The SBP Archives - Your less than frequent dose of SBP!

"Did you check out the Team Canada roster?'

"Yeah, I wanted Fish on there but what can you do? They had a lot of guys to choose from. Not sure about that Patrice pick."

When I first heard James Cameron was going to direct a new movie, I was excited for it. Terminator, Aliens, True Lies...I'm never bored with what he brings to the screen. When I saw the trailer for the first time...ugh, the first though that came to mind was who thought these Ferngully rejects passed as good character design? It didn't make me want to see it at all. But when the reviews came in, they were mostly positive so I decided to give it a try. And in 3D no less.

First, the 3D experience was rather neat, there were a number of scenes that really enhanced the presentation. At the same time, other scenes they didn't really add much to the visuals, and to be honest I don't particularly enjoy wearing glasses to watch something, especially with this film running nearly 3 hours. So, I'm sort of okay with 3D but if you told me I wouldn't see another one, I'd be okay with it. (And this may sound a little weird, but I thought it made the movie screen look smaller, if that's possible).

So as my buddy Rick and myself summed it up, it's Dances with Wolves meets the Matrix or Star Wars depending on how you feel about the action. It's the classic story of how the white guy gets to know the indigenous people of a land his race is trying to take over, and how he switches sides after getting to know them. It's fairly obvious Cameron draws parallels with the American invasion of Iraq and our current world climate crisis, but it isn't too preachy. In any case, most people are coming out in droves to see the action and special effects. Some work quite well, others, considering the reported $300 or so million dollar budget, don't feel any more original then your average action show.

After seeing the Na'vi scene after scene, I guess it grows on you, but I didn't ever get the feeling I wasn't witnessing CGI, as good as it was. I've read countless reviews on how the last 30 minutes redefine the action genre. I didn't think it was that mind-blowing. There was some slick action, don't get me wrong, but I don't see how it changes the way films are made like the way Terminator 2 changed visual effects. The characters are a little too cartoony, especially the lead villain. But a strong point in Avatar is the idea Cameron puts in his story on how the Na'vi are literally linked to their environment , whether plant or animal, and it drives home the point on how we need to feel the same connection to our world and realize how important it is to take good care of it. David Suzuki may have written the screenplay.

It's been pretty miserable for Sens fans the last few weeks. On the positive side, they'd be in the playoffs if the season ended today, and Pascal Leclaire, Chris Neil and Shean Donovan have all returned from injury.

But on the negative side, Ottawa suffered a big blow losing their captain Daniel Alfredsson for 4-6 weeks with a separated shoulder. Jason Spezza isn't expected back until February, and their 8-2 humiliating loss to the Penguins wasn't the best Christmas present for Sens fans. Nice to see them get a 3-2 win last night against the Sabres, but realistically these injuries are going to make it difficult for Ottawa to put up wins, and it could ultimately cost them a playoff spot when April rolls around.

A nice, pleasant surprise despite all this , has been the elevated play of Mike Fisher. Yeah sure, the newspapers are all interested in his engagement to Carrie Underwood but what has got my attention is how well he has rebounded from such an awful season last year to having a career one now. He's putting the puck in the net, he's skating his heart out and continues to play that gritty style he's known for. Because Ottawa's "big guns" like Spezza and Kovalev haven't exactly been setting the world afire with their play, it's guys like Fisher that have allowed Ottawa the chance to be competitive on most nights against all teams in the league; I shudder to think how the team would be doing if he wasn't showing up.

Fisher is a long shot for Team Canada, yes I know. He wasn't even invited to the summer orientation camp and it's only been the last month or so where he's started to get the attention to be considered for the team. Not sure how Steve Yzerman will pick his players for the squad: He'll either pick older, established veterans like Shane Doan and Brendan Morrow (both having sub-par seasons this year) to man the fourth line, or he'll (hopefully) select players who have PLAYED their way onto the team and are having strong seasons. Fisher definitely falls into the latter. Yes, I totally admit to being a homer, but I feel he's earned the right to play for Canada in 2010. For a season that may not end up being all that memorable for Senators fans, remembering it was the year Fisher went on to represent Canada (and hopefully help them win gold), might just make it all worthwhile.

