Skip navigation


warning: Creating default object from empty value in /var/www/vhosts/ on line 33.

Let’s start with the unexpected news coming from Getty Images: Eugene Richards, the celebrated documentary photographer, has left the Reportage agency. Richards used to be with Magnum Photos but left twice. He was also with VII Photo for a couple of years, and had joined Reportage in 2010.

Reportage by Getty Images: Eugene Richards

BJP: Eugene Richards leaves Reportage by Getty Images

On the subject of Getty Images, they announced a few things these past few weeks.

PetaPixel: Getty Images Changes Watermark from Annoying Logo to Useful Shortlink

PDN Pulse: Getty Images Preps for IPO?

An interesting development in the photographic and multimedia markets, Brian Storm has started charging for some of MediaStorm’s presentation. Rite of Passage by Maggie Steber and A Shadow Remains by Phillip Toledano are the first two pieces to test MediaStorm’s Pay Per Story scheme. Each story can be bought for $1.99.


MediaStorm: Why We Switched to a Pay Per Story Model

PDN Pulse: MediaStorm Now Charging to View its Stories

TIME Lightbox: Game Changer – MediaStorm Launches Pay-Per-Story Video Player

Duckrabbit: Maggie Steber responds to critics of MediaStorm’s new pay to view model

VII Photo has been weathering a controversy lately…

VII Photo: Statement

Ron Haviv: Response

Conscientious: Quality journalism, photography and integrity

David Campbell: Photo agencies and ethics: the individual and the collective

And when we’re on the subject of VII Photo, they have also added four young photographers to their mentor programme.

Now, let’s share some business and practical tips:

Justin Mott: Advice to Veteran Photographers

A Photo Editor: How does a photographer land an agent?

A Photo Editor: Pricing & Negotiation: Spokesperson Advertising Shoot

PhotoShelter: A Photographer’s Guide to a Successful Gallery Opening

PhotoShelter: What Buyers and Photo Editors Want

PhotoShelter: Personality Traits & Skills Photo Buyers Don’t Want in Photographers

Salon: How to stop the bleeding

Chris Hondros. Image © Nicole Tung

PetaPixel: US Department of Justice Defends Photographers’ Right to Record Police

Some thoughts about the industry, reviews and round-ups…

The New York Times: Just When You Got Digital Technology, Film is Back

TIME Lightbox: Three War Photographers: Feel Fear, Keep Going

NY Daily News: Iconic ‘napalm girl’ photo from Vietnam War turns 40

Peter Dench: The Dench Diary (December – February 2012)

Conscientious: Review of Unknown Quantities by Olivia Arthur, Dominic Nahr, Moises Saman, and Peter Van Agtmael

PhotoShelter: The Look3 Festival Round-Up

TIME Lightbox: Curators Look Ahead to Look3

PDN Pulse: Look3 – Alex Webb on his Creative Process, Kodachrome, and Magnum

PDN Pulse: Look 3 Report: Donna Ferrato on Philip Jones Griffiths, Don McCullin, and Complicated Relationships

Reuters Blog: The Secret Handshake

The Guardian: Burtynsky: Oil review

Image © Edward Burtynsky.

The Guardian: The Photographers’ Gallery Reopens

NYT Lens Blog: Caught Between the Protests and the Police

NYT Lens Blog: Half Photos, Striving to be More

NYT Lens Blog: A Gift to New York from Gordon Parks

The New Yorker Photo Booth: Great Mistakes: Olivia Arthur

The Guardian: Featured Photojournalist – Joe Raedle

Conscientious Extended: Photography and Place: Appalachia

One Image at a Time: Image #4, Comfort Women 1996

DVAPhoto: Worth a look: Revolution Revisited by Kim Komenich and University of Miami multimedia grad students

Press Association: Jacobs in administration

Verve Photo: Antonio Bolfo

The Guardian: Lawrence Schiller’s best photograph: Marilyn Monroe

TIME Lightbox: Photographs of the ‘Great British Public’ in London

Foam Blog: Ahmet Polat on Instagram

Reuters Blog: Tribute to Danilo Krstanovic

And to finish…

The Marie Colvin Memorial Fund.

