Posted by Dr Fro 1:56 PM
Sex, Lies and Jamarkus MacFarland

It all started with this article in the New York Times. I read it when it came out and said to myself, "Self, this can't be true. Why would a school give free illegal drugs to athletes? And why does this crazy mom contradict herself?"

Then it comes out that at least part of the story is a lie. In fact, Jamarkus made up a lot of the stuff for an English paper. He implies that the writer, Thayer Evans read the paper and lifted the story without so much as asking Jamarkus if it was a piece of fiction. So, either the kid is a liar or the reporter is a hack. Or maybe both.

Then it comes out that Thayer is the same guy that wrote the article on Darrell Scott that was later questioned for its accuracy.

Evidently the guy is from Oklahoma. (See bios down and to the right). He used to write for Sooner Illustrated. Hmmmmm. I wonder why he was so interested in printing articles damaging to UT.

So, Evans is a hack. The mom is a bitch. The kid is a momma's boy with bad judgment. He can rot in hell with the others that got away (Bomar, Perilloux...) What are those guys up to now?


(4) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 7:03 AM
Uh... No witty comment available here as I'm still trying to figure out what I just watched.




(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:16 AM
John -

I finally found that polling data you requested.

Polling Data

(1) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:13 AM
While I don't usually find the business side of sports all that interesting, I thought this was worth posting since it covers an area that people tend to not understand.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 7:48 PM
It's been a looooong December...

It looks like the last 6 weeks of 2008 will drive my net win/loss on the year more than the other 46 weeks combined.

After Mexico, we spent 2 nights in Houston. One night (last night) we played $2/$5 NL in the locker room of one of the guy's country clubs. Lots of action, lots of action...

I bought in $200 and cashed out $1,396. We played for about 5 hours, so there were several hands that contributed to the winning, but one stood out.

I got JJ on the button and made it $30 to go. Six of us saw the flop.

Flop came 7,8,T. I had an overpair and a gut shot.

Check, check, check to Wildog who bet $20. Hank called and I made it $300 "all day". Wildog went all-in for my $280 raise plus $216 more. Hank went all-in for his remaining $20. I called $216 into a pot of $1,026 thinking I was beat. Hell, for Wildog to bet like that, he must have had KK, AA or a set. So I am probably needing 6 outs (2 jacks, 4 nines) or a bit less than 4:1 odds, but the pot was paying me 5:1(ish). I had to call, but I *knew* I was behind.

Wildog shows 77 for the set. Hank shows K9 for the straight draw. I now have 5 outs to win the side pot (9,9,9,J,J) and I must get runner runner to win the main pot (because my Jack would also give Hank the straight). Fortunately, the main pot was $270 and the side pot was $972, so I was almost kinda sorta getting the pot odds I needed. I was certainly worse off than I thought when I called.

Turn came Jack. Holy shit. Only one card - a 7 to give Wildog quads - could rob me of the side pot. At the same time, Hank hit the straight for the main pot.... until the river came....which paired the board and gave me boat over a boat over a straight. I pulled in $1,242 for a profit of $696 on that hand. F yeah.

The rest of my $500ish of profit came from hand after hand of me having the best of it, betting it, and my hand holding up. No bad beats that I can recall.

I dumped $300 on one stupid call.

I accepted insurance once (getting better odds than my had dictated, I might add) which gave me $200 I would not have today if I had declined the insurance.

Just one of those candy ass luck nights.

Junell played. He brought a thick bankroll and left with about $12, his dignity and his heterosexuality. McAndrew was giving long odds on him leaving with any of those three. If you had parlayed all three, you could turn $200 into something like $1,396.

Unless I blow north of $4k in the last week of the year, I'll book a winner this year. I'd rather be lucky than good any day.


(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 7:25 AM
I thought this was well said:

The administration's belief that saving GM from the bankruptcy it so richly deserves is essential to saving the rest of the economy symbolizes how it misunderstood the crisis from the start.

When credit markets seized in mid-September, the government acted as if the problem were the collapsing market price of non-performing loans held by money-center banks. Nonsense. The real problem was the collapsing market price of performing loans held by everyone else.

That is, the true crisis was not that companies that richly deserved to go under couldn't raise cash at favorable rates, but that otherwise good companies were (and still are) imperiled because they can't raise money at reasonable rates. The problem today is not that a sensible market doesn't want GM bonds, but that a panicked market doesn't want anyone's bonds.

As long as the government continues to conceive its job as saving bad companies from their just deserts - rather than getting the trillions of dollars of credit destroyed by the panic back out to the productive economy - the bailout will continue to expand and continue to fail.

