Dog tired but can't sleep. It happens that way sometimes so I thought I'd diary. Played some HU cash against a well known reg today. Match report is I booked a win but I won't get big headed about it, I was dealt plenty of good hands and I have no illusions about how much better than me this guy is. I got away with one against someone with a good sized edge on me. What's playing on my mind is that I left first, something I hardly ever do. The match started on a 6max table. This reduced to the two of us for a decent while then another player joined but his slow play and probably dodgy connection grated on both of us. I was about to stand when the reg suggested we play heads up for 30 minutes max. I broke my own rule by answering yes at the poker table. We played for a little over an hour on two tables. I had gotten off to a good start on both but after 40 minutes or so while one table went very well I fell behind on the other by a smaller margin. I was starting to make mistakes, mainly due to tiredness, and I could see me giving make all of the profit up to that point. So I stood, the reg tried to convince me to stay but tiredness and to be frank acknowledgement that the better player was starting to show stopped me. It's playing on my mind a bit that I ran away, haven't done that before. I normally keep going until either they leave or I do all of the profits back plus a little more. It was probably smart to leave but for some strange reason it just doesn't feel right. I'd love some HU cash guys to give their thoughts on this and when they decide to leave a game. Posted by TommyD
Absolutely nothing wrong with leaving.And also absolutely nothing wrong with only playing players you have a pretty big edge over, and pretty much leaving whenever you want
The reality is you have to have quite a big edge over your opponent to make a profit at poker. Sometimes you may have to make 10 big blinds per 100 hands to merely break even (due to rake). To illustrate.you may need to win the following
£5 per 100 hands at 50 NL.
£50 per 1,000 hands (1 full buyin)
£5,000 per 100,000 hands (100 buy ins)
Important to bear in mind that you will be playing against an intelligent person, and weaker players will get the same strong hands as you, and quite often you will have to pay them off if you have a strong hand as well. If you get your money in three times in a row as a 2 to 1 favourite, you will only win 1 buy in not 3.
Therefore quite a big edge can be required to merely break even let alone make a profit. Therefore their shouldn't be any guilt in leaving ahead, in almost any circumstances especially if you think the other person have an edge over you or you do not believe your edge will be sufficient to make a profit long term (if this is your aim)
Good poker players make money by identifying significantly weaker players, isolating them if possible and avoiding playing pots with other good players if at all possible.
In Response to Re: Many Rivers To Cross. A Diary. : Absolutely nothing wrong with leaving.And also absolutely nothing wrong with only playing players you have a pretty big edge over, and pretty much leaving whenever you want The reality is you have to have quite a big edge over your opponent to make a profit at poker. Sometimes you may have to make 10 big blinds per 100 hands to merely break even (due to rake). To illustrate.you may need to win the following £5 per 100 hands at 50 NL. £50 per 1,000 hands (1 full buyin) £5,000 per 100,000 hands (100 buy ins) Important to bear in mind that you will be playing against an intelligent person, and weaker players will get the same strong hands as you, and quite often you will have to pay them off if you have a strong hand as well. If you get your money in three times in a row as a 2 to 1 favourite, you will only win 1 buy in not 3. Therefore quite a big edge can be required to merely break even let alone make a profit. Therefore their shouldn't be any guilt in leaving ahead, in almost any circumstances especially if you think the other person have an edge over you or you do not believe your edge will be sufficient to make a profit long term (if this is your aim) Good poker players make money by identifying significantly weaker players, isolating them if possible and avoiding playing pots with other good players if at all possible. TABLE SELECTION TABLE SELECTION TABLE SELECTION. Posted by Fabraclass
the higher stakes you play the less of an edge you need to overcome rake. nl50 HU is pretty pointless becuase of this, tommy was playing nl300 i believe where the rake cap postflop is 0.6bbs compared to 3.6bbs at nl50
if you have a smalledge on someone and you keep hit and running them there is a very good chance that they will just refuse to play you, and then you have just cut off a potential income stream.
thinking about the game longterm is a really smart idea if you are playing for a living
In Response to Re: Many Rivers To Cross. A Diary. : the higher stakes you play the less of an edge you need to overcome rake. nl50 HU is pretty pointless becuase of this, tommy was playing nl300 i believe where the rake cap postflop is 0.6bbs compared to 3.6bbs at nl50 if you have a smalledge on someone and you keep hit and running them there is a very good chance that they will just refuse to play you, and then you have just cut off a potential income stream. thinking about the game longterm is a really smart idea if you are playing for a living Posted by LOL_RAISE
Your right, the higher the stakes you play the less bb per 100 you need to break even, heads up. I didn't mention this to discourage people from playing higher stakes, when they may not have enough of edge to be profitable.They may not have the bankroll to play the higher stakes, and could get themselves in a lot of financial trouble.