Your rating: None

Mark Boulton pulls together some of his thoughts and concerns regarding CSS grids and how they could (or, maybe, should) be created.

Your rating: None

Think back to a time when you knew very little about how to play poker well. Some of you may not have to stretch the imagination very far. You went to the casino. You chased big hands, you checked back value hands, you had no idea what your opponents had.

What have you learned since then? Likely you’ve learned all the important fundamentals. You’ve learned not to limp in out of position with weak hands. You’ve (more or less) learned not to pay off big bets from nut-peddling and passive players. You’ve learned to play position aggressively. You’ve learned to c-bet flops and also to barrel the turn when it’s clear your opponent doesn’t often have much. You bet your good hands for value, and maybe here and there you find a good thin value bet.

You’re a nit or maybe a TAG, and you make money easily off of players who can’t read hands and who therefore overvalue their medium-strength hands in big pots. As long as you can play in relatively soft games, you will make money playing poker for the rest of your life.

But I’m sorry to say, you’re not very good yet. Being very good means firing up an online casino and sitting in a game with nothing but players just like you and being able to generate a consistent profit. An advanced stats package is R for download and Obviously we’re not talking about a massive winrate. Massive winrates require legitimate spots in the game. But a consistent winrate.

You might be thinking, “Why on earth would I even want to try to play in a game with nothing but solid players to squeak out a winrate?” If you were thinking this, stop yourself! That’s not the point. The point of getting very good is that instead of winning X in a game, you’re now winning X + Y, where Y is the profit you squeeze out of the regulars in the game. That Y over time allows you to build your bankroll faster and move up.

So how do you do this? It’s a relatively simple, yet painstaking process. It’s simple because you can find a single edge over your clones in as little as fifteen minutes. But it’s painstaking because you have to find these edges over and over and over again–and retain them all–to really get the best of your TAGish bretheren.

Basically, it’s a lot of work. But if you play a lot of poker, and your goal is to win more or move up, the work is very worth it. So what do you do?

First, pick a relatively common situation. It’s a $0.50-$1 6-max game at an online casino. A 21/17 regular opens for $3 from under the gun. You’re on the button, and you call. Let’s not worry about what hand you’re calling with just yet. The blinds fold.

The flop comes A :diamond: 6 :spade: 2 :heart: . Your opponent bets. Is this bet unexpected?

It’s not. This is a dry, ace-high flop, and many regulars think they should bet flops like this one with 100 percent of their range. After all, they raised a tight range UTG, and they can “represent the ace.”

What’s the reality, though? Say the UTG player raises 13 percent of his starting hands from UTG. His range is something like this:

AKs-ATs, KQs-KTs, QJs-98s, QTs
AKo-AJo, KQo

This is 13 percent of hands. How often do you think this hand range makes top pair or better on this flop?

According to Flopzilla, which is an invaluable, yet inexpensive, program if you want to get very good at poker, this UTG range makes top pair or better just 31.6 percent of the time. This means that 68.4 percent of the time, your opponent will flop a hand he’s likely to fold to pressure.

If this is beginning to sound like a good spot to throw in a bluff, you’re catching on. Assume UTG is playing a very simple strategy of c-betting 100 percent of his hands (because he’s “supposed to” on a flop like this one) and then shutting down without an ace or better. You can raise his c-bet and show an automatic profit. There’s $7.50 in the pot preflop. He bets $4 on the flop. That puts $11.50 in the pot. You raise him to $10 with any two. You’re risking $10 to win $11.50 that he’ll fold. If he is indeed folding 68.4 percent of the time, this is extremely profitable.

If you find that your regular opponents tend to take this line on flops like this one, you can raise them all day long and auto-profit. You’ve taken a small step toward becoming a very good player. Now find 200 more situations like this one. Find two every day for 100 days in a row. At the end of this exercise, you’ll be an absolute monster in your regular games, and you’ll have a gaudy winrate to match.

“But Ed,” you say, “you make it sound easy, but it’s not easy like that! If I start raising these flops with air, I’ll be exploitable, and my opponents will adjust and punish me. And then I’ll just be spewing chips.”

