Hungary?

I spotted this sign a few days ago in the Luxor poker room. It's an electronic sign, and was starting to change just as I snapped the photo, which is why it has the Bee Gees thing fading in.

Look whose functionally illiterate

Enter the editor-in-chief of Bluff magazine (pictured above) into the Slow Learners' Olympics. I see a gold medal in his future.

The August issue is the third one in nine months that contains headlines with rudimentary errors of English--the kind that should have been shaken out of your system before high school graduation. (See here for the others.)

Guys, bookmark this great web site: Common Errors in English Usage. It might save you from further embarrassing blunders like this one. For the record, here is the entry on the who's/whose distinction:

This is one of those cases where it is important to remember that possessive pronouns never take apostrophes, even though possessive nouns do (see it’s/its). “Who’s” always and forever means only “who is,” as in “Who’s that guy with the droopy mustache?” or “who has,” as in “Who’s been eating my porridge?” “Whose” is the possessive form of “who” and is used as follows: “Whose dirty socks are these on the breakfast table?”

Please make a note of it.

Card Player takes another crack at it

Apparently somebody at Card Player magazine saw my post from yesterday and took a stab at fixing some of the spelling and punctuation problems I listed in their news story. But while I identified where the problems were, I did not specify what the correct form should be, leaving the staff writers at Card Player to figure this out for themselves. This task proved to be too much for them.

They corrected the two instances of it's where its was called for. They apparently still haven't reset their clocks, and left "PST" (for Pacific Standard Time) unchanged. They corrected getting the run around to getting the runaround.

But the best part, the one that made me literally LOL, was this: They "corrected" back peddled to back-peddled!

Who are these people, and how did they ever get jobs in the writing business?

Does Card Player magazine have any copy editors?

Card Player's print magazine is pretty bad in terms of copy editing, but the web site is just awful. From just one news story today, I bring you these examples:

The Partouche Poker Tour guaranteed an ambitious €5 million prize pool for it’s [sic] annual main event in Cannes....

Instead of providing the players with an overlay, it appears that tournament officials have back peddled [sic]....

After getting the run around [sic] from the floor, many started playing the tournament under protest....

There were rumors circulating various social media sites that the tour would reluctantly do the right thing and put up the overlay, but as of 9:00 a.m. PST, the prize pool remains unchanged. [Apparently Card Player has not yet gotten around to changing its clocks to daylight savings time.]

By all accounts, it appears the tour has taken it’s [sic] ball and gone home.

Maybe my post title asks the wrong question. Maybe it's too ambitious. Maybe I should instead ask, "Did anybody at Card Player magazine manage to pass fifth-grade English?"

What the hell is the problem at Bluff magazine?

A few weeks ago I poked fun at Bluff magazine for having this mess of a headline in the December issue: "IF YOUR GOING TAKE MONEY, IT MAY AS WELL BE FROM THESE GUYS."

Little did I know that this was just the beginning of an epidemic of bad headlines in that publication. The three images above are scans of pages from the January, 2012, issue. If one wanted to be picky, one could gripe about a couple of others, too, involving the use (or lack thereof) of a comma here or a hyphen there. But I'm not including those, since they are arguably correct, depending on the exact sense that was intended, and they are at worst small errors.

These three, however, are just glaringly wrong. The first say, "...A COUPLE MORE TO ON THE WAY." My guess is that this originally read, "A COUPLE MORE TO GO." Somebody then decided to alter it to "A COUPLE MORE ON THE WAY," but failed to delete the now-unneeded "TO."

The second and third examples are even more embarrassing, because they obviously result not just from a bit of oversight, but from some chucklehead at the magazine who actually does not know the difference between your and you're. I hope it's the same lamebrain who was responsible for the error in the December issue, as I'd hate to think Bluff has two such sixth-grade dropouts on its paid staff.

Hey, Lance Bradley: You are listed as the editor-in-chief. Do you know what it means to edit?Here's the most relevant portion of Merriam-Webster's online dictionary definition:

1c : to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose

(Emphasis added.)

Is this not your job? Do you have any idea how unprofessional this makes the magazine look?

I like Bluff. I really do. I read it faithfully and look forward to new issues hitting the poker room stands. But jeez, guys, this is really terrible work.

