I run a private campground. Now, it seems some of you are frantic after my last post so I’ll just give you an update on that and get it out of the way. The truth is… I hate all my options right now (the dancers were like nope, not our expertise, good luck with that) and am procrastinating acting on them. It’s fine. I’m fine. The fairy said I have time. It’s probably just nerves. I’m trying not to think about it every time I have to cough. So to keep my mind off my current problems, I’m going to talk about something other than the fomorian situation.
Anyway, if you’re new here, you should really start at the beginning and if you’re totally lost, this might help.
Around here, disobeying a rule typically gets you killed. Insulting one of these inhuman things, however, has collateral damage. The extent of it will depend on the severity of the offense and the disposition of the insulted creature. As I’ve talked about before, the fairy’s vengeance is the most devastating and is not limited to the campground’s boundaries. However, none of these creatures are content with a single victim when seeking redress.
None of them.
I’m going to use rule #9 to elaborate on this. I have quite a few options to choose from - including Beau - but from the comments I feel everyone would appreciate learning more about the thing in the dark.
Rule #9 - Keep track of what time the charge on the solar lights typically runs out. If the solars go out before then, do not leave your tent until sunup. Do not open the tent, not even to look. Stay in your tent, try to sleep, and wait for daybreak.
I have no way to know for certain what the offense was. We already know that merely looking at the thing in the dark is cause for it to swallow you whole, doomed to forever wander the tunnels of its body until the heart calls you to your final death. What kind of offense could you give to such a creature that would cause it to seek even greater retaliation?
I wasn’t as strict on disallowing camping near the mound in the past, as people aren’t crammed in so tight as they are at the big event when I put the senior camp there. I figured people would naturally stay away from the foreboding mound of debris and mostly they did. When the thing in the dark arose with fury, I could only assume they camped too close and did something dumb. Maybe shined a spotlight on its face or something.
But after this past year, I think I have a plausible theory.
I bet they used branches from its body as firewood.
It’s in the camp rules to not use wood from around the camp for fires, specifically so they don’t offend something inadvertently and also so our local firewood suppliers get some good business throughout the year. But we’ve all seen how well people follow the rules.
I think this year I’ll spray paint the plants around the mound magenta so people think it's surrounded by poison ivy. Use some other behavioral pressure to get them to follow the rules, since we all should know by now that structural incentives are wildly ineffective.
We saw that when a certain someone (I swear to god you better not be reading these still, I’m angry just at the thought of it) threw holy water at the children with no wagon. He knew the rules and still did something terribly offensive.
There is a priority in which these creatures take their vengeance. The first to die is the offender and those associated with them. The order in which those two groups are targeted depends on the maliciousness of the wronged party. The dancers, for instance, prefer to take the offender last, after they’ve seen the sort of fate that awaits them from watching the demise of their friends.
If this is not enough to sate the creature’s rage - or if their preferred target has luckily left the campground already - then they turn their anger against my staff.
They are representatives of my campground, after all. In a sense that matters only to the creatures here, they belong to me. The campers are my “guests'' and a failure on their part reflects badly on myself. Not enough to warrant my death necessarily - although I’ve personally had some unpleasant encounters in the past because of people doing something offensive - but my staff are considered of lesser importance. Disposable. And they’re used to send a message.
Their deaths tell me that one of these inhuman things is angry and I am to blame.
In the human world, our leaders certainly do a good job dodging responsibility even for heinous actions they’ve themselves committed. The inhuman world is not so lenient and it has the power to enforce consequences.
I’m sure some of you are thinking, dang, must be sweet to be an inhuman thing. There’s certainly some assholes that have pissed me off that I’d like to take to task. But look - you know those “you can only take this one thing to a deserted island” memes? This is “you can only eat this one thing until the heat death of the universe” and you might want to think long and hard on how raw liver ripped from a screaming victim would taste after 5,000 years of it.
The night the offense was committed, I dreamed of my death at the jaws of the beast. I fled from it down a narrow corridor of which I could not see the walls or the floor, but I knew they were there nonetheless. Behind me the beast approached, its jaw stretching wide, swallowing up everything in my wake until it felt as immense as the ocean. I felt the world tilting, my feet slipped for want of purchase, and then I fell into the beast’s gaping mouth. Its throat glowed like embers and I felt the heat as I tumbled down, into that white-hot heart of light, and I heard the screams of people I thought I knew as I fell.
Then I woke in a cold sweat. It was past dawn. I’d slept through my alarm.
I knew all too well what such a nightmare meant. Someone had vanished and the thing in the dark was to blame. I hurried down to the staff break room to intercept the handful arriving for the shift change.
What they told me as they arrived was alarming. They, too, had nightmares about the death they feared. I uneasily assumed it was due to their daily proximity to the campground. Perhaps that created some tie, tenuous, but enough that the campground could leak into their dreams. After all, the thing in the dark only troubles the dreams of those asleep on my land. That’s how it’s always been.
I’ve seen that the campground… leaks… now. It is not a perfect prison. Perhaps the thing in the dark’s rage was simply that great.
The day passed uneventfully. I learned who vanished in the night because my staff found an abandoned campground. They watched over it, checking in throughout the day to confirm it was truly empty. The tents were made up with all their belongings inside. The coolers were still full of food and beer. It was like they’d all simply gotten up and walked away and never came back.
They were swallowed up without even a struggle. All of them.
I decided we would take down their tents and pack up their belongings the next day. Some of them had left wallets in their tents instead of having them on their person and these we turned over to the local police. None of us would go searching for their relatives, of course. But better that the police knew their names if anyone came calling for answers.
It didn’t occur to me at that point that the thing in the dark had been wronged. There was another, more palatable, explanation at hand. This entire camp had looked at the thing in the dark and been swallowed up at once. Perhaps they were sitting around a campfire - for there were the remains of a fire pit - late at night and the firelight vanished and instead of closing their eyes, they all turned around to look like deer in the road.
I didn’t know of many instances of the thing in the dark taking multiple people at once, so I theorized that this was the reason behind the extended reach of the nightmares. It echoed more strongly this time, touching those closely associated with the campground even though they weren’t on my land.
I told my staff to be a bit more careful and to let me know if they found anything unusual. That was all.
When I’m wrong, people die. It’s easier to bear when someone else is at fault. I can point to their mistakes and say look - see - that isn’t me this time. This is what they did wrong. It’s deserved. Right or wrong, that’s how I looked at it for a long time. It made the job easier. I’m still not sure if I’m willing to shoulder the blame for this one. Yes, my theory was wrong. But it’s not like the thing in the dark made it apparent that it was angered. Beau didn’t drop by to warn me, as he’s done before. It was just me, piecing together the clues as best as I could.
But deserving or not, the thing in the dark held me responsible for the actions of the campers. They always do.
I got up the next morning to find one of my overnight staff dead on my front porch. He’d been methodically disassembled. His body had been opened up, the flaps of skin and muscle neatly pulled open for dissection, and his organs had been removed and set aside. They were still connected, the veins unraveling like yarn, grouped close to the body so that everything remained intact.
He hadn’t succumbed immediately. There wasn’t much blood. Some of the organs were disturbed, though. Instead of being laid out neatly, they were positioned closer to the body, and one hand lay draped close to the heart, as if it’d slid off shortly after death. He’d been left alive, desperately trying to scoop his organs back into his body, before dying of shock.
I called my uncle for help. My great-aunt’s death has always weighed heavily on me and I couldn’t bear disposing of the body alone. We worked together in stoic silence, piling the organs back into the hollowed out shell and hiding it beneath a blanket before any campers could wander past the house. The police came and discreetly took the body away.
“This isn’t like the people with no faces,” my uncle said grimly, after our morbid task was done. “Well, it’s not like them to leave it on your front porch, at least.”
“The man with the skull cup could have done it.”
“You don’t sound convinced.”
I took a deep drink of my coffee. It wasn’t creamer I’d added to it.
“Can you talk to his girlfriend for me?” I asked. “Find out which creature on the campground he feared the most.”
My uncle did. Or rather, he sent my aunt to talk to her. She reported back that my employee had most feared the people with no faces. He’d never had a run-in with them and he hoped he never would. Their scalpels and their deliberate precision terrified him, worse than a creature that would rend and tear like a mindless beast. Their careful intent was far more sinister than something that merely wanted a meal.
The thing in the dark wasn’t merely showing us in our dreams what death we feared the most. It was enacting it now, upon my staff, and leaving the results at my doorstep.
I was at a loss on how to appease it or if it even could be appeased. But nor would I simply stand by and let it murder my staff with impunity. They knew they were potential targets. It was part of the job and why I pay so much more than everyone else around here. For the locals, this is one of the better jobs around, short of owning your own business. However, this was an extreme circumstance, as all of us knew the thing in the dark was not something that could be escaped or reasoned with.
It was like a force of nature and screaming defiance at a storm does nothing to halt its advance.
So I closed the campground. If we couldn’t appease the thing in the dark, we’d wait it out. Let it helplessly expend its anger in whatever manner it chose - so long as it didn’t have human prey within reach.
I evacuated the campground of campers. Fortunately, luck was on my side, and I had an easy excuse that people were more than willing to accept. It had been raining that week. A LOT of rain. The handful of campers that remained on site were already planning to leave, as the forecast predicted it would keep raining for another few days. I sent my staff around to tell everyone there was concern about flooding (there wasn’t) and we were asking everyone to leave as a precaution. They even offered to help people pack up, to ensure they got off the grounds before sundown. I offered partial refunds, but they had to come to the camp office and claim them in person. I hoped that the rain had worn down their wills to the point that few would bother with the extra effort, and my hunch paid off - literally. Few claimed the refund.
Look, I do run a business here.
Then I sent the staff home. I stocked up on groceries and warned my relatives that live on the land to do the same. We’d wait it out. I was confident in the security of our houses, as the main house was never touched (except by the little girl and the beast) and my relatives house’s had the visitor’s blessing (rule #1) and other protections. I locked the gates, cancelled any outstanding reservations that hadn’t already been cancelled due to the coming week’s weather forecast, and hunkered down to wait for the worst.
I kept the blinds drawn so I didn’t inadvertently look outside at the thing in the dark, in case it passed near to the house. No sense in angering it further. I could hear the little girl though and her weeping was close by, as she stayed huddled up against the wall of the house throughout the long night. Around one in the morning my aunt called me to say she’d heard a loud noise passing by, like a gale, but she hadn’t looked and it’d moved on.
I waited through the night, too uneasy to sleep. I might have dozed off a little between two AM and four AM, but it wasn’t a real sleep. I just lay in my bed, hardly covered by the blankets, and nodded off for snippets at a time.
I was waiting to see if the thing in the dark came by my house, carrying its anger in its shadow.
An hour before dawn I heard a noise that made me sit bolt-upright. Something like the scream of a wildcat, but deeper, and far louder. An unnatural sound that had the snapping of trees as an undertone. A cry of rage - and despair, I thought - that made my heart ache for reasons I couldn’t understand.
I think… looking back… the thing in the dark wasn’t merely angry. It was mourning the loss of itself, screaming its pain because it had no other way to make us understand.
And as soon as that unearthly sound stopped, a rumbling took over. The ground itself was shaking. My breath caught in my throat as the ground shifted, trembling from the force of the thing’s scream, and my bed began to rattle in place. Bookcases in my library toppled over, spilling their contents all over the floor. Pictures fell from the walls, spewing shattered glass as they hit. A cacophony of breaking dishes echoed from my kitchen as the plates and glasses slid out of the cabinets, drowning out all other noise. I cowered in my bed, pressing myself into the mattress and hoping nothing fell on me and that the house didn’t collapse. Then the rumbling was gone and the only sound was the rain outside, the little girl’s crying, and the groan of the house as it settled back down on its foundation.
