Monday Musings - May 31, 2010

A bit different this week, a list of a few of my favourite podcasts...

• Rob Has A Podcast: Rob Cesternino, former Survivor player, and his fiancee Nicole Palmeri talk about Lost, Celebrity Apprentice and of course, Survivor. Over the summer they will also talk about Big Brother


• Five Hundy by Midnight: Tim and Michele Dressen enjoy going to Las Vegas. They also enjoy talking about Las Vegas on their podcast.


• The Strip Podcast: Also kinda Las Vegas related, Steve Friess is a freelance journalist who regularly interviews people in the entertainment industry. Not just a Las Vegas centric podcast though - it is great for anybody interested in interesting interviews.

There is no May 30th

Hence there's no post.

UFC 114 Predictions

From the official UFC 114 Program...

Jesse Forbes over Ryan Jensen
Joe Brammer over Aaron Riley
Cyrille Diabate over Luiz Cae
Melvin Guilllard over Waylon Lowe
Efrain Escudero over Dan Lauzon
Amir Sadollah over Dong Hyun Kim
Diego Sanchez over John Hathaway
Antonio Rogerio Nogueira over Jason Bril
Todd Duffee over Mike Russow
Michael Bisping over Dan Miller
Quentin "Rampage" Jackson over Rashad Evans

Your lazy post of the day

JayRo Reads Books: Cowboys Full - The Story of Poker

Cowboys Full - The Story of Poker
By: James McManus
Published: 2009

Writing the histoy of poker is a massive undertaking. Its origins seem obvious, though those involved in the origins are long past, and not many thought to record their history. James McManus decides to workaround this difficulty by instead choosing to argue a thesis instead: Poker is America's game. This approach helps and hurts his book.

By defining a thesis, McManus allows himself to concentrate on some distinctly American topics which are tangentally related to poker. While he weaves the stories back into his narrative, they do make the reader wonder what they have to do with the "story" of poker. This is the weakness of the book.

Fortunately, the thesis also helps the book, as it allows McManus to explore a lot of different topics in the form of essays, especially at the end of the book. His pieces about poker etiquette and AI playing poker were fun to read. His comparisons of Civil War strategy and poker strategy were inspired, if not expected.

Naturally, the piece about the UIEGA is incredibly out of date, and I'm not sure why McManus spent so much editoralizing it when he had to know that the situation would drastically. But even with that weakness, the book was fun to read.

I recommnd reading this book if you are interested in a great book about poker. Just don't expect it to be a true history of poker.

JayRo Watches Movies: Fanboys

I went into Fanboys expecting the worse - an unfunny film with Kristen Bell in a Leia costume. It delivered on the Leia costume, and for the parts not involving a cameo, it delivered on the unfunny. But for the final third of the film, the script actually carried the film, providing laughs in a more natural manner.

The movie is set in 1999, months before Episode 1 opened. After finding out that one is terminally ill, four friends decide to road trip to the Skywalker Ranch to break in and see the movie before it is released. Along the way, they have a lot of wacky episodes.

Part of what was irritating about this movie was how they treated the characters. Instead of treating the characters with respect, they are the butt of many of the jokes, making the audience laugh at them, instead of with them. This could have ruined the movie, but luckily the cameos save the movie. Kevin Smith, Billy Dee Williams, Carrie Fisher and Seth Rogan (twice!) appear and steal the scenes they are in.

Hoywever, something funny happens once the characters arrive at the Skywalker Ranch. (yes, they do make it there. No I'm not spoiling anything here.) Magically, the plot becomes interesting, the antics funny, and the characters likeable. It's as though the writers wrote the movie specifically for this portion, and then realized they needed to fill in the rest of the film.

In any event, this ended up being a much better movie than I expected. I recommend renting it for the cameos and final Skywalker Ranch piece.

And FWIW, it did deliver Kristen Bell in a Leia costume. So it half met my expectations.

JayRo Watches Movies: Accepted

I'm not sure that I've mentioned it before, but I really am a non-fan of Justin Long (to put it mildly.) His "Mac" character in the Apple ads turn me off, plus his performance in some of his other roles left me feeling non-plussed.

I say this because in spite of this, I really enjoyed Accepted and his turn as the lead character.

Accepted is a formulatic comedy with a not-so-formulatic script. General plot: Character tells lie, character must continue with lie or else be found out, character becomes good at lie, lie is discovered and everybody turns on character, character redeemed in end. In this case, the lie is Bartelby Gaines (Long) was accepted into the South Harmon Institute of Technology. The catch is that South Harmon Institute of Technology doesn't exist. Through wacky hijinx, Bartelby has to make his parents believe that SHIT (acronym of South Harmon Institute of Technology, get it?) exist, only to find that many other students believe they were also accepted into SHIT. Bartelby and his friends then proceed to run a university. Throw in Monica Moreland (played ably by Blake Lively) as Bartelby's love interest and the desire of Harmon University's dean to shut down SHIT in order to create an entrance gate, and you get your base of a plot.

What makes Accepted work is that Bartelby and friends are likeable characters, and somewhat believable as well. They play on your emotion of not being accepted, and throw in general caring. Lewis Black's turn as SHIT's dean is fantastic as well; they did not try to make Black into anything different than his normal self.

I recommend Accepted for all to watch; it is a smart, funny film that has me rethinking my non-like of Justin Long.

Monday Musings - May 24, 2010

• The new Miss USA has some pole dancing videos surface. And here I was thinking the lingerie photo shoot would be the yearly scandal.


• Stephen Harper continues to attempt to make the piano rocking and cool


• Jays Stat - for when you miss the Jays game because you don't get the Sportsnet Alternate channel.


• Tip for everybody looking into cheating on their significant other: Get a different cell number


• While I'd appreciate the irony of the Perez Hilton website being run without the vermin Perez Hilton, this isn't going to happen


• Your next wacky movie


• Richard Abowitz scathingly kicks Steve Wyrick while he's down.


• Flipping a coin might not be as random as you think


• Bill Rini gives sober second thought to the theory that legalizing and regulating online poker will be smooth and easy sailing.


• The Montreal Canadiens as a beacon of the Quebec separtist movement?


• And finally, a news anchor misunderstands the term G-Shots

The value of training

Georges St. Pierre (weight approx. 195 lbs) takes on Georges Laraque (weight approx. 260 lbs) in an amateur wrestling match.

Writer's block

This month of blogging has been interesting thus far. I've come close to missing a deadline for a daily post a few times, but for the most part I've had no issue. With the month coming to a close, I'm running into a small problem - writer's block.

