From the Desk of the Poker Philosopher

This weekend I'm taking a two debaters from Boston to the J. B. Fuqua Urban Debate League Celebration in Atlanta. The two debaters, Charles and Peter, are a great team. Charles is a hefty black man, smart but reserved, very friendly and with a charming sense of humor once he warms to you. Peter is a spunky little Chinese kid who looks younger than he is. He's generally outgoing and confident, quick to give you his opinion, firmly but innocently stated, in a rapid, clipped manner of speech.

Coming with us is Mandy, a sophomore at Tufts University and volunteer coach at the Josiah Quincy Upper School where Charles and Peter debate. She's sweet and smart, once you get past her occasional moments of blondness.

JQUS' other coach, Noah, picked me up from my apartment and then swung by JQUS to grab the kids when they got out of school. We headed straight to the airport and hopped in a quite long AirTran security line. It was at this point that Peter removed from his carry-on luggage the small, clear plastic container in which he'd placed his travel-sized liquids. Among the shampoo and toothpaste were several needles. "What are those?" I asked.

"Oh, I'm allergic to peanuts." Wow, good to know, since I'm about to be responsible for you for three days. Peter had never flown before, in fact never been more than one state beyond Massachusetts, so he was excited but nervous. I walked him through the process of organizing his luggage for security, unable to shake the feeling that this was the exposition to some sort of narrative, and that I'd soon be experience rising action, a climax, etc. I remembered the advice of a playwright who visited my high school creative writing class: "If you hang a gun on the wall in the first act, you've got fire it in third." If you give a kid a peanut allergy....

Once we're through security, it dawns on me that airlines often serve peanuts. Peter looked me in the eye and swore up and down that only eating peanuts would trigger an allergic reaction and that it wouldn't bother him if they were just served on the airplance.

This proved true. I fell asleep during takeoff, woke up about half an hour into the flight, and worked a bit on my laptop until the battery gave out. The flight was about as smooth as you could ask for, and Peter seemed to enjoy it, looking out the window whenever cloud cover broke to admire the view.

We landed without incident and met the folk from the Rhode Island Debate League, who had also been on our flight, at the baggage claim. Our hosts in Atlanta had sent me an e-mail about a shuttle service that would bring us to the airport, but Will, the director of the Rhode Island league, did not have his information with him, so I suggested he follow us and just hop on our shuttle, if possible.

As I attempted to lead my growing pack of ducklings to the shuttle area, I saw another familiar face: David Wiltz, director of the Los Angeles Debate League. I've worked with David for several short but intense periods of time during summer debate camps, and he's one of my favorite people in the world. He's kind, laid-back, and incredibly genuine, a great teacher and role model for the kids with whom he works.

David's a grown man with a lovely wife and a brilliant little girl, but he's still very genuinely in touch with West Coast hip hop style. He's explicitly told me that, as a black man, he wants to show his students that people who look, dress, and talk like them can get married, start families, and hold 'respectable' jobs as well as anyone. It's a great philosophy and one that I've seen work well in action: the LAUDL has attracted the most diverse pool of students I've seen in any UDL, drawing in All-American football players and LA gangsters alike.

Responsibility and preparedness, however, and not David's strong suits. "Andrew, you know how we're supposed to get to the hotel?" Aaaaaaaah, how do you people just show up in a foreign airport with high school students and no plan for how you will get to your hotel? He and his debaters join the pack, and together we find our shuttle. The driver won't take more than ten, so the Rhode Island crew ends up waiting for the next one while the rest of us get to the Marriot Courtyard and check in.

My college debate partner, still one of my best friends, currently lives in Atlanta but is about to move to Tanzania. I'm excited to see her one last time, and she's excited to meet some people from this Boston Debate League I'm always talking about. After we get settled, Emily swings by to pick up Mandy, Charles, Peter, and me and take us out to dinner. Looking for something cheap and quick, we settle on the Steak and Shake.

