friend he could send 2 million people to SaveMyFinger by April 18, 2006. If Valentine succeeds, he will play his friend in a poker match to win the million dollars. If Valentine fails to generate 2 million visitors to the site, he will play his friend in a poker match to keep his right index finger. That's right. If Valentine doesn't achieve 2 million visitors and loses the poker match, he will also lose his finger.

Now that you have all stopped ROTFL, the two will play poker at PokerRoom.com, the real marketer behind this crazy stunt. SaveMyFinger.com is so purposefully Geocities, it's a dead giveaway that this is a stupid marketing stunt. With so many easy ways to publish a website these days, one would have to be a programming guru to create a site that actually looks this purposefully bad.

Of course Valentine is BEGGING for our help to "post about it in your blogs or forums." Somehow, we think Carl Valentine and the mysterious "internet marketer" are one and the same.

It's so stupid I can't stand it.

Interesting interview with Mike Matasow from Neverwin's internet radio show. Lots of cursing.
Mike Matusow on NWP internet poker radio show

Also, here's a written interview with Mike from Bluff Magazine. Interesting read.
Mike Matasow

Here's some more poker audio, for those of you who like these things.
From CardPlayer: Audio from Bellagio's 2005 Five Diamond World Poker Classic. Here's the offerings:
Day 5 Stream, Special Guest Gavin Smith
Day 4 Stream, Special Guests Laak & Cassidy
Day 3 Stream, Special Guest Paul Darden
Day 2 Stream, Special Guest the Mizrachi Tribe
Day 1 Stream, Special Guest Daniel Negreanu

Let's point out some poker articles, shall we?

Ivey focusing on tournament play from ESPN.

GorillaMask posted the SNL skit about poker:
Celebrity Mugshot Poker

As reported by MTV, Phil Ivey appears at this trial...WTF?
Russell Simmons, Damon Dash, poker champ Phil Ivey also appear in support of rap moguls.

Stop what you're doing right now. Go look at this PokerTracker screen shot for Mahatmas playing 5/10 NL. Whoa.
Mahatmas playing 5/10 NL.

Old news but I gotta blog it.
Frat boy at Lehigh holds up bank to feed the jones:
Poker addiction blamed for heist

"finance and accounting double major". Yikes, he's definitely not been paying attention in class.

Off-topic thread on RGP but I'm still posting it here for the reviews.
Subject: OT: I knew Amazon.com sold toys, but....holy crap!

http://tinyurl.com/anc9v

Patron Saint of the poker bloggers, Wil Wheaton, was interviewed by the Spaceman a while back and I forgot to blog it. So here it is.
The Enterprising Poker Player: Interview with Wil Wheaton

Just a wonderful, wonderful thread here. Prepare to be amused. Hell, even the CEO of True Poker chimed in.
Poker Sites Have Motivation to Reward Poor Players. Period.

I sometimes enjoy these 2+2 threads for various reasons.
Moving to Aruba/Cancun/Australia tax/residency questions

Gary Carson started a pretty funny thread with this post:

Subject: blues and country

A typical line in country songs
The day you leave me is the day I die

A typical line in blues songs
The day you leave me is the day you die

Gary Carson

Continuing the Gary Carson theme, here was a thread started by Mason on 2+2 and Gary responded on RGP. Here's both:

Subject: Mason Malmuth on 2+2

I thought this post on 2+2 by Mason might be of interest to some of you, especially Gary Carson. Many times, Gary has asserted that Mason doesn't know much about poker.

http://tinyurl.com/a7avb

The gist of it is that Mason asserts that AQs out of position is a better hand than JJ with position. It takes a lot of persuasion for him to change his mind. The original post:

------------------------------

"Hi Everyone:

I thought I would pass along a little discussion that I took part in tonight. I've been trying to play some no limit hold 'em since it has become so popular and we are publishing books on this subject, so earlier this evening I was sitting in a $5-$10 blind no limit game at The Wynn.

What happen was that a player raised to $40 and then got reraised to $150. The original raiser then folded and showed AQs. His opponent then showed JJ.

This of course started a discussion as to which hand was better. Most of the table agreed that the pair of jacks were better since they would win over 50 percent of the time in a show down. Then someone said, "Let's ask Mason since he writes all the books." My answer was that if someone was all-in, the jacks would be better, but if they each had chips left, which was the case here, the ace-queen suited was better.

