Aug 03
AndrewMusic
There’s nothing like an overproduced album of generic emo rock music to make you pine for the Swiss Army Romance days of Dashboard Confessional. The new album by Secondhand Serenade, Hear Me Now, pines for those days too. Ten years ago, emo was a new take on the acoustic, minimalist broken-hearted pining that was perfected first (and still best) by Chris Carrabba. Since then, the term emo has fallen out of favor, mainly because that same heartfelt lovelorn strumming has been replaced by overdone harmonies, added layers of electronica-cheese whiz, and guitars swallowed up in the production values.
That’s where Hear Me Now steps into the fray. The emo-lyrics of heartbreak (the track Stay Away), unrequited love (album opener Distance) and romantic (mis-)connections (You and I) are still ever-present, but there’s something lost in translation. To put it succinctly, this album is boring.
I hesitate to blame John Vesely completely for this turgid mess of an album. I think he’s put together a precisely intended collection of songs. If one wants Hoobastank cited as a musical influence and if one spent their formative years listening to Third Eye Blind, well, there’s not much you can expect than the perfectly tortured agony of Hear Me Now. “Tortured” is a good way to describe the album. The production is tortured, the vocals are tortured, and the lyrics are mindlessly unoriginal and repetitive. “Is there anybody out there? Would you hear me if I screamed or if I cried?” cries out Vesely on Is There Anybody Out There. Well, what would you expect him to sing about?
Having unsuccessfully tried to identify a memorable standout track on the album, I turned to iTunes to tell me which track best spoke to Secondhand Serenade’s intended audience (of which I am so clearly not a member). That proved fruitless, since they are all still pining for 2008′s A Twist in My Story, according to iTunes Top Secondhand Serenade songs list. That left simply looking for the first single release, the track Something More.
To be fair, I went back to hear Something More one last time. With its “Breath in, breath out” lyrics, it’s not nearly as dynamic as a rock track, nor quite as sincere as any Dashboard Confessional song of the last ten years besides Don’t Wait. In fact, there’s pretty much nothing notable about the track at all except my lack of interest in hearing it again. That goes double for the album it came from. And that makes me pine for the emo days of yore too.
Aug 03
AndrewA Writer's Blog
Smart ReMarx blogger Andrew Marx’s new collection of essays, Thank You is Implied the Annotated Smart ReMarx, is out now! Read the description below.
Order your copy from amazon.com
Thank You is Implied, a new collection of essays by Andrew Marx, takes on wide-ranging themes from legalizing trips to the bathroom, gambling in third-rate casinos and what it takes to make the list of the sexiest songs ever written! In his own inestimable and entertaining style, Marx skewers his sex life (been there, done that), tackles celebrity culture (et tu Brett Favre?) and even devours all-you-can-eat USDA Canner grade prime rib and lives to tell about it!
Culled from a 17-year writing career and his Smart ReMarx blog, the book frames the author’s humorous and unrepentant take on pop culture, sports, relationships and everything else. If you are wondering who predicted the decline of Pluto, the collapse of the economy, and the end of the All American Football League, the answers are all here. Blending news reports with reviews and opinions, each article is annotated with additional commentary, anecdotes, and explanations (and a couple of apologies) from the author.
Thank You is Implied will delight long time fans and newcomers alike. Featuring one of the most unique voices to come along in the last ten years, this collection will make you laugh and leave you thinking. Every article is peppered with the sharp wit and smart remarks that have made Marx’s writing completely original and thoroughly satisfying.
Order your copy from amazon.com
Jul 28
AndrewPolitics and Nation
In British Columbia, an intervention for problem gamblers called the Voluntary Self-Exclusion Program is under fire for allowing its participants to gamble. The program is designed to ban self-identified problem gamblers from playing in B.C. casinos by removing them from the premises before they can play. All it takes to ban yourself from casinos is to complete the VSE agreement, indicate the amount of time the ban should last (from 6 months to 3 years), and it will be put into effect.