Peter has mentioned that he's never heard a southern accent before, and our waitress provides a great introduction. She's the picture of southern hospitality, a middle aged woman with hair as wide as her smile.

Peter orders a hamburger, fries, and a chocolate milkshake- no peanuts there, right?

The waitress returns and compliments us all on clearing our plates. "Everyone's hungry tonight, no leftovers for the dog," she tells us. "My husband keeps saying, 'save something for Butchie, save something for Butchie.' I told him, 'You're the cook, make a mistake or something!'" With a deep laugh, she drops off of her check and scurries off to a bus a nearby table.

"You don't look so good," Charles tells Peter. It's true: Peter looks like he's going to be sick and is swaying a bit on his chair.

"I'm going to go to the bathroom," he announces.

"This kid. You know what he told me at the airport today? He's got a peanut allergy. Good to know, right?"

"Andrew, he might be having a reaction now," Emily tells me in a serious tone that has me worried immediately.

"He didn't eat any peanuts."

"I don't know, maybe the fries were made with peanut oil or something? He doesn't look good."

Peter emerges from the bathroom, looking worse. His face is kind of swollen, and he's still staggering.

"What's the matter, Peter?"

"Nothing. Just a little disagreement with what I ate." He starts darting his tongue about his mouth, like a dog who's just been fed a spoonful of peanut butter.

"Peter, you alright?"

"My throat just feels a little tight. Like, my- what's the dangly thing? Uvula?"

"Is this what happens with your peanut allergy."

"Um, I don't really know," he says dismissively. "I should just drink some water." He quickly downs a glass.

"We should get you home."

"I'll pay the check." Emily grabs the slip of paper and takes it up to the register, refusing to take any cash from me.

We get Peter back to his hotel room, and he's still not looking or feeling well. "What are we supposed to do, Peter, if this is an allergic reaction?"

"Uhm, I don't really know. It usually passes." He says this like it's no big deal at all that he doesn't know what to do, but I sure as hell don't, and someone should.

"When are you supposed to take your epipen shot?" My familiarity with this kind of thing is limited to the scene from Pulp Fiction where Uma Thurman overdoses on heroin and John Travolta has to jolt her awake with a shot of adrenaline to the heart. In other words, my perception of needles administered by non-professionals is that they are a drastic, emergency measure only.

Peter's clueless, who can I call? Of course! His mother. It's well after midnight now, and I'm afraid she won't answer a call from my unrecognized number, and would be freaked out anyway if I started telling her her son was having an allergic reaction. Peter was born in the US and speaks with English without any accent, but for all I know his mother might speak Mandarin exclusively.

So I instruct Peter to call her. He explains the situation in the same lackadaisical way he's been talking to me. It doesn't sound like she knows any more than he does. I meant to ask to speak to her, but he hung up too quickly.

Almost immediately after setting down the phone, Peter rushes into the bathroom and vomits loudly and repeatedly. I'm paralyzed with worry and indecision now. Thankfully some sort of maternal instinct kicks in and Mandy rushes into the bathroom after him to calm him down and clean him up. He rinses out his mouth and tells us he feels better now that it's out of his system, then goes to take a shower.

I'm still not convinced, and Emily keeps telling me that we don't want it to get any worse. Finally I decide I need to talk to his mother myself and call her again from Peter's phone. I introduce myself and tell her immediately that her son is alright, lest she freak out, as I'm sure my mother would be doing in the same situation. She is remarkably calm, and, thankfully, speaks and understand English with near-perfect clarity.

"He just threw up, and his face is looking swollen. He says his throat feels kind of tight, also. I just wanted to speak with you myself and get your opinion on the situation. I'm happy to take him to the hospital if you think that would be appropriate now."

"Hmmm, well his allergist did say we should take him to the hospital next time he shows any symptoms of allergic reaction."

"Then that's what I'm inclined to do."