Your not going believe this one

Did you notice a couple of problems with that headline? Of course you did. Unless, that is, you happen to be one of the people in charge of writing and proofreading headlines for Bluff magazine. To them, it would have looked perfect.

How do I know? I have evidence. The following is what one finds on page 72 of the December, 2011, issue:

Notice the subhead: "IF YOUR GOING TAKE MONEY, IT MAY AS WELL BE FROM THESE GUYS."

This will sound snarky, but I mean it entirely literally: How do you get a job writing and/or copy editing for a magazine if you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're"? Isn't there some sort of test for 6th-grade-level English competence that one has to pass before getting hired on?

Another question that will sound rhetorical, but which I ask in earnest: How many people were involved in the production of this page without any of them noticing the homophone problem and the missing word? Five? Ten? And what is wrong with all of these people? (OK, that one was just rhetorical.)

It makes my brain feel adled

This ad is running in the current issue of Poker Player newspaper:



Can anybody tell me what a "mandatory stradle" is?

They got the "L" outta there

This is the lead page of the cover story of the June, 2011, issue of Poker Pro magazine. I'm not sure I've ever seen a typo in larger print in any poker publication.

Nice proofreading job, Poker Pro!

If you fire your copy editor and need to hire another one, I know some people. Let's talk.

Proofreading fail

I noticed this full-page ad in the new issue of Bluff magazine. Apparently the good folks in the advertising department of DoylesRoom never learned the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers. How do you earn "14th bracelets"?

Punctuation fail

I noticed this tournament board at Mandalay Bay this afternoon. Somebody in the poker room management, at some point, made this thing. I can just imagine what happened. There was just the plan word "Players" there. The sign-maker looked at it and thought, "Something's missing." The apostrophe went in, and the sign-maker said "Yes! That's it! Perfect!"

Simple English FAIL

I saw a print advertisement similar to the above, then took the screen shot of this ad from here. Yet another case in which it seems that a casino and/or its advertising agency has nobody with basic English skills.

Even if I were feeling inclined to forgive the unnecessary hyphenation of bimonthly (which I'm not), using bimonthly (which means every two months) where semimonthly (which means twice a month) is intended is simply wrong.

Yes, I'm aware that many modern dictionaries now give "twice a month" as an alternative definition of bimonthly. That, however, is simply a surrendering to the frequency with which people make this mistake. Allowing bimonthly and semimonthly to mean the same things is intolerable, as it renders both words completely useless. If both definitions are considered legitimate, then one must always follow the use of either word with more words explaining which meaning is intended, in which case it is pointless to use either word to begin with.

There are points of English usage on which reasonable people can differ in opinion. This is not one of them. See, for example, what has become of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage note here. They have basically given up, and advise writers to avoid either word. That is a ludicrous and cowardly solution to a simple problem. The far better solution is to point to the guilty party and laugh in derision, thus shaming him or her into future compliance with the conventional definitions. If necessary, one can taunt the person a second time.

Of course, this error is hardly the Cannery's greatest failing as a company, but I thought it worth pointing out nonetheless.

Grammar FAIL

Out of long habit, I use Yahoo as my web browser's home page. I kind of like the shifting assortment of news items it presents over the course of a day.

But once in a while they screw up royally. I just caught one such instance. Look at the circled headline: "Evidence suggests WikiLeaks suspect may of had help." Ai yi yi!

It's extremely common in chat boxes and online forums for ignoramuses to write something like, "I would of called you." For them, you can just dismiss it as somebody who failed third grade. But who is Yahoo hiring that writes its news headlines that way???

Punctuation FAIL

Sign seen in the Flamingo poker room tonight.

Nice proofreading there, Flamingo!

Oops

The above ad is in the current issue of Card Player magazine.

Notice any problems?

The ad is presumably supposed to get the reader to want to play in the World Series of Poker and win a bracelet, which one can then show off next year--right?

So, it should be a 2009 bracelet, right?

But if you look closely, you'll see that the photo is of a 2008 WSOP bracelet.

Isn't it a little late to be signing up to win one of those?

