When I was a kid, one of the most fun things about the Super Bowl parties my parents used to go to was participating in the "grid". You know how it works, right? You make a 10x10 grid, and people pay whatever amount per square to put their initials in. They can pick any squares they want, all in a row, scattered, whatever. After the board is full, numbers are drawn at random out of a hat to designate each row and column. The numbers represent the last digit in a team's score.
So if you are on row "5" and column "3" where the rows are the Patriots, you check at the end of every quarter (sometimes double at the end). If the score is, say, 15-13 (or 15-3, or 35-23) in favor of the Patriots, you win a quarter (or a fifth or two-fifths at the end of the game) of the money in the pot (usually grid squares go for a dollar a square ... depends on how many people are at the party, whether it can be funded). For a kid, a $25 payoff is *huge*. It was exciting just knowing you had good squares, like 7-0 or 3-7, etc). That's 75 giant pixy stix (when I was 10, anyway). And since the Cowobys were usually in the Super Bowl, it seemed, it was even more fun.
We're not really party kind of people, but we'll have a little mini Super Bowl party for the kids tonight. Maybe I'll do up a grid at a dime a square or something for them, and we'll play games while the game is on. Cody keeps insisting on playing poker for real money like we did on New Years' Eve, and I keep telling him it wouldn't be fair, and he just thinks I'm trash-talking. Yesterday, while he was mouthing off about playing for real money, Justin and I cleaned him out in about eight hands of no-limit. I was up against Justin with a 9-J, and the flop came off 4-10-Q. Justin put in a little bet, and I called with my open-ended straight draw.
Next card comes off a King, so I'm pretty happy with my straight (though I would be happier with the A-J). Justin puts in a dollar very quickly (our total amount of chips adds up to about $15). I know Justin isn't quick enough on the uptake to be betting a straight. He has to think for a minute and look at the cards to figure out if he has a straight if the board is broken up like that. I put him on a pair of Kings. With my straight, then, I raised him up and eventually, he had me all-in. He had a little more than me because he and Cody always play aggressively against one another while I sit back and wait for a hand, so I'm often left at a disadvantage after one of the boys gets knocked out.
So we flip over the cards, and he sees my straight. Sure enough, he didn't realize a straight was possible out there. He just got really big eyes looking at his two pair (he had K-4, so with the board, he had Kings and fours). Since no flush was possible (he's good at watching for those), he bet big thinking I had queens or something. So the river card comes off, and it's a four. Gah, full house thanks to two running cards at the end beats me. First time I've lost to one of the boys in about the last ten matches. I tried pointing that out to Cody, but he just thought it was more trash-talking.
Maybe it's time for an expensive lesson, and I'll use any money I win from him to buy some math and reading practice books for him, because his teacher tells us Cody isn't getting his work done in class.
Oh yeah, my prediction is 38-17, Patriots.
Posted by Observer at February 6, 2005 12:17 PMComments on entries can only be made in pop-up windows while those entries are still on the main index page. Sorry for the inconvenience this causes, but this blocks about 99.99% of the spam the blog receives.
Ha. I figured the point of that poker was going to be that Justin had AJ, but a boat is pretty sweet for you.
Bad beats happen. He caught one of his 4 outs.
i can't imagine playing a 9-J, even suited. Wait, strike that. Three handed, that's not a bad hand. I normally think in terms of 6-10 players at a table.
Posted by: Humbaba on February 6, 2005 01:11 PMAs my former grad school colleagues will confirm if asked, I am exceptionally poor at picking against the spread. We used to have a running contest on a bulletin board in a lab, with 5-6 of us picking all the NFL games each week against the spread, and I was consistently *way* under .500 every season. But hey, at least I picked the winner in this one.
I was genuinely surprised this wasn't a blowout. Poor Eagles fans are going to be talking for the next three months about why they didn't go to the no-huddle. And whether you can say that McNabb kinda choked, despite throwing for 350+ yards and 3 TD's. To be fair, the Pats had great pressure.
It was also awesome to see how easily the Patriot defense was able to handle a Philly blitz that always has Dallas QB's with their heads on a swivel. Now that Philly has this experience under their belts, it wouldn't surprise me to see them hungry enough next year to steamroll everyone again and win the darned thing.
Posted by: Observer on February 6, 2005 10:05 PMYou're probably right about Philly fans second guessing themselves. I watched the game and the only thing that I can think is the McNabb had problems with something for the first half. Maybe the new ball every down, maybe the nerves... Who knows. Given the events of the first half I am of the opinion that the Eagles should have gone into the lockers ahead by 7. Too many places where he just didn't even get close to the reciever.
Now, in the second half he was "hitting" guys but not with timing on the run, etc. That's more what I expected from McNabb against the Pats. I figure if he'd had that performance in the first half they just mighta managed to pull it out.
As for the other topic... You want to teach Cody how odds work? Pick a simpler game. Take Roulette for example. Payouts of 35 to 1 make it look like a fine game. Much more tempting, often, than simple poker. Of course anyone who does the odds understands tha the house always wins. You can go to even simpler games like blackjack or high-card or something. Texas Hold'em is just too complex (too many longshots available).
Alternatively, You could stop and dissect hands mid-play when you find yourself in that situation. Break down exactly what card do what for people and let him see for himself.
Regardless, you need to find some way to make him count the cards and the odds himself. Maybe doing simple probabilities and then working up. As I recall, he should have the math available to do something like that at this point.
(Heck, pick something simple like a coin-toss. Have him figure out the odds of things and then do tests to confirm them.)
Posted by: Seattle Astronomer on February 6, 2005 10:31 PMNoting that you *did* stop things in mid-play to show hands, did you bother to point out how many cards were left and that only four of them let him win?
Posted by: Seattle Astronomer on February 6, 2005 10:32 PMYes, we do odds and that sort of thing all the time, kind of like they do on TV.
Posted by: Observer on February 7, 2005 07:03 AMI suspect there's a direct link between stage of cognitive development and how one deals with odds, payoffs, etc. I don't think I've ever seen it cast in that way, but it makes some sense.
Posted by: Feff on February 7, 2005 02:09 PMI suppose you meant how the Pats offense handled their blitz? They did it the most simple way possible -- throw the ball quick. I do wonder how they'll do with a new coordinator next year, tho.
And I guess that means he has real money to lose? Or, more chores that he must do?
Posted by: Polerand on February 7, 2005 02:27 PM