A big problem is that I've got to plot out 9 days worth of blog posts and have them ready to go by Monday. While I'm bringing my laptop to Vegas with me, I'm not thinking that I will have time to put together posts on a daily basis. So I have to get everything in order, and it doesn't really allow for any off the cuff posts.

Well, coming up with 9 post topics is difficult, even allowing yourself two posts of links. I've got a couple of movie reviews, and one other idea, but I'm beyond that it's a very sparse land of possible posts. If anything is holding me back, it is the lack of ideas.

One of the things I've found that helps is to read a lot, and then taking those links and jump off into your own post/rant/whatever. I've found recently that anything I've wanted to write about has either been covered better by somebody else, or that as I've worked through my opinion, it has either flip flopped or become rather muddled and I need to think it through more.

So, any suggestions on how to break writer's block?

The ball that continues to roll downhill

Nobody have accused politicians of seeing the blatantly obvious. In today's example, it's MPs dodging any attempt to have their expenses become public knowlege. And the cherry on top is that the MPs do not want the Auditor General to see their expenses either.

I can not begin to explain why this is a bad idea. It should be obvious to anybody with half a brain that the MPs' actions are only going to lead to more questions, and ultimately they are going to end up losing to the masses who want to know what is happening with their tax money. No amount of reasons are going to make this seem like something that shouldn't be pursued, and the more you complain and/or make excuses, the more it seems you have something to hide, and thus the better the idea looks. After Paul Szabo's musings about how expenses revealed will show how often MPs are sued we saw the following responses:

• MPs' expenses must be made public


• MPs should allow the Auditor-General to audit their expenses


• Dumbest anti-audit argument ever.


• Secretive MPs should follow Toronto’s lead on expenses


• MPs' secretiveness gets even more tiresome


• What the Auditor-General can do


• Politicians abuse taxpayers’ money? Nah, not in Ottawa


• A petition


• 
  Don't be shy, Sheila. Secret MP budgets need scrutiny

All because MPs didn't even try their normal bafflegab answers. Heck, they didn't even consider that being open with their expenses might actually differentiate them from their colleagues in a positive way. There are a few who have had the foresite to get ahead of the game and supporting the opening up of the books. But most have the hope that burying their head in the sand will make the problem go away. Unfortunately for the majority of MPs, they're going to be run over by the ball rolling down the hill.

Survivor: Ranking the best players

10. Rob Mariano

The player who probably deserved victory in Survivor: All-Stars ended up failing to make the jury in his two other seasons, though he was admittedly targetted as a threat in Heroes vs. Villains. Played the original version of the Rusell Hantz game - dominate the strategic side of things, social side be damned. Shockingly improved his challenge play to be the most dominant in Heroes vs. Villains and All Stars.

9. Colby Donaldson

The most dominant challenge player in a season. Should have won Australia but instead chose honour over cash. Transformation in Heroes vs. Villains to an all-round inept hanger on might have been the most jarring realization of the season.

8. J.T. Thomas

Unfairly maligned as the person who made the stupidest play ever - http://www.erikgotscrewed.com - what is ignored is how he ran the Heroes tribe in Heroes vs. Villains by choosing who would be voted out each time the Heroes went to tribal council. Combine that with his performance in Tocantins and you have a great player.

7. Yul Kwon

Not just added because of his position in the Obama administration, Yul presided over one of the great comebacks in Survivor. His victory in Cook Islands waas pure strategy. I'd love to see him play the game again.

6. Russell Hantz

The most polarizing person to ever play the game. His play could conservatively be called aggressive. He dominated the play in both seasons he was in, even being in the minority in Samoa and still making it right to the end. It could be easily argued that he deserved the victory in Samoa; others would argue he also deserved the victory in Heroes vs. Villains. However, his absolute lack of attempt to empathise with the jury that he brutally disposed of ended up costing him the victory.

5. Todd Herzog

Conniving, but willing to eliminate people with a smile. One of the best to take ownership of his underhanded moves, but able to spin it as a positive for the person he dumped. Underrated in a lot of parts.

4. Brian Heidik

Singlehandedly made the Thailand season boring by dominating and being an uninteresting character. Might be the best combination of challenge threat and mastermind in any one season; might also be a reflection on the weak competitors that he faced.

3. Sandra Diaz-Twine

Going 2 for 2 in Survivor wins has to put you in the running for best player ever. What does her in is the way she won the second title. Her final tribal council strategy was spot on, but her admitted strategy before that ("Vote out Russell") failed horribly, and she was only in the position she was due to her annoying habit of running her mouth. She is easily the weakest challenge player to ever win the game.

2. Richard Hatch

The originator of Survivor strategy.

1. Parvati Shallow

Winning a season against people who have already played is an accomplishment in and of itself. Making it to the end and coming close to winning again after winning that previous season is enough to earn you the right to be called the best Survivor player of all time.

11 words on Megan Fox getting booted from Transformers

Hot girl, business sense of a sand wholesaler in the desert.

Okay another three sentences about it: When you have a significant role in an incredibly successful movie franchise, but that role is not significant to the overarching storyline, acting like a primadonna is not in your pocketbook's best interest. Especially when the primadonna act involves insulting the person running said franchise. Otherwise, they might discover that you aren't actually necessary to be in the film, and will end up getting rid of you without any concern about damage to their franchise.

Survivor: Ranking the Seasons

Dalton Ross has his season rankings up, and I can't say as I agree with everything. But rather than just say I disagree, I'll update my rankings as well:

1. Survivor: Borneo (Winner: Richard Hatch)

The original can never be duplicated.

2. Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains (Winner: Sandra Diaz-Twine)

In this case, familiarity helps. Knowing each of the players going in and how they were likely to play set some expectations. The season lived up to it and more. The casting of players and characters was fantastic. The winner was a bit disappointing, but the lead to the final tribal was great.

3. Survivor: Micronesia — Fans Vs. Favorites (Winner: Parvati Shallow)

A lot of blind sides, the single stupidest move in Survivor history and some interesting characters introdued. Awesome season. Though I'm a bit frightened at the similiarities between this and the Ruins III.

4. Survivor: Pearl Islands (Winner: Sandra Diaz-Twine)

Rupert. Johnny Fairplay. The season that Survivor became fun to watch for reasons beyond the actual game.

5. Survivor: Samoa (Winner: Natalie White)

Putting aside the jury vote, this season was a win simply because of Russell. His play reinvigorated the show and the game.

6. Survivor: Amazon (Winner: Jenna Morasca)

The first season where alliances were fluid. The game was played in a much different manner than before, with votes moving continually.

