Eh nem tudom mi van velem újabban nagyon szarul játszom.
Volt két napom, amikor (épp mikor szomorú szar voltam) hogy jöttek a lapok. Nagyon sokat játszottam, és ment is a játék, mert nem volt semmi képzelgés álom, mámor ami elvonja a figyelmemet, így a jelenbe tudtam maradni. Akkor ment is a játék és sikerült is bekerülnöm egy fishy asztalra, ahol életem legnagyobb kasszáját (635$) elvittem. Flop nut sor 9T vel. A csávó rámnyomult 9J vel. Nem javult le.
Ezek után élőbe volt egy érdekes party-m leírom az egészet. Agyaltam rajta, hogy csak felteszem nevek nélkül ki mit gondol az egészről, mert így tuti le fogtok nézni, hogy fasz játék volt (ami részben igaz is, de igazából egy nem olyan vész játék volt)
100/200 8handed position SB(totál stackek a hand előtt zárójelbe)
UTG egy feszes, de hobby pókeres játékos emel 1200-ig(20-25000)
Egy feszes fiatal srác gondolkozik és megadja utg+1 ből(50-55k)
UTG+2 egy preflop laza amúgy is fishy gazdag player call 1200 (20-25k)
mid1 (színész, gazdag csávó, az emelései nagyn semmit nemjelentenek, légből kapottak) raise 4000 (33k)
CO idős, kurva nagy egós csávó, akinek az AQ Axx-en all in 40k call 4000 (40000)
Button: idős ember. 52 évig amerikába volt. Érződik rajta, hogy nem hülye és vannak move-jai bár floppon nehezen enged lapokat. Raise 10000. (30000)
SB: Eddigi megfigyelés. A 10k-s hívásnál már mindenki jajveszékelt. A balomon az Andris ült, tudtam, hogy dobni fogja. Analízis: Az 1200 as emelő már rég bevolt szarva. Szóvá is tette gyengeségét. A mögötte lévő két megadás semmi erőt nem demonstrált. A fiatal srác emelt volna igazi lappal, a fish úgyszintén (így dogolt le mikor AA val csak megadtam a reraise-t preflop mert tudtam KK ja van). A színész 4k-s emelése érezhetően ismét egy légből kapott valami, logikával nem alátámasztott hasból kapott összeg. Az ősz csákó megadása szintén nem rejtet monstert mivel ő is tudja, hogy AA val nem akar 10 ellenfelet. Az amcsi magyar papa emelése meg azért volt furcsa, mert mielőtt betette volna a 10k-t én is egy ehhez hasonló squeeze-n gondolkoztam. És mikor megláttam, hogy ilyen gyengét emelt rájöttem, hogy van erő a játékomba. Itt még repoppolhatom. Egyfelől tudtam, ha a színész csávó vagy a papesz emgadja akkor 72:30 as pot oddsal vágok neki a partynak ami 2,4:1 ami önmagában nem egy rossz dolog. És ehhez még jön a fold equity, ami azért volt. A papát AK körüli lapra tettem maximum, de simán gyengébb ászt is el tudtam képzelni, mert tényleg pullol-t néha jókat csak roszkor mindig.
Emeltem 30k-ig és evvel covereltem 1 emberen kívül mindenkit.
Dobás a színészig aki agyal majd megadja. dobja az ego man-is és a papesz is megadja. Hát mondom kakukk. Hibáztam. Elég jó pluszba maradtam még ez után is a lapom (6s8s) elég élőnek éreztem bármit is mutassanak, és úgy számoltam papcsi ellen lesz 40%om (+ ugye fold equity) őt tartottam legesélyesebbnek a megadásra.
Showdown: én 6s8s, Színész KdJc (WTF) papesz 8d8h (wwttff??)
Újabb elemzés: a színész megadása teljességgel faszság volt, és jelesen bizonyítja, hogy légből kapott volt az emelése. a megadást nem tudom, honnan szippantotta.
A papa megadása 3. ként totális hülyeség volt. Az oké ha a színész eldobja és megadja avval semmi baj nincs, de 3. ként tuti 2 out-ra lapátolni...nem tudom mi volt ez. Az azért érződik, hogy egyik vissza emelés se volt túlságosan oda illő. Elismerem hibáztam valszeg, de nem volt akkora fish asztal, (bár gazdagok voltak, de tisztába voltak az alap helyzet preflop játékkal...post flop fish más kérdés)
Floppon volt 2 backdoorom és egy hatos top párom ami turnre drill lett és bemákoltam az egészet. Nyilván nem ez a lényege a story-nak nem ezért írtam le.
