Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Relationship advice. Please help.

It was relatively easy pickings until 2008 when the double whammy of recession and the anti-poker legislation hit. Since then, it's been a slog. There aren't as many games, and the general play is tougher.

Poker's a complicated game. Unless you're a real wiz kid with a great deal of natural talent, it takes years to learn to play well. That said, it ain't rocket science either. The general approach is to put yourself into positive expectation situations, that is situations that over time are profitable. So for a very basic example, to draw to an inside straight, you need sufficient pot odds (amount of money currently in the pot plus what you can expect to be added in future bettering rounds if you make your hand) to compensate for the odds against hitting one of your cards.) In the case of an inside staight you've ot 4 "outs" ...that is 4 cards which will make your hand..which is just about 11/1 against on a single draw.

Yes, there's an annoying amount of luck in poker, but if you stay away from negative expectation situations you'll win given sufficient time. It's a mathematical certainty.

That said, it can be a tedious, incredibly frustating game. Most burn out quickly. There are very few winners. The rake alone (what the house charges you to play) makes it very tough at the lower stakes where I hang out. I get most of my rake back, since I work as a prop. That is, I get paid to start games at low traffic sites. So that helps greatly.

I fellow I walk my dog with is a software salesman by day and professional poker player by night.
He earns more money on poker and the software business has been very good to him.
It helps that only the State casinos are allowed to offer the game here and that he gets to play lots of guys visiting town and enjoying the coffeeshops who tend to have more money than their wits about them.

Much softer games in casinos and poker rooms than online. Vegas is low lying fruit. There are the retiree types who sit for hours on end waiting for a big hand (of course when one of those guys start betting, run for the hills), and the clueless tourists who good naturedly basically give their money away.

OK back to the OP. Has anyone else noticed that the only piano playing MathTeacher has mentioned is doing exercises. Playing piano is about making music, doing hours of exercises is not making music. When I was young a friend lived in an apartment where a neighbor played piano. This person played hours of exercises but never any music. I always thought that was an incredible waste of time. I don't know if the OP plays any music or just exercises. He's only mentioned exercises here. If he's valuing his exercises more than the companionship of a woman then he's got bigger problems than anyone here can solve on an internet forum.

Building technique through exercises (assuming it's done properly) is never a waste of time.

The important phrase being "assuming it's done properly." To me that means exercises in conjunction with repertoire that uses those particular techniques. Over a period of several years visiting my friends apartment I never heard a piece of music being played, it was always exercises, hence my comment.

Currently, I'm only training to be a good sightreader, because I badly neglected it when I was in my teens. So, on top of actual sightreading, I do plenty of exercises in increasing my speed and acuracy in playing notes, intervals, chords, and rhythm.

Of course. As with any aspect of practise, all things must be done correctly or there will be nothing gained. I don't work on specific exercises any longer unless I'm working on a piece that calls for something (thirds, sixths, etc.), but at one time I could have given a recital of nothing but technical exercises. I gobbled up everything in sight.

Let her go now that you can, be with someone that is a "match" for you, that includes the things you also love, like piano and chess, look for someone who can coexist with that, if not you will regreat it !

you would hate for this to happen..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0DzqiWwOO8&feature=channel


you can see the entire movie on Fear Network..
till 5/31

Geez - they sure made some AWFUL movies in the late 60s !!

There are loads of cultural artifacts from the late 60s that haven't aged well.

ROFL. I would love to see her reaction. Somehow I can't picture her saying, "Okay dear. When you're not available, I'll try to find something to keep me busy. And when you can fit some undivided attention time into your schedule, I'll be prepared to drop everything and be ready to receive it."

More likely, (if she's really sweet), she would say, "Oh, I'm sorry; that's not going to work for me. The times you have scheduled for undivided attention are exactly those times that I have scheduled to pursue my activities."

And if she's not really sweet, you might want to duck!

that's how I'm planning to go.

Some people aren't born to have relationships (I speak from experience... ).

My hobbies and activities (music, mountaineering, traveling, chess, running, adventure sports....) have always been more important to me than having a partner, nice though that is. But I've never found one that would put up with the things I do .

So, if that sounds like you, have a long think about what you really want from life.

Great clip! Amazing special effects! Powerful acting!

http://youtu.be/0FUI90HIQt8
That clip with Burgess Meredith reminded me of the "Twilight Zone" scene where he has "time enough at last" in the post-apocalyptic world to read all the books he wants... then, crunch go his glasses... oops. But I had forgotten about his predicament earlier in the episode-- a man obsessed with reading, married to a woman who is not at all happy about it! The "relationship troubles" start at 4:47.
"I won't tolerate a husband of mine sacrificing the art of conversation!"
Well, it's a tongue-in-cheek look at the dangers of incompatibility. "Why, Helen? Why do you do these things?" At the end of the episode, he is left alone in a world where he can finally get along. Almost.

Great episode! -- and I had forgotten that was Burgess Meredith.

BTW....in thinking of their roles, I often confuse him with William Demarest. Which I imagine is my problem....

Confusing the Penguin for Uncle Charlie? The mind boggles.

I guess mine does too.

When I first saw the post about B. Meredith, I was gonna say "he also played Al Jolson's manager," but I figured I better check first -- and it was the other guy.