Episode 98: Chris Moon

16 thoughts on “Episode 98: Chris Moon”

1. To AB’s query (warning– what is below will interest nobody)

   The title på norsk is Min Kamp.

   Both min and kamp are extremely common. I use min (along with its conjugations ‘mine’ and ‘mitt’) everyday. Kamp is similar and takes on all sorts of innocuous uses.

   When I went to watch Rosenberg play Sarpsborg, it was a ‘fotballkamp’ — football match. On the Rosenberg website they have a tab ‘kamper og resultat’ kamper being the plural form of the noun.

   It is true that when Mein Kampf was translated to Norwegian it was translated as Min Kamp. Norwegian and German have similarities. But just because Adolf went with the broadest, most generic title should not ruin those basic words for everyone in a language different from the one he even wrote in.

   The thing about Norwegian, many Norwegians will tell you, is they have the same word to mean many different things, and it is up to the reader to know, often, in context what it means. ‘Gift’ can mean married or poison… ‘andre’ can mean the other or the second.

   So I am no expert on either Norwegian or Knausgård. And there is a unflattering history of Nazism in Norway, but without having read the stuff, but having asked around, the title seems co-incidental and innocuous on that front.

   • Thanks, Gareth. I understand (or assumed, anyway) all of that. I still think that an author can’t just give his book a name that is similar or identical to another well-known piece of art without invoking that piece of art. If I decided to write a book called “Raisins of Wrath” people would rightly look for some comparison to or resonance with Steinbeck.

     That doesn’t mean Knausgaard can’t use that title or that using it makes him a Nazi or anything like that. It just means that he can’t expect readers to pick up or even see a book called Min Kamp without calling Hitler to their minds.

     I can see two reasons why he might want to have that effect. The first is artistic: he thinks not only that Min Kamp is an otherwise good title for his book but also that the invocation of Hitler’s book is relevant in some way. Again, this doesn’t have to be nefarious, perhaps he wishes to be satirical or something along those lines.

     The second is cynical. He wants to stoke controversy in order to generate publicity for himself and his book. Even if the book has no resonance whatsoever with Hitler or his book, some subsection of the public will be appalled that an author would choose this title and raise a stink about it and that might well be a good thing in terms of book sales.

     I am not even finished the first book, so although I haven’t yet seen any artistic reason for this title (absent the connotation, it’s rather generic and could really suit any first-person narrative), I’m holding out hope, because explanation number two is a pretty scumbag move IMO.

     For me at least this is really a small point, the above rant notwithstanding. I’m enjoying the book and not thinking too much about the title.

     • I am fine with both the cynical and artistic explanations or a combination of the two. But I understand why you might not be.

       That notwithstanding it has come to my attention that some discussion of Hitler does in fact come into prolonged prominence later in the series. I have encouraged one of my Norwegian tutors who has read them all in the original to comment and/or elucidate, but he is hard pressed to commit to anything, even in-thread posting!

       I am probably a year away from being capable of reading it in Norwegian so I am on the fence about starting it in English or not.

     • I thought it was more or less uncontroversial that the name was chosen in part because of its resonance with the Hitler book. I’m a bit surprised that you say you “haven’t seen any artistic reason yet for the title”–I’m into the second book and, while it’s a striking and discomfiting choice, a lot of the book is striking and discomfiting, and it never occurred to me that it’s some sort of endorsement of Hitler or the book. But perhaps that’s just my own experience of reading it.

       • Yeah, I can say with a very high degree of certainty that the book sharing its title with Hitler’s was not coincidental. I’m not sure it’s innocuous either (and I’m not sure the author would want it to be), but also – as you say, Nate – not an endorsement of Hitler or his work.

         • Let the record show that both innocuous and co-incidental were retracted by a man who forms opinions on little to no information… when that information …. was indeed in this case … readily available on account of careful, dedicated students of the text being at his beck and call.