Totál agyelfüstölés. Internet: Utolsó hand egy sessiön végén leshortult az asztal 6 handed. 99-el emelep kotot utg. 3 call. Flop 234. 1 check belehívok 16-ot 1 call 1 fold 1 minr épp elfüstölt tényleg az agyam, rábasztam 140 ig (effektíve 100 ig) call, call. Showdown A5s és 56o. Turn 4 river 4
Volt 3% om.
Most magamba szálltam mert megfizették a baromságomat és tanulnom kell belőle...normális értelemben
2008. november 24., hétfő
William Wordsworth: Solitary Reaper
Életem első házi dolgozata:
(a tagolásért sorry, a blogger nem veszi át úgy ahogy írva vagyon word-be de naggyából áttekinthető.)
itt a vers maga aztán az írásom
Behold her, single in the field,
Yon solitary Highland Lass !
Reaping and singing by herself ;
Stop here, or gently pass !
Alone she cuts and binds the grain,
And sings a melancholy strain ;
O listen ! for the vale profound
Is overflowing with the sound.
No nightingale did ever chaunt
More welcome notes to weary bands
Of travellers in some shady haunt,
Among Arabian sands :
A voice so thrilling ne’er was heard
In spring-time from the cuckoo-bird,
Breaking the silence of the seas
Among the farthest Hebrides.
Will no one tell me what she sings ? –
Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
For old, unhappy, far-off things,
And battles long ago :
Or is it some more humble lay,
Familiar matter of to-day ?
Some natural sorry, loss, or pain,
That has been, and may be again ?
Whate’er the theme, the maiden sang
As if her song could have no ending ;
I saw her singing at her work,
And o’er the sickle bending ; –
I listened, motionless and still ;
And, as I mounted up the hill,
The music in my heart I bore,
Long after it was heard no more.
The analysis of William Wordsworth’s Solitary Reaper
William Wordsworth, was born in 1770 He was one of the greatest characters in English Romantic Literature. He spent a lot of time in his small home town, and this could easily have a great impact on his approach to nature. Because of this A Solitary Reaper could born.
The effects of a creation on the reader could be pretty different depending on the consumers state of mind, and his / her current mood.
The title itself is something that brings up strong emotions. The Reaper might remind one to the Bringer of Death itself, which is somewhat bothering to most human on Earth. The „solitary” on the other hand could be something else. It could be if linked with the reaper a solitary hunter that looks for its pray like a lion on hunt, could also mean the solemn solitude, when one can explore his / her inner self. When one can be honest one’s self because no one is around, and there is no need of fear when you explore yourself, because it is already inside you, it ever was, and you could only grow by the knowledge you obtain during these blessed adventures. In this solitude we might learn about ourselves.
In the poem, the wanderer passes through somewhere north in the hills in Scotland, when suddenly hears the echo of a song of a young girl who is reaping the grain. He sees the beauty in her voice and in her solitude and this carries the man to himself back as he tries to figure what could this song be. Because he can not hear what it is all about; it is actually about himself, his thoughts of the song. He thinks about who else could have heard, what emotions could this beauty evoke among the passengers of this road. With these in his mind the wanderer starts a new journey through time and space, where no obstacle exists. He is over the present time now, and goes further. He is all over the land as he hears the voice, so lovely as a Cuckoo-bird, that’s voice can be heard over land and see even on the furthest islands. “A voice so thrilling ne’er was heard/ In spring-time from the Cuckoo-bird,
/ Breaking the silence of the seas/ Among the farthest Hebrides”. Now there is no space anymore. He goes back to old times, wars, things perhaps not even in history books. But experiences within himself the pleasant now, the beauty of nature, even love. After he passes this sacred place he still carries the song and what it meant for him. “The music in my heart I bore / long after it was heard no more.” Maybe he has found himself on his journey, on a road to his heart.
The Literary studies in action 27 analysis, is pretty wrong, because it states this is not a good poem but it sort of is. It dissects the poem into peaces “this poem is not equally good in all of it parts”. Based on the objective approach in Abrams’ article the Orientation of critical theories, you cannot do such thing. You have to see the poem as it is. A whole thing and when you analyze it one ought not reference anything outside of the frame of the work. As the study writer makes the same mistake again when he points out where could the writer get the idea of the solitary reaper (the girl), as if it was a fault of the writer, that he did not actually saw the girl. Experiencing something does not mean to see, but to live through, to feel what it could be. It is the same with poems. We experience some phenomenon that lay on the paper, and because every reader does it, and understands it on an individual way, it is different for everyone.