I called my aunt with shaking hands. They’d experienced the same thing. I checked on my other relatives and they all had the same story. A scream and then an earthquake. I called some people outside the campground, checking on my staff, and while none of them had nearly the level of destruction I had, their houses were similarly affected. No one was hurt at least.
Now, this was some time ago, so the old sheriff hadn’t been swallowed up by the vanishing house yet. He drove by to check on the campground the next morning, asking if we’d had any damage from the earthquake. I said that I was still checking the buildings, but so far we appeared to be unscathed. I didn’t say that was because our houses are protected against unnatural things and this was certainly an unnatural earthquake.
The old sheriff told me there’d been a few buildings in town that suffered minor damage. He and the local officers were still making the rounds to check on the remote houses in the surrounding forest and fields.
“Damned strange,” he said, scratching the back of his head. “Didn’t think we got earthquakes out here.”
Very strange, I agreed. As much as I like the old sheriff, he is an honest man where the town is concerned, and I didn’t want their animosity once they found out that the thing in the dark could reach out beyond the confines of the campground, in a sense. They leave my family in peace so long as I keep these creatures contained and their wallets full.
I kept the campground shut down for a full week and when there were no further disturbances, I tentatively called my staff back. Volunteer basis at first, with a hefty bonus as an incentive. A few took the offer and when they survived the night, I felt confident enough to re-open the campground. The thing in the dark remained in its lair, its anger spent in that last helpless cry.
I run a private campground. I’ve always had a healthy level of respect for the thing in the dark. Of all the creatures on my land, I consider it one of the more benevolent ones. It doesn’t actively seek people out to harm them, after all. It just wants to be left alone. But now, when I think back on that scream it uttered, at how it made my chest ache with a yearning that was not my own, I feel something else towards it. I think of what it said to me. How it isn’t whole.
And I pity it. [x]
Also I'm right about the spiders so HAH.
Read the full list of rules.
Visit the campground's website.

NEW INFO 5 Results from share redemption are posted. Less than .2% redeemed. Very bullish as investors are showing extreme confidence in the future of PLBY.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/playboy-mountain-crest-acquisition-corp-120000721.html
NEW INFO 4 Definitive Agreement to purchase 100% of Lovers brand stores announced 2/1.
https://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Playboy+%28MCAC%29+Confirms+Deal+to+Acquire+Lovers/17892359.html
NEW INFO 3 I bought more on the dip today. 5081 total. Price rose AH to $12.38 (2.15%)
NEW INFO 2 Here is the full webinar.
https://icrinc.zoom.us/rec/play/9GWKdmOYumjWfZuufW3QXpe_FW_g--qeNbg6PnTjTMbnNTgLmCbWjeRFpQga1iPc-elpGap8dnDv8Zww.yD7DjUwuPmapeEdP?continueMode=true&tk=lEYc4F_FkKlgsmCIs6w0gtGHT2kbgVGbUju3cIRBSjk.DQIAAAAV8NK49xZWdldRM2xNSFNQcTBmcE00UzM3bXh3AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA&uuid=WN_GKWqbHkeSyuWetJmLFkj4g&_x_zm_rtaid=kR45-uuqRE-L65AxLjpbQw.1611967079119.2c054e3d3f8d8e63339273d9175939ed&_x_zm_rhtaid=866
NEW INFO 1 Live merger webinar with PLBY and MCAC on Friday January 29, 2021 at 12:00 NOON EST link below
https://mcacquisition.com/investor-relations/press-release-details/2021/Playboy-Enterprises-Inc.-and-Mountain-Crest-Acquisition-Corp-Participate-in-SPACInsider-ICR-Webinar-on-January-29th-at-12pm-ET/default.aspx
Playboy going public: Porn, Gambling, and Cannabis
!!!WARNING READING AHEAD!!! TL;DR at the end. It will take some time to sort through all the links and read/watch everything, but you should.
In the next couple weeks, Mountain Crest Acquisition Corp is taking Playboy public. The existing ticker MCAC will become PLBY. Special purpose acquisition companies have taken private companies public in recent months with great success. I believe this will be no exception. Notably, Playboy is profitable and has skyrocketing revenue going into a transformational growth phase.
Porn - First and foremost, let's talk about porn. I know what you guys are thinking. “Porno mags are dead. Why would I want to invest in something like that? I can get porn for free online.” Guess what? You are absolutely right. And that’s exactly why Playboy doesn’t do that anymore. That’s right, they eliminated their print division. And yet they somehow STILL make money from porn that people (see: boomers) pay for on their website through PlayboyTV, Playboy Plus, and iPlayboy. Here’s the thing: Playboy has international, multi-generational name recognition from porn. They have content available in 180 countries. It will be the only publicly traded adult entertainment (porn) company. But that is not where this company is going. It will help support them along the way. You can see every Playboy magazine through iPlayboy if you’re interested. NSFW links below:
https://www.playboy.com/
https://www.playboytv.com/
https://www.playboyplus.com/
https://www.iplayboy.com/
Gambling - Some of you might recognize the Playboy brand from gambling trips to places like Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Cancun, London or Macau. They’ve been in the gambling biz for decades through their casinos, clubs, and licensed gaming products. They see the writing on the wall. COVID is accelerating the transition to digital, application based GAMBLING. That’s right. What we are doing on Robinhood with risky options is gambling, and the only reason regulators might give a shit anymore is because we are making too much money. There may be some restrictions put in place, but gambling from your phone on your couch is not going anywhere. More and more states are allowing things like Draftkings, poker, state ‘lottery” apps, hell - even political betting. Michigan and Virginia just ok’d gambling apps. They won’t be the last. This is all from your couch and any 18 year old with a cracked iphone can access it. Wouldn’t it be cool if Playboy was going to do something like that? They’re already working on it. As per CEO Ben Kohn who we will get to later, “...the company’s casino-style digital gaming products with Scientific Games and Microgaming continue to see significant global growth.” Honestly, I stopped researching Scientific Games' sports betting segment when I saw the word ‘omni-channel’. That told me all I needed to know about it’s success.
“Our SG Sports™ platform is an enhanced, omni-channel solution for online, self-service and retail fixed odds sports betting – from soccer to tennis, basketball, football, baseball, hockey, motor sports, racing and more.”
https://www.scientificgames.com/
https://www.microgaming.co.uk/
“This latter segment has become increasingly enticing for Playboy, and it said last week that it is considering new tie-ups that could include gaming operators like PointsBet and 888Holdings.”
https://calvinayre.com/2020/10/05/business/playboys-gaming-ops-could-get-a-boost-from-spac-purchase/
As per their SEC filing:
“Significant consumer engagement and spend with Playboy-branded gaming properties around the world, including with leading partners such as Microgaming, Scientific Games, and Caesar’s Entertainment, steers our investment in digital gaming, sports betting and other digital offerings to further support our commercial strategy to expand consumer spend with minimal marginal cost, and gain consumer data to inform go-to-market plans across categories.”
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921005986/tm2034213-12_defm14a.htm#tMDAA1
They are expanding into more areas of gaming/gambling, working with international players in the digital gaming/gambling arena, and a Playboy sportsbook is on the horizon.
https://www.playboy.com/read/the-pleasure-of-playing-with-yourself-mobile-gaming-in-the-covid-era
Cannabis - If you’ve ever read through a Playboy magazine, you know they’ve had a positive relationship with cannabis for many years. As of September 2020, Playboy has made a major shift into the cannabis space. Too good to be true you say? Check their website. Playboy currently sells a range of CBD products. This is a good sign. Federal hemp products, which these most likely are, can be mailed across state lines and most importantly for a company like Playboy, can operate through a traditional banking institution. CBD products are usually the first step towards the cannabis space for large companies. Playboy didn’t make these products themselves meaning they are working with a processor in the cannabis industry. Another good sign for future expansion. What else do they have for sale? Pipes, grinders, ashtrays, rolling trays, joint holders. Hmm. Ok. So it looks like they want to sell some shit. They probably don’t have an active interest in cannabis right? Think again:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/javierhasse/2020/09/24/playboy-gets-serious-about-cannabis-law-reform-advocacy-with-new-partnership-grants/?sh=62f044a65cea
“Taking yet another step into the cannabis space, Playboy will be announcing later on Thursday (September, 2020) that it is launching a cannabis law reform and advocacy campaign in partnership with National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Last Prisoner Project, Marijuana Policy Project, the Veterans Cannabis Project, and the Eaze Momentum Program.”
“According to information procured exclusively, the three-pronged campaign will focus on calling for federal legalization. The program also includes the creation of a mentorship plan, through which the Playboy Foundation will support entrepreneurs from groups that are underrepresented in the industry.” Remember that CEO Kohn from earlier? He wrote this recently:
https://medium.com/naked-open-letters-from-playboy/congress-must-pass-the-more-act-c867c35239ae
Seems like he really wants weed to be legal? Hmm wonder why? The writing's on the wall my friends. Playboy wants into the cannabis industry, they are making steps towards this end, and we have favorable conditions for legislative progress.
Don’t think branding your own cannabis line is profitable or worthwhile? Tell me why these 41 celebrity millionaires and billionaires are dummies. I’ll wait.
https://www.celebstoner.com/news/celebstoner-news/2019/07/12/top-celebrity-cannabis-brands/
Confirmation: I hear you. “This all seems pretty speculative. It would be wildly profitable if they pull this shift off. But how do we really know?” Watch this whole video:
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/playboy-ceo-telling-story-female-154907068.html
Man - this interview just gets my juices flowing. And highlights one of my favorite reasons for this play. They have so many different business avenues from which a catalyst could appear. I think paying attention, holding shares, and options on these staggered announcements over the next year is the way I am going to go about it. "There's definitely been a shift to direct-to-consumer," he (Kohn) said. "About 50 percent of our revenue today is direct-to-consumer, and that will continue to grow going forward.” “Kohn touted Playboy's portfolio of both digital and consumer products, with casino-style gaming, in particular, serving a crucial role under the company's new business model. Playboy also has its sights on the emerging cannabis market, from CBD products to marijuana products geared toward sexual health and pleasure.” "If THC does become legal in the United States, we have developed certain strains to enhance your sex life that we will launch," Kohn said. https://cheddar.com/media/playboy-goes-public-health-gaming-lifestyle-focus Oh? The CEO actually said it? Ok then. “We have developed certain strains…” They’re already working with growers on strains and genetics? Ok. There are several legal cannabis markets for those products right now, international and stateside. I expect Playboy licensed hemp and THC pre-rolls by EOY. Something like this: https://www.etsy.com/listing/842996758/10-playboy-pre-roll-tubes-limited?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=pre+roll+playboy&ref=sr_gallery-1-2&organic_search_click=1 Maintaining cannabis operations can be costly and a regulatory headache. Playboy’s licensing strategy allows them to pick successful, established partners and sidestep traditional barriers to entry. You know what I like about these new markets? They’re expanding. Worldwide. And they are going to be a bigger deal than they already are with or without Playboy. Who thinks weed and gambling are going away? Too many people like that stuff. These are easy markets. And Playboy is early enough to carve out their spot in each. Fuck it, read this too: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimosman/2020/10/20/playboy-could-be-the-king-of-spacs-here-are-three-picks/?sh=2e13dcaa3e05
Numbers: You want numbers? I got numbers. As per the company’s most recent SEC filing:
“For the year ended December 31, 2019, and the nine months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s historical consolidated revenue was $78.1 million and $101.3 million, respectively, historical consolidated net income (loss) was $(23.6) million and $(4.8) million, respectively, and Adjusted EBITDA was $13.1 million and $21.8 million, respectively.”