Oh, and chocolate and peanut butter.

7. Survivor: Palau (Winner: Tom Westman)

The first season where we saw a true dominant tribe. Then came Stephanie's survival for 2 weeks, then Tom's bold move to threaten to tie a vote to get people on side with him. Very underrated year.

8. Survivor: China (Winner: Todd Herzog)

It has James' stupid non-play of a hidden immunity idol, Todd wearing his bad deeds, and Amanda's first final tribal council failure. A pretty good year.

9. Survivor: Australian Outback (Winner: Tina Wesson)

The beginning of the Jeff Probst/Colby Donaldson bromance. Also the first eer major strategic blunder, though it was at least done out of some sense of loyalty. What ever happened to Elisabeth anyway?

10. Survivor: Cook Islands (Winner: Yul Kwon)

Two of the most likable players in Yul and Ozzie. It also had the funniest Survivor moment, when Sundra and Becky "battled" to build fire. Taking 90 minutes to do so. After being given matches 30 minutes in.

11. Survivor: Tocantins (Winner: J.T. Thomas)

The year of Coach! Also, a great blindside of Tyson.

12. Survivor: Africa (Winner: Ethan Zohn)

Oh Kelly. If only Brandon hadn't have gone into business for himself, we would have had the first momentum swing post-merge ever, and you might have stuck around longer. Also notable for Lex getting eliminated in the Fallen Comrades competition even though he answered a question correctly. That earned him (and Big Tom) 2nd place money.

13. Survivor: Gabon (Winner: Bob Crowley)

Even with the fake hidden immunity idol, Susie almost won. 'Nuff said.

14. Survivor: Panama (Winner: Aras Baskauskas)

The Terry year, where his loss of the final immunity challenge ended up giving us Aras as a winner. Awesome for Terry's dominance, not so awesome for everything else.

15. Survivor: Fiji (Winner: Earl Cole)

Yau Man and Earl were the stars of the season. The have/have not twist and the inevitability of Earl winning once Dreamz refused to hand over immunity to Yau Man.

16. Survivor: Guatemala (Winner: Danni Boatwright)

Stephanie gets a second chance and turns into a mean person. Still an attractive person, but a mean person nonetheless. And then she loses to Danni.

17. Survivor: Vanuatu (Winner: Chris Daugherty)

Probably the most difficult to place. Chris's victory when outnumbered 5-1 and with not winning immunity was impressive, but the show was horrible before that.

18. Survivor: All-Stars (Winner: Amber Brkich)

It gave us Boston Rob and Amber as a power couple, but it also gave us the biggest farce of a final council before Samoa. And the overriding theme of the previous winners didn't deserve tostay around becaue they had already won was anoying and uncomfortable.

19. Survivor: Marquesas (Winner: Vecepia Towery)

This should rank higher. It gave us Boston Rob, whatshername being carried to the island like Cleopatra, and the first shakeup of the status quo. But it was the most frustrating final two ever, with both not really deerving of being there.

20. Survivor: Thailand (Winner: Brian Heidik)

Oh, the tediousness. We were just waiting for the end so Brian could win and watching was like watching a death march to the end. Cool final challenge though.

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains Final thoughts

I'm in a ranty mood...

Can we stop with the "Russell can't be the best player ever because he can't play the game socially" meme? I realize that it's become trendy to point out how horrible his social skills are, but it ignores that if he played the game any differently in Samoa, he wouldn't have been in the final tribal in Samoa.

The social game has value, of course. But it can only add value if the jury is willing to ignore the feeling that they have been wronged. In All-Stars, the jury was made up of bitter people who had failed in their second attempt to win the game. Rob lost because of this, even though it was pretty obvious that he had played the game the best. (It's also funny that nobody is now bringing up Rob's lack of social skills after being bested by Russell.) Brian Heidik, for all of his dominance in the game, was not well liked at all. However people were able to overlook their dislike of him and stil vote him winner (his choice of Clay was probably helpful in this regard.)

And then there's Richard Hatch. It wasn't his social play per se that won him the original game. Pagong did not like him at all, but Greg respected his game play enough to vote for him. Heck, Susan Hawk voted for him because she disliked Kelly more. If Richard is supposed to be the best player ever, maybe we should realize that he won based on is game play and not how nice he was to other people. And Russell should be viewed as the guy who sould have won Samoa.

*****

I've made my peace with Sandra winning. While I still think that Parvati should have won this season, I admit that Sandra played the final tribal council incredibly well. She found the line necessary to win (aka be the anti-Russell) and she took to it hard. Every thing she said at tht tribal council was intended to remind the jury that (a) she's not Russell, (b) she wanted to get Russell out of the game for a long period of time, but was thwarted by the disinterest of the jury and (c) did I mention she was against Russell?

It takes both a lot of guts and a good read of the jury to go into a tribal council to basically refer to youself as a failure at the game that you played. It's especially more difficult when Parvati is there as an option for voters who want to reward the gameplay that lead them to the finals, but do not want to reward Russell. Sandra held to her guns and was rewarded with $1 million. I might not have voted that way, but I respect that when all was said and one, she ended up with the most votes.

*****

While we're talking about making peace with decisions, I was blown away by an interview that Rob Cesterino did with Natalie White on his podcast. Natalie is the winner of Survivor: Samoa, aka the season that even Jeff Probst thinks Russell was robbed on. I was struck by how much she knew about the game, and her thoughts on how Russell and others were playing the game. I still feel as though Russell deserved the victory on Survivor: Samoa, but I will make every effort to not refer to Natalie as undeserving. It demeans her game play as well as the title of Sole Survivor.

*****

The biggest question that everybody is asking is whether this victory makes Sandra the greatest Survivor player of all time. Winning both seasons you are in is quite the accomplishment, one that nobody else can take claim to. However, I'm not willing to give her that title.

There's something to be said for being a threat at challenges. Being able to win a challenge is the ultimate backup plan, one that can cause strategy to get thoroughly changed. Sandra's inability to win any sort of challenge means that she can only play one game - the "don't vote for me, I'm not a threat" game. While she might be the best at playing this style of strategy, that isn't enough to be the best Survivor player ever. Somebody who can play the passive game, but is also able to compete in challenges is a much better all-round player. Which leads us to the question: Is Parvati the best Survivor player of all time?

I'll answer that later in the week with my foolish attempt to rank the greatest Survivor players of all time.

Monday Musings - May 17, 2010

• With the finale running yesterday, here's a Survivor quiz as asked by the cast from Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains.