Well, no one understood what I was talking about. No wonder the games are good.

Best wishes,
Mason"


--------==---------

(Gary responds:)


Some of the EV calculations in the thread are actually pot equity calculation, and they're all done assuming you know both hands, which isn't helpful for strategic decisions by either hand.

One thing nobody in the thread noticed is that the players involved are the type who show their hand to each other and discuss it when it's all over. It's real easy to put such players on a tight range of hands, and nobody in the thread does that.

The first player would open with a raise with a range something like 99+, AJs+, KQs, AQo+

Against 9 random hands he has about 20% pot equity with his AQs, a pretty good edge over a full field.

But, if a button hand raises (we aren't really told the position of the second raiser) then his JJ has about a 55/45 equity edge over the range of hands the opener might have. It' certainly worth a raise. He has about 36% equity if we include random hands in the blinds, against about 34% by range of hands the opener has.

If he'd make this raise with a range of hands AK or 99-AA then the equity the AQs has after the reraise has dropped to 36%.

The pot is 15 + 40 + 150 = 210, 110 to call, out of position, it's a good fold by the AQ, but a call might be okay.

Here's a run down of the action. Blinds 5/10

Early opens with AQs, I assume he'd do so with 99+, AJs+, KQs, AQo+

He has 19% equity against 9 players each with 9%, the AQs is ahead.

When the JJ raises he'd doing so against a distribution of hands the AQs might hold, plus two random hands (I'm assuming he's on the button). Plus he has position. Current equity is (from the point of view of the JJ) JJ 37% AQs 34% 2 random hands 14% each.

Remember that the JJ doesn't know AQs, he knows 99+ AJs+ KQs AQo+

But when the blinds fold, from the point of view of the AQs he has 36% equity against 64% owned by the range of hands the button might have.

Equity, or EV, matters at the point of decision, from the point of view of the decision maker.

The hand starts with the AQs ahead by a lot.
Then the JJ acts and he's slightly ahead.
Then the AQs acts again and he's far behind.

That's how the hands stack up from a pot equity point of view.
Actually calculating EV is much more complex, and none of the simple minded models in the 2+2 thread came up with good estimates of EV.

Gary Carson

Make sure to watch the latest Bill Fillmaff episode. Tis an Annie Duke parody.

Lord, I have three, count em three, posts about Poker Tek.
Here we go:

----

Subject: Poker Tek - Another Berman scam?

Hybrid Poker Tables Coming Soon?

Imagine, if you could, stepping into your local card room and not seeing one dealer at the tables. Instead, everyone would be staring into a monitor at their seat, devising their strategies and playing poker as if they were online. It may sound a little crazy, but it is something that you could see happening in the near future.

A North Carolina company called PokerTek, Inc. has developed a new poker table that could revolutionize the casino game. Their technology is called PokerPro and is designed to remove the possibility of human error from the game. The tables would have monitors on them for each player that accept the deal of the cards, rather than a human dealer who would be responsible for the shuffle and deal. Play would commence as normal in whatever game was being played, with the bets being registered on the monitors and constant information being fed to the other players at the table. At the end of a hand, the winner (or winners, in a split pot game) would be credited with their share of the pot, as the computers would already have deducted the appropriate rake and determined the winner.

The purpose of the technology is to speed up the casino game. With the computer systems, there could be more hands dealt per hour (as is the case online) as there would not be a wait for a mechanical shuffler or the dealer themselves to shuffle the deck. There wouldn't be the problems of a misdeal or of the dealer accidentally "flashing" cards during play because it would be done through the monitors. There
wouldn't be a disagreement over the rake being taken by the house, as the computer would be programmed to remove the proper amount (never too much and never too little). There would also be no argument over who won the hand, as the determination of the computer would dictate which hand was the best.

The advantages beyond the nuts and bolts would be of interest to the casinos. It would virtually eliminate the need for the gaming rooms to employ poker dealers. It is estimated that there would be around a 30% increase in the number of hands played because of the computer system (thus creating more rake) and the ages old question of tipping would be eliminated.

In their S-1 form that they submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4th, PokerTek is beginning the preparations to make an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of two million shares of stock in the company. It is estimated, according to the S-1 form, that the stock would sell for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 to $12, thereby generating the corporation between $20 and $24 million dollars.