“In the nine months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s Licensing segment contributed $44.2 million in revenue and $31.1 million in net income.”
“In the ninth months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s Direct-to-Consumer segment contributed $40.2 million in revenue and net income of $0.1 million.”
“In the nine months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s Digital Subscriptions and Content segment contributed $15.4 million in revenue and net income of $7.4 million.”
They are profitable across all three of their current business segments.
“Playboy’s return to the public markets presents a transformed, streamlined and high-growth business. The Company has over $400 million in cash flows contracted through 2029, sexual wellness products available for sale online and in over 10,000 major retail stores in the US, and a growing variety of clothing and branded lifestyle and digital gaming products.”
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921005986/tm2034213-12_defm14a.htm#tSHCF
Growth: Playboy has massive growth in China and massive growth potential in India. “In China, where Playboy has spent more than 25 years building its business, our licensees have an enormous footprint of nearly 2,500 brick and mortar stores and 1,000 ecommerce stores selling high quality, Playboy-branded men’s casual wear, shoes/footwear, sleepwear, swimwear, formal suits, leather & non-leather goods, sweaters, active wear, and accessories. We have achieved significant growth in China licensing revenues over the past several years in partnership with strong licensees and high-quality manufacturers, and we are planning for increased growth through updates to our men’s fashion lines and expansion into adjacent categories in men’s skincare and grooming, sexual wellness, and women’s fashion, a category where recent launches have been well received.” The men’s market in China is about the same size as the entire population of the United States and European Union combined. Playboy is a leading brand in this market. They are expanding into the women’s market too. Did you know CBD toothpaste is huge in China? China loves CBD products and has hemp fields that dwarf those in the US. If Playboy expands their CBD line China it will be huge. Did you know the gambling money in Macau absolutely puts Las Vegas to shame? Technically, it's illegal on the mainland, but in reality, there is a lot of gambling going on in China. https://www.forbes.com/sites/javierhasse/2020/10/19/magic-johnson-and-uncle-buds-cbd-brand-enter-china-via-tmall-partnership/?sh=271776ca411e “In India, Playboy today has a presence through select apparel licensees and hospitality establishments. Consumer research suggests significant growth opportunities in the territory with Playboy’s brand and categories of focus.” “Playboy Enterprises has announced the expansion of its global consumer products business into India as part of a partnership with Jay Jay Iconic Brands, a leading fashion and lifestyle Company in India.” “The Indian market today is dominated by consumers under the age of 35, who represent more than 65 percent of the country’s total population and are driving India’s significant online shopping growth. The Playboy brand’s core values of playfulness and exploration resonate strongly with the expressed desires of today’s younger millennial consumers. For us, Playboy was the perfect fit.” “The Playboy international portfolio has been flourishing for more than 25 years in several South Asian markets such as China and Japan. In particular, it has strategically targeted the millennial and gen-Z audiences across categories such as apparel, footwear, home textiles, eyewear and watches.” https://www.licenseglobal.com/industry-news/playboy-expands-global-footprint-india It looks like they gave COVID the heisman in terms of net damage sustained: “Although Playboy has not suffered any material adverse consequences to date from the COVID-19 pandemic, the business has been impacted both negatively and positively. The remote working and stay-at-home orders resulted in the closure of the London Playboy Club and retail stores of Playboy’s licensees, decreasing licensing revenues in the second quarter, as well as causing supply chain disruption and less efficient product development thereby slowing the launch of new products. However, these negative impacts were offset by an increase in Yandy’s direct-to-consumer sales, which have benefited in part from overall increases in online retail sales so far during the pandemic.” Looks like the positives are long term (Yandy acquisition) and the negatives are temporary (stay-at-home orders).
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921006093/tm213766-1_defa14a.htm
This speaks to their ability to maintain a financially solvent company throughout the transition phase to the aforementioned areas. They’d say some fancy shit like “expanded business model to encompass four key revenue streams: Sexual Wellness, Style & Apparel, Gaming & Lifestyle, and Beauty & Grooming.” I hear “we’re just biding our time with these trinkets until those dollar dollar bill y’all markets are fully up and running.” But the truth is these existing revenue streams are profitable, scalable, and rapidly expanding Playboy’s e-commerce segment around the world.
"Even in the face of COVID this year, we've been able to grow EBITDA over 100 percent and revenue over 68 percent, and I expect that to accelerate going into 2021," he said. “Playboy is accelerating its growth in company-owned and branded consumer products in attractive and expanding markets in which it has a proven history of brand affinity and consumer spend.”
Also in the SEC filing, the Time Frame:
“As we detailed in the definitive proxy statement, the SPAC stockholder meeting to vote on the transaction has been set for February 9th, and, subject to stockholder approval and satisfaction of the other closing conditions, we expect to complete the merger and begin trading on NASDAQ under ticker PLBY shortly thereafter,” concluded Kohn.
The Players: Suhail “The Whale” Rizvi (HMFIC), Ben “The Bridge” Kohn (CEO), “lil” Suying Liu & “Big” Dong Liu (Young-gun China gang). I encourage you to look these folks up. The real OG here is Suhail Rizvi. He’s from India originally and Chairman of the Board for the new PLBY company. He was an early investor in Twitter, Square, Facebook and others. His firm, Rizvi Traverse, currently invests in Instacart, Pinterest, Snapchat, Playboy, and SpaceX. Maybe you’ve heard of them. “Rizvi, who owns a sprawling three-home compound in Greenwich, Connecticut, and a 1.65-acre estate in Palm Beach, Florida, near Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg, moved to Iowa Falls when he was five. His father was a professor of psychology at Iowa. Along with his older brother Ashraf, a hedge fund manager, Rizvi graduated from Wharton business school.” “Suhail Rizvi: the 47-year-old 'unsocial' social media baron: When Twitter goes public in the coming weeks (2013), one of the biggest winners will be a 47-year-old financier who guards his secrecy so zealously that he employs a person to take down his Wikipedia entry and scrub his photos from the internet. In IPO, Twitter seeks to be 'anti-FB'” “Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia looks like a big Twitter winner. So do the moneyed clients of Jamie Dimon. But as you’ve-got-to-be-joking wealth washed over Twitter on Thursday — a company that didn’t exist eight years ago was worth $31.7 billion after its first day on the stock market — the non-boldface name of the moment is Suhail R. Rizvi. Mr. Rizvi, 47, runs a private investment company that is the largest outside investor in Twitter with a 15.6 percent stake worth $3.8 billion at the end of trading on Thursday (November, 2013). Using a web of connections in the tech industry and in finance, as well as a hearty dose of good timing, he brought many prominent names in at the ground floor, including the Saudi prince and some of JPMorgan’s wealthiest clients.” https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/technology/at-twitter-working-behind-the-scenes-toward-a-billion-dollar-payday.html Y’all like that Arab money? How about a dude that can call up Saudi Princes and convince them to spend? Funniest shit about I read about him: “Rizvi was able to buy only $100 million in Facebook shortly before its IPO, thus limiting his returns, according to people with knowledge of the matter.” Poor guy :(
He should be fine with the 16 million PLBY shares he's going to have though :)
Shuhail also has experience in the entertainment industry. He’s invested in companies like SESAC, ICM, and Summit Entertainment. He’s got Hollywood connections to blast this stuff post-merger. And he’s at least partially responsible for that whole Twilight thing. I’m team Edward btw.
I really like what Suhail has done so far. He’s lurked in the shadows while Kohn is consolidating the company, trimming the fat, making Playboy profitable, and aiming the ship at modern growing markets.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-ipo-rizvi-insight/insight-little-known-hollywood-investor-poised-to-score-with-twitter-ipo-idUSBRE9920VW20131003
Ben “The Bridge” Kohn is an interesting guy. He’s the connection between Rizvi Traverse and Playboy. He’s both CEO of Playboy and was previously Managing Partner at Rizvi Traverse. Ben seems to be the voice of the Playboy-Rizvi partnership, which makes sense with Suhail’s privacy concerns. Kohn said this:
“Today is a very big day for all of us at Playboy and for all our partners globally. I stepped into the CEO role at Playboy in 2017 because I saw the biggest opportunity of my career. Playboy is a brand and platform that could not be replicated today. It has massive global reach, with more than $3B of global consumer spend and products sold in over 180 countries. Our mission – to create a culture where all people can pursue pleasure – is rooted in our 67-year history and creates a clear focus for our business and role we play in people’s lives, providing them with the products, services and experiences that create a lifestyle of pleasure. We are taking this step into the public markets because the committed capital will enable us to accelerate our product development and go-to-market strategies and to more rapidly build our direct to consumer capabilities,” said Ben Kohn, CEO of Playboy.
“Playboy today is a highly profitable commerce business with a total addressable market projected in the trillions of dollars,” Mr. Kohn continued, “We are actively selling into the Sexual Wellness consumer category, projected to be approximately $400 billion in size by 2024, where our recently launched intimacy products have rolled out to more than 10,000 stores at major US retailers in the United States. Combined with our owned & operated ecommerce Sexual Wellness initiatives, the category will contribute more than 40% of our revenue this year. In our Apparel and Beauty categories, our collaborations with high-end fashion brands including Missguided and PacSun are projected to achieve over $50M in retail sales across the US and UK this year, our leading men’s apparel lines in China expanded to nearly 2500 brick and mortar stores and almost 1000 digital stores, and our new men’s and women’s fragrance line recently launched in Europe. In Gaming, our casino-style digital gaming products with Scientific Games and Microgaming continue to see significant global growth. Our product strategy is informed by years of consumer data as we actively expand from a purely licensing model into owning and operating key high-growth product lines focused on driving profitability and consumer lifetime value. We are thrilled about the future of Playboy. Our foundation has been set to drive further growth and margin, and with the committed capital from this transaction and our more than $180M in NOLs, we will take advantage of the opportunity in front of us, building to our goal of $100M of adjusted EBITDA in 2025.”
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201001005404/en/Playboy-to-Become-a-Public-Company
Also, according to their Form 4s, “Big” Dong Liu and “lil” Suying Liu just loaded up with shares last week. These guys are brothers and seem like the Chinese market connection. They are only 32 & 35 years old. I don’t even know what that means, but it's provocative.
https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1832415.htm
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mountain-crest-acquisition-corp-ii-002600994.html
Y’all like that China money?
“Mr. Liu has been the Chief Financial Officer of Dongguan Zhishang Photoelectric Technology Co., Ltd., a regional designer, manufacturer and distributor of LED lights serving commercial customers throughout Southern China since November 2016, at which time he led a syndicate of investments into the firm. Mr. Liu has since overseen the financials of Dongguan Zhishang as well as provided strategic guidance to its board of directors, advising on operational efficiency and cash flow performance. From March 2010 to October 2016, Mr. Liu was the Head of Finance at Feidiao Electrical Group Co., Ltd., a leading Chinese manufacturer of electrical outlets headquartered in Shanghai and with businesses in the greater China region as well as Europe.”
Dr. Suying Liu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Mountain Crest Acquisition Corp., commented, “Playboy is a unique and compelling investment opportunity, with one of the world’s largest and most recognized brands, its proven consumer affinity and spend, and its enormous future growth potential in its four product segments and new and existing geographic regions. I am thrilled to be partnering with Ben and his exceptional team to bring his vision to fruition.”
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201001005404/en/Playboy-to-Become-a-Public-Company
These guys are good. They have a proven track record of success across multiple industries. Connections and money run deep with all of these guys. I don’t think they’re in the game to lose.