No, no, no, no, no! This line of thinking has two enormous flaws. First, it’s monsters-under-the-bed. Most players at your level don’t adjust quickly or accurately to opponents who are playing counter-strategies. Many of them are multitabling 12 tables or more, and they literally click buttons every second or two. Do you think one of these players will think twice about the situation when they see they got raised on an ace-high flop holding 8-8 or K-J suited? No, they’ll fold, and they’ll do it day after day unless you absolutely abuse them many times in a very short period.

Second, you are not a robot. Say you get reraised. What is a legitimate reraising range on this flop given the UTG opening range? Sets and maybe A-K, right? Your opponent will have one of these hands under 15 percent of the time. You are going to get reraised very rarely. If you notice a player start to reraise you, he’s likely adjusted, and now you adjust yourself. You start raising A-J and A-T on this flop and stop raising air.

For the most part, though, when you find an exploitative play like this one, it works. It’s a more-often-than-not thing, which adds up to a long-term edge. Nitty and TAG players LOVE to bet/fold. It’s a strategy that works terrifically to maximize value against fish. But it’s an exploitable, unbalanced strategy. Find all the common spots where your opponents are bet/folding, and raise them. (Or float them and then bluff when they give up.)

Yes, it will blow up in your face sometimes. And when you’re running bad you’ll feel like a total idiot spewmonkey. But after 100k or 200k hands, you’ll likely see a much better winrate than you had before. And you’ll know that it was all your hard work that got you there.

Time to move up and start the process anew with a more sophisticated set of regulars.

Your rating: None

I’m a bully. At least I am when I play small stakes no-limit. When I sense weakness, I bet. It doesn’t much matter what cards I have. You fold.

I don’t have to sense weakness to bully, either. It’s hard to make a good hold’em hand. I look at the board and imagine the sorts of hands you’re likely to have. If not many of them are particularly good, I bet. You fold.

Sometimes when I’m bullying people, they start to grumble about it. “You gonna bet every time?” they ask me. “Only when I have aces,” I say. Naturally.

Occasionally (not often), someone will decide to stand up to my bullying. They’ll change the way they are playing in an attempt to counteract my aggression. There are right ways to do this and wrong ways. Most of my opponents try the wrong way, and it just gets them in deeper. In this article I’ll teach you the wrong ways and the right ways to stand up to a bully like me.

Wrong Way No. 1. Calling down with weak pairs.

Don’t react to a bully by starting to call down with weak pairs. This is a common adjustment I see players make against me. Don’t do it.

Normally they’ll play a hand like 4-4 and fold on the flop if they miss. Against me, they’ll start to call bets with it. They’ll call the flop, call the turn, and if they get desperate, they’ll even call on the river.

This is bad for two reasons. First, it’s obvious. When a player starts calling my flop continuation bets and turn barrels much more frequently, I know what hands they’re doing it with. They aren’t going deeper into hands with gutshot draws or other questionable drawing hands. They’re getting stubborn with bad pairs.

Second, it’s extremely exploitable. Once I detect that someone is starting to call me with weak pairs, I flip my strategy. I make fewer continuation bets with air while simultaneously betting some of my weaker hands for value. For example, on a K :diamond: T :club: 2 :heart: flop, I might normally bet 6-4 and check J-T. With 6-4 I’m hoping for a fold, and with J-T I’m waiting to get a better idea if I have the best hand. Once someone starts calling with small pairs, though, I start checking 6-4 and betting J-T.

This simple change thwarts the “let’s call down with small pairs” strategy completely.

Right Way No. 1. Calling down with good hands you might normally raise.

Say I open raise and you have A-K in the big blind. Normally reraising is a good play, but you might want to call to deceive me. On the K :diamond: T :club: 2 :heart: flop, you check and call. Remember, I’m betting 6-4 and (sometimes) checking J-T. The turn is the 8 :club: . You check again. This is a turn card a bully like me might bet with 6-4, and after all the checking it’s also a card I’d bet with J-T.

Depending on the stack sizes, you might want to check-raise the turn, or you might want to check and call again, planning to check and call again on the river.