The company would need the public offering to be able to move forward with the PokerPro technology. According to the document, the company was in the red in 2004 with net losses that totaled $925,837. In the first six months of 2005, the further development of the PokerPro system has pushed PokerTek even deeper into the hole, with a reported $1.58 million in losses.

They have been able to see their first profits from the PokerPro setup, however. Currently PokerTek has the table system licensed to the Seminole Tribe of Florida and their six casinos located there. The Seminole Tribe currently has two setups running which generated $12,000 in revenue by July 28th, according to the S-1 form.

The company's S-1 is a very interesting read into how they would use the IPO to further their company and the PokerPro technology. It is also brutally honest (to their credit) regarding many of the pitfalls that they may face, including a decrease in gaming, players not accepting the technology, the relatively small number of poker tables that are currently in use in casino properties (estimated to be in the
neighborhood of 6,000 worldwide), a possible inability to properly acquire licenses that they would need to enter into different areas of the country (or around the world) and many other potential risk factors.

The company is run by CEO Gehrig "Lou" White and President and Secretary James Crawford. An interesting name that is presented in the S-1 form is that of Lyle Berman, one of the key players in the World Poker Tour and Lakes Entertainment. He is listed as the Chairman of the Board of Directors and is probably the force that PokerTek would need to move their technology into the casinos. I attempted to get some comments from Mr. White on August 15th. However, in an e-mail I received from him, he stated due to the current stock situation with the company, he was unable to speak about the company (a "quiet period" that is in effect when companies are in such a situation), the technology or other matters regarding it.

It remains to be seen what will happen regarding the PokerPro system and PokerTek. Would the technology be something that players would like? Is it something that could be implemented with little or no problems? And would the people it would replace, the dealers, be happy about it? It bears to watch what will happen, as it soon could come
that we are all playing a hybrid game, "live" poker with the online elements there in full force. To learn more about PokerTek, you can visit their website at pokertek.com. If you would like to read over the S-1 form regarding PokerTek's application for an IPO, you can visit sec.gov and search on the company in their EDGAR section.

Here's another take:

Subject: PokerPro Tables - My Experience

I live in Tampa, FL, where the only legal poker you're going to play in a "casino" is straight $2 poker. Recently, the Seminole tribe here licensed to use these new PokerPro tables - completely automated and computerized tables with no dealers, no chips, etc. Each player has a player card, an LCD screen in front of them, and there is a large plasma display on the table that shows which players currently have a hand, how much they have in chips, where the action is, as well as the board. (The company that makes them is called PokerTek, they just went public - www.pokertek.com)

As an avid computer nerd, I had to try these out the other day. As much as I hate to admit, it was kind of cool. The action is fast, and I think the lack of chips makes players play loose and make stupid calls. The obvious advantages are speed and the savings associated with tipping a dealer. I'm sure it's making the casino more money, because they don't have to pay a dealer, license auto-shufflers, etc.

There is just something about having a dealer though. It's a mixed bag for me, because I like the direction and the technological angle these tables put on poker. They are fast, easy, convenient, and fun, but I have several friends that are dealers and I don't like shortchanging them or contributing to the management "pushing them out".

I think these tables would be awesome in bars and stuff - imagine one right next to a pool table. The product seems to be very well thought out, and I spent a lot of time talking to one of the project managers there for the install period. The management software is extremely slick, intuitive, comprehensive and downright amazing. It can link tables, run single or multi-table tournaments. It automates tasks like blind increases, player seat changes, sitting out limits, etc. It wasn't setup on the tables I played at, but I was told they can use your credit or debit card to allow you to rebuy chips or cash out. You can see all the players names on the screen at your table, and on the management side (which can all be run from a tablet PC), floor people can watch, freeze and replay action, view player information and even your photo (scanned from your driver's license when you register for a card). I can tell a lot of time and testing went in to the product itself. The guy told me they have an Omaha product in testing now and they play on it often in the office and it's pretty much ready for release.

What are your thoughts on these types of tables, and advancements like this in
general? Do they have a place at all? Do you think they'll be able to make a run in some of the more prominent casinos?

Rumor has it Hollywood Park in LA will start using them soon.