The aims of my post were
1 To illustrate how much of an edge people need to be profitable at poker. 2 To stop people guilt tripping themselves about leaving ahead. 3 To prevent people from playing higher stakes without enough concrete evidence that they can be profitable at the higher stakes, ie having a decent win rate at lower stakes. over a very large sample size (10 s of thousands of hands maybe as much as 100,000 hands or more).
If a player thinks that they have an edge in a game, that is marginal and they are unsure if their edge is sufficient to make a profit long term , I would recommend they play someone else who they think they have a bigger edge against.That's the great thing about the internet, their is so much action and one can pick and choose their spots.
For the best long term benefit i would suggest that people only play other people when they are very confident they have enough of an edge to overcome rake.(if they are looking to make a profit from poker that is). By having a high volume of heads up tables open and a diversity of poker skills in their arsenal eg NL PLO they should be able to find enough good action and decline marginal tables An added benefit is their variance will be minimal.
The aims of my post were 1 To illustrate how much of an edge people need to be profitable at poker. 2 To stop people guilt tripping themselves about leaving ahead. 3 To prevent people from playing higher stakes without enough concrete evidence that they can be profitable at the higher stakes, ie having a decent win rate at lower stakes. over a very large sample size (10 s of thousands of hands maybe as much as 100,000 hands or more). That's the great thing about the internet, their is so much action and one can pick and choose their spots. Posted by Fabraclass
tbh it just sounded like the aims of your post was to promote the idea that people should be massive bumhunters.
This post hopefully won't come over as fan stalker....lol, but just caught up with thread .Like it alot, haven't been online playing for a while having had a "drunken!" episode on sky vegas with blackjack and "low stakes!" roulette crippling all funds!!! Discuss......
1) Original Batmans were Cac k and the new ones are darker and better for it ! 2) Superman until it got a tv series (apart from the Richard Pryers character) was Sh ite. 3) Babylon 5 was a classic for its time. 4) Battlestar Gallactica ! Do you prefer the original with Starbuck as a man(Dirk Benedict) or the newish! incarnation with starbuck as a woman but hugely better story lines and cooler cylons and special effects....(Sad confession have both the original and new series on dvd and love them both!(maybe more newer version,but close call!)) 5) All the Star Wars movies were Shi te and not just the new ones...........(I'll get in my bunker for the responses!)
Good luck at the tables, may play your level in 10 years or a drunken weekend soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
new battlestar = class (starbuck hot) not keen on caprica mind. stargate universe made by the same people i would immagine, robert carlyle is very good. star wars very over rated. star trek voyager best of all the star trek (7 of 9 helps ob)
new battlestar = class (starbuck hot) not keen on caprica mind. stargate universe made by the same people i would immagine, robert carlyle is very good. star wars very over rated. star trek voyager best of all the star trek (7 of 9 helps ob) Posted by pod1
star trek (7 of 9 helps ob)
Maybe only redeeming feature of Star Trek Voyager !! All Star trek episodes as a rule involving the borg are all good.....Ergo her being 1/2 borg helps alot!
Cheers Pad, I like the look of that. Firstly let me get over my surprise that a Tim Burton movie stars Depp and has Bonham Carter in a supporting role. Looks like a lot of fun and Burton does crazy weird marvelously well.
Obviously not ! especially the way your team are playing at the minute. Luckily Chelsea are also playing s h ite football, so by default you should be fine for the champions league again.
I know I've been lazy with this the last week, many apologies. I will respond to everything outstanding above by this time tomorrow (hopefully).
Just railed the VLV final. Amazing stuff. Many congrats to Foley and RT for winning packages. Very well played and very unlucky for everyone else at the FT, such a sick bubble.