From my perspective, as a bully, this is a very annoying adjustment for my opponent to make. It’s hard to exploit. There’s no simple change I can make to my strategy to counter it. I can’t start betting weaker hands, since A-K beats those too. I’m forced to bully less to avoid firing off half my stack into top pair.

As a bully I count on my opponents to raise their good hands early to let me know if I’m in trouble. When they refuse to do that against me, I either have to back off or pay off.

Making this adjustment can be harrowing. It puts you into situations you normally avoid by raising early in the hand. You can be sitting there on the river staring at a large all-in bet with just top pair, not knowing what to do. Nonetheless, it’s the right adjustment. Remember, it’s often as likely as not that the bully on the other end of that all-in bet is praying for you to fold. If you want to stop the bullying, you have to start spoiling his prayers.

Wrong Way No. 2. Playing Back In Obvious Situations.

Say I’ve recently made a lot of reraises preflop. Once or twice I had a good hand, and once or twice I had a bluff. Either way, I know I’ve been doing it and that other players will notice. I will adjust my strategy so that my next reraise is more likely to be a strong hand.

Don’t choose that reraise as the one you “stand up” to by calling or reraising light. I’m expecting it. I’ve been bullying people for years. This is not my first time around the block. I know my reraising annoys you, and I know you’ll try to do something about it eventually.

Here’s another one. Don’t wait until you are utterly fed up with me and then decide to bluff raise a dry flop. I’m expecting this play too, and it’s transparent. I’ve been pushing you around for three hours, and now you decide to raise me on a K-2-2 flop. What do you have? A deuce? You would slowplay that. You would check and call with most kings. You could have pocket aces. That’s about it. If there’s a reasonable amount of money behind, I’m going to consider playing back at you.

Right Way No. 2. Playing Back In Natural Situations.

Yes, you should play back at a bully. But choose natural situations. A natural situation is one where you have caught a piece of the flop, but you realistically could have hit it pretty hard. Say the flop is K :diamond: J :spade: 7 :diamond: . You check, and a bully bets. You have Q :spade: 9 :spade: for a gutshot and a backdoor flush draw. Checkraise. From the bully’s perspective, you could easily have hit this flop well. Even if you have a draw, the bully would think, you likely have a much better one than just Q :spade: 9 :spade: . The bully is going to give this checkraise credit unless he happens to have gotten lucky enough to flop something really strong.

A sure way for me to have a bad session is if everyone keeps hitting flops and turns on me. It’s hard to hit the flop, and even harder to make a hand good enough to survive three rounds of aggressive betting. When I go home a loser, it’s usually because my opponents have happened to hit flop after flop on me, and my stabs at the pot all went for naught.

By playing back in natural situations, you simulate one of these bad days. No, you didn’t hit every flop. But you hit some and faked hitting others. Do it enough, and I’ll think twice about bullying you next time.

[This article appeared in the July 13, 2011 issue (Vol. 24, No. 14) of Card Player.]

Your rating: None

The river value min-raise is a play I use with some frequency. I most typically try it when I’m heads-up with position on the river, and I have a hand I was planning to bet for value if checked to. But instead of checking, my opponent bets. And, given the ...

Login/Register for more.

Your rating: None

Drupal's theming system offers developers and designers a flexible way to override default HTML output when specific portions of the page are rendered. Everything from the name of the currently logged in user to the HTML markup of the entire page can be customized by a plugin "theme".

Unfortunately, this system can be its own worst enemy. Themes are very powerful, but in many cases they're the only place where specific output can be changed without hacking core. Because of this, themes on highly customized production sites can easily turn into code-monsters, carrying the weight of making 'Drupal' look like 'My Awesome Site.'

This can make maintenance difficult, and it also makes sharing these tweaks with other Drupal developers tricky. In fact, some downloadable modules also come with instructions on how to modify a theme to 'complete' the module's work. Wouldn't it be great if certain re-usable theme overrides could be packaged up and distributed as part of any Drupal? As it turns out, that is possible. In this article, we'll be exploring two ways to do it: a tweaky, hacky approach for Drupal 5, and a clean and elegant approach that's only possible in Drupal 6.

read more

Your rating: None