• Also, Jeff Probst gives love advice!


• New blog to follow Keith Beardsley, who is a former advisor to Stephen Harper, but is also a great analyst who doesn't feel the need to tow the company line, so to speak.


• Only in Canada is this news: Sidney Crosby moving out of Mario Lemieux's home


• You can count on Steve Friess to have an interesing take on Vegas related items. For example, here's his thoughts on Steve Wynn's musings about moving his headquarters to China


• Cougars vs. Sugar Daddies. I will say that Cougar Life does not imply itself to be a site where you go looking for a long-term relationship. The sugar daddies sites at least have that going for them (though a lot more creepy.)


• A great post by Chris Boyle on why there might be thoughts from Habs fans that this is like 1993. His main point can't be emphasized enough - in 1993, the Montreal Canadiens were a 100 point team who happened to be in a very strong division. (They finished third in their division.) The 2010 Habs are the worst team, pointwise, to have made the playoffs. They backed their way in and beat the two best teams in the Eastern conference, which the 1993 team did not have to do. The similarities end at the "hot goaltender" comparison.


• Bar Refaeli is not above the law


• And finally, one of the greatest two part SCTV shows...Maudlin's Eleven (h/t to David McKee):
  
  
  

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains Finale Thoughts

Let's get this out of the way: Sandra was gifted a millon dollars tonight.

I don't mean to belittle her accomplishment of being the first two time winner, but at the same time she was dragged along until the end and was given votes on the basis that she wasn't Parvati or Russell. Kudos to her for determining her best path to victory, but I'm not sure that makes her the best player this season and I know it doesn't mean that she is the best player ever.

Realistically, her best strategic move in the game was convincing Russell to vote out Coach. And yet, at final tribal council, she refused to even acknowledge the move, realizing that it would distract from her narrative of "I hate Russell as well guys, just like you!" Even still, she had to get past Parvati, who was very strongly playing the "I was running the show, not Russell" card, trying to get the credit for putting the jury on the jury. Unfortunately for her, the jury was so willing to give her that credit, she ended up not winning even though she deserved it more than Sandra.

(Thought experiment time: If it's a final two instead of a final three, and the final two is Parvati and Sandra, with Parvati sending Russell to the jury, does Sandra still win?)

I'm left torn as to whether Parvati has earned the best player ever. On one hand, making it to final tribal council twice against players who had played the game before is a major accomplishment. On the other hand, a 1/3 record isn't the best. Should the final vote for Heroes vs. Villains be given less credit, or should Parvati's apparent lack of a social game in this season remove her from contention? It's a tough situation, because both sides of the argument have merit.

As for Russell, he got unfairly attacked at times at the reunion. When Jeff was asking him about considering the jury, they both ended up talking past one another. Russell's point was that he had played the game for 78 days straight and didn't know whether his strategy was successful or not, so he couldn't correct any holes in his game. Jeff's point was that there was a glaring hole in his game and he wanted to know if Russell put any thought into the jury's opinion of him.

(Side note: Russell's point about playing for 78 days straight was especially odd when during the finale, Russell made a point that he brought the players he thought were weakest with him and that "didn't work". If he hadn't had a chance to find out whether his game play had worked out, how did he know before the final tribal? It's a question that I doubt we're going to get an answer to.)

Also, Rob's assessment of Russell's game play, specifically that "Russell plays to make it to the end, not to win. I play to win," was completely self serving and horrendously false since ROB LOST ON ALL-STARS FOR THE SAME REASON RUSSELL did. I'm glad Russell called Rob out on that comment, and Rob's comeback was weak and got the cheap pop.

I'll be back on Tuesday with a few more thoughts, including where this season ranks amongst the rest.

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains - A Rant

A sidebar which I meant to mention in my post yesterday...

Parvati has been rather firm in her belief that she needs to get rid of the Heroes because they would win the final vote since there are so many already on the jury. It was repeated often enough that it seemed to become accepted wisdom on the show. I'm willing to give it a pass on the show because the players are out there for 30+ days in not-so-great conditions and it's easyto get confused. But when Jeff Probst repeats it in his written-after-the-fact blog post yesterday, I'm set off.

(Jeff's quote: If [Colby] makes it to the end, he wins. Too many heroes on the jury that have too much animosity for the Villains.)

Barring a twist where final tribal council involves 4 players, the jury is going to be a minimum of 9 people. There are currently 4 Heroes on the jury, which means that if a Hero makes it to the final tribal council, there will be a minimum of 5 villains on the jury. So even if you give Colby every Hero's vote (and I'm not sure that is a shoo-in), there are still 5 VOTES IN PLAY! This isn't to say that Colby stands no chance of winning, but it's not a situation where if he makes it to final tribal council, he will win because he has all of the Heroes' votes. He still needs to get a vote from a villain or split the other votes (in the case of a final 3).

This wouldn't have bothered me if it wasn't something that was easily verified by counting the jurors. Is it asking too much to have a quick sanity check on these items?

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains Episode 13 Thoughts

The end is upon us. After 3 months of episodes that gave us continuous shock and awe, the finale is on Sunday. I'm sad about this as this season has probably been the best since the original. I don't say that lightly; many seasons have been declared best ever, only to end up not living up to the title after the finale. The only way that this season will not hold up is if the winner is chosen by purple rock.

With the finale right around the corner, we witnessed the dreams of victory ended for two more players. Rupert, who was voted out tonight is out of the running (and his delusions of winning finally destroyed), and Russell, who's stock has been plummetting for weeks, lost his final chance to win the $1 million when Rupert was voted out. Rupert's loss means that there is only one player Russell could possibly beat in Colby. Since it seems like final tribal council is going to be a final three, I can not coe up with a scenario where Russell would get enough votes to win (at an absolute minimum, 4).

With that said, let's bust out a power ranking headed into the finale. Listed along with the player is the ideal final three configuration for them to win.

5. Russell. Final three - Colby and Jerri

As I mentioned above, I can not fathom a way that Russell wins. My final three choices of Colby and Jerri make an assumption that Russell plays the "outwit" card continually, and gets another one or two immuniy wins. It then further assumes that Jerri and Colby split 5 votes between themselves in a 3-2 manner, with JT, Parvati, Amanda and Candice voting for Russell to win. Even that is very difficult to map out, as I see it being a 4-4-1, with Rupert holding the lone vote for Colby. There is a chance that Danielle would vote for Colby over Jerri, which would be the swing to give Russell the win, but I don't see it happening.