When a poet composes a piece, when it is done it should not be mentioned as a part of the writer. The poem was born like a child from the mother and afterwards the infant carries a name then has his / her own soul, point of view on the world. Naturally has a family background where he / she came from, but that has nothing to do with the youngster. It can not be his / her fault. When someone talks about him / her one should talk about the person and not his / her family what his / her mother done. This is all true to critic writing as Abrams’ stated “on principle regards the work of art in isolation from external points of reference”
The “appearance of perfection” discussed in the writing is barely an issue in a good critic writing, since we accept the fact that the poem is exactly what it is meant to be. The same is true when it comes to fame. If something is famous and popular, does not mean it deserves anything, but it means that a lot of people have found some deep meaning in it, through themselves. This emphasizes again that the poem as good as it is, and it means different things to each and every reader, perhaps in each and every time it is being read.
The other critic writing Alan Gardiner: The Poetry of William Wordswoth is a lot closer to an objective criticism. Still he writes about other circumstances how could the poem became what it is when mentioning “The idea of the poem came not from the experience of Wordswoth’s but from a sentence in account to visit to Scotland written by a friend, Thomas Wilkinson” and based on Wimsatt and Beardsley’s work, who wrote the Intentional Fallacy he falls to the pit that they mention as the intentional fallacy. They stated “The design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art” Aside from his, he makes a pretty clear critical theory, however it is still not objective, but rather expressive, according to Abrams’ Orientation of critical theories, meaning “a way of thinking, in which the artist himself becomes the major element generating both the artistic product and the criteria by which it is to be judged”. Because of that, this is a nice approach almost objective, but still not the perfect one.
But how could someone write a flawless analysis of such a complex thing as a poem. You really can not make a perfect alanysis of a poem because, you are a human being, an individual, and the words carried to your mind through the words on the paper will assamble a different thing in your reality than in anyone’s else.
Works Cited
M. H. Abrams ’Orientation of critical theories’ 20th century literary criticism: A reader Ed. Lodge, David. Singapore: Longman, 1991. 1-26.
W. K. Wimsatt Jnr and Monroe C. Beardsley ’The intentional fallacy’ 20th century literary criticism: A reader Ed. Lodge, David. Singapore: Longman, 1991. 334-45.
Gardiner, Alan. The poetry of William Wordsworth. Penguin books. 1990.
Oxford collocations dictionary for students of English. Oxford University Press. 2002.
http://szotar.sztaki.hu/magyar-angol
(a tagolásért sorry, a blogger nem veszi át úgy ahogy írva vagyon word-be de naggyából áttekinthető.)
itt a vers maga aztán az írásom
Behold her, single in the field,
Yon solitary Highland Lass !
Reaping and singing by herself ;
Stop here, or gently pass !
Alone she cuts and binds the grain,
And sings a melancholy strain ;
O listen ! for the vale profound
Is overflowing with the sound.
No nightingale did ever chaunt
More welcome notes to weary bands
Of travellers in some shady haunt,
Among Arabian sands :
A voice so thrilling ne’er was heard
In spring-time from the cuckoo-bird,
Breaking the silence of the seas
Among the farthest Hebrides.
Will no one tell me what she sings ? –
Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
For old, unhappy, far-off things,
And battles long ago :
Or is it some more humble lay,
Familiar matter of to-day ?
Some natural sorry, loss, or pain,
That has been, and may be again ?
Whate’er the theme, the maiden sang
As if her song could have no ending ;
I saw her singing at her work,
And o’er the sickle bending ; –
I listened, motionless and still ;
And, as I mounted up the hill,
The music in my heart I bore,
Long after it was heard no more.
The analysis of William Wordsworth’s Solitary Reaper
William Wordsworth, was born in 1770 He was one of the greatest characters in English Romantic Literature. He spent a lot of time in his small home town, and this could easily have a great impact on his approach to nature. Because of this A Solitary Reaper could born.
The effects of a creation on the reader could be pretty different depending on the consumers state of mind, and his / her current mood.
The title itself is something that brings up strong emotions. The Reaper might remind one to the Bringer of Death itself, which is somewhat bothering to most human on Earth. The „solitary” on the other hand could be something else. It could be if linked with the reaper a solitary hunter that looks for its pray like a lion on hunt, could also mean the solemn solitude, when one can explore his / her inner self. When one can be honest one’s self because no one is around, and there is no need of fear when you explore yourself, because it is already inside you, it ever was, and you could only grow by the knowledge you obtain during these blessed adventures. In this solitude we might learn about ourselves.