I was going to write a couple more paragraphs about why you should have a look at this but really the best thing you can do is read this SEC filing from a couple days ago. It explains the situation in far better detail. Specifically, look to page 137 and read through their strategy. Also, look at their ownership percentages and compensation plans including the stock options and their prices. The financials look great, revenue is up 90% Q3, and it looks like a bright future.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921005986/tm2034213-12_defm14a.htm#tSHCF
I’m hesitant to attach this because his position seems short term, but I’m going to with a warning because he does hit on some good points (two are below his link) and he’s got a sizable position in this thing (500k+ on margin, I think). I don’t know this guy but he did look at the same publicly available info and make roughly the same prediction, albeit without the in depth gambling or cannabis mention. You can also search reddit for ‘MCAC’ and very few relevant results come up and none of them even come close to really looking at this thing.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gOvAd6lebs452hFlWWbxVjQ3VMsjGBkbJeXRwDwIJfM/edit?usp=sharing
“Also, before you people start making claims that Playboy is a “boomer” company, STOP RIGHT THERE. This is not a good argument. Simply put. The only thing that matters is Playboy’s name recognition, not their archaic business model which doesn’t even exist anymore as they have completely repurposed their business.”
“Imagine not buying $MCAC at a 400M valuation lol. Streetwear department is worth 1B alone imo.”
Considering the ridiculous Chinese growth as a lifestyle brand, he’s not wrong.
Current Cultural Significance and Meme Value: A year ago I wouldn’t have included this section but the events from the last several weeks (even going back to tsla) have proven that a company’s ability to meme and/or gain social network popularity can have an effect. Tik-tok, Snapchat, Twitch, Reddit, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter. They all have Playboy stuff on them. Kids in middle and highschool know what Playboy is but will likely never see or touch one of the magazines in person. They’ll have a Playboy hoodie though. Crazy huh? A lot like GME, PLBY would hugely benefit from meme-value stock interest to drive engagement towards their new business model while also building strategic coffers. This interest may not directly and/or significantly move the stock price but can generate significant interest from larger players who will.
Bull Case: The year is 2025. Playboy is now the world leader pleasure brand. They began by offering Playboy licensed gaming products, including gambling products, direct to consumers through existing names. By 2022, demand has skyrocketed and Playboy has designed and released their own gambling platforms. In 2025, they are also a leading cannabis brand in the United States and Canada with proprietary strains and products geared towards sexual wellness. Cannabis was legalized in the US in 2023 when President Biden got glaucoma but had success with cannabis treatment. He personally pushes for cannabis legalization as he steps out of office after his first term. Playboy has also grown their brand in China and India to multi-billion per year markets. The stock goes up from 11ish to 100ish and everyone makes big gains buying somewhere along the way.
Bear Case: The United States does a complete 180 on marijuana and gambling. President Biden overdoses on marijuana in the Lincoln bedroom when his FDs go tits up and he loses a ton of money in his sports book app after the Fighting Blue Hens narrowly lose the National Championship to Bama. Playboy is unable to expand their cannabis and gambling brands but still does well with their worldwide lifestyle brand. They gain and lose some interest in China and India but the markets are too large to ignore them completely. The stock goes up from 11ish to 13ish and everyone makes 15-20% gains.
TL;DR: Successful technology/e-commerce investment firm took over Playboy to turn it into a porn, online gambling/gaming, sports book, cannabis company, worldwide lifestyle brand that promotes sexual wellness, vetern access, women-ownership, minority-ownership, and “pleasure for all”. Does a successful online team reinventing an antiquated physical copy giant sound familiar? No options yet, shares only for now. $11.38 per share at time of writing. My guess? $20 by the end of February. $50 by EOY. This is not financial advice. I am not qualified to give financial advice. I’m just sayin’ I would personally use a Playboy sports book app while smoking a Playboy strain specific joint and it would be cool if they did that. Do your own research. You’d probably want to start here:
WARNING - POTENTIALLY NSFW - SEXY MODELS AHEAD - no actual nudity though
https://s26.q4cdn.com/895475556/files/doc_presentations/Playboy-Craig-Hallum-Conference-Investor-Presentation-11_17_20-compressed.pdf
Or here:
https://www.mcacquisition.com/investor-relations/default.aspx
Jimmy Chill: “Get into any SPAC at $10 or $11 and you are going to make money.”
STL;DR: Buy MCAC. MCAC > PLBY couple weeks. Rocketship. Moon.
Position: 5000 shares. I will buy short, medium, and long-dated calls once available.

As we continue the month of Banuary with our focus on bands with the letter B, we’ve come to a biggie. So big. Very very big. Like, so big they are like BIG, with a bang, and a capital B-I-G.
Not small.
BIG.
So big are they that we are going to do our first-ever two week focus on one band. This is especially timely right now, because their last-ever concert was on January 30th, 52 years ago.
For the purposes of these write ups, we are splitting their music into the Red Album and the Blue Album.
If you get it, you get it.
This week we will focus on their formation and their first seven studio albums: Please Please Me, With the Beatles, A Hard Day’s Night, Beatles for Sale, Help, Rubber Soul and Revolver.
Next week will be all about when their music gets all concept-y and experimental, and we will then focus on Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles (which most people call the White Album), Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road and Let It Be, as well as the dissolution of perhaps the most important band in Rock history.
So there you go. The next two weeks are all about a little known underground band from Liverpool called THE BEATLES.
About Them
You may be a fan. You may not. But you have definitely heard of the four lads from Liverpool who revolutionized music in the 1960’s.
Paul McCartney was born in Liverpool in 1942. At age 12, while attending grammar school, he met George Harrison. The two connected immediately. Harrison was a year younger than McCartney (which can be huge when you are kids) but the friendship was an immediate and life long one.
Though McCartney was encouraged to take piano lessons and was given a trumpet as a child, he preferred to learn music by ear. He was in a church choir as a youth. But it was not until he started listening to Rock music that anything stuck. At age 14, feeling inspired, he traded the trumpet for an acoustic guitar.
He sucked at it. Things just did not feel natural.
One day, walking home, he saw an advertisement for a concert by Slim Whitman. He noticed that in the picture, Whitman was playing left handed. After a proverbial light bulb moment, he went home and re-strung his guitar to be just like Whitman. Reversing the instrument was the ticket. He quickly learned to play and began to compose. At age 15, he had already written the melody to When I’m Sixty-Four.
John Lennon was born in 1940, making him two years older than McCartney. His middle name, Winston, was after the famous Winston Churchill. Lennon, who notoriously became a terrible father and husband, unsurprisingly had awful examples as a child. His father, Alfred Lennon, was in the merchant navy and would be away for up to half a year. During one of these absences, his mother, Julia, got pregnant from an affair with another man. When his dad returned, the parental relationship absolutely disintegrated.
His father wanted to take him out of Britain entirely to go live in New Zealand. After a blowout with his now estranged wife, the elder Lennon took his son to Blackpool to leave England. But mom followed, and confronted the pair. What ensued was a scarring moment where Lennon was forced to choose between his mother and his father. According to accounts, he twice chose to live with his father - but when his mom burst into tears, he changed his mind and stayed with his mom. His father then left and would not see his son again for over 20 years.
John Lennon was five years old at the time.
So, growing up, Lennon’s example of parenting was a shitty one. But nonetheless, he grew deeply attached to his mom, as she was the only constant in his life. On the other hand, he grew into that kid that was a complete shit disturber. Envious of others who had a dad around, and angry that he did not, he became the archetypal rebellious teenager with a chip on his shoulder.
His mom bought him a guitar when he was 16. He started noodling around with it, and found quickly that he had some proficiency with it. That year, 1956, he started his first band, The Quarrymen. This was the band that would later become The Beatles. A 15 year old Paul McCartney joined the band as a rhythm guitarist in 1957, and convinced Lennon to let the even younger George Harrison join later that year.
Unfortunately, Lennon’s mother Julia never saw the success her son would have in music. She was killed when she was hit by a car while she was walking home. So Lennon really did have awful parental examples and tragedy as he grew up: an absentee father who abandoned him, and a cheating mother who loved him but was killed far too young. This broken home would scar him and poison his future relationships. But the immediate reaction to the tragedy of his mother’s death was a deep dive into alcoholism, rage, fighting, and trauma. You know, positive things. Lennon dropped out of the Liverpool College of Art, where he went to school. All he had left was the guitar his mom gave him, the friends in his band, and the ability to maybe make some music.
George Harrison, in contrast, had a terrific, stable upbringing in a loving home.
Jackass. You don’t need to flex on John that hard right now, George.
The youngest of four children, he was a bright student who enjoyed school but was somewhat disappointed in the lack of music education. Like McCartney and Lennon, he got a guitar in 1956 and taught himself to play. Harrison turned out to be by far the best guitarist in the band, and a gifted songwriter.
Unlike the affable McCartney or the rebellious Lennon, Harrison would be called ‘the quiet Beatle’. He would pour all of his energy and emotion into his instrument. Harrison could certainly sing, and in any other band he would have likely been the lead singer - but somehow, instinctively maybe, he knew that Lennon and McCartney were both better singers and both better songwriters. Where someone with more ego would probably have left the band to find a different creative outlet, Harrison looked on this as an opportunity instead to become the best musician in the band. Loyal, creative, industrious and gifted, he was the perfect addition to The Quarrymen.
Stuart Sutcliffe was working as a garbage man when he met John Lennon at the Liverpool College of Art. It was how he paid for his own tuition. Sutcliffe was not really a musician - but he was a talented painter. He remained close with Lennon after Lennon dropped out of school following the death of his mother. Despite not being deeply invested in music, Lennon leaned into Sutcliffe to get him to join The Quarrymen. Sutcliffe managed to sell one of his paintings and used the profits to buy a bass guitar. He and Lennon moved in together in 1960.
Sutcliffe’s playing was rudimentary at best (insert your shot at bass players here). But even by playing 1-4-5 on a chord he was able to add to the sound of the band, and to anchor the rhythm section.
Perhaps Sutcliffe’s most lasting impact on the band - aside from his friendship with Lennon - was his influence on the name. The Quarrymen did not sit well with the young artist. He instead insisted that they rechristen themselves as ‘The Beatals’ as a tribute to Beatal Buddy Holly and the Crickets. The band toyed with this alternate spelling and then instead went with The Silver Beetles, and then The Silver Beatles, finally settling on the spelling we know the best with The Beatles.
The newly named band was only lacking one member: a drum machine.
But it was the 60s, so they had to settle for Pete Best.
Best also grew up in Liverpool, but unlike his bandmates, he was born in Madras, India to British parents. The family left there in 1944 during the WWII in what can only have been the worst possible time to go on a cruise. They settled in Liverpool, where Best grew up. Best’s mother Mona apparently won a bundle of cash on a wild bet at the races and decided to use the money to purchase a large house in Liverpool. The place had previously been the home of a private club, and had a large entertainment space below. Best convinced his mother to open this space and turn it into a club.
The Quarrymen played this venue, called The Casbah Coffee Club, on a number of occasions. Best fell in love with the idea of being a musician. He got his mom to buy him a drum kit and formed his own band. Unsurprisingly, since his family owned the place, they became the house band at The Casbah.
But while Best had his own venue and lots of work, his band was quickly going nowhere and broke up. The Beatles, on the other hand, just got a manager and a ton of road gigs in Hamburg, Germany. They needed a drummer, and they needed one quick. Best gave up a chance to become a teacher to go and drum for the band. Turns out he was the only one in the band that spoke passable German, so he was invaluable.
It was Malcolm Gladwell that famously pointed out (and used The Beatles as an example) that it takes about 10,000 hours to become really, really good at something.
For the next two years or so, the band lived for extended periods of time in Hamburg, making their living playing live music. They became seasoned performers and musicians. They were able to hone their craft in small clubs, playing the same venues night after night after night.
During this formative period, Sutcliffe decided that this particular grind was not for him. He tapped out to go to art school in Germany instead.