I am easily amused

Every time I walk to one of the downtown poker rooms I pass this tarot/psychic wagon just west of Las Vegas Boulevard. The sign always amuses me. Usually it's late at night and too dark for my flashless cell phone camera to take a picture, but I took a rare trip out in broad daylight today, so I can now share it with those of you who don't hang around these parts.

I wonder what the conditions are for the money back guarantee. If she tells me the lottery numbers to play, and they lose, do I get a refund?

I always feel like sticking my head in the wagon and asking for a "broacher." I've never seen one before. I don't even know what it is. I know what a "brochure" is, but not a "broacher."

Playing at the "Venetian"

You see, it's not actually the Venetian Poker Room. It's the "Venetian" Poker Room. This is evidenced by the sign taped to the front desk, which I snapped a photo of earlier today:




The quotation marks around and capitalization of "Phone-ins" also raise my editorial eyebrow. The "continue patronage" and lack of blocking of paragraphs are just sloppiness.

It's a never-ending source of bemusement to me how poker rooms--even otherwise classy ones--are willing to be viewed as places where nobody cares about getting things right, which, of course, they do every time they post a sign as carelessly composed as this one.

Incidentally, there is an entire blog dedicated to poking fun at the use of unnecessary and contextually baffling quotation marks. See here.

Why do they have stupid people make the signs?

I spotted this sign the other day on the outside of one of the entrances to the Circus Circus hotel/casino (near the valet station). I stared at it for a while, trying to decipher its meaning, and left still uncertain.

First we have that awful apostrophe hanging out where it doesn't belong.

But then, ironically, it is the complete lack of further punctuation that leads to the ambiguity. Is it a declarative statement that only employees ask for assistance? Is it informing the reader that only employees need to ask for assistance--or even that only employees may ask for assistance?

I suppose the most likely intended sense is approximately this: "Only employees may proceed past this point. All others, please ask for assistance." Sure, that might be too wordy to fit on the sign, but they could effectively, if inelegantly, convey the same meaning simply by adding punctuation: "Employees only. Ask for assistance."

Can I trade an apostrophe for two periods?

The Grump vs. the Geeks

Last night I returned to the Venetian. I knew that the porn stars would all be at Mandalay Bay for the big Adult Video News awards ceremony, and that that would leave just the Consumer Electronics Show attendees. Sure enough, I spotted a few convention ID badges around the necks of my fellow players.

That's right---it was going to be me against the Geeks.

Let me just skip right to the end of the story. I played for exactly three hours, finishing up by $573. I never lost a big pot, never got my money in with the worst of it (except for deliberate bluffs--every one of which was successful). Compare that to Thursday night, playing against the porn stars. My stack fluctuated wildly up and down, finally ending up a fairly pathetic $115 for just under eight hours of play, and even that success was dependent on some lucky flukes.

My conclusion, based on the highly scientific sample size of one table each: Porn stars play better poker than computer geeks. Who knew?!

****

There was one seminal hand worth describing. Our table was blessed with a Geek Maniac. He was the friendliest, chattiest, smilingest guy there, very affable and enjoyable personally. But he was a maniac. He played at least 90% of his starting hands. If nobody raised ahead of him, he would do the job himself virtually 100% of the time. Sometimes it was a min-raise, sometimes to $6, sometimes $8, sometimes $12. As far as I could tell, the amount didn't vary with his hand strength. Rather, he would go in spurts of a certain amount for a while, then change to a different amount for a while, etc. He would always, always, always continuation-bet the flop. He was an inveterate bluffer--as one would have to be playing that way, because you just don't make real hands that often.

As I trust my readers know, it is impossible to play poker profitably this way. Sure, he won about three monster pots during the time I watched him, but, predictably, it would all either bleed away slowly or get lost in another huge confrontation. But he had a big wad of Benjamins and wasn't afraid to dig into it. Excellent! I recognized two other local grinders at the table, and this one guy was feeding all three of us. (We stayed out of each other's way.)

So late in the day, Geek Maniac is under the gun and straddles, as always. I'm in middle position and see my favorite hand, the 2-4 offsuit. Yay! I can't lose! Position isn't perfect, but I've played 2 1/2 hours of rock-solid poker, never showing a bluff, winning every large pot I contest, showing down nothing but strong hands. So the situation should be a good one for either making a completely unreadable hand or making a plausible bluff. I called the $4, knowing that it was just a down payment, because, as he always did, Geek Maniac raised it, this time to $12. I called again.