But what in theory sounds like a simple idea -- the casino identifies your name as being on the VSE list and escorts you off the property -- is harder to put into practice. Putting yourself on the list doesn’t prevent you from going into the casinos, but instead puts the burden on the casino employees to identify you before you can play. Several participants, including Vancouver Island resident Mike Lee, claim they were allowed to gamble on multiple occasions without being barred from the casino -- that is, until they won substantial jackpots.
Lee filed a grievance with the B.C. Supreme Court in June claiming that the B.C. Lottery Corp (BCLC) failed their part of the agreement to keep him out of the casino. Only at the point where he won a $42,500 jackpot did the BCLC step in by refusing to pay out the winnings of his jackpot, claiming that he should have not been able to win in the first place under the VSE agreement. Lee is basing his claim on the fact that casino did not have the appropriate systems in place to enforce the program as described.
If the B.C. Supreme Court holds to the letter of the BCLC policy, Lee is going to lose. Specifically stated in the agreement is a clause that states that any jackpot winnings won while under the agreement will be forfeited and donated to gambling research. Furthermore, the policy clearly states Lee is responsible for his own behavior, notwithstanding the terms of the agreement, and that he could be fined $5,000 for violating the agreement himself.
The greater issue is whether this kind of voluntary self-exclusion works as a preventative measure at all. The United States has similar programs, but as is true in both countries, the agreements are largely regional in nature. In Canada, there are separate voluntary self-exclusion agreements in each province. (Voluntary self-exclusion in Nova Scotia, for instance, is for an indefinite amount of time. Gamblers have to reapply to be taken off the list). So depending where the gambler initially goes to request voluntary self-exclusion, it may only apply to participating gambling properties.
Then the very nature of a gambling addict is that they will compulsively seek out opportunities to gamble, making the burden on policing themselves all that more important and in many cases, equally unlikely. The programs, in large part, rely on the individual to also receive counseling in order to restrain the compulsive behavior. But like the program itself, counseling is a voluntary component. In most cases, the gambler isn’t required to agree to counseling in order to participate in the program.
It’s unlikely Lee will prevail to get his jackpot winnings back since, in British Columbia, the agreement is clear that all winnings are forfeit. That only leaves the question of how the BCLC can improve their controls to do a better job of monitoring participants on the VSE list. For its part, the BCLC is going to emphasize in its defense the individual’s responsibility to make the voluntary self-exclusion program work. And they would be right, even if the lack of self-discipline is what drives the individual to agree to the program in the first place.
Andrew Marx is the author of On 21: The Philosophy of Blackjack, available from amazon.com and other retailers.
Jul 22
AndrewPolitics and Nation
Anti-casino opposition is heating up in Massachusetts as the legislature argues over the details of the two bills passed in the House and Senate earlier this year. Numerous legislative hours have gone into merging the two bills into something to send before the Governor to sign when, according to the group United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts, those hours could be put to something more useful to the Commonwealth.
It is a sound argument even if, in the sum total of the group’s intentions, the entire bill would die before ever going before the Governor. What is the hold up? Does the exact number of resort-style casinos matter that much (two in the original House bill; three in the Senate version)? The House recently conceded to the Senate’s three casino-plan anyway. Slot machines at the racetracks have had a long embattled history but this is 2010, and gambling opportunities are more widespread than ever. Does Governor Patrick really want to make slots the sticking point that grinds to a halt all development of casino-style gambling in the Commonwealth? (Short answer: yes, as he has already made public statements against slot machines at the racetracks).
The quibbling is a strange thing, particularly as the intended bill has the support of many local communities hoping to bridge revenue shortfalls. The estimates of potential revenue generation vary wildly, but there is no doubt that many people would support the casinos by going there and spending money -- at least in the short term. Whether casinos can operate as long term revenue generators for the state seems besides the point at the moment, and yet a bill still hasn’t been hammered out.
Maybe, as suggested, the legislature does have other things to worry about? Among the concerns waiting in the queue are a health care debate over how to control costs for the providers, the state and the covered, and state economic stimulus. And the fact is, the legislative session ends in one week which means if the legislature can’t come to an agreement on this bill, a lot of other issues were shoved aside for no gain.