Yes, there is a German art school joke there. You know it and I know it. But instead of that humor, there is only tragedy. Sutcliffe died in 1962 of a sudden cerebral hemorrhage. Unsurprisingly, the death hit Lennon the hardest. He kept pieces of Sutcliffe’s art in his home until his own untimely passing.
McCartney moved to play bass. The Beatles were now a four piece. They finished their second year in Hamburg and came back home a far more polished and professional group, possessing the kind of credibility only experience can bring. They started playing local gigs, most notably at the famous Cavern Club.
Very soon, the buzz around them was huge. At the Cavern Club, they were seen and ‘discovered’ by a local music writer and record store owner named Brian Epstein. He convinced the band to let him be their manager.
Epstein got the band signed to the EMI record label, and under the tutelage of legendary producer George Martin.
Martin knew - just knew - that The Beatles were lightning in a bottle. But he was just as sure that one of them was simply not as good as the others. Martin had the band in to do a recording session and it was abundantly clear that Best’s drumming style was not going to transfer well to vinyl.
According to one version, Best had learned to play drums as loud as possible at the urging of McCartney and out of necessity in the venues they were playing in Hamburg. Because of this, his style was completely unsuitable for studio work. According to another version, he never really gelled with the band, despite all those concerts in Germany. He would not get the signature haircut. He would not wear the signature outfits of those early days. Either way, Martin told McCartney, Harrison, and Lennon that in order to make a record, they needed to hire a session drummer instead.
After some deliberation among the three, they asked their new manager Brian Epstein to fire Best.
The Beatles were not without a growing fan base in Liverpool. What makes this even more interesting, according to some accounts, is that Best was at the time the most popular Beatle, with tons of young fans. A bitter Best would speculate that this was the real reason behind his dismissal - that Lennon especially could not stand being overshadowed and being less popular than someone else in his own band. The boys themselves would refute this story, and say that even in the beginning, recording music was really at the core of the band - not just performance - and for that reason alone, Best did not cut it.
Either way, Best was out.
So now they needed a drummer. Again.
Richard Starkey was born in Liverpool in 1940. He was an only child. He was raised by overprotective parents who were fixated on his upbringing. Either by coincidence or consequence, young Ritchie was a sickly child. This caused stress in his household. His father did not cope well with this, and simply pulled a Homer Simpson and went on benders lasting several days. Predictably, his parent’s marriage collapsed.
Starkey was 6.
But the divorce of his mom and dad was not the worst thing that happened to the kid at age 6. He had to go into hospital for an appendectomy. The operation went poorly, and he contracted peritonitis and lapsed into a coma which lasted for days. He was bedridden for 12 months during his recovery. He fell behind in school and it took him years to catch up. Just as he did, in 1953, he contracted fucking tuberculosis (for which there was no vaccine at the time) and had to go into isolation in a sanatorium for two years.
Because tuberculosis patients are notoriously incapacitated and weak, part of the treatment for them is constant activity. Starkey joined the hospital band and learned to drum. He fell further and further behind at school, but became a better and better drummer. As he really had nothing else to do, he took to drumming like an octopus to a garden a fish to water. Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison all came to their instruments in a kind of haphazard way and got their 10,000 hours in Hamburg; Starkey literally spent two years drumming before any of them had even touched a fretboard.
He got his own drum kit in 1957, a second hand affair. He joined a couple of local bands and it was here that he took the stage name Ringo Starr. His drum solos were billed as ‘Starr Time’. One of his bands, Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, were given top billing over The Beatles at a show in Germany. Starr met Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Best there. They all shared a Liverpool background and heritage, though Starr’s illnesses had made it impossible for him to have moved in the same circles.
So when The Beatles fired Best and needed a new drummer, Starr was the right man from the right place at the right time. He was asked to quit The Hurricanes and join The Beatles.
In what can only be described as the best decision of his life, Starr agreed.
Starr’s dynamics and feel were perfect for studio sessions. The final piece of the band was in place - the line up was set. George Martin got the band into the studio to record their first single, Love Me Do. They followed that up with Please Please Me.
Both songs were released as singles in Britain and got immediate buzz and airplay. Their label, EMI-Parlophone, knew they had a good thing on their hands and really, really wanted an album. George Martin went to the boys to ask what other material they had. They only really had their current live set. Martin decided to get them into a studio. Please Please Me (1963), their debut album, was recorded in less than 13 hours and was essentially their current live set.
The record was an absolute smash.
Consider the songs on it that are now classics: I Saw Her Standing There. Please Please Me. Love Me Do. Do You Want to Know a Secret. Not to mention the hit cover (and Ferris Bueller dance tune) Twist and Shout.
Very few debut albums have ever been as popular. It immediately went to number one on the British charts. The tour in support sold out at every venue. The band had arrived, and soon demand was high for a follow up.
With the Beatles (1963), their second record, was the first one released in North America. Like its predecessor, it was a mixture of covers and original material. Whether by accident or design, this made the album appealing to both European and North American audiences. The cover of Chuck Berry’s Roll Over Beethoven was a particular hit, was sung by George Harrison, and was a favorite of Lennon and McCartney. It showcased the Rock influence and allowed the kids from Liverpool to put their own spin on a new classic. Add to that the covers of Smokey Robinson’s You Really Got a Hold on Me, Barrett Strong’s Money (That’s What I Want) and The Marvelettes’ Please Mister Postman, and you had instant American appeal.
Of course, not every song was a cover. All My Loving was a Lennon/McCartney tune that hit number one on some international charts. Critics called it “...arguably the best LP-only track the Beatles did before 1964,” and stated that if it had actually been released in America, it would have easily hit #1.
No matter. The follow up to their debut was strong. The songs got amazing airplay. Kids in America loved the band and sang along. There was nothing even close to them in Pop and Rock. The only act that was even a parallel in popularity was Elvis Presley. Famously, Ed Sullivan had the band perform on his late night show. It turned out to be a TV moment bigger than anything before. Fans screamed and lost their minds. Their haircuts were suddenly everywhere. Their musicianship, their good looks and their fresh takes on American tunes meant that they were almost instantly popular.
A Hard Day’s Night (1964) was their first complete album without any covers. It is much more Poppy than the 50’s-inspired Rock records that preceded it. Here, The Beatles captured the hearts of their teenage audience and became international stars. Right from the signature chord that opens the title track on the disc, listeners knew that they were hearing something brand new. The title of the song and album came from a malapropism that Ringo once said, and that everyone picked up on and loved.
Several songs from the album shot to number one on the charts, one right after the other. I Should Have Known Better was a catchy little number that got lots of airplay by being a B-Side to the title track. And I Love Her became that slow song that got played at school dances around the world. And Can’t Buy me Love became one of the biggest songs of the decade.
The Beatles did not just support the album with a tour - there was a film that was part of the package as well. Not only were the Fab Four writing new music, touring and performing - they were “acting” in movies.
So you might have picked up on this, but The Beatles were doing pretty okay. At this point the band were everywhere. The radio. The TV. The cinema. They were on products. You could buy action figures. There were comic books and lunch boxes and wrapping paper and coloring books. This was Beatlemania. The boys from Liverpool were now more than a music group - they were a cultural phenomenon who, in America, led in music what has come to be known as The British Invasion.
Beatles for Sale, their fourth record, came out later in 1964. In contrast to previous releases, the Fab Four appear on the cover looking more sombre. Everyone was waiting for another record. But the band were tired - not just because of the grind of recording, touring and performing, but because what they thought was going to be a modest career in music had absolutely ballooned beyond anyone’s expectations. Lennon and McCartney were an incredibly prolific songwriting team, George Harrison was an incredible songsmith in his own right, and Ringo was the drummer. But the band simply did not have enough new material for an album.
Instead of waiting, they did some covers. Chuck Berry’s Rock and Roll Music was a made-for-radio track that got heavy rotation in the USA. Honey Don’t was a Carl Perkins cover sung by Ringo. Words of Love was a Buddy Holly cover, with the band paying homage to the artist who inspired their name.
Ironically, the two biggest songs from these recording sessions didn’t even make it on the album. I Feel Fine became a non-album single. It was recorded during the sessions for Beatles for Sale but did not make the cut. And Eight Days a Week made it onto the European version of the album, but was omitted from the American version. In retrospect, the album seems more like a release to meet the needs of the label to continue to cash in on Beatlemania than a creative project by the Fab Four.
The peak of their run as a group of teen idols - and really the peak of Beatlemania - was 1965’s Help! It was accompanied by the movie of the same name, and was presented as a film soundtrack. The movie was a hit, as was the single of the same name off the album. Notably, only one song on the record was over three minutes in length.
But what was really interesting about this particular release is that even though the songs were short, made-for-radio affairs, the complexity and depth of those songs were unlike anything else that the band had written so far. While the title track was pure bubblegum Pop, and tracks like Ticket to Ride were much the same, Lennon’s You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away most certainly was not. This song was sombre and sad and full of regret, and was either about lost love or the death of his mother, depending on your interpretation.
But even that great song was not the standout on the album.
If The Beatles had never created any other music, Yesterday would still be an incomparable masterpiece of songwriting. This McCartney tune, just over two minutes in length, holds the record for being the most covered song in all of history.
ALL OF HISTORY.
Jesus.
The melody famously came to McCartney in a dream, and he was panicked that it may have belonged to someone else. The song’s working title was ‘scrambled eggs’, and the music came before the lyrics. Just think of singing Yesterday with the working lyrics of ‘scrambled eggs...oh my baby how I love your legs…’ McCartney stitched down the real haunting lyrics, and the band tried to perform the song with their lineup.
It didn’t work.
It wasn’t until producer George Martin suggested recording it with a string quartet that everything clicked with the song. McCartney did the vocals and a true classic was created.
Another important landmark had been reached with Yesterday: the band learned that they could do things in the studio that could transcend what they could perform live. Nowadays, it is no big deal for the studio album to sound different than the live performance, and to have various session players come in to tweak the recordings. In fact, the band had had backing instruments on other songs, but never to this extent. Until the album Help! - and really, until the song Yesterday - The Beatles had been a standard four-piece Pop band cranking out hits. Now they became songwriters who were able to explore ever more complex arrangements and emotions in music.
This transformation of the band from teen idols to actual serious musicians took place largely on the album Rubber Soul, which was released in 1965. It also marks the beginning of their open relationship with recreational drugs, though the influence of those substances on their music is somewhat muted. Retrospectively, it is easy to see that the songs that are on the album are not simply Pop tunes. Day Tripper is not about going for a car ride (It took me soooooo long to find out -- but I found out…) and Norwegian Wood is about an extramarital affair that Lennon was having that went very badly. McCartney would say about the ending of that song that it “...could have meant I lit a fire to keep myself warm, and wasn’t the decor of the house wonderful? But it didn’t, it meant I burned the fucking place down as and act of revenge…” Norwegian Wood was also the first truly popular song to incorporate a sitar.
Simply put, Rubber Soul showed that The Beatles were maturing as artists. Even more, it was clear that the band were thinking about albums as concepts, rather than just a group of catchy songs. Everything on the album was more sophisticated and complex. Nowhere Man and Michelle and Girl and the hauntingly sad In My Life were clear evidence of this.
After a long period of grinding, the band had levelled up.
All of this work peaked with The Beatles’ seventh studio album, Revolver, which was released in 1966. Seven albums in four years. For perspective, QotSA have only released seven studio albums in almost 23 years as a band, and August 2021 will mark 4 years since the release of Villains.
Revolver saw the boys from Liverpool mature as artists and begin to truly experiment with music. It is considered by many to be the band’s greatest album, surpassing even Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. To many, it is a capstone to their career and their artistic high water mark. In 2004, one critic went so far as to say that this was the “...best album the Beatles ever made, which means the best album by anybody.”