"OK. Just a moment, I'll get you his insurance information. Oooh, I almost gave him his insurance card, but I thought, 'It's just a few days.'" Yeah. I guess a more responsible chaperone wouldn't have taken a minor across state lines without that information, huh? I reassure her again that he seems fine but I want to be safe and make sure it doesn't get any worse. She's still calm and helpful, and I assure her that I'll have Peter call once we've got anything new to report. After giving her my name and number, I hang up."

"I'll go get directions and the car," Emily says as she walks out of the room.

Peter emerges from the bathroom in shorts and t-shirt, hair dripping. "I spoke with your mom again. You need to get dressed, we're going to take you to the hospital." He doesn't look happy about this, but my tone makes clear that it's not debatable.

"Charles, unless you badly want to come, I think it's best for you to stay here. Mandy, Iwould like you come with me." Both agree, and I leave Chris with Will's phone and room numbers in case he needs anything. I call Will to tell him what's up and ask him to check in on Charles, then Mandy and I take Peter out to the car where Emily is waiting.

The roads are empty and the directions simple, so we find the hospital without incident. I've never been to the ER (actually once as a baby but I obviously don't remember that), but I've heard all kinds of horror stories about how long one might wait with a non-emergency condition. Consequently, I've come prepared with my laptop, notepad, and book. Thankfully, however, the place is empty. We sign in, Peter beelines for the bathroom, and they are calling his name before he's out.

A very friendly nurse takes his vitals and asks about his condition. "What are you allergic to, sweetie?" Though he's a 17-year old junior, Peter's a tiny guy with a baby face that seems to trigger the maternal instincts of every woman he meets.

"Peanuts."

"How long you been allergic to peanuts?"

"Um, a long time I guess."

"Well, how'd you end up with peanuts?" she asks in a half-nagging, half-teasing tone.

We explain the situation. "Do you have any prescriptions?"

"Um, no. I carry epipens."

"Did you take one?"

"I didn't have it with me."

"I have an allergy myself, so I know. You gotta keep 'em with you," she says sternly, then cracks into a guilty smile. "Do I have one on me now? No, but I'm bad. You should keep them on you."

"I know."

"OK, a room just opened up in back, so we should be able to take him in a few minutes. Let us know if he starts to have trouble breathing," she tells me. I thank her and take Peter back to the waiting room where Emily is.

We barely have time to tell her what's happened before a nurse calls Peter's name. Mandy and I both stand up and start to follow. "I can only take on of you."

"Only one?"

She sighs and smiles. "Alright, come on," gesturing to both of us. She's moving quick, so I don't really get a chance to talk to Emily, but I know I don't need to. She's waiting, without a book or anything, for as long as she needs to, and she's not going to leave even if I tell her to. This is such a stark contrast to many of the volunteers and others I work with for the Boston Debate League. There are a lot of people who want to help, but everyone wants to do the fun or interesting stuff rather than the stuff that really needs to get done. Really helping is sitting in a hospital waiting room with nothing to read and no idea of how long you'll be simply because someone needs you to be there at that moment.

A different nurse, also very friendly and gentle, gives Peter a gown and sets him on a bed. She looks him over again, asks a lot of similar questions, and says a doctor will be in soon. The doctor is a middle-aged Asian man with a heavy southern drawl. It's a very strange combination of features, sufficiently so to be distracting even under the circumstances. The nurse returns quickly with a needle and tells Peter, with a bit of an embarassed smile, "I'm going to need to see your bottom."

Blushing, Mandy and I duck out for a minute. When we return, Peter is zipping up his fly and then fidgeting uncomfortably while trying to sit on the bed. "We'll need to give him one more shot, but we've got to get it ready first," the nurse says as he leaves.

Peter needs to go the bathroom, so I follow him and wait just outside. While I'm waiting, I get a call from an unfamiliar 617 number on my cell phone. Figuring it's Peter's mom, I answer and update her on the situation. Her son emerges, and I pass him the phone. While we're talking, the nurse signals to me that she's ready with his shot. I tell Peter.