2. What second best hand you can have to get form this PLO8 hand?
   A narrow range:double suited 2x3yxy or KQJT where you can get value on flop and turn.
   select avg(equity(P_0, river)) from game=’omaha8′,board=’AcAsQh6h’,P_0=’Ad2d4dTc’,P_1=’2x3yxy’
   On average any Ace in BB opponent range means that your bet is not value.
   select avg(equity(P_0, river)) from game=’omaha8′, board=’AcAsQh6h’,P_0=’Ad2d4dTc’,P_1=’A’

   Should you bet or check?
   if you believe that your bet and image and his action will narrow his range:YES
   If you don’t- you should check,turn call,and wittiness how the drama reveal itself.
   The river card tell you the pot will not split very much.
   I will still fold unless I observed that the BB was bluffing on river earlier.

3. Given that we are not with PokerNews any more, I fully expected an outtake or a “sorry sean” during the last 60 seconds. C’mon Lango!

   • Carlos,

     It brings me joy that you were instantly looking for this in the first post-PokerNews episode. I don’t want you to think I did not consider it, but I felt like a chef should not season every dish the same way. The last thing I want is for the Thinking Poker Podcast to be some kind of boring, predictable formula!

     To show you that I still care and love you, this weeks outtake was on the more subtle side. In fact, it was an election to NOT remove the moment where Nate’s boss was trying talking to him during the strategy segment. To me it was extraneous and editable (meaning it wouldn’t have been too hard to make it sound natural after omitting it), but funny and worth including. Importantly, I also didn’t think it would bug NM that it made the final cut.

     C’ming on,
     Lango

     • An inner-outtake. Nice touch.

       I will be listening out for future glitches in the matrix.

4. Wow had I seriously thought you would put this on the podcast I would have given more detail.
   Field of 135 with 15K starting chips and 21 left.
   I had been having a great time in Vegas for the WSOP. Carlos, PieFarmer, Breyer, and the TPE gang were a blast. Lets do it next year. Im game.
   I had no cashes in 7 smaller NLHE events in a row at the RIO and Aria. I wanted to play at Caesers but that was closed down. I needed to play at least one Omaha MTT before leaving the only one was at Orleans. I had some concern as it was a Limit game and really did not have the experience but for $120 what the heck.
   I dont agree with Nates characterization that the Orleans is where poker players come to die. Where do we seniors play Nate? Im 67 and I had been playing with the online set and young wannabes at the RIO and got tired of hearing of Makeup, M’s, and Moorman. Plus the drinking and “lets go to a strip club” crowd got real boring fast.
   At least at the Orleans you could discuss Mozart, Marx, Michaelangelo, and Merril Lynch. Yes there were a lot of canes and wheelchairs but there was a bunch of serious young poker nerds wanting to take the edge with their mathness. Some top players too. 2 guys I had seen final table a WSOP bracelet event. One in Razz and the other in 6 Max. For some reason there were a lot of regs who actually worked at Poker Stars and some other poker sites. I got some free t shirts, hats, and hooked up with some young babes (in their 50’s). What you think us seniors dont get any? You guys dont have the market on that tish.
   Anyway learned a lot from your discussion. Yes I agree being left with 2 blinds in a split limit game is better than calling off all your chips in a futile attempt to stay in the game. When I saw 2 Aces I thought I had the pot until he checked raised me. Then I saw a chance to split it when the 6 came on the turn. I should have folded the river. Thanks so much guys. You know I love you guys even though you dont remember the Eisenhower years.

   • You da man Keone.

     • ditto

       hope to see you again soon

   • I would be VERY surprised if the flop is a bet in Keone’s hand.

     This is squarely the middle of our range – too weak to bet for value and too strong to bluff.

     In theory Villain should be continuing with about 80% of his range when Hero bets the flop but I highly doubt people are calling even nearly that often – especially given Hero’s perceived range in Villain’s eyes.

5. If only we knew of a couple smart, thinking poker players with the entrepreneurial spirit to create a truly valuable poker boot camp

   • You’re very kind, Piefarmer.

Comments are closed.