This would also be the last album that they toured behind.
What is clearly different on Revolver is the band’s liberal use of imagination tablets LSD. I mean, just think of the concept behind the Ringo Starr song Yellow Submarine. Hey boys, if that song is not influenced by acid, then no song is. And if you watched the cartoon movie (which I personally believe set animation back by about 20 years and did not come out until 1968) you know I am correct. Revolver opened the doors of music for Psychedelic Rock and for the use of drugs to influence the creative process. Not that using drugs was particularly new; but now going out and getting high to create music was an open and acknowledged practice.
Hmm. I wonder if any bands ever went out into the desert and did something similar.
Anyways, catchy tracks like Taxman (which was the first beatles song with political undertones ) and Good Day Sunshine and Got to Get You Into My Life make the album a true Lennon/McCartney classic, but it is the haunting gut-punch of [Eleanor Rigby] that presaged all of the sadness and loneliness that bands like Radiohead are still doing today.
Revolver was a masterpiece. The challenge was to follow that album up.
And that’s when things got really interesting.
Links to QOTSA
Josh Homme and Sir Paul McCartney both worked on the Dave Grohl project Sound City.
Apparently, McCartney was almost a member of Them Crooked Vultures - but learned from Dave Grohl that John Paul Jones already had the gig.
McCartney also went out of his way to play a show out in the desert for Josh and 300 fans. Imagine Sir Paul McCartney performing a show just for you. That is just amazing.
Their Music
Please Please Me
Love Me Do
I Saw Her Standing There
Twist and Shout - The famous Ferris Bueller scene.
All My Loving
A Hard Day’s Night
Can’t Buy Me Love
Eight Days a Week
Help!
You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away
Yesterday
Day Tripper
Norwegian Wood
In My Life
Yellow Submarine
Taxman
Eleanor Rigby
Show Them Some Love
/Beatles - a huge subreddit with over 125,000 members.
/TheBeatles - almost 26,000 members.
Previous Posts
Band of the Week #1-25
The Jimi Hendrix Experience
Black Flag
Alain Johannes
Pixies
Truckfighters
Melvins
Muse
Stone Temple Pilots
Black Sabbath
Baroness
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club
The Black Angels
The Black Keys

If you read the Men's rd 1 write up you can skip the paragraph below and head straight to the writeups. I participate in a picking competition that runs for most of the tournaments on tour and recently u/kuklachert who runs it has set up an automated site to take it to the next level. Check it out if you're interested!
Kukla has taken the time to put together a really great and easy-to-use site to automate his tennis picking competitons. The Australian Open will be the first contest this site is public for, so if you're looking for a fun way to compete against your friends and predict tennis without losing money to shady books, check it out 🐢. Just sign up (totally free to join and compete), join the Australian Open comp, and start picking. The site automatically tracks all your results, and maintains a leaderboard. The chat (runs thru discord) is a great place to hang out while you're watching, and there are even some small cash prizes for the top 3 finishers. If you like picking tennis, or tennis, or cash, or prizes, or turtles, or turtles as prizes, or strawberries, or cookies, or tennis, then this is the site for you <3. Check it out here, and remember since it's new feedback is always welcome
Australian Open Picking Competition
​
Barty Kovinic : Rust is apparently not a thing for Ashleigh Barty. The loveable nugget from Australia took an entire year off from the tour due to Covid concerns, but started off this year as she does most years, by making the finals of the inaugural event. She has looked just as good as she ever was this week, and in the spot where she was likely to stagger against Bouskova (who was playing some excellent tennis in the 2nd and 3rd set) she was able to steady herself despite visible frustration. Although she has a finals left against a peak-form Muguruza, Barty’s fitness has never come into question, and since the WTA plays the 2/3 format, she shouldn’t really struggle with fatigue in the early rounds.
Kovinic has been a really consistent performer in early rounds on tour the past season or so, and she represents a very consistent baseliner who generally beats the players she’s supposed to. Barty just doesn’t give up the easy errors though, and will be sharp following some good matches this week. In Barty’s past as well as Osaka’s and Serena’s is losing sets in early rounds of majors, but here I think she will have ample time to right the ship even if she does go down an early break. Barty in 2.
Gavrilova Sorribes Tormo : This is a tough match for both players. Gavrilova struggled with injury for a while, but despite the lopsided scores against Serena this past week she played well. There are a lot of quality baseliners on the tour so the fact that these two stand out as very consistent is a testament to how hard they work on court. Gavrilova plays a bit more offense, but hasn’t really had a ton of wins. Tormo has won a bunch of matches, but lately is starting to slump a little. Bookmakers have this as a pickem, and I agree. It’s hard to see either player really pulling away here, and so the winner will have to be decided by who plays the big points better. Gavrilova has a slightly better serve, but Tormo makes a ton of noise on every shot and it’s fairly obvious that outlasting her opponent and outworking them is her intent. If Gavrilova loses it’ll be to rust. Simple shots into the net, and offensive opportunities sent long because of Tormo’s defense pressure. If she converts these, she should win as Tormo is unlikely to deviate. Gavrilova in 3.
Krejcikova Zheng : This is one where I disagree with the line as set. Krejcikova has had one of the quietest yet best years of her career. No major buzz, no discussions of her future from announcers, but sets taken off top players and cohesive beatdowns of players for entire matches. There was a match I watched last year against I believe Azarenka where she didn’t miss a shot for an entire set. For her to be only a mild favorite against Zheng I can really only chalk up to these being somewhat unknown talents to the general betting public and to Zheng’s ranking being a touch higher. I expect Krejcikova to continue to improve, and Zheng losing to Begu in 3 last week is understandable, but that was a matchup she had won in the past so her confidence has to be a bit under duress. Krejcikova in 2.
Trevisan Alexandrova : Unstoppable force immovable object type matchup. Trevisan is slated to lose almost every match she plays but she never alters her game. She keeps the ball in play in and is able to convert big unexpected shots on her forehand when you least expect it. The sort of Nadal above the head forehand means it’s tough to tell when she’s going to go down the line. Her attitude is great and her fight is inspiring. Overall though, she’s not currently going to overwhelm too many opponents. Losing to Petkovic isn’t great, as she does give you long stretches of errors at times. Across the net from her now is also Alexandrova, who just hit through Halep the previous week and is on an absolute tear. Alexadrova is always a pretty big favorite in early rounds, and she will be here also even though Trevisan is one of my favorite new competitors. Just making gets and attacking the backhand won’t be enough here for Trevisan. Alexandrova in 2.
Sasnovich Kontaveit : “This is as good a spot for Sasnovich to beat Kontaveit as she’ll likely see on tour.” That was my first thought when I saw this matchup. Kontaveit still has a semifinals to play today against Sakkari, and given how big she hits, fatigue could be a factor. Checking their history though, Sasnovich has won all but one of their contests so I really underrated her chances in the matchup. She even beat her last year at this exact event. I did bit of scoreboard watching this week also and caught Kontaveit having a bit more trouble than she should have with Mattek-Sands. It’s a bit puzzling since Kontaveit has such a dynamic game, but Sasnovich has a good chance to take this. Sasnovich in 3.
Watson Kr. Pliskova : Heather Watson has one of the widest spectrums of play on the WTA. She’s a great server and strings together at least one finals run each year, but in between she loses in straight sets to a number of opponents. Krystina Pliskova on the other hand never really makes the big splash, but wins a lot of matches and is a pretty steady fixture on tour. This is a serving battle and in serving battles the X factor is often who moves better in rallies. Pliskova’s backhand is heavy and she plays a game similar to Delbonis where more effort goes into the shot to try to avoid the ball being redirected, but she’s a bit slow. Watson is actually quite quick for a server, and given her history of notching wins against Pliskova, and the pickem line set by bookmakers, I lean towards her having a good chance to advance here. Watson in 3.
Rogers Jones : Shelbyyyyyyyy! Rogers has really blossomed in the past year and a half, and it’s good to see her finally notching wins on tour. She’s worked hard on her fitness and it’s resulting in greater court coverage. Francesca Jones looked amazing in qualifiers, and was crushing the ball early last week against Podoroska, but it’s clear that at this stage of her career, she needs time and control of rallies to really thrive. Rogers hits a heavy ball with a less exaggerated but similar motion to Madison Keys, and the time that she takes away from her opponents will prove to be the difference here. Podoroska punished Jones by redirecting her shots and the extra quality of pace coming back was often the undoing of Jones. I think Jones has a bright future, but she’ll need some help from the draws going forward to rise up the rankings. Rogers in 2.
Martic Danilovic : I am a big Petra Martic fan, but there is something lacking from her game sometimes. She started slow against Lapko, and never really threatened against Rogers. She should win this match, but Danilovic is a promising player and she’ll make Martic work for it. Her loss last week to Greet Minnen wasn’t a great scoreline, but Danilovic broke serve a few times and Minnen really came into this even sharp. I think this goes three, and Martic will need to control the tempo of the game in order to win because this is a very tricky spot for her. Martic in 3.
Bencic Davis : Woof. Bencic really has phoned in some performances lately. She’s got the game to win tournaments but really can’t find victories a good portion of the time. A quickish loss to Cirstea doesn’t mean the end of the world since Sorana is playing great tennis, but these are matches Bencic should win. A relative gift here from the draw since Lauren Davis doesn’t really overwhelm anyone, but Bencic will need to appear and compete to make her 2-0 advantage against Davis 3-0. This is a similar matchup to Martic’s where the favorite should find a way to win but the challenger absolutely will if they struggle on offense. Bencic in 3 or it could be a long year.
Strycova Kuznetsova : Strycova lost to Mattek-Sands last week which isn’t a real problem since hardcourt isn’t her best surface and Mattek-Sands presents a unique and frustrating challenge by getting to net so often. Rushing opponents who haven’t really had a ton of matchplay is a decent plan, and it paid off. Coming into this there’s not a lot of reason to think Strycova has anything wrong, but no real reason to think she’ll dominate this matchup either. Kuznetsova started off reeling off games against Brady, but the wind slowed down her ball and she really folded in the second set. Understandable, as Brady is really a top tier opponent, but not the kind of fight that makes me think she’s going to dominate Strycova. I still expect Kuznetsova’s baseline prowess to give her a pretty good chance to win here, but that it will be close since these two know each other so well and are towards the ends of their careers. Kuznetsova in 3.
Zhu Osuigwe : Lin Zhu has not been crushing worlds on tour, but Osuigwe is not quite read for the tour. Her AO qualifying draw was the easiest one offered, but beating Buzarnescu in the finals is still a great win for her. The junior standout is going to be a big question mark in any significant stage on tour, and although her and Zhu have similar quality games at the moment, it is more likely that the junior falters here. Zhu is very consistent and I give her the tiniest edge at the moment. Zhu in 3.
Mertens Fernandez : Mertens is my favorite. This is common knowledge. I don’t believe in elfs. That would be silly. But if I did. And they lived among us. And they were adorable. And they played really skillful tennis. I’m just saying. I’m just saying.
Fernandez really has some tough draws lately, and I hope the talented junior gets more matches that are not so very unwinnable soon. She showed what she can do by beating Sloane Stephens unmercifully last week, but Sloane is just shrugging and picking up checks at this point so I would expect Fernandez to want to play some 50-100 range talent soon. Mertens is a bit too stable from the baseline and will be able to move Fernandez well. Fernandez thrives on being lefty and exposing her opponents movement, but will be at a power disadvantage here. It just seems like barring a very bad day from Mertens, that this is a bit of a bad matchup for Fernendez. Elf in 2.