"Mom, they want to give me epiphedrine [sp?], should I take it?" Um, Peter, I didn't get the impression this was optional. He asks again, and starts explaining something. I ask for the phone back.

"Hello? Yes, this shot wasn't really presented as an optional thing."

"Yes, I thought that was strange, but Peter kept me asking me, like a question."

"Yeah, that's why I took back the phone." She laughs.

"OK, thank you for taking care of him."

"No problem, I'm just glad I got a hold of you." So true. I would have been very uncomfortable taking Peter to the hospital and authorizing shots without his mother's permission.

They give him one more injection and tell us they'll check back in half an hour. If his symptoms have gone away, they'll be able to discharge him. He doesn't look good at the moment: there are hives all over his neck and some on his inner arms as well. Mandy keeps telling him that he looks like hell, which is making him nervous. He starts shivering uncontrollably, but when I ask, he says he isn't cold. I don't want to worry him, but I'm starting to worry myself. Fortunately, the doctor is just outside and happy to check in. "Nervousness is a very common side effect of benadryl. Nothing to worry about."

After twenty minutes, the swelling is down, but apparently not as far as it should have been. They give Peter another shot, and after another twenty minutes, we're good to go. There's Emily in the waiting room, smiling to see Peter walking around and looking better. She's been sitting for like two and a half hours now, what a trooper. She drives us back to the hotel, unable to resist asking whether anyone wants to stop at the Steak and Shake.

Mandy takes Peter upstairs, and I stay outside for a moment to talk to Emily. She's spent summers and even a full year once in Africa, but now she's going indefinitely. We were very close in college, and even though I've only seen her a handful of times since we graduated, it's very strange looking at her now, thanking her for being such a good friend tonight, and thinking that I don't know when I'll see her again.

"I'll be in the DC area Christmastime." Good to know. "Sorry we didn't get to hang out much tonight."

"Well the hospital was fun, too."

"Yeah."

"Good luck in Tanzania."

"Thanks. Good night."

I walk back inside. Mandy's on the hotel phone. I shoot her a quizzical look. "Charles has the deadbolt on their door, and we're trying to wake him up. Peter's calling his cell." Finally Peter answers the phone, meaning he's made it into the room.

I'm about to head up myself when I hear "Brokos?"

"Holy shit, Aaron Davis." Aaron is one of the best debaters I've ever taught. He's also one of the most annoying, because he knows he's one of the best. Don't get me wrong, I love and respect him, but I HATE watching him debate. He's arrogant and patronizing and rude and it's so frustrating because he could be so good but he always tries to win on cheap shots. But I'm thrilled to see him, I really am, and I give him a hug.

I should say that Aaron is a rare breed, a black man who was openly gay at a rough high school. I have to respect that. But he's in college at Pomona now, which seems to have given him license to flame it up. He's got a ball cap pivoted about 130 degrees around his head, t-shirt tied up around his mid-riff, and a hint of a straggly, black goatee decorating his chin.

Apparently Chicago's Payton High School, which is 'urban' in the strict sense of being in a city but not really educationally or financially disadvantaged in the sense that people tend to think of when they hear "urban public school," has hired Aaron to coach their team at this event. Good to see him, but it's 3 AM and I need to get some sleep.

David left the hall light on for me. Awwwwwwwwww.

Labels: boston debate league, personal, trip report, urban debate league

Stumble It!

I attended a pretty interesting meeting yesterday about the UIGEA and strategies for legitimating the game of poker in general. It was an impressive crowd consisting of some prominent lobbyists and lawyers for the gaming industry, Poker Players Alliance president Michael Bolcerek, professional poker players Annie Duke, Howard Lederer, and Andy Bloch, some researchers and statisticians, some experts on gambling addiction, and some other academics from fields such as artificial intelligence, psychiatry, and psychology.