Sadly while 99% of the chatbox rail was quality there were a few trolls lurking. Some were very obvious, some quite smart about it. One such gentleman who I believe was in the later category despite coming out with a lot of chat which would fall in the former was unerringly persistent. I tried to chatbox police a little, not sure why I do that but it just annoys me when there are players at a huge final and you have that go off. I tried the usual, ask nicely. That failed. Start talking about the channels after 865, usually a banker, that failed. Maybe it was the hang over or my general grumpiness today but I thought I'd fire a third bullet and just offer Heads Up for Rollz. Heads up play was accepted on the provision if took place after the finish of the VLV FT. I've just left the HU table after getting a no show :sadface:
The more ill judged rail talk does tend to interest me in terms of analysing the human condition. You have some who just want to spout bile at someone, usually a running grudge or a desperate plea for attention. You have militant supporting to the lengths of disrespectful comments on other players which I see as a desperate attempt to gain success by proxy, a truly strange phenomenon. Another element which appeared was how stress and seeming disappointment can make people quick to attack. It was real eye opening stuff.
As for my VLV chances, I'm deep in a satellite hole without binking a seat for any level. Time to wipe the slate and try for next month's final anew, I need my Tikay Butler experience.
Yeah i wasnt impressed with one of the trolls, shouldnt really get involved with it but initially just trying to get them to respect players. Whats even worse he started abusing one player, which i dont understand why just keyboard warrior stuff but hope they get a chat ban in an ideal world.
I agree 99% of rail was good as ever, it really was an amazing Final table loved it! I hope constant trolling any big event doesnt affect everyones right to chat on the rail as it will happen eventually imo. Ignore player would be a great idea
GL in vegas sats Tommy, pretty sure u will get there eventually barring running awful.
Might aswell post a question while im in here, are u impressed with Arsenal's form? a mix of them doing well and spurs stuttering altho partly due to a tought run of games. On a side note Spurs one of my least fave teams but i have enjoyed watching them this season and even went to St James Park in the Spurs end which was brilliant.
Poker was mixed today. FT bubbled the Main (darn those flippy flops) and managed to lock my SPT Cardiff Seat after two straight up bubbles. I loved Cardiff last year, any place where they call Omaha '4 card' is a place to get on the waiting list. The venue is fabulous as well, a whole floor dedicated to poker and Chinese food. Definitely Heaven on Earth. Plus last year I got to share a room with Greg and obviously if he ever makes the November Nine I now have several compromising pictures of him after finding out he's quite a deep sleeper.
DYM challenge, did another five and oppo took a flippity flop versus me and that was that.
Run bad/played worse in the first cash session, got most of it back in the second. Plus I found out that even if pocket aces are led by a full unit of cavalry with accompanying bugles and drums I will still not fold Kings preflop. Good to know in the future.
Got an idea for the Blackpool SPT (will reveal soon, PMs have been sent). Sorry to be a tease.
The weighted contribution thread has really made me think. I don't want that discussion to spill over to here but as a result I realise how silly it's been by not opening new tables for cash sessions. I have never been worried abut playing HU for a bit and I don't sit out regs, I've just been lazy and like to rail running tables to get a feel for those playing. I've decided that for the foreseeable future when I crack open a cash session set of tables, at least one will be a table I open/has one person on. They don't take long to fill usually and if a lot of regs did this then we might really get some tables running.
On a second point I've been racking my brains trying to come up with a reason the old live cash poker fee playing system of 'sessions' would be better than the rake for online games. Sadly I can't come up with any coherent argument for this, it's just unworkable. Would be nice though if rake never existed, we had no knowledge of it and sessions was all that was there, I really believe sessions force you to play a little looser plus there's more to win in the middle. If people wanted to play, they'd have to play.