4. Colby. Final three - Russell and Jerri

Colby is in the same situation as Jerri and Russell. If Parvati or Sandra make the final three, they are very likely to win. If both make the final three, you are likely to end up with no votes. So Colby needs to bring Russell along, assuming that he will not get any jury votes. He then needs to get more votes than Jerri, which while difficult, is not insurmountable. He would need a really good tribal council, while Jerri had an Amanda like performance. Given Jerri's relative instability at times, it's a possibility.

3. Jerri. Final three - Russell and Colby

It's boring to repeat, but Jerri/Russell/Colby is a final three that conceivably gives all three player a chance to win the game. It mkes so much sense for them to team up and take out Parvati and Sandra that is extremely unlikely to occur. What's funny is that Jerri is the most likely to win that final three, but she is also most likely to stay loyal to her original alliance and not flip to a new one.

With that said, I have been impressed with how Jerri played thus far. She's actually thinking strategically, and making the moves that benefit her the most in the long term. While she's saying that Russell pressured her into voting Danielle, the fact is that by getting rid of Danielle, Jerri has soldified her spot in that allance. It's been interesting to watch Jerri turn into a player to be concerned with. I wonder if her tribe has caught up?

2. Sandra. Final three - Russell and Jerri

Sandra has completely righted her ship and is now pointed towards a strong chance at winning the $1 million. The downside o her play is that her moves have been more subtle, and it might be difficult for her to explain. So instead of bringing Colby along, she brngs Jerri, who seemed less strategic than Sandra. Add in the hated Russell and this is her best chance to win. It now comes down to whether Sandra can make the final three without including Parvati in it.

1. Parvati. Final three - Russell and Colby

This game is Parvati's to lose. She probably needs to win immunity in the next two competitions, but if she can do that, she is gold and most likely to win the game. Otherwise, she is going to be targetted and then voted out. Russell and Colby is her bath of least resistance, but any combination of Russell, Colby and Jerri should guarantee Parvati the win.

The fine line between class and racy

There is a controversy brewing with the Miss USA pageant. Some contestants took photos in lingerie, and there is now questions whether that was too racy for the pageant.

Just to clarify, people are wondering whether lingerie pictures are too obscene for a competition which judges women on how good they look in an evening gown and A SWIMSUIT!

To quote Doug Elfman:

The media can't stop themselves from acting like a bunch of fake-prude ninnies. The New York Daily News posted this judgmental headline, "Miss USA pageant officials are under fire for posting 'risque' lingerie photos of 2010 contestants."

Then, under that headline, the Daily News posted the photos.

I swear, news people like to pretend they are classier than the things they do. Me? I'm classy. But I don't pretend to be offended by pageant contestants in lingerie.

(Here's the link to his post. As Doug says, "everyone likes looking at hot girls in lingerie, the end.")

My feelings after Game 7 of Habs/Pens

JayRo Watches Movies: Iron Man 2

If you read reviews of Iron Man 2, you might be lead to believe that there are too many villains in the movie, and they clutter up the film. You would be lead to a wrong conclusion.

There are two antagonists in the film: Whiplash, as played by Mickey Rourke, and Justin Hammer, as played by Sam Rockwell (who channels Gary Oldman). Hammer really isn't a villain in the movie. He is introduced as kind of an anti-Tony Stark. Hammer's inventions consistently do not work, he fails at getting a contract with the Department of Defense while Stark succeeds, and Hammer is a failure with the ladies, while Stark is Tony Stark.

When Whiplash makes a move on Stark, Hammer sees this and then arranges to put Whiplash in his employ to create Hammer's own version of Iron Man suits. Both are driven by their desire to see Tony Stark's life in ruin. However, Hammer is never in control, and never shows himself to be a threat of any significence. Instead, he serves as Whiplash's enabler, providing the funding and resources to build out his "Iron Man" suit army. Hammer is never situated as a true threat to Stark; instead his role is more of foil and plot accelerator, and I'm not sure what others were expecting from his character.

One overriding theme in the movie is control. Hammer attempts to exert control over Whiplash. Whiplash wants to control (and destroy) Stark's legacy. Pepper Potts struggles with control of Stark Industries. James Rhodes attempts to control Tony Stark as Iron Man. And Stark wants to keep his self control as he searches for a cure for his poisoning. How each handls their attempts at control drives the plot and contrasts the various characters. For being a superhero movie, there is an attempt to elevate the film beyond it's simple basis.

But it's the simple base that makes the movie work. This film is the Robert Downey Jr. show, plain and simple. He owns the film, overshadowing even the effects. Without him, the weaker plot could be overrun rather easily. Instead Downey's presence lets you overlook any flaws in the film. He makes the film so enjoyable that the fight scenes are a delightful treat.

I recommend this movie for anybody who enjoys a commanding performance or who enjoyed the first movie.

Monday Musings - May 10, 2010

• James Warren is probably trying to make a point when his cynically suggests that Rod Blagojevich should follow Conrad Black's lead to the National Review, but it's not exactly obvious, and the punch line payoff at the end is very weak.


• The younger generation learns that it might not be the best of ideas to put every piece of personal information available for everybody to see. Every other generation suffers from losing 80% of their sources of humour.


• Paul Wells destroys Newsweek in the face of it being put up for sale


• In the most powerful thing I have read in a while, Steve Friess writes about his aide in having his uncle arrested. His blog post gives a bit more detail on why he didn't say anything before his article came out.

Some UFC 113 Live Thoughts

As mentioned many times in this blog, I was in Montreal this weekend to attend UFC 113. On Saturday, I braved the cold and walked from my hotel to the Bell Centre. After picking up a slice of pizza from that pizza joint on rue de la Montagne, I got to rue de la Gautiere. When I got there, I was greeted by this:

Not the most encouraging of sights

I rued the Bell Centre's crowd control choices and got to the back of the line.


My view from the back of the line to get in.

The line didn't move that slowly, though if I caught metricjulie's tweet I would have been able to avoid much of the wait. Instead, like a fool, I tried to save my phone's battery and chose not to read Twitter while in line. On the bright side, the line moved somewhat quickly so I was in without too much a wait.

As I was entering, I noticed what the ushers were wearing:

A little bit overdressed for the event, methinks. (Shakiness all my fault.)

And speaking of metricjulie, I had the pleasure of meeting Julie before the card began. We chatted for a couple of minutes before the start of the card music sounded to break up the conversation and for me to find my seat. Metricjulie, she good peeps.

I knew my seat was going to be good, as I'd sat in the section and row before, but I didn't realize how good it was going to be.