Really what's happening is that Bush doesn't want this to happen at the tail end of his presidency so he's trying to push it down the road to someone else, same thing for the Republicans in congress. Politicians engage in this kind of thinking all the time, but nonetheless, from an economic perspective this piece hits the nail on the head: the reaction of many of the other politicians with their bailouts and whatnot is exactly opposite of what actually needs to be done.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 7:49 PM
I am leaving town for Mexico tomorrow. Like manna from heaven, I got these consecutive hands.


PokerStars Game #22955701416: Hold'em No Limit ($3/$6) - 2008/12/15 20:43:46 ET
Table 'Havnia' 9-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 2: Scupperfish ($912 in chips)
Seat 3: spideylives2 ($69 in chips)
Seat 4: Cudda101 ($623.40 in chips)
Seat 5: scooter2296 ($308.30 in chips)
Seat 6: whezer16 ($1052.50 in chips)
Seat 7: Carmen35 ($294 in chips)
Seat 8: studboy1 ($600 in chips)
Seat 9: phreaux ($532.25 in chips)
spideylives2: posts small blind $3
Cudda101: posts big blind $6

*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to phreaux [Ad As]
scooter2296: folds
whezer16: folds
Carmen35: calls $6
studboy1: folds
phreaux: raises $17 to $23
Scupperfish: folds
spideylives2: calls $20
Cudda101: folds
Carmen35: calls $17

*** FLOP *** [Kd Jc 8c]
spideylives2: bets $46 and is all-in
Carmen35: calls $46
phreaux: raises $463.25 to $509.25 and is all-in
Carmen35: calls $225 and is all-in
Uncalled bet ($238.25) returned to phreaux

*** TURN *** [Kd Jc 8c] [8d]

*** RIVER *** [Kd Jc 8c 8d] [6h]

*** SHOW DOWN ***
Carmen35: shows [Ts Qd] (a pair of Eights)
phreaux: shows [Ad As] (two pair, Aces and Eights)
phreaux collected $450 from side potspideylives2: mucks hand
phreaux collected $210 from main pot




PokerStars Game #22955732703: Hold'em No Limit ($3/$6) - 2008/12/15 20:44:54 ET
Table 'Havnia' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 2: Scupperfish ($912 in chips)
Seat 4: Cudda101 ($617.40 in chips)
Seat 5: scooter2296 ($308.30 in chips)
Seat 6: whezer16 ($1052.50 in chips)
Seat 7: Carmen35 ($240 in chips)
Seat 8: studboy1 ($600 in chips)
Seat 9: phreaux ($898.25 in chips) scooter2296: posts small blind $3
whezer16: posts big blind $6
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to phreaux [5d 5h]
Carmen35: folds
studboy1: folds
phreaux: calls $6
Scupperfish: folds
Cudda101: calls $6
scooter2296: calls $3
GoTribeGrady joins the table at seat #3
whezer16: checks

*** FLOP *** [2h 5c 3h]
scooter2296: bets $12
whezer16: calls $12
phreaux: raises $38 to $50
Cudda101: calls $50
scooter2296: folds
whezer16: calls $38

*** TURN *** [2h 5c 3h] [8c]whezer16: checks
phreaux: bets $201
Cudda101: calls $201
whezer16: folds

*** RIVER *** [2h 5c 3h 8c] [Js]
phreaux: bets $250
Cudda101: calls $250

*** SHOW DOWN ***
phreaux: shows [5d 5h] (three of a kind, Fives)Cudda101: mucks hand
phreaux collected $1085 from pot


!VIVA LA PLAYA!

No poker for the next few days, just some margaritas and sleeping till noon seven.


(2) comments

Posted by Junelli 4:56 PM
Last night I got involved in an $800 pot where we were both all-in on the turn.

I held Ad9d
He held Ac8h

The board was: 8876 (with 2 diamonds).

He moved all in on the turn with trip eights. I called him with my open-ended nut flush draw (15 outs).

We dealt is 4 times, and I won 3 of them. Woot!


(3) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:37 PM
My name is CCM, and I'm an alc....

Not really. My name is Dr. Fro, but I do sometimes live the charmed life of Mr. CCM. Last night I went to the Lombardi Award Ceremony in Houston. I had a lot of fun. The finalist were Brian Orakpo, James Laurinaitis, Rey Maualuga and Andre Smith. They all gave speeches as did their position coaches. Though unpolished, all four came across as sincerely grateful. We had good seats:



They let us come up to the front get autographs and stuff. Here's Rey:


James and Brian made a lot of jokes about each other (they play each other in a few weeks.) James also joked that last year, he lost out on the Lombardi and got his "butt kicked" in their bowl game. He was afraid Mr. Orakpo was going to pull that same double-double on him again this year (I hope so!). Then he made some jokes about going home with Miss Texas. More on that later.