This post hopefully won't come over as fan stalker....lol, but just caught up with thread .Like it alot, haven't been online playing for a while having had a "drunken!" episode on sky vegas with blackjack and "low stakes!" roulette crippling all funds!!! Discuss...... 1) Original Batmans were Cac k and the new ones are darker and better for it ! 2) Superman until it got a tv series (apart from the Richard Pryers character) was Sh ite. 3) Babylon 5 was a classic for its time. 4) Battlestar Gallactica ! Do you prefer the original with Starbuck as a man(Dirk Benedict) or the newish! incarnation with starbuck as a woman but hugely better story lines and cooler cylons and special effects....(Sad confession have both the original and new series on dvd and love them both!(maybe more newer version,but close call!)) 5) All the Star Wars movies were Shi te and not just the new ones...........(I'll get in my bunker for the responses!) Good luck at the tables, may play your level in 10 years or a drunken weekend soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cheers Dave. Posted by Any2Suited
Hey Any2, you're question are right in my wheelhouse
1) The first two Batman films weren't that bad. Batman suffered from making it about The Joker (which in some part was the same problem with Dark Knight). I loved Keaton's interpretation of the Wayne/Batman combination. He played Wayne as unsure while alone, bravado when in company and Batman as a single minded force of nature. Batman Returns was decent, despite the 'resurrection by cats' and 'raised by penguins' origins of the two main villains which was frankly shocking. The major flaw with both was because they came from a comic book the director decided to make them somewhat cartoony. Batman is a gritty interpretation of modern life in a semi dystopian parallel Earth. Of course as soon as Schumacher got involved it made Tim Burton's films look as gritty as Black Hawk Down. I hated Forever and 'and Robin.' Tommy Lee Jones played Two-Face as a low rent Joker, Jim Carey played Jim Carey, Arnie's pun-tasiums became old very quickly and the scripts were terrible. I really believe the Adam West TV Movie is better than 'Batman and Robin.'
The new ones are much better, but not without their flaws. We are yet to see a great Batman film IMO, however looking at the trailers for 'Dark Knight Rises' we may have so me chances. I love Nolan's direction in these and if he could just focus the scripts a little better without trying to give everyone in the ensemble cast their own set piece we could be in for a real treat.
2) The original Christopher Reeve Superman film is a masterpiece. Perfect pace, great story (Luthor isn't trying to kill thousands of people, his whole plan is a Real Estate Con which just so happens to involve thousands of deaths, seriously the coolest evil plan I think I've seen in a movie), great balance and big finish. Reeve plays both roles to perfection.
The original films go steadily downhill for me in the order of 2 - decent, 3 - really bad, 4 - a steaming pile of celluloid.
When you say TV series I really hope you're talking about Smallville rather than The Adventures of Lois and Clark. There have been tons of Superman TV series, which one did you mean?
3) I love Babylon 5. Did you know JMS was one of the original idea pitchers of Star Trek - Deep Space 9? He got rejected and made his idea anyway in the form of B5, and they made DS9 pretty much along his lines anyway.
4) I much prefer the new Battlestar to the old one. Concerning Starbuck, the world of the fanboy totally misunderstood that. People were crying out 'why is Starbuck going to be a woman?' The problem is the Dirk Starbuck had become such a cult favourite that they had to make the new one a woman. You could have Gary Oldman play Starbuck and still 95% of the hardcore audience would say 'He's good, but he's no Benedict.'
Strangely my favourite BS episode comes from the old series and from the worst season of that series. Near the end of that awful Battlestar 1985 (I think that's the year, not sure though) run they have a stand alone episode which is essentially the final fate of Starbuck. It's a fine charector piece and the best bit of the whole of the old series.
5) You're comments on Star Wars deserve a post all on their own. In brief, you Sir are wrong. However George Lucas will probably change that comment a few times and add a few pictures of Jawas.
Tommy,I definitely meant the Smallville incarnation of Superman.I loved Babylon 5 and thought the Shadows and Centauri as baddies were great, and the arc storyline that emerged through the series was brilliant. With the Star Wars comment just thought i might stir the pot for any response! I saw the first one just after its release, at an outdoor screening in the middle east against a clear starlit sky at the age of 7 or 8 and was mesmerised by the film and setting in which i saw the film.
Comments
@Tommy,
The first trailer for Dark Shadows is here...
http://t.co/5efux6Eh
The reality is you have to have quite a big edge over your opponent to make a profit at poker. Sometimes you may have to make 10 big blinds per 100 hands to merely break even (due to rake). To illustrate.you may need to win the following
£5 per 100 hands at 50 NL.
£50 per 1,000 hands (1 full buyin)
£5,000 per 100,000 hands (100 buy ins)
Important to bear in mind that you will be playing against an intelligent person, and weaker players will get the same strong hands as you, and quite often you will have to pay them off if you have a strong hand as well.
If you get your money in three times in a row as a 2 to 1 favourite, you will only win 1 buy in not 3.