Ostapenko Muchova : There are elfs and there are dwarfs. Jelena Ostapenko is a cat swatting things off a table. You do not know why she does it and she is not likely to stop. There is something very reassuring about the singular approach Ostapenko takes to tennis, and going for winners every shot has netted her some very big results, but she doesn’t bring the best attitude to the bad times. Muchova plays one of the best rounded games on tour, and I’m a bit surprised that she’s not more of a favorite. Her defending is pretty darn special at times, and I think that Ostapenko will struggle with timing since Muchova can hang with some pretty big hitting. I think Muchova’s conditioning is a bit better also. Muchova in 3.
Cocciaretto Barthel : Cocciaretto is inching up the rankings nicely, and this is a great spot for her. Barthel has some talent, but being off the tour for so long has set her back a bit and it could be a bit longer before she really starts to win matches. This is winnable as Cocciaretto isn’t just going to serve you out, but she’ll have an edge from the baseline and has to know this is a good opportunity to snag ranking points against an unsteady opponent. Cocciaretto in 2-3.
Bogdan Collins : Tough opener for Bogdan, who crushes worlds in qualifers and early rounds, but doesn’t really have the marquee victories next to her name that would make her a good option to win this contest. Collins played extra sharp last week, and had a great 2020. Her serving has sort of improved, and given Serena’s resurgence, splitting sets with her hints that Collins’ peak performance of 2020 is her new level. Bogdan is very good, but not dangerous enough to shut Danielle out of the match. Collins in 2.
Pliskova Paolini : Pliskova matches are the most random events generally. Sometimes she smokes everything without blinking and looks like she’ll win the whole tournament. Sometimes it’s obvious she doesn’t really feel like making a full effort and her opponents get close. I think the moment is what dictates her effort, and she’ll put in enough effort here to beat Paolini. Jasmine has kinda thrived lately on just sticking around in matches, and hopefully Pliskova’s team will make it clear to her that this is a player who believes they can win this match. Pliskova in 2 but if she starts missing this could take 3.
Inglis Kenin : Maddison is a nice player, and it’s great for her to get a chance in a major, but this isn’t a lucky draw at all. Kenin is a frontrunner to go deep in any hardcourt event she enters. Super emphatic walking all day. Kenin in 2.
Kanepi Sevastova : Kaia Kanepi was formerly a player who’d go deep in the 3-4 tournaments a year that she showed up to, but in recent years she’d struggled to string wins together. A brilliant run this past week is likely to continue, but she has had some shoulder injuries in the past so she’s a mild question mark in this first round. I expect to see some kinesiology tape on her, and although Sevastova is a frustrating opponent we should see Kanepi able to control the rallies. Kanepi in 2.
McHale Podoroska : Christina McHale is a good baseliner. I feel like sometimes I say everyone is that when they’re just kinda generic. The truth is none of these players are generic. Tennis is ridiculously difficult and there just aren’t a myriad number of ways to play it and win unless you’re incredibly talented or physically gifted. Everything looks like pushing when you don’t have an edge in ballstriking. Pushing won’t work here though. Podoroska looked lost on hardcourt a few months ago. She even looked to be struggling early against Jones. She looked like she was outclassed at times against Kvitova. She continues to improve though and she has a great mind for tennis. This is a straightforward match and if she isn’t pressured Podoroska moves the ball too well to lose this. Podoroska in 2.
Vekic Wang : Donna Vekic just hasn’t won matches. She has a great game and looks like she’s a threat to win the event for a set, and then she just finds herself a bit behind the pace and loses. It has to be a mental struggle to really believe she’s going to turn it around at this point, and add in that here she’s expected to win but was beaten by Wang in their only previous meeting in Acapulco. How much tennis are we really playing at an event in Acapulco? I’m not quite sure. I do know that Vekic took a set off Pironkova last week, and she’ll have ample chances to employ her offense against Wang. This is a must-win for Vekic, and I think she’ll shrug off her struggles here. Vekic in 3.
Brady Bolsova Zadoinov : Brady is a fudge brownie in a world of regular brownies. There is something so pure about the way Ernie and Bert’s human cousin approaches tennis. It is a ton of fun to watch her forehand flutter through the air, and her backhand was never great but she has made great improvements to the length she gets on it and minimizing the slice habit has been great for her results. Bolsova had a couple nice wins recently to get her back on track on tour but this is relatively unwinnable. Windy conditions are really the only thing that’s going to throw people off this week in Australia and the wind honestly benefits players like Brady who can put a lot of shape/junk on the ball. Brady in 2.
Brengle Rodionova : Brengle seems like she’s a pretty big favorite here. Rodionova is benefitting a bit from wildcards at this point in her career, and she isn’t really a big threat to beat most of the top 100. Brengle in 2.
Sherif Pacquet : Mayar Sherif is a new name but she really is an effective winner. Her best attribute is durability so far. She extends rallies and hustles and hits a solid ball which is enough against lower tier opponents. As she gets more comfortable on tour I’m sure we’ll see more of her offense, but her plan A is best against this particular opponent. Chloe Paquet has one of the best T serves on tour, and goes for it almost every time. It’s a simple motion, and it nets a lot of cheap points since she serve and volleys often. Her marathon match with Destanee Aiava though illustrated that a good defender can make things very tense. I don’t consider Sherif such a big favorite as the -300 line she’s offered at, but given she’s a good bit better than Aiava at a similar strategy so she is likely to find the finish line here. Pacquet is great, but it’s really difficult to win matches when you have to earn every point, and she will here. Sherif in 3.
Konta Juvan : Jo Konta is a tricky one to predict. She sometimes looks very solid but struggles in extended rallies with errors. Begu was in good form so her losing there isn’t a problem, but there isn’t much to take away from her win against Pera. Pera was double-faulting at a really nonstop rate, and when that’s going on players beat themselves. Kaja Juvan is a tough test here, and she’s already snagged some good names and faces on tour. Coming through qualifying at the AO and also almost snagging Swiatek last week are good steps, but beating Konta may be a cut above what she’s accomplished so far. I expect Juvan to win a set, but maybe not the match. Konta in 3.
Azarenka Pegula : This doesn’t seem fair. Azarenka was the best player in 2020 for my money but that run has to cool off a bit. Her win against Putintseva shows she’s still focused, but her withdrawal to Kontaveit lends a bit of mystery to her quality heading into this match. Pegula had a decent week almost defeating Kenin, and this will be a good quality affair since Pegula really has good energy at the baseline and a solid forehand. I think she’ll struggle to find points though if Azarenka is full strength as Vika’s defending and counterpunching is a big strength of hers. Azarenka in 2.
Aiava Stosur : Couple wildcards playing in the first round. Destanee Aiava is clearly very talented and has great defending. She extends points well and her serve is passable. I’m not really sure how much tennis training she’s doing though as she’s a tiny tiny tiny small very minimal little bit heavier than she might want to be to really compete. She’s still young and there’s no reason she has to be completely committed to tennis or train her brains out anyway, just an area I think could make a match like this a clear victory rather than a “well she should win”. Sam Stosur hasn’t really played much winning tennis the past few seasons. She’s basically retired but still enjoying the sport the way I see it. Still has a great serve, a fast forehand, and can compete a bit but I don’t really see her fistpumping and getting too excited over it. This is one where Aiava’s war with Pacquet means she is able to outlast an offensive talent, but where Stosur’s experience may make her a bit more effective with her opportunities than Pacquet. Tough to really decide, and with Azarenka or Pegula waiting in round two, this is one I’m ok getting wrong. Stosur in 2.
Hibino Sharma : Hibino has climbed the rankings nicely again after some tough relatively winless seasons. She hasn’t played since the French which is a puzzle, and she’s sat at a pickem here against Sharma who really hasn’t won a ton of matches but has played some great isolated sets of tennis. Sharma is one of the few players who took a set from Kanepi this past week and since Hibino should be a bit rusty and is generally not an overwhelming talent but more of a counterpuncher this is a good chance for Astra. Sharma in 3.
Sakkari Mladenovic : Maria Sakkari is a top 10 player for the foreseeable future. She works too hard on conditioning to be outlasted, and the more comfortable she gets on tour the fewer errors she makes. Mladenovic is on a bad slide but is too talented to ever really crash off the tour. This is a rough draw, and she’s unlikely to come up with enough offense to beat Sakkari. Sakkarin in 2.
Stephens Putintseva : Sloane Stephens is already retired, and tennis is her retirement home. I don’t begrudge an athlete who’s accomplished so much some time off, and it really makes predicting her matches a bit easier. Sloane has the talent to beat anyone and hits the ball heavy when she’s playing well. She can drag her way through a match playing poorly, but the peak peformances that netted her titles are few and far between at this point.
Putintseva has been winning when she’s supposed to, and is very solid from the baseline. She might play the most error free tennis of anyone on tour in some stretches, and she’ll be able to frustrate Stephens. Putintseva in 2.
Burel Van Uytvanck : Clara Burel is very good, but like most junior standouts much of your future on tour depends on who you draw in the first round. Against a more conservative player or even someone with a smaller offense, Burel is going to have a good shot at winning. She drew Giorgi last week though and showed that while she’s a very talented player, she can’t really counterpunch nonstop during a match. This will be the ask here as well, and as well as Van Uytvanck played last week, the only issue working against her is how quickly she imploded against Muguruza when the ball started coming back.
AVU really plays nonstop offense, and can hit herself out of matches quickly if her opponent gets the ball deep. She’ll have a much easier time holding serve than Burel though, and I think in a tiebreakelate set situation Van Uytvanck’s serving will be a big plus as well as her experience. Burel will at some point be better than AVU, it’s just not quite there yet. Close match, but AVU in 3.
Teichmann Gauff : This is kinda puzzling. These two played first round in last week’s event as well, and Gauff didn’t do anything special but never really seemed like she was in danger. It was a 3 setter, and there were momentum shifts, but it seems like Teichmann has to do an awful lot to win a point and Gauff is able to just defend and eventually overwhelm her opponents. Pushing isn’t my favorite, but it’s hard to say that Teichmann is going to turn that result around in a week. Gauff in the same 3.
Svitolina Bouzkova : There are some really tough first rounds in this section of the draw. Svitolina is always a threat to go on a tear. Her defending is second to none and her forehand is solid when she’s confident. The problem across the net is that Bouzkova brings a similar level of defending, so this is likely to come down to who makes errors when forcing offense. Bouzkova didn’t struggle much to move the ball against Barty, but she played 2 good sets and one bad one. It’ll be a similar issue here. I think she can win a set, but winding up in a third set against Svitolina and having to come up with 6 games of winners is very tough. The upset is possible, but will require a really comprehensive performance. Svitolina in 3.
Andreescu Buzarnescu : A lucky loser spot will get Buzarnescu a nice paycheck. After struggling with some knee injuries, Andreescu finally makes her return to the tour. It’s tough to know what to really expect, but Buzarnescu has struggled to win matches on hardcourt, and it’s likely that Andreescu will have ample chances to win here. It’ll be interesting to see how she’s playing after such an extended break. Andreescu in 2.
Hsieh Pironkova : Hsieh pretty much gave up against Van Uytvanck last week and was having clean winners hit off her serve. She’s a fan favorite, but hasn’t been winning matches. Pironkova on the other hand, has pretty much beaten everyone on tour she’s faced since returning. I think that run continues here. Pironokova in 2.
Flipkens V. Williams : Flipkens wins just when you think she can’t. I think this is one of those spots where she can’t. Venus Williams isn’t going to beat the top half of the tour, but she’s still a pretty adept server and if she doesn’t have to move a lot, she’s a very tough out in early rounds. Flipkens thrives on a slice-heavy game and generally nets most of her wins against overzealous youth. Venus is neither, and should have the ability to win here. I don’t agree with her -318 pricetag, but I think her price is often inflated. Williams in 3.