It was obviously kind of random that I ended up being there at all. The meeting was convened and moderated by Charles Nesson, a professor at Harvard Law School. A good friend of mine is a student of Professor Nesson’s and asked if he could share my blog with him. Later that day, I got an invitation to attend. I wasn’t really sure what to expect, but it looked to be an interesting crowd (Senator D’Amato was supposed to attend as well but had to cancel at the last minute), so I decided to come to the morning sessions and go from there.

I got to Harvard’s Faculty Club about 10 minutes early. It was pretty much what you’d expect the faculty club at the nation’s most elite university to look like: hardwood everything, 18th century portraits on the walls, ornate decoration everywhere, posh furniture, etc. Our meeting was in a large room on the second floor, where Annie and Howard were chatting with a small group of people I didn’t recognize.

I played with Annie for about 10 hours on Day 3 of the 2006 WSOP, but she was not feeling well that day and the dealer was between us, so I didn’t know whether she’d remember me or not. I got a cup of coffee and melded into the circle.

Unsure of what to wear, I ended up putting on dark blue cargo pants and a plaid, short sleeved button-down. Everyone else in the room was wearing long sleeves with ties, so I felt a bit under-dressed until Professor Nesson introduced himself to me. He was wearing a dark sports coat over a black t-shirt that read “gay? fine by me” in white lettering.

I liked him immediately, and he graciously introduced me to everyone in the room. He’s an older man, probably in his late 60’s or early 70’s, with a very genuine, grandatherly warmth about him. He also seems to be a razor sharp polymath, well-versed in law, politics, technology, and communications.

I caught the end of an anecdote Annie was telling about a charity poker tournament she was trying to run to raise money for Darfur. As best I could tell, it was to be a $5000 tournament run at Harrah’s at some point during the WSOP, with half of the prize pool going to charity. The Nevada Gaming Commission gave her a hard time about requiring the money to go to charity, however, so their plan now is not to make it mandatory but to call it a charity tournament, stick the winner in front of a camera with an oversized check, and ask on national television, “So how much of your winnings will you be donating?”

Introduction and Welcome

Professor Nesson kicked things off with an anecdote about a previous case of his, the one on which the John Travolta movie “A Civil Action” was based. Although the fines leveled against a two large corporations for dumping carcinogens barely ended up covering the legal fees, the court of public opinion ended up driving the companies to take further action. The point was that poker has a lot of work to do in the court of public opinion if it wants to separate itself from other forms of gambling, and that this work may prove to be as or more important than carving out legal loopholes.

Briefing on the Demands of Specificity in Formulating Useful Database Queries

Professor Jay Kadane, a statistician from Carnegie Mellon University who is currently designing a research project to test the preponderance of skill over chance in poker discussed the limitations of currently existing data and cautioned against overly optimistic predictions of what research such as his could accomplish.

Fears Surrounding Poker

Howard Shaffer and Richard LaBrie, both of Harvard Medical School’s Division on Addictions, took over to say that they actually had done some of the research Jay was asking about, though they hadn’t yet published it. But they have data on nearly 50,000 players on a British internet sports book (ie not poker players) and have studied historical data on gambling addiction.

Basically, 1-2% of the population suffers from clinical gambling dependence, and this number has not really increased with increased access to gambling. This can be compared to the roughly 7% of the population with alcohol dependence.

There are occasional spikes in problem gambling with increased access, but these tend to level off clearly. It seems to be the case that many people lose and quit or in some cases seek help. As Shaffer put it, there seems to be a “rational man model at work among gamblers…. People are more rational than we give them credit for.”

However, gambling dependence is not well-defind. The DSM-IV literally defines it by taking the definition for alcohol dependence and swapping ‘gambling’ for all instances of ‘alcohol.’ Keith Whyte of the National Council on Problem Gambling agreed that this was unfortunate.

Not surprisingly, college students who gamble online (remember this meeting was organized by Harvard University, so there was some interest in the role of a university) are more likely to have low GPA, smoke cigarettes and marijuana, binge drink, have unprotected sex, etc. Yeah, you know who you are.