Therefore quite a big edge can be required to merely break even let alone make a profit. Therefore their shouldn't be any guilt in leaving ahead, in almost any circumstances especially if you think the other person have an edge over you or you do not believe your edge will be sufficient to make a profit long term (if this is your aim)
Good poker players make money by identifying significantly weaker players, isolating them if possible and avoiding playing pots with other good players if at all possible.
TABLE SELECTION TABLE SELECTION TABLE SELECTION.
if you have a smalledge on someone and you keep hit and running them there is a very good chance that they will just refuse to play you, and then you have just cut off a potential income stream.
thinking about the game longterm is a really smart idea if you are playing for a living
The aims of my post were
1 To illustrate how much of an edge people need to be profitable at poker.
2 To stop people guilt tripping themselves about leaving ahead.
3 To prevent people from playing higher stakes without enough concrete evidence that they can be profitable at the higher stakes, ie having a decent win rate at lower stakes. over a very large sample size (10 s of thousands of hands maybe as much as 100,000 hands or more).
If a player thinks that they have an edge in a game, that is marginal and they are unsure if their edge is sufficient to make a profit long term , I would recommend they play someone else who they think they have a bigger edge against.That's the great thing about the internet, their is so much action and one can pick and choose their spots.
For the best long term benefit i would suggest that people only play other people when they are very confident they have enough of an edge to overcome rake.(if they are looking to make a profit from poker that is). By having a high volume of heads up tables open and a diversity of poker skills in their arsenal eg NL PLO they should be able to find enough good action and decline marginal tables An added benefit is their variance will be minimal.
and the bolded part is really not true
Discuss......
1) Original Batmans were Cac k and the new ones are darker and better for it !
2) Superman until it got a tv series (apart from the Richard Pryers character) was Sh ite.
3) Babylon 5 was a classic for its time.
4) Battlestar Gallactica ! Do you prefer the original with Starbuck as a man(Dirk Benedict) or the newish! incarnation with starbuck as a woman but hugely better story lines and cooler cylons and special effects....(Sad confession have both the original and new series on dvd and love them both!(maybe more newer version,but close call!))
5) All the Star Wars movies were Shi te and not just the new ones...........(I'll get in my bunker for the responses!)
Good luck at the tables, may play your level in 10 years or a drunken weekend soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers Dave.
Maybe only redeeming feature of Star Trek Voyager !! All Star trek episodes as a rule involving the borg are all good.....Ergo her being 1/2 borg helps alot!
(2) Can we catch the 'other' North london team?
Obviously not ! especially the way your team are playing at the minute. Luckily Chelsea are also playing s h ite football, so by default you should be fine for the champions league again.
Just railed the VLV final. Amazing stuff. Many congrats to Foley and RT for winning packages. Very well played and very unlucky for everyone else at the FT, such a sick bubble.
Sadly while 99% of the chatbox rail was quality there were a few trolls lurking. Some were very obvious, some quite smart about it. One such gentleman who I believe was in the later category despite coming out with a lot of chat which would fall in the former was unerringly persistent. I tried to chatbox police a little, not sure why I do that but it just annoys me when there are players at a huge final and you have that go off. I tried the usual, ask nicely. That failed. Start talking about the channels after 865, usually a banker, that failed. Maybe it was the hang over or my general grumpiness today but I thought I'd fire a third bullet and just offer Heads Up for Rollz. Heads up play was accepted on the provision if took place after the finish of the VLV FT. I've just left the HU table after getting a no show :sadface:
The more ill judged rail talk does tend to interest me in terms of analysing the human condition. You have some who just want to spout bile at someone, usually a running grudge or a desperate plea for attention. You have militant supporting to the lengths of disrespectful comments on other players which I see as a desperate attempt to gain success by proxy, a truly strange phenomenon. Another element which appeared was how stress and seeming disappointment can make people quick to attack. It was real eye opening stuff.
As for my VLV chances, I'm deep in a satellite hole without binking a seat for any level. Time to wipe the slate and try for next month's final anew, I need my Tikay Butler experience.
DYM challenge, did another five and oppo took a flippity flop versus me and that was that.
Run bad/played worse in the first cash session, got most of it back in the second. Plus I found out that even if pocket aces are led by a full unit of cavalry with accompanying bugles and drums I will still not fold Kings preflop. Good to know in the future.