In the poem, the wanderer passes through somewhere north in the hills in Scotland, when suddenly hears the echo of a song of a young girl who is reaping the grain. He sees the beauty in her voice and in her solitude and this carries the man to himself back as he tries to figure what could this song be. Because he can not hear what it is all about; it is actually about himself, his thoughts of the song. He thinks about who else could have heard, what emotions could this beauty evoke among the passengers of this road. With these in his mind the wanderer starts a new journey through time and space, where no obstacle exists. He is over the present time now, and goes further. He is all over the land as he hears the voice, so lovely as a Cuckoo-bird, that’s voice can be heard over land and see even on the furthest islands. “A voice so thrilling ne’er was heard/ In spring-time from the Cuckoo-bird,
/ Breaking the silence of the seas/ Among the farthest Hebrides”. Now there is no space anymore. He goes back to old times, wars, things perhaps not even in history books. But experiences within himself the pleasant now, the beauty of nature, even love. After he passes this sacred place he still carries the song and what it meant for him. “The music in my heart I bore / long after it was heard no more.” Maybe he has found himself on his journey, on a road to his heart.
The Literary studies in action 27 analysis, is pretty wrong, because it states this is not a good poem but it sort of is. It dissects the poem into peaces “this poem is not equally good in all of it parts”. Based on the objective approach in Abrams’ article the Orientation of critical theories, you cannot do such thing. You have to see the poem as it is. A whole thing and when you analyze it one ought not reference anything outside of the frame of the work. As the study writer makes the same mistake again when he points out where could the writer get the idea of the solitary reaper (the girl), as if it was a fault of the writer, that he did not actually saw the girl. Experiencing something does not mean to see, but to live through, to feel what it could be. It is the same with poems. We experience some phenomenon that lay on the paper, and because every reader does it, and understands it on an individual way, it is different for everyone.
When a poet composes a piece, when it is done it should not be mentioned as a part of the writer. The poem was born like a child from the mother and afterwards the infant carries a name then has his / her own soul, point of view on the world. Naturally has a family background where he / she came from, but that has nothing to do with the youngster. It can not be his / her fault. When someone talks about him / her one should talk about the person and not his / her family what his / her mother done. This is all true to critic writing as Abrams’ stated “on principle regards the work of art in isolation from external points of reference”
The “appearance of perfection” discussed in the writing is barely an issue in a good critic writing, since we accept the fact that the poem is exactly what it is meant to be. The same is true when it comes to fame. If something is famous and popular, does not mean it deserves anything, but it means that a lot of people have found some deep meaning in it, through themselves. This emphasizes again that the poem as good as it is, and it means different things to each and every reader, perhaps in each and every time it is being read.
The other critic writing Alan Gardiner: The Poetry of William Wordswoth is a lot closer to an objective criticism. Still he writes about other circumstances how could the poem became what it is when mentioning “The idea of the poem came not from the experience of Wordswoth’s but from a sentence in account to visit to Scotland written by a friend, Thomas Wilkinson” and based on Wimsatt and Beardsley’s work, who wrote the Intentional Fallacy he falls to the pit that they mention as the intentional fallacy. They stated “The design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art” Aside from his, he makes a pretty clear critical theory, however it is still not objective, but rather expressive, according to Abrams’ Orientation of critical theories, meaning “a way of thinking, in which the artist himself becomes the major element generating both the artistic product and the criteria by which it is to be judged”. Because of that, this is a nice approach almost objective, but still not the perfect one.
But how could someone write a flawless analysis of such a complex thing as a poem. You really can not make a perfect alanysis of a poem because, you are a human being, an individual, and the words carried to your mind through the words on the paper will assamble a different thing in your reality than in anyone’s else.
Works Cited
M. H. Abrams ’Orientation of critical theories’ 20th century literary criticism: A reader Ed. Lodge, David. Singapore: Longman, 1991. 1-26.
W. K. Wimsatt Jnr and Monroe C. Beardsley ’The intentional fallacy’ 20th century literary criticism: A reader Ed. Lodge, David. Singapore: Longman, 1991. 334-45.
Gardiner, Alan. The poetry of William Wordsworth. Penguin books. 1990.
Oxford collocations dictionary for students of English. Oxford University Press. 2002.
http://szotar.sztaki.hu/magyar-angol
Feliratkozás:
Bejegyzések (Atom)