And last, but not least. Paranoia is alive and well:

Subject: Very Proud of My Fellow Poker Players
Author: Charlie Foxtrot

Last night, my friend, Darren, and I decided to head to the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Tampa to play a couple of their sit n go tourneys. On October 26, 2005, they debuted two of the PokerPro electronic poker tables. http://www.pokertek.com)

In our second tourney, we were called for our table and told it would be played on one of the electronic tables. Darren and I were the first two to the brush stand and we both refused our seats. I was quite happy to see that the other eight players all, adamently, refused to play on this table too.

Once seated at a real table, all ten said that they would not play on the electronic because their play on-line had them convinced that software based cards are not even close to the real thing. Ten totally random live players, all who would not put up $120 to play the video game version of poker that so many, here, think is better than
actualy cards. Funny.

But, you know what? In two SnGs, not one hand was won by a flush or a boat. Try finding that online. Their was one straight, split by two guys in the blind checking their ace/rags at each other.

Why, in my last hand, already in the money, I was in the small blind, Darren in the big, I raised all in with AQ suited, he called with 44. No, online players, the flop did not give me two pair and the river his set four. No, I didn't kill his flopped set with a runner runner flush, runner runner queens or runner runner aces. No, the cards were just cards that didn't do anything for anyone and his made hand of 44
held up against my drawing hand of AQ suited.

I just have to shake my head and laugh when I read all the defense of online poker.

Foxtrot

No comment.



Every once in awhile, I read a post like the following. And I just can't picture the tool that wrote it, try as I might. Quite possibly the stupidest post of 2005.

Subject: HUGE problem with online poker.

Basically, there needs to be a rule where, if you suck out on somebody, you have to pay a 'suckout fee', say 50% of what you won. Half that 50% should go to the guy you sucked out on. The other half goes into the pot as dead money for the next hand (this may start a race condition which only encourages further suckouts, but it's something
we'd have to live with).

How many times has a suck-out happened to you? It makes me want to put my fist through the screen. It cuts TREMENDOUSLY into my ability to win. It's enough to make me want to quit ring games entirely. People can talk about the rake all they want, but this is much worse.

If this were implemented, if would discourage players from chasing their longshot draws. It would punish the donkeys for their bad plays, and compensate good players for the times when they get all their money in with the best hand and lose. It's an idea whose time has come.

It's just not fair for guys like me who play solid poker to get sucked out on.

JG

How on earth did I forget to link up this great LA Times feature article on the history of Party Poker and it's owners?
Billionaire Plays Her Cards Right in Online 'Gray Market'

Damn, and here's another from the same newspaper:
Poker Website Is a Legal Gamble
WPT, producer of TV's World Poker Tour, ventures online but has to bar U.S. residents.

Good God, I've got to go to bed. Yeah, it's 10AM.
It's quite the life I'm leading here.

Update: Bad Beat Jackpot on Party Poker now stands at $390,000.

What to leave you with today, gentle reader? How about RGP regular, Fellnight's Trip Report on playing with us in Vegas? Here it is - enjoy.

--------------------------


Subject: Vegas Trip Report - WBPT (Blogger Weekend)
Author: FellKnight

This weekend was the WBPT (hell if I know what that stands for) :)

I arrived in Vegas too late on Friday night (nearly midnight) to play in the HORSE cash game at the MGM, which is a shame, because I would have loved to play some HORSE for cash, even at low limits!

I was staying at Harrah's (next to the Imperial Palace, where most of the action took place), because I had some leftover comps to use up. I got there and checked in at around 12:30, and had a bite to eat at the cafe, then had the oddest urge to play some stupid slot, and donked off $40 at the nickel slots in about 10 minutes. Heh. WELCOME TO VEGAS, FELL! :)

Being tired from a long work week, I actually went to bed around 2 and woke up at 9, heading over to the IP where things were supposed to get started around 10. Once there, I met up with Tanya (MissT74), and also ran into Rick "J2" Wampler, Dr. Pauly, Scott, Al Can Hang, and several others. Barry Greenstein spoke at length about his experiences with various bloggers, including Charlie Tuttle, and why he feels that bloggers are an important part of the poker community. He received thunderous applause at the end.

Also speaking were Wil Wheaton and Michael Craig (author of The Professor, The Banker, and the Suicide King). Michael spoke for over half an hour, and damn that man can talk!