The winner was Brian Orakpo:

He started out with a crack that hopefully the BCS isn't in charge of picking the award winner. He had plenty of nice things to say about UT, the Rotary Club, the American Cancer Society, The Front Line Kids, Coach Nolen (Lamar H.S.) He came across pretty well. Evidently, he's pretty smart: I think he graduated in 3.5 years with a 3.5 GPA. He certainly seems smart.

When the whole affair ended, most people left quickly as they were afraid of the snow and ice. Since I was staying at the hotel, and because I am CCM 2.0, I stayed for a couple drinks long after most people had left.

I was talking to a friend from high school when I noticed that nobody was talking to Brooke Daniels. So, I did.

She looks pretty excited to meet me.

On the way out, I ran into Mr. Orakpo. I was terrified that he might eat me, so rather than ask for a photo with him, I just got him to hook his horns for me:

Good times.

(4) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 8:44 PM
Not a big deal to people who don't live here, but you don't see this every day:






(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 2:19 PM
If only it mentioned the labor unions, this would be perfect:



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:24 AM
If you want to buy tickets to the Fiesta Bowl, let me know.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:17 PM

(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:45 PM
Last night was the poker league season IV tournament. As the person that won the most in the regular season, I started with the biggest stack. Unfortunately, I finished in 5th place and out of the money.

There were two hands that did it. I went from TC2,500 to TC1,000 by being stupid. I flopped middle set and a draw to the flush in PL O/8. There was a lot of betting to the board of 568, so I figured my two opponents had the 79 or the A2 or both. I had outs coming out of my ass with two streets to come. Nothing came, the two staights split the high, and one of them backed into the low.

I had a 58% chance of winning the high. In holdem, this is a calling situation. In O/8, where I can expect to only win 1/2 the pot, I need to be at least a 66% favorite to justify the call. 58% is not 66%. Crap.

So, I missed out on the opp to win the $200, $100 or $30 prize for 1st, 2nd or 3rd. My equity would have been about $100 had I won that hand, so I pissed away $100 of theoretical money.

I busted out going all in with 99 and getting called by AA. Hey, that's poker.

Losing that $100 felt a little bit better when this happened tonight...




PokerStars Game #22749281999: Hold'em No Limit ($3/$6) - 2008/12/08 21:41:16 ET
Table 'Olympia II' 9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: aa top hand ($172.25 in chips)
Seat 2: phreaux ($414 in chips)
Seat 4: plyboy_binny ($691.75 in chips)
Seat 5: jinsu416 ($669.85 in chips)
Seat 7: yaqwsx1012 ($108.10 in chips)
Seat 8: RTfishLb8 ($360 in chips)
Seat 9: dankness3 ($552 in chips)
PBaron22 will be allowed to play after the button
yaqwsx1012: posts small blind $3
RTfishLb8: posts big blind $6
LoliBluff: sits out
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to phreaux [6c 6d]
dankness3: folds
aa top hand: folds
phreaux: calls $6
plyboy_binny: raises $24 to $30
jinsu416: calls $30
yaqwsx1012: folds
RTfishLb8: calls $24
phreaux: calls $24
*** FLOP *** [4c Qs As]
RTfishLb8: checks
phreaux: checks
plyboy_binny: checks
jinsu416: checks
*** TURN *** [4c Qs As] [7d]
RTfishLb8: checks
phreaux: checks
plyboy_binny: checks
jinsu416: bets $48
RTfishLb8: folds
phreaux: raises $336 to $384 and is all-in
plyboy_binny: folds
jinsu416: folds
Uncalled bet ($336) returned to phreaux
phreaux collected $216 from pot
phreaux: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $219 Rake $3
Board [4c Qs As 7d]
Seat 1: aa top hand folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: phreaux collected ($216)
Seat 4: plyboy_binny folded on the Turn
Seat 5: jinsu416 (button) folded on the Turn
Seat 7: yaqwsx1012 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 8: RTfishLb8 (big blind) folded on the Turn
Seat 9: dankness3 folded before Flop (didn't bet)


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 12:45 PM
While I am going through my pet peeves (have I turned into a grumpy old man?)...

I had a conversation with a very nice woman whom I like very much. She hit on several of my pet peeves in the span of 2 minutes while talking about her daughter not going to UT.