Colleges and especially high schools do not respond well to gambling problems. Although 80% of colleges have gambling policies, most are overly punitive and broadly ignored. Few schools provide education or treatment programs in the same way that they do for alcohol. High schools are even less prepared to deal with such problems. The activists advocate a response of Prevent, Educate, Treat, Enforce, Research (PETER).

Duke and Lederer argued that online poker sites uniquely have strong financial incentives to prevent problem and underage gamblers from playing, as they often end up eating losses that these individuals can’t cover. Unlike with other forms of gambling, where the players lose their money to the house, poker sites can’t confiscate legitimately won funds and so pay out of pocket when there’s a credit card chargeback or disputed charge, which often happens when kids play with their parents’ cards.

Apparently using technology called Ioration or something like that, which can mark a computer and account used for illegal play in like 15 ways and then block any computer on which a player tries to use that account or any account that’s transferred funds to/from that account, Ultimate Bet was able to get chargebacks down to .4%. By comparison, Party Poker, which has among the weakest protections, sees rates as high as 10%.

The goal eventually is to develop a pattern of behavior that precedes problem gambling and use data kept by sites to intervene before people spiral out of control, but this is a long ways off.

There was some speculation as to whether the predominance of skill in poker increases or decreases the prevalence of problem gambling. Apparently kids are more likely to gamble on games whether they think their skill plays a role, and extent to which they believe themselves skillful correlates to the extent of which they show symptoms of problem gambling. According to Shaffer, “the fact that you [professional players] can step away from the table is one of the few things distinguishing you from a problem gambler.”

Looking over a list of questions about problem gambling, Lederer remarked, “I’ve gambled my last dollar…. Pros do that.” Uhm….

There’s also a need to study the effect of legality on problem gambling, though evidence does suggest that legalizing gambling does lead more people to gamble illegally, where payouts are often better. This is another situation where poker may differ, as legal cardrooms tend to offer fairer games and better rakes relative to illegal ones.

The bottom line from this session that I found most interesting was that any step to legalize or legitimize poker will uniquely result in more people losing money and/or becoming problem gamblers. This isn’t necessarily a reason not to do it, but because it’s a predictable result, it’s something that ought to be planned and accounted for. As a society, we need better means of responding to problem gambling, even in the status quo the government seems much more concerned about prohibiting it than about helping people with problems. In states (Iowa primarily, I think), where there is free access, the number of people who seek treatment is higher, but most insurance plans don’t cover it.

This also suggests current prevalence estimates may be low, as physicians may deliberately diagnose depression or something instead so that insurance will pay for treatment.

Life Skills Derived From Poker

Senator D’Amato was supposed to start this discussion off, but in his absence a Harvard Law student Andrew Woods talked about the two years he played professionally between college and law school and how he felt the game helped him. Then Duke spoke about an Oregon non-profit organization on whose Board she sits that is looking to design poker curricula to teach decision-making to middle schoolers. Some valuable skills learned from poker:

-concept of a sunk cost (as when people stay in bad relationships because they have already invested so much time in them)

-detect when others are lying

-negotiation and positional advantage

-good results don’t mean good decisions and vice versa

-focus on the long term, the goal is always to make good decisions

-patience

-sometimes bad things happen and that’s ok

-being adaptable

-employing a mixed strategy to hide information

-observational skills

-humility

-identify and learn from mistakes

-minimize impact from mistakes, learn to use them for future gain

One downside to poker as is that one tends not to learn win-win conflict resolution and negotiation strategies.

One of the non-poker players at this point asked a killer question: “Is there really proof that the top 100 poker players today have good life skills?” Hahahahahahaha.