Finally, we registered for the first blogger tourney itself. I did not pre-register, so I had to go on the alternates list. Fortunately, I did not have long to wait to play, and the structure was a decent one, with 2500 chips, and 20 minutes levels.

MissT74 was the first one out when she moved all-in with AQh, and was called by AKo. One can debate who made the worse play here :) Both players made trip Aces, but the King held up, and Tanya went bust, receiving a huge round of applause. She then decided to take on the role of cocktail waitress, until the real waitress showed up and gave her shit. Oh well. I had several drinks before the tourney, and made full use of Tanya while she lasted.

Once I sat at the table, I introduced myself to the group. I was sitting to the left of Brad "Otis" Willis from PokerStars, and we spoke for most of the event. It was my pleasure to meet you Otis. Several other people at the table recognized "FellKnight", which was pretty cool.

I called a raise in position with KQs against one guy who was raising lots (and getting AA lots, 4 times in the first 2 levels!!). I folded when I totally missed the flop. I then called him once again (preflop raise to 300) with ATo on the button. The flop came Kc Tc 6x. He lead out for 400, and I called. The turn was the 5x. He checked to me, and I bet 600 or 700. He called. The river was an offsuit deuce. He quickly bet 500 (half my remaining stack). I thought for a few seconds, realizing that his actions were inconsistant with the betting of most hands (possibly a set, but I would have expected a check-raise on the Turn). I decided that there was a high likelihood of a bluff, and I called the 500 chip bet. He said "nice call", showed his QJ, and mucked when I showed my pair of Tens.

Now, I had a stack with which to bludgeon!

I stole a couple of pots preflop, taking advantage of the tight play.

With 75/150 blinds, I look down at AA UTG. I limped. The guy to my left said "just call?" I replied "yup, it's the old limp re-raise play.", hiding my strength by openly displaying it. All folded to Otis in the BB, who checked. We saw a flop of Q77 rainbow. He checked, and I checked behind, figuring that if he had managed to outflop me, I was WAY behind anyway, and if I was still ahead, I did not have to worry about giving a free card. The turn was a King, putting 2 to a flush on the board. He checked, and I bet the minimum, 150. He called. I figured that I had let
him catch his King. The river was a deuce, he checked, I bet 250, and he called and mucked. Now the table was set up for an early position limp meaning strength. EXCELLENT.

I stole another couple of pots, and went into the 1st break with over 6500 in chips, among the leaders of the event.

At this point, I broke the seal, and needed to take washroom breaks every 10 minutes or so. Oops.

We returned to 100/200 blinds. At the end of the first orbit, I looked down at 72o (known in blogger parlance as "THE HAMMER!" UTG and limped. It was folded to a player in middle position who raised to 600, and all folded (fearing my UTG limp, lol). I called the raise. The flop came J44. I checked, and the raiser checked behind (a bet here would certainly have made me fold). The turn was a Queen. I bet 800. He flat called. Aha! He is either weak or flopped a boat. The river was an 8. I bet 1500 (2/3 of his remianing stack), and he folded his AKs face up disgustedly. I tabled my cards declaring "THE HAMMER!", as I raked in the pot. The table cracked up (except for the villain), and Otis congratulated me on my extremely cagey play with the hammer. I was now up to 8000 or so. I got KK and no action (150/300 blinds), and chipped my way up to 10200 by the 2nd break (2nd place in the tournament). The table broke shortly afterwards, and I wished everyone luck.

With the blinds now at 500/1000, even my large stack was now only at 10xBB. Doh. We were down to 30 players, and I was dealt 99 in MP. I raised to 3000. It was folded to the BB who moved in for just over 2000 more. I called instantly, knowing that it was a "must-call". He had TT. Doh. His hand held up, and dropped me to just under 5000. I had to fold my blinds, and then in MP picked up 99 again (now with 24 players left). I moved in for 3600. The Button re-raised to 10000 straight. "God, I hope he has AK", I thought to myself. The BB then went into the tank. "Aw crap". The BB decided to call all-in with AKo. The button showed QQ, which held up and IGHN. Damn, but I detest 99.

Had a great time with all the bloggers!