Got an idea for the Blackpool SPT (will reveal soon, PMs have been sent). Sorry to be a tease.
The weighted contribution thread has really made me think. I don't want that discussion to spill over to here but as a result I realise how silly it's been by not opening new tables for cash sessions. I have never been worried abut playing HU for a bit and I don't sit out regs, I've just been lazy and like to rail running tables to get a feel for those playing. I've decided that for the foreseeable future when I crack open a cash session set of tables, at least one will be a table I open/has one person on. They don't take long to fill usually and if a lot of regs did this then we might really get some tables running.
On a second point I've been racking my brains trying to come up with a reason the old live cash poker fee playing system of 'sessions' would be better than the rake for online games. Sadly I can't come up with any coherent argument for this, it's just unworkable. Would be nice though if rake never existed, we had no knowledge of it and sessions was all that was there, I really believe sessions force you to play a little looser plus there's more to win in the middle. If people wanted to play, they'd have to play.
Oh well.
1) The first two Batman films weren't that bad. Batman suffered from making it about The Joker (which in some part was the same problem with Dark Knight). I loved Keaton's interpretation of the Wayne/Batman combination. He played Wayne as unsure while alone, bravado when in company and Batman as a single minded force of nature. Batman Returns was decent, despite the 'resurrection by cats' and 'raised by penguins' origins of the two main villains which was frankly shocking. The major flaw with both was because they came from a comic book the director decided to make them somewhat cartoony. Batman is a gritty interpretation of modern life in a semi dystopian parallel Earth. Of course as soon as Schumacher got involved it made Tim Burton's films look as gritty as Black Hawk Down. I hated Forever and 'and Robin.' Tommy Lee Jones played Two-Face as a low rent Joker, Jim Carey played Jim Carey, Arnie's pun-tasiums became old very quickly and the scripts were terrible. I really believe the Adam West TV Movie is better than 'Batman and Robin.'
The new ones are much better, but not without their flaws. We are yet to see a great Batman film IMO, however looking at the trailers for 'Dark Knight Rises' we may have so me chances. I love Nolan's direction in these and if he could just focus the scripts a little better without trying to give everyone in the ensemble cast their own set piece we could be in for a real treat.
2) The original Christopher Reeve Superman film is a masterpiece. Perfect pace, great story (Luthor isn't trying to kill thousands of people, his whole plan is a Real Estate Con which just so happens to involve thousands of deaths, seriously the coolest evil plan I think I've seen in a movie), great balance and big finish. Reeve plays both roles to perfection.
The original films go steadily downhill for me in the order of 2 - decent, 3 - really bad, 4 - a steaming pile of celluloid.
When you say TV series I really hope you're talking about Smallville rather than The Adventures of Lois and Clark. There have been tons of Superman TV series, which one did you mean?
3) I love Babylon 5. Did you know JMS was one of the original idea pitchers of Star Trek - Deep Space 9? He got rejected and made his idea anyway in the form of B5, and they made DS9 pretty much along his lines anyway.
4) I much prefer the new Battlestar to the old one. Concerning Starbuck, the world of the fanboy totally misunderstood that. People were crying out 'why is Starbuck going to be a woman?' The problem is the Dirk Starbuck had become such a cult favourite that they had to make the new one a woman. You could have Gary Oldman play Starbuck and still 95% of the hardcore audience would say 'He's good, but he's no Benedict.'
Strangely my favourite BS episode comes from the old series and from the worst season of that series. Near the end of that awful Battlestar 1985 (I think that's the year, not sure though) run they have a stand alone episode which is essentially the final fate of Starbuck. It's a fine charector piece and the best bit of the whole of the old series.
5) You're comments on Star Wars deserve a post all on their own. In brief, you Sir are wrong. However George Lucas will probably change that comment a few times and add a few pictures of Jawas.
Tommy,I definitely meant the Smallville incarnation of Superman.I loved Babylon 5 and thought the Shadows and Centauri as baddies were great, and the arc storyline that emerged through the series was brilliant. With the Star Wars comment just thought i might stir the pot for any response! I saw the first one just after its release, at an outdoor screening in the middle east against a clear starlit sky at the age of 7 or 8 and was mesmerised by the film and setting in which i saw the film.