Maybe hard to appreciate the upgrade from these pics but I have to admit, it does make quite the difference. Because me and M-C had to cram everything in the kitchen, bathrooom and bedroom to make room for the installers to put in the floor, it also meant no internet at home hence the unusual SBP blog delay. We'll try to have everything looking like it used to in the next few days.

Anyway, how about that nice Christmas present the Sens gave us yesterday? Our captain out for a few weeks and a humiliating 8-2 spanking courteosy of Pittsburgh on top of that. Bleah! It might be a long winter for my Senators...

The announcement of the roster chosen to represent Canada at the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver is something almost every hockey fan has circled on their calendar to tune into: December 30th will be a day that will be debated for a long time, especially if Canada falls short in their quest for a gold medal.

Steve Yzerman will consult with Team Canada's coaching staff which consists of Mike Babcock, Jacques Lemaire, Ken Hitchcock and Lindy Ruff to trim down the roster to 13 forwards, 7 defencemen and 3 goaltenders by that December 30th date. The decisions to be made, for me at least, will be about who to gamble on that will rise to the occasion in Vancouver, as too many players who probably should make the team haven't been playing up to par or have been injured to be of any consequence.

Some of the culprits: Vincent Lecavalier. Eric Staal. Shane Doan. Jason Spezza. Mike Richards. Simon Gagne. These are some guys who have shown they can deliver the goods in the past, but for whatever reason, they aren't bringing it this year which makes the decision for Yzerman that much more difficult. Do you instead choose a guy like Dustin Penner, hoping his career season he's having now isn't a fluke and can contribute in the same manner as he is now for the Oilers? Or do you take a chance that someone like Eric Staal can snap out of their current funk and play as well as he did when he won a Stanley Cup a few years back? Or pick someone like Simon Gagne who's been fighting the injury bug for so long, hoping he'll be healthy enough when the tournament is played?

In fairness to some, if you're injured there's not much you can do about it. But instead of having a good problem, too many players having terrific seasons, the hand forced to be played by Yzerman and co. is who can replace those who played their way OFF the team. Not a good position to be in.

I don't think this problem is translating to the defence or goaltending for Canada. I think it's pretty much a slam dunk, for instance, Brodeur, Luongo and Fleury will be on the squad. There are plenty of blue chip defencemen we can count on to play well for Canada: Pronger, Boyle, Keith and Niedermayer come to mind.

But the forwards are a different story. If my opinion matters, I do think you have to pick the ones that are playing well now as sports is funny that way: one day you're hoisting the Stanley Cup, the next night you're a healthy scratch. Pro sports can be harsh, but you've got to send the current cream of the crop to have a chance to win, with the proper mix of pedigree and past success included. Here's hoping whoever Yzerman chooses, the results are nothing but gold.

According to Pwinsider.com, there are stories going around that Hart has signed a four month deal with WWE, a deal that would make him available for the January 4th Raw, which will run head to head with TNA. The rumored contract would secure Hart through WrestleMania 26

I have a nice big chip stack of 8,000 in chips. It's my first turn at the big blind at 50. The first person to act raises to 150. Four callers follow. I look down at King-7 offsuit. What would you do?

The first thing that comes to mind is "pot odds". For a mere 100 in chips, I can look at flop with a pot of 825 already in it; not a horrible bargain to say the least, and I still have plenty of chips in my stack if I call.

But then the thought: "What am I hoping to flop?" comes to mind. If I pair my King it's likely someone already has one with a better kicker. Pairing my seven would likely be facing overcards. A flush is a long shot, and I can only use one of my two cards for a straight. And with five others in the hand, trying to bluff is out of the question. I ignore the pot odds and fold, fold, fold!

The flop is 7-7-9.