1) She mentioned the evil (not really) "ten percent rule". She said, "you know, you and I wouldn't even be able to get into UT these days." Speak for yourself, I feel quite confident that I could. And over 10,000 people enroll each year, so somebody is getting in. Why would you assume that I could not be one of those 10,000? Do I come across as being that stupid?

2) She referred to the evil (not really) "ten percent rule" as new (that is to say that it was not in place when we went to school). Not true. When I was a senior in high school in 1990 applying for UT, the criteria to get in were:
Top 10% - automatic acceptance
Top 25% - needed a 1,000 on the SAT
Any ranking - 1,200 on the SAT gave an automatic acceptance.

I was both top 10% and over 1,200 on the SAT, so I got into UT.

The top ten percent rule has been around for at least 18 years (I can not say for certain how long), it just has become more important because the number of people who automatically qualify under this rule has grown so much that the people who get into UT without being top 10% is small. I used to be confused by this. After all, I thought, the population of college-bound people in Texas has not grown considerably and UT has not gotten smaller and there are no more people in the top 10%, so what gives? My esteemed colleague, KTL, offered some insight: The amount of financial aid to get into UT (btw, I think everything I am writing here is equally true of A&M) has increased dramatically, so you have a lot of people applying that previously weren't applying because they could never afford to go there without aid. Aha! Well, if this is the cause, and the effect is that people who aren't smart enough to be in the top 10% of their class have to go to OU ;-) then is that really a bad thing? Shouldn't we be happy that well-qualified poor people also get the opportunity of a public college education?

Back to my point. It is not a new rule. Sorry for the tangent.

3) She said that she knew parents who took their kid out of School X and put them into School Y their senior year just so that they could be top 10%. Not being from Dallas, I didn't recognize either school. I asked, "I take it that Y is an easier school than X?" It wasn't what she said as much as the tone, but she said, "Well X is private." The tone said "Of course, stupid." Oh, I forgot. All private schools are fantastic, and all public schools are full of idiots. Stupid me. My public school friend, John Greene, went to Harvard. This public school kid graduated cum laude from UT. But obviously public schools are the suck. That is the peeve - the suggestion that private schools are better than public schools. In her case, she was horrified that a kid would have to go to the public school, so it wasn't just the suggestion of the relative "better" or "worse", she basically categorized this school as "unacceptable."

It was later pointed out to me that the schools she chose had another difference: one is lily white, the other is black as night. It would be speculation on my part to say that she was suggesting that white kids are smarter than black kids, but if she does think that, then I would have another pet peeve to write up.

4) She was just so upset that her daughter could not go to UT. You know, there are 50,000 kids at UT. Maybe your daughter is not one of the 50,000 brightest kids in the state.. If so - if you can't be Top 50K - maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are (or as your parents think you are). If you graduate with 600 kids and you aren't one of the 60 smartest, well, maybe you shouldn't be entitled to go to whatever school you want. And this is my thesis statement. The real issue is that parents have too high of an opinion of their kids. When reality deals a blow to their imaginary world, they can't accept it. They have to blame the system. It is like UT fans that complain about the BCS. You can blame the system or you can admit that you lost to Tech. Personally, I start with the man in the mirror when I am trying to figure out why life doesn't turn out as I hope. I wish others did the same.


(4) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 11:02 AM
Some BCS pet peeves of mine...


1) People refer to the Big XII, Big 10, Pac-10, SEC, Big East and ACC as the six "BCS conferences" and all other conferences as "non-BCS conferences". This is misleading because it suggests that the other conferences don't participate in the BCS, which they do. Just ask Utah (twice!)

2) People say that the "BCS Conferences" get automatic bids to the BCS, but the "non-BCS conferences" do not. Untrue again. All schools in eleven conferences and Notre Dame can earn an automatic bid to a BCS game. True, the criteria are different. For six conferences, you just have to win your conference. The other 5 conferences must also win their conference but they also have to meet additional criteria (which are basically being in the top 12 or being top 16 and ranked ahead of a BCS Conference Champion). Again, we aren't talking about the championship game for which the criteria are the same for all schools. We are talking about the 4 beauty pageants that are the BCS's other games. And why should the criteria be the same? Just about every freaking bowl has automatic tie-ins to conferences. The Cotton Bowl pits a Big XII team against an SEC team. The Big 10 is excluded!!!! Tragedy!!!!!!!!! That is how ALL BOWLS HAVE WORKED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME. If I hear another dufus from TCU complain that the system is "unfair", I will punch him in the nose and then suggest that the MWC should try harder to suck less and to negotiate better bowl contracts. Anyway, if you can't make your way into the top freaking 12, you should play your bowl game on a blue field or in Detroit or on December 19.