Lederer had a good and diplomatic response. His argument is that the top players come from two schools. There are the gamers, who were good at chess, backgammon, bridge, etc. and decided to take on poker, and there are the gamblers, who found the poker tables after a bad night in the pit and stumbled upon good strategies for one or two games. The latter group tend not to have good life skills nor poker skills that are transferrable to more than a few games. The big mixed games are weeding them out, and they will soon be gone, since the next generation of players come heavily from the games sector.

There was some question as to whether poker wasn’t primarily training people to be good liars and if that was really such a good thing. Duke first defended the value of this skill, challenging her interlocutor to “tell me one day you went through life without lying.”

She went on to claim that he was overstating the importance of lying in poker, claiming that often, “I want [my opponents] to know that I’m telling the truth about the strength of my hand.”

Lederer subtly clarified a minute later that his sister meant she wanted to charge her opponents the right price to keep playing against her hand, and that poker is really a pricing game moreso than a lying game. These two really act like siblings, and there were more than a few occasions where one would interrupt the other to disagree or nitpick about something.

Is Poker a Game of Skill?

This was kind of the centerpiece of the meeting, which was a mistake, in my opinion. I was somewhat persuaded that there are some legal strategies that could hinge on proving that skill predominates over chance in poker, but it seems to me that what really needs to be answered is the public policy question of whether the potential harms of poker are worth the freedom and whether they can’t be addressed better under a regulatory scheme. There are plenty of inconsistencies in gambling law now that don’t seem to bother poker’s opponents, and it doesn’t seem to me that they actually care all that much whether or not it’s a game of chance.

Lederer did have an interesting argument to make on this point, however, and the fact that he hinted at it over lunch is what persuaded me to stay for the second half of the day. It’s often been argued that skill predominates over chance in the long run, but he opened the session with a claim that it predominates in a single hand.

Imagine a robot that knows the rules of poker but nothing else. It plays completely without skill, meaning that at any given decision point it is equally likely to bet, raise, or fold without regard to the strength of its hand. Lederer claimed that even a moderately skilled player could beat this robot 96.5% of the time in any given hand. He didn’t demonstrate where this number came from, but I’m assuming it’s the odds that the robot eventually folds if you keep betting, raising, and re-raising.

Poker can be distinguished from other gambling in a variety of ways. For one, most of the betting takes place after players see their cards, unlike in Blackjack or Baccarat. For another, players bet against each other rather than against the house, which means the game is not intrinsically rigged against them. Because poker rooms and sites cannot operate without a large player base, they have financial incentives to offer a fair game and treat their clients well. You can offer blackjack or roulette to a single customer, but if a recreational player signs onto a site and cannot find the game he wants to play, he wont’ be back for an average of six months.

Internet sites are better positioned to handle cheating than brick and mortar card rooms because they have access to players’ hand histories and accounts.

Duke presented some pretty generic arguments about Prohibition, and while I’m not completely unpersuaded by them, I find it kind of intellectually sloppy when people say, “Prohibition of alcohol failed so we should never prohibit anything ever.” Obviously alcohol and poker occupy different places in American culture and society, which is going to influence the results of prohibition.

Professor Nesson tried to direct the discussion towards concrete legal strategies. He suggested a “Ben and Jerry’s strategy” of associating the product with something unrelated but good. In particular, he thought there was a lot of synergy between online poker and the Net Neutrality/Internet Democracy movement.

Dan Walsh, a lobbyist for the Interactive Gaming Council, took over to talk about some recent developments with the Antigua WTO case. Apparently Antigua is allowed to bring retaliatory tariffs against the US since the US in not in compliance with the WTO’s ruling, but they are pushing instead to be allowed to violate TRIPS (an international IPR agreement) to the extent of their damages against the US. This would be bad for the US IPR community and may make them allies in pushing for compliance with the WTO.

Also, the US wants to bring a major IPR case against China, which is basically ignoring the bootlegging of US CD’s and DVD’s. However, the US will have some difficulty winning a big WTO case when it is itself in non-compliance with an earlier ruling.