Ugh! I would have made three of a kind. There's a bet and a call. The rest fold. I think to myself (mostly to try to make myself feel better) maybe one of them has pocket 9s and made a full house. Or I bet one of them is playing an ace with a seven and has me outkicked. Then the turn card:

Another 7.

You got to be frickin' kidding me!!! If I stayed in the hand, I would have been looking at four of a kind! In five years I think I made quads perhaps two or three times. And to top it off, there's betting going on with two players. I do my best to hold back my annoyance. I forget how much they were betting, but the river card was a 9. More betting, and the winning hand showed Ace-9 suited. I'm dumbfounded. If I went all-in at that point, I don't see how the Ace-9 could have folded. The only way he could be beat is if someone held quads, and no one would fold thinking their opponent had that, no matter how much they thought it was possible. I would have doubled my stack in the first 20 minutes of the tournament!

It's those big hands that we play for. And I unfortunately I have to tell you I let it slip away. Next time, I'll let pot odds dictate my actions a little more. What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger!

This was probably the most stressful hand I played. It was against a tough opponent with a mediocre holding. I did lose the pot, but...still felt okay with it.

I am the small blind and there is one caller. I look down at 10-7 off suit: A pretty crappy hand. The big blind is a tough, aggressive player. What would you do?

I decide just to complete the blind, hope for the big blind to check and see a flop for cheap. The limper could have anything, but he has been playing a lot of pots so I don't think he's trying to conceal a monster or anything. I also need to demonstrate my willingness to play mediocre hands from time to time to the table, or they'll run over me. Completing a small blind pretty much lets the table know you don't have anything special, especially with one limper already in.

Flop is Ace-7-4, all diamonds. I'm holding the ten of diamonds and first to act. What would you do?

I need to define my hand now. The big blind may have an Ace, but since he's been so aggressive, I think he would have raised pre-flop with any Ace. The limper might have one...but maybe not. Betting out now could also give the impression I'm holding an Ace, and not something as weak as a pair of 7s with a lousy kicker. I don't want any action...I want to take the hand down now as my hand is very weak. Since I'm holding then 10 of diamonds, I figure if I get called, I have some backup, drawing to a flush. I decide to bet 1/3 of the pot. The big blind calls and the limper folds.

Next card is the six of clubs. What would you do?

Not crazy about that call. I think he may be drawing, or he might be waiting to see what I'll do now and try to take the pot away from me with a bet. I don't think he has an Ace...again, he's aggressive and didn't raise pre-flop.

I don't want the pot to get out of control. I'd prefer to keep the pot small and feel I still have the best hand, and I don't want to check and have him take control of the betting. So I bet the same amount I did after the flop, about 3x the big blind, mostly to show him that I have a little something and with the hope he'll just fold. After my bet, he pauses for a few moments and raises me three times the bet. What would you do?

Not happy with that raise. I'm holding a weak hand and could easily be beat. But I've seen this player run over the table a little, and not too many have stood up to him. Against another player, I'd probably fold, but not this guy. Can't quite explain it, but I think it's a "testing" raise: testing to see how confident I feel about my hand. I consider that my turn bet, betting the same amount as I did on the flop, probably gave the notion I was weak (which was partly true). I decide to call. Don't want to raise; the pot is getting big and I don't want to commit more chips than I need to. I do have a diamond and can make a flush on the river (although not the best flush) and I'd certainly be happy to see another seven or ten. On the chance I could be beat already, a flat call may allow me to see a card that could beat him.

The river is the Jack of spades. What would you do?

Didn't hit any other card that may have helped me, and seeing an overcard to my pair of sevens isn't good. I've put in more chips than I want to already, mostly on a feel than anything else. I'll just check and see what happens. If he bets, I'll make another decision.

He immediately checks and turns over a King and a Jack, thus pairing his Jack on the river and winning the hand. He was holding the King of diamonds, thus another diamond would have given him a flush bigger than mine.