The view from section 301, row AA

And then the fight started. Some thoughts on the experience:

• The atmosphere in the Bell Centre was incredible. A tonne of energy, and the crowd was hyped for the entire 5 hour card. I'd have to say that watching a card in the Bell Centre is much more enjoyable than the MGM Grand Arena.


• The actual layout of the Bell Centre was awesome as well. Having the giant screens really helped, as it let them not have to put as many screen around the arena. As well, they used the racer boards well, with graphics for the fighters and the like.


• In a trend that only I care about, the women who attended the show were dressed normally, for lack of a better term. This contrasts with the Vegas shows, where the women who attend there seem to believe that they have to dress to impress, as though they were going to a club.

As for the actual fights, I managed to go a fantastic 5-6 in my picks, though my theoretical wagering would have made me a profit of $23.25 thanks to Josh Koscheck going the distance with Paul Daley. Some more thoughts...

• The card did not start well, with Jason MacDonald suffering a gruesome injury while successfully defending a takedown. He ended up dislocating his ankle and breaking his leg. John Salter then took the early lead for jerk of the night by celebrating his victory continually, whie Jason MacDonald laid on the ground. It'd be one thing if Salter did something to earn the win, but he was essentially gifted a win, and he's celebrating like it was the greatest accomplishment ever.


• The prelims had some awesome fights which didn't make it to air, specifically the TJ Grant/Johny Hendricks match and the Tim Hague/Joey Beltran match. To use some comparisons, Hague/Beltran was similiar to Leonard Garcia/Korean Zombie only with large fat guys so it was at a slower speed. Grant/Hendricks was just a great fight which you should try to find.


• Tom Lawlor came out as Apollo Creed, complete with top hat and vest and "Living in America". Lawlor hopefully will have a job for life with UFC, even if it's as a prelim on PPV or main card for Fight Night guy. He has great entrances for the live crowd, and has exciting fights to boot.


• Poor Kimbo Slice. He makes it into the UFC, and then gets fully exposed as a poor fighter. I doubt that Kimbo Slice will mean anything going forward save for the freakshow matches in Japan.


• Josh Koscheck took over the lead for jerk of the night in his attempts to get Paul Daley to have a point deducted for an "illegal knee". I'm willing to believe that Koscheck got poked in the eye somehow, but not kneed in the head.


• Paul Daley then jumped well ahead of Koscheck by punching him intentionally after the fight was over. Daley then claimed that he didn't hear the bell ring, which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Daley had to push Dan Mirgilota out of the way to get at Koscheck, then had to turn Koscheck around to punch him. You think the fight is still going on? Heck, let's make a new list. The ways that Paul Daley got thoroughly pwned last night:
  
  • Exposed as a one-dimensional fighter who might as well just concede should he face an opponent with any sort of wrestling background.
  
  
  • Brought out teammate Dan Hardy for moral support. That being the same Dan Hardy who got taken down at will for 5 rounds by GSP.
  
  
  • Mocked by Josh Koscheck for the last minute of the fight.
  
  
  • Hit Josh Koscheck after the fight, which he was unable to do during the fight.
  
  
  • Came up with a lame "Didn't hear the bell" excuse after being confronted by Dana White, proving himself to be unable to improvise an interesting excuse.
  
  
  • Fired on the spot by Dana White for his actions; now left to not make money while fighting for other companies due to lack of drawing skills.
  
  In short, LOL Paul Daley


• Koscheck made an attempt to take back jerk of the night by insulting the live crowd who were lustfully booing him. But Daley still wins the award.


• I've essentially watched the rise and fall of Lyoto Machida live. I have attended 4 live shows - all have had Lyoto Machida on them. I saw Machida hit the radar by beating Tito Ortiz in his last UFC fight (before leaving then coming back a year later) at UFC 84. I saw Machida earn a LHW title match by beating Thiago Silva at UFC 94 (and save the live crowd from dying of boredom). I then saw Machida beat Rashad Evans for the LHW title at UFC 98. And finally, I saw Shogun Rua end Machida's win streak and title reign at UFC 113. All that is missing is Machida/Shogun I at UFC 104.
  
  It's been a rollercoaster for me to watch. UFC 84 was infuriating, as Machida spent the match doing minimal counter attacking and more avoiding Ortiz's attempts to strike. But UFC 94 had Machida get the first non-decision win of the show (in match 9 of 10!) with a spectacular knockout. He then dominated and knocked out Evans in a similiar method at UFC 98. But his performance in UFC 104 was terrible, and UFC 113 was just as bad. It wasn't the avoid and strike Machida we had seen in the past; he seemed to have forgot the avoid part of the strategy.
  
  I don't know what the future holds for Lyoto, but I am interested in finding out what is next for him.

UFC 113 Predictions

After my 112 predictions went oh so well, I'm back to give some more wisdom. I'll note my theoretical wagers as I go through my picks.

UFC Undercard:

John Salter over Jason MacDonald
Yoshiyuki Yoshida over Mike Guymon
Tim Hague over Joey Beltran
T.J. Grant over Johny Hendricks
Marcus Davis over Jonathan Goulet
Tom Lawlor over Joe Doerksen

Main Card:

Sam Stout over Jeremy Stephens

Sam Stout lives up to his "Hands of Stone" nickname.

Alan Belcher over Patrick Cote

I don't want to make this pick, but Cote hasn't fought in forever. I think the rust will end up working against him.

Matt Mitrione over Kimbo Slice

Kimbo Slice looks very improved when he defeated Houston Alexander, but that was in part because Houston Alexander decided not to try to engage Slice in any sort of fight. Mitrione isn't going to take that strategy, and is a very good fighter as well. As much as I like Kimbo, I can't pick him.

Josh Koscheck over Paul Daley

Josh Koscheck will win this fight unless he tries to stand with Daley. Koscheck is arrogant enough to try to do this, but I think the lure of getting a title fight is enough to keep Koscheck on the right game plan and give him the win.

Bets: Josh Koscheck to win: $25 @1.33 to win $33.25, Koscheck to win via decision: $10 @ 4.5 to win $45

Lyoto Machida over Mauricio Shogun Rua for the 205-pound title

Ultimately, this fight comes down to who can adjust from the prior fight the best. I felt Rua won the first fight, but I think Machida is actually going to adjust better. He has the advantage, as his weakness was demonstrated in the first fight. Rua really didn't make any mistakes in the first fight; what adjustments can he make to that strategy?

Bets: Lyoto Machida to win: $10 @ 1.5 to win $15, the fight goes the distance: $10 @ 2.1 to win $21

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains Episode 12 Thoughts

...aka the episode where Russell officially lost it.