For opposition groups to argue that there are more important issues to consider is both correct and besides the point. The real point is if both the House and the Senate started out in agreement to bring casinos to Massachusetts (with the support of the Governor, no less), then what is stopping them from coming to agreement now?
Andrew Marx is the author of On 21: The Philosophy of Blackjack, available from amazon.com and other retailers.
Jul 18
AndrewBlog Vegas
The most basic tenet of my Philosophy of Blackjack is that selecting where to play is at least as important when to play (knowing how to play is a given). Timing is an important aspect of winning at blackjack, but you can greatly increase your opportunities by not sitting down at the first open table you find.
As I mentioned in part II, I did not spend a lot of time wandering the Strip looking for the perfect casino. I knew where I wanted to play and except for giving the Luxor casino some love (for putting me up in the hotel) I had little intention of deviating from my preferences. (For the record, though I concentrated on the south corner of the Strip, there are some good places to play further north; it just wasn’t part of this trip).
Within that block of six casinos (Mandalay Bay, Luxor, Excalibur, NYNY, MGM Grand and Tropicana), I went into each looking for the best tables to play at. Because Las Vegas is suffering from the same economic realities as the rest of the country, there is less choice. There just aren’t that many tables open at any given time. So here is what I looked for:
How many decks?
My preference is six decks and I ignore two- and single-deck games. I also don’t play at any table where blackjack pays less than 3 to 2. I don’t play at any table with continuous machine shuffling.
Who’s dealing?
I like crisp, quick dealers. I like the cards to snap out of the shoe and I like the pace to be brisk. If the dealer is a chatterbox, or calls out the hand totals -- I’m fine with it as long as it doesn’t otherwise slow down the pace of the game. I avoid dealers when the cards fly out of the shoe and land all over the table. Sloppy dealing is usually a sign of an employee who is usually at the craps table and was moved over at the last minute. I skip those tables.
When I’ve found a potential table, I watch the play for a few hands. If the dealer pulls a 5-card twenty-one while I’m watching, I leave. If the dealer pulls a blackjack while I’m watching, I leave. If the dealer shows a bust card and draws to 17, I might stay.
Then I look at the players. Are they…drunk? …knowledgeable about blackjack? …paying attention? …playing consistently? …playing confidently? …angry at the dealer? …hemorrhaging chips?
None of those factors on their own influences my decision, but put it all together and I make my decision. I also take into account the table minimum, the number of players at the table, and whether the dealer greeted me when I walked up to the table.
You might be asking at this point: do I really do all that every time? The answer is yes. Blackjack itself is a game of odds, but casino gambling is never just about the math. If it was, you would never play. The odds are stacked against you the minute you walk into the casino. That’s where the Philosophy of Blackjack comes in. It’s a tool for not just learning how to play, but how to win.
By being selective about where I played and whom I played with, I was able to stretch a modest $2000 budget over three days (modest for a serious gambler) without compromising how I play. I walked away from Las Vegas 1) having paid cash for all expenses during my stay 2) with more money in my pocket than I left with. So what does it take to walk out of Vegas a winner? Selection, timing, know-how and will power. It’s all in the book. Check it out.
If you like what you read over the last few days, I suggest you check out the full title. You can order On 21: The Philosophy of Blackjack from amazon.com and other retailers.
Want to talk to me directly? Contact me via facebook or twitter.
Jul 17
AndrewBlog Vegas
There are really three types of gamblers: Those that can sit down at the first open seat they find and roll the dice on what’s about to happen. Then there are those who factor in all the various aspects of the gaming experience; the casino, the table, the dealer, the decks, the other players, and makes an informed decision about where to play.
The type 3s? Those are the players who think they know what they’re doing and they are intent on taking the casino. But they still end up sitting down at the first table with an open seat, and that just shows how much they have to learn.