I returned back to Harrah's, foolishly had ANOTHER couple drinks in the pits, and went to my room to pass out. I woke up a few hours later, and decided to stay in and recover from my aching head. Damned Tanya and her damned Kamikaze shots. I BLAME YOU TOO SCOTT!

I went over the Caesars Palace, and had lunch. The poker room will not be open until Christmas, though it sounds like it will kick TOTAL ass once it does open! So I went back to Harrah's and got my ass kicked playing the new "Texas Holdem Bonus" pit game to the tune of around $600. Sigh.

There was one dealer who was making a procedural error at the game, which was causing a +EV situation for the player. I took full advantage, and when the pit boss found out, he gave me, not the dealer, shit for it (because he had seen me play the game before). I told the pit boss that it is his job to ensure that the dealers know how to deal a game, and if he is neglecting his duties, then he should not be giving shit to the players for it. I cashed out, and went to play some video poker instead.

I bought in for $100 (on a $1 machine), and drew to my pair of 8s, hitting quad 8s. DING!. I played and played, then went I was back down to 100 credits, I was dealt 888xx, drew, and hit quad 8s again! DING! I played until I was broke, and went to catch my flight. Me, with my great money management skills, realized that I had only $16. Shit. So I take $200 out of the ATM machine, and hit the High-Limit Slot area, playing $5 Video poker. I figured if I got down to 5 credits ($25), I cash out, and take my losses. I bought in for $100 (20 credits, lol), playing 5 credits a hand. I push first hand, lose the next two, push one. I am then deal 444AA pat. Ding! I am at 50 credits. Shall I quit? Nah, one or two more hands!! I push one hand, and then get deal 4 diamonds. I say "Ok, give me the flush, and I'll quit". Draw. Kd. DING! I cash out for 80 credits ($400) :)

Ok, time to hit the airport. I get my bags, get a cab, and arrive into Hell (1 hr 45 minutes before my flight). The conveyor belt is broken, the agents are literally swimming in bags, and they are hand carrying bags to some other place. Guess what that means? One agent giving out tickets. YAY. 45 minutes later, I get to the front of the line, and she tells me to hurry if I want to catch my flight. I wanted to punch her in the face for saying something so stupid. I grab my ticket, scurry over to the D-Gates, and see a lineup for screening about 500 people deep. About 45
minutes later, I get screened, and pass thru. I get to the Gate at 5:30 (flight is scheduled to leave at 5:35). I ask if I am too late, they have not started boarding yet, even though the flight is still marked as "on time". Phew. They say that it will be a few minutes at least, so I hit the video poker machines. LOL.

I buy in for $100, and go card dead. Nothing but pushes and losses. Sigh. I'm down to my last 5 credits when they announce boarding for my flight. Ok. "I'M ALL IN!". I am dealt Qxxxx. I hold the Q and draw. 5. 5. 5. 5.
PRESTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I cash my ass out for $250, and jump on the plane. It's a turbulent flight for almost the whole trip, with us being confined to our seats except for "emergency washroom breaks". Fortunately, we arrive safely, and I get my bags. I get picked for a random customs check of my bags. Sigh.

Anyhoo, it's now 10 p.m by the time I get thru customs, and I need to get to the ferry terminal for the 10:30 sailing (last one of the night)

So I take off down the highway to the ferries. As I am driving at 120 kph (80 mph) in an 80 kph (50 mph) zone, I pass a well-concealed cop car. I say a silent prayer and hope that I don't see his lights coming on, as I will undoubtedly miss the ferry if he does stop me. Thank the Lord, he stayed put. I arrived at the ferry terminal as they were loading vehicles, with perhaps 5 minutes to spare.

The rest of the trip was smooth, and I got home at around 2:30, after a crazy weekend in Vegas.

Fell
--


----

And this was high praise from the high priestess of RGP, Tanya, in the thread that followed:


----

Someone told me at the WBPT that I wasn't a "blogger", I was an "RGP'r". Can't I be both??

IF I had to choose one, goodbye RGP, damn....bloggers rock, I had soooo much fun and it was interesting getting drunk at 10am.

----



Link of the Day:
Siskel and Asshole
This outtake from a mid-'80s episode of Siskel & Ebert & The Movies should spark renewed investigation of whether Roger Ebert had Gene Siskel killed for revealing the ending to The Crying Game.