Don't get me wrong, Russell in "creating chaos" mode is amazing television. But it's also a clear path to lose thegame of Survivor. This week, Russell managed to do some irreplaceable damage to his alliance, while angering both the heroes and jury. I'm surprised he didn't pee on Jeff to annoy the one person he hadn't in the game.

What makes Russell's plan so risky is that he employs a "burn everything to the ground, and end up the sole person standing." Where he ends up with problems is when another person survives. At that point he's in a lot of trouble. It's going to happen again on this season, and he's not going to win. All that remains to be seen is whether there's the backlash against the winner.

And how about Colby and Rupert? They're back into play all of the sudden, having a real chance of making it to the final three. I wouldn't have expected that a month ago, let alone a week ago, and yet here we are. Kudos to them for exceeding my expectations, in no smal part because Rupert carried around a rock in his shorts.

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains - Did JT Make the Stupidest Play Ever

I've given the JT play from two weeks ago a bit of thought to determine whether it was in fact, the Stupidest Play in Survivor History.

The last time I made a list like this, the results were:

1. Survivor 3 (Africa): Brandon decides to vote with Lex to eliminate Kelly, thus alienating his tribe.
2. Survivor 4 (Marqueasas): John, Rob D, Tammy and Zoe reveal their final four alliance in a reward challenge, then get Pagonged.
3. Survivor 2 (Australia): Colby throws away a guaranteed victory by bringing Tina to the final 2 ahead of Keith,
4. Survivor 11 (Guatemala): Rafe throws away a guaranteed final 2 spot by "releasing" Danni from her promise.
5. Survivor 5 (Thailand): Shook Jai (led by Shii-Ann) conspires to throw an immunity challenge so they can vote out Jed, even though they have an advantage over Chauy Gahn. The 5 Chauy Gahn members that survive to the merge end up being the final 5.

Will Brandon remain at #1? (Spoiler alert: No) Without any further ado here is the all new list of stupid moves.

Top 5 Stupid Moves Ever in Survivor History:

5.(tie) Survivor 11 (Guatemala): Rafe throws away a guaranteed final 2 spot by "releasing" Danni from her promise., Survivor 2 (Australia): Colby throws away a guaranteed victory by bringing Tina to the final 2 ahead of Keith, Survivor 10 (Palau): Ian throws awaya guaranteed victory by quittng the final immunity challenge and forcing Tom to take Katie

These are all being lumped together, even though they aren't quite equal. Rafe might have still lost against Danni by jury vote - that jury wa looking to give Danni the win. With that said, they all are essentially variations on the same idea: Player puts honour ahead of winning Survivor, then shockingly loses. They are dumb moves which lead directly to the players losing, but as I said last time I produced the list, at least there was some sort of other motive driving the decision.

Still makes it pretty stupid though.

4. Survivor 4 (Marqueasas): John, Rob D, Tammy and Zoe reveal their final four alliance in a reward challenge, then get Pagonged.

To repeat myself...

The reward challenge was the traditional trivia game where everybody has three strikes, and if you get a question right, you get to give someone a strike. John, Rob D, Tammy and Zoe chose to eliminate people from the reward challenge IN THE ORDER THEY WERE GOING TO VOTE THEM OUT! Ignoring the effect this would have on the eliminated people's final 2 vote, they did this with 9 people left. Meaning the 5 left saw a pattern. This gave Sean and Vescepia and opening to convince Kathy, Neleh and Paschal to start voting out the evil 4.

(Sure, John would get his revenge on Neleh by refusing to vote for her since she wouldn't admit to being deceitful or something. But he could have been winning the game if he had just thought ahead.)

3. Survivor 20 (Heroes vs. Villains): JT gives the hidden immunity idol to Rusell. JT is vote out after at the next tribal council he goes to.

Yup, after thinking about it, I can come up with two moves that were even more stupid. The problem with JT's move was that it made a lot of assumptons which JT could not know were valid, and that were proven to be false. Between the women's alliance, Russell's willingness to jump ship and that Russell would use the idol at the tribal council before the merge, there was a lot of things that cold have gone wrong, and a lotof warning signs that JT chose to ignore.

What's silly is that it still could have worked out for JT if Amanda didn't talk to Parvati and set off her alarm bell. Without that tipoff, Parvati would have played the idol herself and then it comes down to a 5-5 tie. Instead, Parvati started handing out immunity idols to anybody who ssked for one, and JT was headed home.

The worst part? That wasn't even the stupidest move in this season. That honour belongs to...

2. Survivor 20 (Heroes vs. Villains): Tyson changes his vote to Parvati from Russell, and ends up being voted out instead.

I've read and heard many Tyson interviews, and his explanation for this move is still lacking. He admits it was a brain fart, but he also justifies it by trying to say that he was trying to earn Russell's trust. If he believed Russell's story that Russell was going to vote Parvati, then there was no harm in voting for Russell. If he didn't trust Russell, then vote Russell. Instead, he votes Parvati, and then Parvati played the hidden immunity idol that the Villains knew was in the possession of Russell and they had voted specifically in a manner to negate the Idol's power.

1. Survivor 16 (Micronesia): Erik gives away the immunity necklace to Natalie

Stll the most stunning move ever in Survivor history. It was pretty clear by this point that Erik was going to win any immunity challenge that involved physical effort. So concerned were the women about having to face rik, they came up with a crazy plan: Have Natalie ask for the immunity necklace. Shockingly, it worked, and Erik was voted out.

I can not emphasize that there was no good reason for Erik to give up the necklace. He apparently did it out of a sense of honour, but even then it's not as though Natalie had done anything to earn his trust. Instead, Erik was suckered in by a girl and has paid the price ever since.

Cashing in my ticket

Earlier this year, I posted my confirmation that yes, I am a blogger and I wanted to register for the WBCOOP. The series came and went, and I earned myself a $16.50 ticket into a SCOOP event.

Both Rakewell and F-Train have raised concerns about the available tournaments at the lower buy in points. I was in the same situation as Rakewell, having a $16.50 ticket and very few options. The one variation in my situation is that I wasn't going to be available for any of the hold'em tournaments.

Rather than considing the route that others took in requesting that their tickets be split up for multiple tournaments, I chose to enter myself in the Badugi tournament on Monday. That would be the same Badugi that I had played once before, and that was in a play money session. Not exactly the most +EV choice I have made.

As it turns out, I ended up placing approximentally 2,200 out of 2,400 entries. I played poorly at times, while at other times I played fine, and ended up getting drawn out on (my dealt Badugis getting beat by players who drew cards in each of the three rounds of draws.) I'm not leased with how it ended up, but I wasn't upset with my play at all.