3) People say that the BCS "excludes 1/2 of Div I-A (FBS) from the national championship process." This is entirely untrue. It pits #1 versus #2. It does not care if Ball State is #1 and Utah is #2. Those teams would play in the BCS NCG if they were #1 or #2. Period. Nobody is excluded. You can complain that the process for determining #1 and #2 is bad, but you can't say that any school is excluded from the process.

I have said it many times before, but I will say it again. The BCS has many faults, and nobody thinks it is perfect. It just bugs me when people - having so many legitimate gripes to make - make their gripes about things which simply are not true.

http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility


(2) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 10:42 AM
In response to my esteemed blogging colleague, the Honorable Doctor Fro:

Go find actual polling data that prove that both sides are equally ignorant, otherwise your anecdotal rebuttal is pretty weak.


(3) comments

Posted by Junelli 2:22 AM
BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II
US Ranked 4th

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."

German Chancellor Adolph Hiter said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented " France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:56 AM
I would soooooo love to join the FBI and play in fake poker games for $100,000.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:12 AM
I have a few blog posts that are backlogged in my brain that are slowly making their way from my brain into cyberspace. One of them is a response to the suggestion that voters for Obama were ignorant (and the implication that voters for McCain were not.)

Anytime you divide a group of people based on beliefs (political, religious or even sports-related), each side invariably thinks that the other side must be ignorant in order to belief what they believe. I don't buy into this. Let me tell a story about an experience a month ago - not to prove that McCain voters are ignorant, but to provide a bit of balance.

One week after the election, I was at the AICPA National Oil and Gas Conference in Austin. It is hard to find a more conservative crowd than a bunch of CPAs in Texas who work in oil and gas. Keep in mind that the attendees are all college educated, most have a Masters degree, all have CPAs and most have generally been fairly successful in their professional career. The fact that the crowd was probably top 5% of America in education/experience makes the following three stories that much more disturbing to me.

Story #1 - I was talking to a woman about Obama and make one of my usual sarcastic remarks about having a terrorist Arab Muslim in the White House. Not only did she not get my sarcasm, she piled on with "I know, I think it will be really weird having a Muslim in the White House." I poked and prodded - she was being serious. Someday, I am going to write a book on this topic. The first chapter will be called "Being a Muslim Does Not Make you a Bad Person." The next chapter will be called "Neither Does Being Arab". The third chapter will be called "Not all Arabs are Muslim and Vice Versa." The next one will be "FWIW, Obama is Neither Muslim or Arab".

Story #2 - I was talking to another woman who said, "I don't know why his victory is being hailed as a big step forward for race relations. I think it is a big step back. I mean, once he puts in place all of his 'pro-black' policies, it will alienate the whites and increase racial tensions." Wow. She is right. We really shouldn't ever elect a black person for this very reason. Seriously now, what are those "pro-black policies" of which she speaks? Will all black people get an extra personal exemption on their taxes? If so, will Tiger Woods and Obama get half an extra exemption?

Story #3 - One of the speakers at the conference was an economist. He started to talk about what Obama's election might mean for the economy. He started with a disclaimer that he could only talk about how campaign promises would affect the economy (recognizing that no President in history has made policy decisions that were a perfect reflection of their campaign promises. Think "read my lips: no new taxes.") So, he started out with the statement that Obama's proposed policies would be bad for the current economic environment. As if on cue, 300 heads nodded approvingly. He then said, "Obama has promised to lower taxes for most Americans, but we need to increase taxes to fund programs that will stimulate the economy." There were 300 stunned faces. When the guy was done, a question was asked "You said Obama wants to decrease taxes for most Americans, but doesn't he want to RAISE taxes for most Americans?" The speaker said, "Where did you get that? Most Americans make less than $200k, and Obama promised to decrease taxes for people making less than $200k." Then the participant said, "No, I am pretty sure he plans to raise taxes across the board." Without getting into a debate about what policy makes what sense, it is abundantly clear that even though the candidates repeat their talking points many times daily for over a year, people - educated people - hear want they want to be true, not what is actually said.

Argue all you want on all sorts of issues that are tangential to the point of this post, but don't ever try to convince me that the people who voted for McCain are the epitome of enlightenment or that the people who voted for Obama are a bunch of uneducated idiots that were bamboozled by a smooth talking politician. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans (in fact, people all over the world) are idiots. I'd say that based on life experience, 97% of Americans I have met are fucking morons. So, unless McCain lost the popular vote by a split of something like 3% to 97%, it is mathematically impossible for either camp to claim that many of their voters have much of a clue about anything.


(3) comments