The flop was A-Q-2 with two hearts. (I had none.) Geek Maniac bet $15. My lowly bottom pair might be good here, and I might improve to two pairs or trips, or be able to represent the flush if another heart were to come, so I called. Besides, I wanted to see what he would do on the turn. (I should mention, perhaps, that Geek Maniac had a major tell in his bet sizing. When he had nothing or something really weak like bottom pair or an underpair to the board, he would repeat his bet size from the flop to the turn, or from the turn to the river. Huge information giveaway.)

Turn was an offsuit 2, giving me trips, which was almost sure to be the winner here. Of course, he plays any two cards this way, and could theoretically have had the case deuce--or even, God forbid, pocket queens or aces for a full house--but that's mathematically unlikely enough that I felt I could safely disregard it unless he showed real strength. (Another facet of his bet-size tell was that he didn't bluff big; his big bets and check-raises were always the real deal.) This time he bet $25, suggesting that he had top pair at least. I raised to $80. He called without too much difficulty, but with definite trepidation. Again, this let me know that he had a real hand, but certainly no monster. He was very easy to read, both from betting patterns and body language.

River was an offsuit 5, completing no possible flush or straight draws. Beautiful! Geek Maniac checked. I bet $100. He hesitated for no more than two seconds before calling, which makes me wonder if I could have squeezed more out of him. But no matter--I showed the ol' 2-4. He nodded unhappily and mucked without showing. I scooped in the roughly $420 pot. Thank you, deuce-four!

***

Geek Maniac left the table quietly maybe ten minutes later. I was surprised at the table talk after he was out of earshot. A young woman two seats to my left (I've played with her before and know her to be good) said, referring to me, "I was so happy when he won with that deuce-four! I was, like, 'Yeah! Take THAT!'" (Geek Maniac had stacked her earlier when he flopped a set of queens to beat her pocket kings.) Even more surprising, the dealer then piped up: "Me, too! I know I'm supposed to be neutral, but I loved seeing him get a dose of his own medicine!" Apparently, despite his personal affability, the Geek Maniac's playing style had been getting on everybody's nerves.

I thought this was really strange. From the dealer's perspective, not only is such an overt display of favoritism highly unprofessional (even after the other guy has left the table), but why should she care who wins or loses, or what anybody's playing style is? I could understand it if the guy was a jerk. Then it would be perfectly natural to wish to see him taken down. But as I've said several times, he was really a charming, happy-go-lucky person whom it would impossible to dislike. He was never rude, never churlish, never a sore loser, always complimenting other players on good hands and good play, an extremely generous tipper, etc.

As for the other players, they should have hated that hand--first, because it made a big chunk of chips a helluva lot harder to win than if they had stayed in Geek Maniac's stack, and, second, because it for the first time revealed me to be a lot more potentially tricky and difficult to put on a hand than they had presumably believed prior to that point. Logically, it made no sense for them to be happy with the outcome. But I guess for some people, the emotional revenge satisfaction factor meant more than the implications for their chances of leaving the game winner. Personally, when I see a big pot go down between other players, I always either love or hate the result based on my assessment of whether that mass of chips just became easier or harder to take home; I'm rooting for the worst player to win. Once again, I guess I have to face the fact that the way I think about things just isn't shared by most of the rest of humanity.

****
Just a "BTW" thing that occurred to me for the first time last night: Since "Venetian" is the adjectival form of "Venice," why isn't it spelled "Venecian"?

Sign spotted at Bill's Gamblin' Hall and Saloon

With two apostrophes in the casino's name, you'd think that the signmakers at Bill's would have a little better sense of where the little buggers are supposed to go. It would be amusing to interview the person who made this sign and ask him what he thought that second apostrophe was accomplishing where it was placed.

Oops

Last night I noticed, while wandering around waiting for a seat in a game at Binion's, that the photos of Stu Ungar on the walls are all labeled with his name misspelled as "Unger." That includes the one in the "Gallery of Champions," the one in the "Poker Hall of Fame," and a random one that is among a bunch of historic photos on the walls of the new poker room.

Oops.