He certainly played the hand well, and while he did get lucky on the river, he had a decent amount of outs after the flop and it certainly wasn't a bad play to try to raise on the turn to see if I'd fold with the fear he might be holding an Ace or maybe already made his flush. Although I lost the pot, I was proud of the fact that I made a read on the player that was correct and played accordingly. At the same time, knowing the result of the hand, it perhaps wasn't a bad idea to just throw away the hand to begin with, pot odds and table image be damned. This is why playing mediocre hands can be so difficult: it's hard to know where you stand, and even if you do hit your hand, it can be easily outdrawn down the line and you've lost a lot of chips in the process.

But, this is what makes poker interesting and fun!

Each table had 10 players seated to contest for the pots, and this normally leads to tighter play as you usually need stronger hands with more players involved. No one seemed to be getting "out of line", that is, while there were aggressive players, I didn't come across calling stations or players playing each and every hand. Here is a hand I played and how I handled it...I'll add a new "hand" post for the next few days for your reading enjoyment.

Maximizing Profits

First to act, I have Ace-Queen of diamonds. Blinds are 100-200 and I have 11,000 or so in chips. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

I raise 3x the big blind. Any Ace-high hand I'm happy to win the blinds, as many a flop produces no Aces (or Queens for that matter) and you're stuck with a difficult decision on how to proceed. I do get one caller, the big blind to my immediate right. The flop has two diamonds, no Ace or face cards, and it is checked to me. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

He's a new guy to our table and I haven't seen him play too many hands so I have no idea what he could have. But since he checked, I didn't see the harm in betting out 1/2 the pot to hopefully just take down the pot now and maybe get him to fold a small pair or an Ace-King that missed; in other words, semi-bluff. If he calls my bet, I have two overcards and my flush draw I could still hit to win the hand. So I bet and he calls. Next card is another diamond. He checks again. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Jackpot! I have the best hand possible. There is now a potential straight on board as well. His check indicates weakness so I ponder checking again to set up a trap after the river card. I figure though if he's already called my pre-flop raise and my post-flop bet, he might have an overpair and will carry on, or he might have hit a straight and want to play. The best scenario of course, is that he's also holding two diamonds smaller than mine in which case he's about to lose a ton of chips. If he has nothing, he'll likely throw away his hand regardless. I don't waste any time and bet another 1/2 the pot. He then raises me after my bet. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

The dollar signs are lighting up in my head and the only question I have now is how to I extract the most chips possible? Because there is an obvious flush and straight out there, I figure he either has one of those hands that can't beat mine, or he made a set. He could also just be testing me to see if I'll fold. I decide to pause for a few seconds, about ten, and just flat call his bet. Sure, he could have a set and be drawing to a full house so by just flat calling, I'm giving him a "free" card, but even if the board pairs I'm not throwing my hand away. With the blinds rising as fast as they do, having a monster like this doesn't happen a lot. I want my hesitance in calling his bet to portray weakness so he'll bet out at me on the river if he's running a bluff. Because the board is (to me at least) dangerous looking, this is what I think he's doing. The next card is another diamond and he bets out about 1/3 of the pot. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Obviously, with the nuts, you're raising to try to make as many chips as possible. This fourth diamond on the board is actually a horrible card for me; without a diamond in his hand he isn't calling anything. If he's holding the King of diamonds I have a chance of getting all his chips. More likely though he's hoping I don't have any diamonds and I will throw away my hand now, so he's betting out to see where he stands, but as you know I'm not going anywhere. I look down at his stack and he has about 40% of his chips left. I decide to go all-in; I figure with any raise he'd fold anyway, but perhaps he might think I'm trying to steal with this move and call with a weaker diamond. There is also a possibility he could think he is pot committed and would call an all-in bet as well. I push all my chips in and he folds. Not sure what he had, but that fourth diamond was a bad card for me. I don't think I could have gotten any more chips off of him no matter what I did, but in any case, I can't complain about all that action I got while holding the absolute nuts.