I did learn a couple of things from this experience:

1) No matter how crazy it seems, Badugi is not that difficult of a game to pick up. It's triple draw, with different way to determine best hands. As I played, I was able to determine some basic strategy as to how to draw, when to draw and when to bluff. While I still wouldn't feel comfortable playing for any significant amount of cash, I am confident enough that I am not going to be lost should I find myself in afriendly game.

2) Sometimes it's good to switch what game you are playing. Its absolutely true that if I was required to put out any of y own money, Iwould not have entered that tournament. My ticket let me play something that I hadn't tried before, and I took advantage. With that said, I am glad that I did it. My hold'em play had fallen into a rut. As mentioned on Monday, I have been hit by the variance stick, and that was also affecting my play by making me a bit more gun shy, waiting for the inevitable 2 outer to hit. This tournament reminded me that poker at it's core is supposed to be a game. You are supposed to enjoy playing it. And the tournament helped me to rediscover that joy, and my game. My limited results have been better since he tournament (cashing in every sit'n'go I have played) while my play was solid and lot closer to where I wanted it to be. Sometimes, you need to switch things up to remind youself about the nature of poker. That is what the tournament did for me on Monday.

Of course it's possible, I saw Hot Tub Time Machine too!

Stephen Hawking says time travel is possible.

This is actually an interesting development. Not so much for the revelation that Hawking believes time travel is possible (though the way he proposes time travel to occur does sound a bit sci-fi-ish,) but instead for Hawking's low self esteem.

I'd imagine there is some context missing from this quote, but "In the documentary, Hawking admits he was hesitant to discuss such theories previously, for fear of being labeled a “crank.” seems like the most ridiculous thing I have heard. Who's going to believe that Hawking is a crank in this situation? The man is the foremost minds in astrophysics. If he says it can be done, it behooves us to at least consider the possibility. Anybody who automatically dismisses the thought is engaging in some serious intellectual dishonesty.

This is a grand revelation, and I'm looking forward to somebody picking up the work to prove or disprove this theory.

Monday Musings - May 3, 2010

• Snooker champion John Higgins is approached to fix a match result. He agrees. Unfortunately, he agrees while being taped by the News of the World:
  


• Dan LeBatard has an interesting take on the Dez Bryant/"Hooker question" controversy.


• Over at the PPP site, Down Goes Brown asks a very interesting question: Should you win an award for your coverage of a story when the main question about the story remains unanswered?


• Andrew Coyne is not too pleased about the Liberals playing political games with the Governor General position.


• And just to prove that Coyne isn't a Conservative shill, here is Coyne's thoughts on Prime Minister Harper's "legal obligations" comments.


• Something I've been reading a few times over: Why I suck at online poker. It's funny, because I believe it's a lot more variance than anything, but at the same time my recent online forays have not worked out well. It would be stupid (if not suicidal for my bankroll) to believe it is exclusively variance.


• I read this article by John L. Smith about Steve Wynn's ruminations about moving his company to Macau. Then I read this article by Steve Selebius and I was struck of how offended people are about Wynn's blovalations. David McKee has a good take on Wynn's thoughts.


• In a tangentally related note, MGM Mirage is trying to change their name to MGM Resorts International. There are those who don't like the move, thinking it weakens the brand to remove the Mirage name. I disagree. Before this change, we would still shorten the name to "MGM". The Mirage brand really had very little meaning to the brand of the company, especially when you consider that 90% of the public will only view Mirage as a part of "The Players Club" rewards club. I'm not a huge fan of the full name (MGM Resorts would sound better in my view), but I don't think it's the end of the world. I will conceed that this is probably one of the final "Screw Yous" directed towards Steve Wynn.


• And finally, Lindsay Lohan takes a picture with a gun; world ends

May is UFC Month

I mentioned yesterday that I had two trips coming up which might affect my ability to followup with the "Manic May" plans. Both are essentially for the same reason, though they have different circumstances around them.

Next Friday, I climb onto the Via Rail train once again and travel to lovely Montreal. I'll be enjoying spring there, but my main reason for going is to watch UFC 113 - Machida vs. Rua. I hadn't really expected to be going, but the timing and main event was enough to bring me to Montreal. As well, I get the opportunity to see Kimbo Slice in his first UFC PPV match (because that's a reason to see him live...)

While I'm looking foward to seeing the show, I'm also looking forward to just being in Montreal during spring. My last two trips have been in not so lovely November, so it will be nice to walk around Montreal and not worry aout losing any extremities to coldness. As well, the patios should be open for some fun lounging/people watching. I'm really looking forward to this.

Then, at the end of May, I will be in Las Vegas for UFC 114 - Rashad vs. Rampage. It's a fantastic main event, with an intriguing semi-main (Forrest Griffin vs. Little Nog). That's not the only reason why - that weekend is the weekend for the annual F4W~! Convention. I'll be able to catch up with a lot of friends that I haven't seen since last year, as well as catch up with a city that I haven't seen in 8 months. I'm really looking forward to visiting CityCenter for the first time and making my own judgements on the properties. I'm also really looking forward to meeting up my friends from F4W for the conversation, meals and debauchery.

All in all, a busy month of travel and other stuff. Another reason tht the Manic May tag is oh so appropriate.

Manic May - An Introduction

I haven't been happy with my bloggin recently.

I've written some entries I am proud of, and others that ended up being well short of what I wanted them to be. I've intended to write posts about some timely subjects, only to end up leaving it so long that the post would be irrelevant.

So I've decide to do something about it.

My plan is to make at least one post every day in the month of May. Some of them will be links to videos. Some of them will be Survivor posts. Some of them will (hopefully) be longer posts on various items of interest to me. But there will be one each day for the month of May.

Why the title "Manic May"? Well, as I will discuss during May, I have a couple of trips coming up. I'll be in Montreal for UFC 113, and then will be in Vegas for a week (to see UFC 114 and the F4W Convention). Montreal likely won't be a problem for me to get posts done; the laptop will come with me and in a pinch I can use my phone. But Vegas has me concerned. Do I really want to be spending my time in my room writing blog posts? Heck, will I have any time to write blog posts? (My schedule for Thursday to Monday is pretty full.) I get a sense that I'll be using the scheduled post option of Blogger often.

Anyway, this is a round about way to say that you should check the blog frequently as daily updates will be the norm in May.

(And yes, posting this on May 1st means it counts as my content for today. Hey, my challenge, my rules!)