I discovered something on my trip to Vegas this week that I hadn’t expected; people in Vegas mostly fall into the third group. Maybe it’s the mystique of gambling that we believe anyone can win? I lived in Vegas for almost a decade, so I have a certain affinity for the city that has soaked permanently into the skin, but I had never had as much trouble avoiding the type 3s than I did on this trip. I landed, and as mentioned in part I, I didn’t leave the tables for long during my entire visit, dodging the type 3s the whole time.
I spent my time primarily at Luxor, Excalibur, Mandalay Bay, and MGM Grand. Luxor? Because I was staying there. Excalibur? Because I had to walk through the casino to get to the other casinos (and they have the best coffeeshop in my opinion of the four). MGM Grand is my top preference where to play when I’m Vegas. And Mandalay Bay is at least clean.
I didn’t enjoy gambling at the Luxor. The dealers were nice enough but everything looked a bit worn down. The casino incidentally, isn’t much older than Mandalay Bay (Six years, and Luxor underwent a major renovation in 2008) but it just felt like the casino had seen some wear and tear. I played there because the Luxor put me up in a tower room for free and if I dropped a grand in the casino, it was in fair exchange for the room. Simply put, I want to be invited back (by the way, I thought the hotel room was excellent).
I didn’t gamble at the Excalibur. For some reason, the casino no longer opens high limit tables. I am not a high high limit player, but Excalibur didn’t even have $25/$50 tables when I was there. Sitting down at a $10 table isn’t for me. I’m not a snob; the minimum bet is a way of screening out the casual (type 1) players. It does not, as I discovered, do a good job of screening out the type 3s.
Mandalay Bay was hit or miss. The casino is big, the dealers are friendly, but it was there that I noticed the most type 3s. You could sit down at a $10 table or a $25 table (they rarely had anything higher except by special request) and it would be swarmed by type 3s. There was no escaping them except to go to another casino. Type 3 players have the money to burn, but no sense in their head how to play. Their play is too random, too uncoordinated because they think they know what they’re doing, but in fact, they are no more skilled than a type 1 player. (Incidentally, I don’t mind playing with type 1 players, but I won’t place big bets when I’m doing it).
I’m not talking about the players who claim “hey, it’s all fun” (though it’s more fun when you win). I’m talking about the players with the same idea I had -- to walk into a casino and walk out a winner -- but no practical idea how it works. These are the guys that saw the movie 21 and thought counting cards looked like easy money. They are no fun to play with because they are not content to embrace the flow of the cards. Instead, their primary purpose seems to be to destroy the natural flow of the cards so thoroughly in the hopes of catching an unexpected (and statistically unlikely) break. Now, put a casino full of them and run, don’t walk, out as fast as your fleet legs can carry you.
One of the basic tenets of my gambling philosophy, as detailed in On 21 The Philosophy of Blackjack is “stay mobile.” When scouting tables, keep moving until you find the right one. When playing, be prepared to leave at any time. It’s true you can lose your money anywhere, but it’s not true that you can win your money everywhere.
I thought being selective was a good reason for taking my gambling vacation in Las Vegas. What I didn’t realize was that I was going to encounter more type 3s there than I did in the Connecticut casinos (I live about an hour from the two casinos in Connecticut). If I played at a $50 table in Connecticut, I was reasonably certain I was playing with other players like me (except for the occasional anomaly). In Las Vegas, everyone had money to burn, so I never knew what kind of players would sit down with me. Maybe that seems like an obvious thing, but I’ll admit I was taken off guard.
That is, and will continue to be, the reason I gamble mostly at the MGM Grand. Somehow, the MGM has managed to self-contain its high limit tables and keep out the type 3s in the way the Connecticut casinos do. When I sat down to play at the MGM, I had a reasonable expectation of getting a table of like-minded players.
But casino preference is only factor. There are more, and part III, I’ll put the rest together for you.
If you like what you read over the next few days, I suggest you check out the full title. You can order On 21: The Philosophy of Blackjack from amazon.com and other retailers.
Want to talk to me directly? Contact me via facebook or twitter.
Tomorrow Blog Vegas VII Part III: Open Table
Older Entries Newer Entries
RSS