Okay, it's not a cash prize or anything, but it's a start! Starting at 11am, and playing until the dinner break at 6pm, all remaining participants in the WSOP circuit event got a $10 food voucher to use until play resumed at 7pm. Nice! Now I wasn't all that hungry if you can believe it, and when I busted out just after 8pm (my pocket nines got outdrawn against an Ace-Queen), the canteen area was shut down and thus I was stuck with an expired voucher. But hey, this is the longest I've ever lasted in a tournament, and you got to start somewhere, right? (just agree with me!) so I have a little keepsake to remember the experience.

Both tournaments I started off really well, doubling from 12,000 to over 24,000 in chips in the first tournament, while the next I moved from 8,000 to about 13,000. Both times, after the good start, I had quite a string of bad cards to deal with that made things somewhat frustrating. When I was in late position to try to make a move at the blinds, I'd see a raise followed by a re-raise so I was handcuffed from really trying anything. Pots were tightly contested the later it got, and it was very expensive to get involved with the blinds and antes increasing quickly. At that point, I didn't have a lot of chips to "speculate" so I had to be patient and wait for decent starting hands before I got involved.

And just to show you hard it is, my friends didn't have luck on their side either, and if the cards were a little nicer they might have contested for a money finish. Paul had pocket jacks and was beaten by a river King after getting all the chips in the middle after the flop was just nine-high. Dan held a King-Queen and the flop had two Kings, a nice flop to say the least. His opponent had King-Ten and, after getting all of their chips in, outdrew Dan with a ten on the turn giving him a full house. John played an Ace-King hard pre-flop and couldn't improve against pocket 9s and couldn't win another pot after being severely crippled. Myself, I lost a race the first tournament to have any hope of continuing, while the second tournament, somewhat shortstacked, looked at a raise in front of me while I held pocket Kings. This is what I was waiting for to get back into contention, but the 2nd best starting hand in hold 'em was unfortunately up against the best hand, pocket Aces. Weird also was this was the 2nd time in these big tournaments where I had Kings, only to run into Aces. I got a bit of a tease as the board was all diamonds and another diamond would have given me a flush, but it didn't happen. The previous two hands I witnessed, one guy was getting ready to leave but hit a five on the river to make trips. The next hand, pocket 9s cracked aces by rivering a flush. Guess Lady Luck figured there were too many Aces getting beat so it was my turn to go to the rail. But that's how it goes sometimes.

Guess the point is despite the above scenarios, I don't think any of us played poorly, and as you can see, you do need some cooperation with the cards to contest for a high position. I imagine we will all try it again, and maybe next time we won't have a disappointing story to tell you.

Heading down to Atlantic City with a few friends tomorrow to play in a couple of WSOP circuit events on Tuesday and Wednesday.

I've probably made too big a deal of these tournaments when I've gone in the past so I've been a little more low key about it this time. But hopefully, I might have a good story to tell you when I get back.

Wish me luck!

I can only imagine what goes on through the mind of coach Cory Clouston each time the referee raises his hand to take another Senators player off the ice to serve yet one more penalty.

Where did this come from?

I mean, this isn't the 1970s Broadstreet Bullies. Sure, Matt Carkner leads the league in fights and Chris Neil is no angel, but this is hardly a goon squad. Instead, bone-headed play after bone-headed play has cost the Senators more games than I care to count.

Last night's contest against the San Jose Sharks, where you'd think an errant elbow to nail the player that spit in the face of their team might cause a penalty or two, never happened.

Instead, idiotic plays, like Matt Carkner's decision to hurl the puck over the boards to earn a delay of game penalty, when no forecheckers were present and the Sharks were on a line change, ended in another Sharks goal. Yet another too many men penalty also happened, another category I'm all but certain the Senators lead the league in.

It's enough to tear my hair out, and luckily as I sit down and watch the late Sens-Kings game, no power play goals were scored by Los Angeles after Ottawa took three consecutive penalties against in a span of less than two minutes.

If the Sens are going to make the playoffs, this insanity has to stop.