Wang Errani : There’s always a good chance that Wang gets the job done in straight sets. She really performs well as a favorite, and rarely wins when she isn’t. Here she has a tricky opponent in Errani. Errani wins this matchup on clay, but hardcourt leaves her a bit lacking in big weapons. Wang hits big, but lost to Paolini last week which is a similar caliber of player to Errani. Errani is coming off a qualifying run in the AO, and lost a decider this past week to an in-form Ostapenko. This is a similar opponent and I’d expect a very close match. Wang winning here puts her in good shape since she can defeat Venus in round two, but the upset isn’t out of the question since Wang was able to basically get outlasted last week. Errani in 3.
Voundrousova Peterson : Marketa managed to wake up this past week, and because of that she’s probably going to win this match. She found good length on her forehand, and when she’s in a rhythm she’s very tiring to beat. Peterson has a great ability to get to the 5-5 point in matches, but hasn’t closed them out of late. There’s nothing overpowering in her game and you kinda need that to beat Voundrousova. Voundrousova in 2.
Marino Birrell : Marino did well to qualify for the AO, and playing a wild card ranked in the 700s is a good reward. Since I know Marino is reading this, I’m picking her. Marino in 2.
Tig Cirstea : Tig is one of the toughest fighters on tour. Some might say her attitude on court is, awful. Her play reflects how hard she’s fighting though, and she acknowledged in some interviews that she gets too intense at times. She hasn’t really found her hardcourt game yet, and Cirstea really has in the past few weeks. Tig will make this a long match, but it’s Cirstea’s offense vs Cirstea’s mistakes in this one. Most pro’s win that battle when it’s availalble. Cirstea in 3.
Minnen Kvitova : Tough draw for Minnen who came out firing last week and looks to have a bright future on tour. Kvitova is occasionally caught off guard but she tends to do well in serving battles and this is one. Kvitova in 2.
Muguruza Gasparyan : Muguruza is ballin. As I’m typing this she’s struggling to find easy points against Barty, but this week she has looked at her best. Two opponents have gotten 0 games in a set against her already, and that spells trouble for Gasparyan. Muguruza’s losses on tour are usually hard to watch and she looks tentative while makes tons of simple errors. This tells me that generally the difference in her game is how much training she’s doing and how much tennis she’s playing. For now, it’s a lot of both. Gasparyan is pretty darn good and a lucky loser spot is fair since she really does belong in the main draw, but this is toooooo tough. Muguruza in 2.
Samsonova Badosa : Tough tough first round. Liudmila Samsonova sorta reminds me of Rybakina and Sabalenka. She crushes the ball on both wings, she moves well, but her breakout performances were followed by a bunch of tough draws and losses. I think many players just get a bit solved by the tour, and Samsonova will have to wait a while to really announce herself. This is a good opportunity for her, and Badosa. Badosa is one of the ball-machines currently operating on tour, and really doesn’t give much up once the rally is started. This is a classic offense vs defense matchup, and although I think Samsonova has a higher ceiling, at this point Badosa should get the job done. Badosa in 3.
Diyaz Zidansek : Zarina Diyas is a player that always seems encouraging, but doesn’t win a lot. Her speed is off the charts, but her game is really geared towards that 2017-18 stretch where there weren’t really dominant players offensively and a lot of matches were about outlasting the other player. The shoutout format is really back now, and I think Diyas has to make some adjustments. Zidansek is mostly a clay talent, but she has better options and variety than Diyas. I wonder if anyone is reading this. Diyas beat Zidansek in 2018, but hasn’t really beaten many players since. Zidansek had some nice wins against Brady and Fernandez recently, so I’d lean towards her. Zidansek in 3.
Pera Kerber : Bernarda Pera winds up in a third set pretty much every time she steps on the court, but this past week in the windy conditions her serve left her bigtime. It was frustrating to watch and she never really found the motion against Konta. I don’t expect this to improve during a match against a very offensive returner in Angelique Kerber. Kerber looked sharp on isolated points this week, and I think she’ll be able to break early and often against Pera. Kerber in 2.
Petkovic Jabeur : Petkovic hit through Trevisan which means she’s at the top of her game. The top of her game though, is at the bottom of Jabeur’s. Since Petkovic is such a great athlete, her ballstriking can make this close for a bit, but Jabeur’s serving is top level and even though she plays a bit impatient, she’s likely to close this out even if she gives up an early deficit. Jabeur in 3.
Hibi Schmiedlova : This is a good one. Hibi is on a roll stretching 5 wins in a row to start the season prior to going down to Mertens (no shame there) this week. Schmiedlova has been really solid since coming back to the tour and has pulled a couple upsets most notably besting Azarenka at the Frenchest Open. Schmiedlova is likely to be the bigger hitter here but with both coming in in decent form, this should go down to the wire. Schmiedlova in 3.
Hercog Garcia : I’m not sure why I always think Hercog is going to win, but I do. Part of the equation here is that Caroline Garcia has turned in some of the most random poor performances I’ve ever seen, and Hercog pretty much always plays well even if she doesn’t really have the weapons to beat a top defender. It’s time to stop doubting though. Garcia has won all of the previous meetings between these two, and she played ok last week. Garcia in 2.
Pavlyuchenkova Osaka : Tough first round for Osaka as Pavs isn’t really interesting in what name is across the net, but pretty winnable. Osaka can lose any match, but can win any match also and that tends to be her most frequent result of late. Osaka in 2.
Sabalenka Kuzmova : Sabalenka struggles with strange losses less and less as she matures. I think she’ll add a good number of indoor titles this year, but her outdoor game will take another year or so. Hard to pick against her here though. Sabalenka in 2.
Boulter Kasatkina : Katie Boulter snatched wiiiiiiiiiigs last week. It was really a great run (defeating Kalinskaya and Gauff) and she looked like she might even defeat Osaka. That kind of quality is necessary, as Kasatkina is pretty efficient during the rally. She doesn’t have any clear holes in her game, and generally plays error free. Her only real struggle is with opponents that have power and Boulter doesn’t really crush the ball. Expect long rallies in this and if I’m being honest I’m not sure what to expect for an outcome. Boulter had a much better week, but Kasatkina is way more established. Boulter should probably lose, but Kasatkina has had some very extended struggles in the past on hardcourt. I’m guessing, but Boulter in 3.
Cornet Savinykh : Cornet is likely to have an edge here. She’s been just average in 2021 but is a very good defender and extends rallies in a manner that new players on tour generally struggle with. She’ll likely find errors from Savinykh but admittedly she is a new commodity and I’m mostly going off her results so far. Cornet in 2 but I’ll be watching most of this one to get an idea baout Savinykh’s game.
Li Zhang : Ann Li has basically surprised everyone this week (and by everyone I mean me). I really liked her game last year, and I find that she moves the ball around the court in a very composed manner and makes good decision as to when to get in to net. I didn’t expect her to beat Cirstea though, and I think that lends itself strongly to her beating Zhang here. Zhang received a 1 and 1 beating from Muchova last week and I don’t think she’s going to turn it around her against a surging talent. Li in 2.
Riske Potapova : Alison Riske hasn’t played since last season, and it’s going to be pretty tough to figure out where her level is given how inconsistent she’s played in the past. A lot of errors and a lot of serving struggles are interspersed with rare stretches where she really lands her shots and is able to overwhelm her opponents. I’m not sure if I put Potapova’s results above hers really. Potapova is the type to win 1 round at every event she goes to, but never multiple matches. Rusty inconsistency against consistent underperforming is a tough one to figure out. I lean Potapova in 3.
Bonaventure Babos : Ysaline is a fine player, but appears on tour a bit less than is really necessary to get up the rankings. This is a good chance in terms of name of opponent, as Babos has had some bad seasons, but not in terms of timing, since Babos is playing her best and most motivated tennis in the past few weeks. Her qualifying run was impressive, and although she lost to Garcia last week she acquitted herself well. Babos in 3.
Begu Stojanovic : Begu was really the most improved player at this week’s warmup events. I don’t see a reason given her quality of play to think that she won’t play a good level this week as well. Stojanovic was pretty convincing beating Sherif, but Begu is a big step up from a defensive qualifier. Begu in two.
Siegemund Williams : Laura Siegemund has really fought nonstop, and her reward is a pretty comfortable ranking on tour for at least a year. There were times where her knee injuries looking like they’d cancel her permanently, but she really is a joy to watch when she’s playing well. This is bad timing to play Serena Williams though. There isn’t really a good time, but her mobility suffered a bit in her return last season and she seemed a bit vulnerable at times. 2021 is here though, and Serena has shed any extra weight she was carrying, and looks very sharp to start the season. It takes a lot of hard training and dieting to do what she did, and there’s reason to believe that she might be able to get that long-sought after major title this year. Her serving looked excellent this past week, and although she withdrew with a shoulder injury, high profile tennis players injury withdrawals are often more opportunistic than tragic. Williams in 2.
Swiatek Rus : Iga Swiatek isn’t really confident on hardcourt yet. A lot of junior standouts get their first real results on clay, and she’s no different. Her talent though is something that won’t really be held back for too much longer. At this point it’s a question of when, not if. Swiatek in 2.
Shvedova Giorgi : Nice to see Yaraslava back on tour,but this is a pretty tough first round. Giorgi is playing pretty well, and should take advantage of Shvedova’s rust. Giorgi in 2.
Ferro Siniakova : Popcorn time. Fiona Ferro’s hardcourt results are night and day from her clay results. During her match with Rogers last week, she basically figured out hardcourt tennis within the match, but couldn’t really stick to the plan. I would expect her team to work on that, and I think that given Siniakova’s streaky play, that Ferro will have a chance to start winning on hc here. On the other side of the fence, Siniakova has lost some matches, but has competed and won against a much higher tier of player than Ferro. She has to sit as a slight favorite, and the question here is similar to Swiatek; when will Ferro put the puzzle pieces together. I expect it to happen in this match. Ferro in 3.
Zvonareva Rybakina : This is a brilliant matchup but unfortunate for whoever loses. Zvonareva served better than she has in a while last week, and her baseline game is always very accomplished. Rybakina is really good enough to win a major already, and the real trouble is just getting through these difficult early rounds. I guess that’s a problem for everyone, but a peaking Zvonareva is a difficult test. Rybakina has to sit as a favorite, but if she starts slowly she’ll lose this match. Still, Rybakina has the talent to withstand Zvonareva’s onslaught and her serving is just as good. Rybakina in 3.
Kudermetova Kostyuk : Kudermetova has a big edge coming into this, having just defeated Kostyuk at the event in Abu Dhabi. Kostyuk has been garnering some very high prices, and is expected to really have an impact on tour soon. The trouble came for her last week with the windy conditions in Melbourne. She’s a very clean ballstriker and needs to be able to commit to her swings. This is an exceptionally tough match to call, and the match in Abu Dhabi was decided by a single break. I think Kostyuk can turn this around, but her performance against Brady wasn’t very inspiring. Someone in 3.
Gracheva Blinkova : Blinkova’s been struggling to notch wins, and Gracheva won their previous meeting. This is another very tight contest, but it’s hard to say that Gracheva doesn’t have a small edge here. Gracheva in 3.
Doi Tomljanovic : Misaki really isn’t the most dominant player but she presents a very difficult test if her opponent lacks power. Ajla Tomljanovic is a great talent but hasn’t really taken the next step on tour. It’s easy to think that her tough results on tour mean she’ll never get there, but she does play some tight matches against most opponents. I think she’ll get a boost from playing at home here, and while Doi is good for a few breaks of serve against most players, Ajla will really just need to keep errors to a minimum to get across the finish line here. Tomljanovic in 3.
Cabrera Halep : Cabrera is a good talent, but I am quite sleepy at this point, so Halep in 2.