He also pointed out that although people in general oppose this kind of internet regulation, the perception is that only the far right who strongly support it care enough to vote on it. However, internet poker is most popular among 18-35 year old males, which is a key demographic for both Democrats and Republicans.

Lederer had an interesting theory on why exactly poker is so unpopular with the religious right. Only God is supposed to know the future, so betting on the outcome of a die roll is like playing God. He thinks poker can avoid this contradiction with Christian theology because players don’t really bet on outcomes. In fact, most hands in No Limit Texas Hold ‘Em never go to showdown.

I was disappointed that Michael Bolcerek contributed virtually nothing to this conversation. In fact, while Andrew Bradt, an expert on declaratory relief, was speaking to the possibility of pursuing this strategy at the state level, Michael left the room to take a phone call.

The idea here was that many state statutes and/or constitutions outlaw games where chance predominates over skill. Different state courts have interpreted this in different ways, some even saying that the presence of any randomizing element such as dice or cards automatically disqualifies even a game like backgammon. But that’s the beauty of the strategy: there are fifty states and so fifty chances to get a favorable ruling. I’m not sure the exact implications of this in the short term, but as part of a larger strategy, state and even federal courts tend to look to the courts of other states when issuing their own rulings. Hand-picking the right forum (possibly Massachusetts) and plaintiff gives the trial lawyers a lot of control over the process.

We had a reception after the meeting, but that was not explicitly ‘on the record’ as the day’s sessions had been, so I’m going to stop here. I will say, however, that I spoke with Annie for a while before leaving, and she did in fact remember playing with me at the WSOP. In particular, she remembered the pot where she raised AK UTG and I flat called her with KK only to lose a good-sized pot on an Ace-high board. "You were one of the better players at the table. There were some real maniacs."

"So it's not saying very much that he was one of the best?" Howard chimed in.

Annie laughed. "No no, I was like 'Oh shit' when you called me, because you'd been playing pretty solid." The story quickly turned into an explanation of how well she played her AK. Still, I guess it was cool that she remembered me well, and certainly cool getting to hang out with her, Lederer, Bloch, and a bunch of really smart, dedicated people who shared my goal of legitimizing the game of poker. Howard Lederer in particular comes across as just one of the smartest guys you could imagine. Pretty much every time he opened his mouth, something really insightful and well articulated came out. It's great to have guys like him on our side.

Related Links

Meeting Wiki

Charles Nesson's blog post about the meeting

Andy Bloch's blog post about the meeting

Labels: personal, poker, trip report

Stumble It!

I got a note today from a young woman I first met last summer while teaching at a debate camp for the Los Angeles and Southern California Urban Debate Leagues. She was one of the smartest, nicest, and most mature teenagers I've had the pleasure to work with, and she's kept me updated throughout her college application process. I just now got this note from her announcing that she'll be attending UMass Amherst in the fall.

This is good news for me because she's already told me she'd like to volunteer with the Boston Debate League. As I've said before, alumni of any urban debate league are worth their weight in gold because of their dedication to the activity, their ability to connect with our students, and their experience with debate in general.

I found her note touching, so I'll share:

"This is a hard note to write, but I figured I might as well tell everyone at the same time. I have decided to go to Amherst. To all my host at all the colleges that I stayed over night at, I would like to say thank you. To all the friends that I made at all these other schools that I visited, I hope that our friendship will not die.To everyone who wants me to stay in California, I will see you in 7 years. To my family all over the world, I love ya'll so much. To the people that I randomly met here and there, you guys are awesome we need to keep in touch. And finally to my class mates and former classmates, who says people form Jordan can't make it out of the ghetto and do something wonderful with their lives. Thanks to everyone one more time and I know that I have made the right decision."

Labels: personal, urban debate league

Stumble It!

We took a break from out usual Wednesday home game to play a $1/$2 game with a $500 buy in at the home of another Harvard Law student named Josh. Only Logan, Darren, and I elected to play, so it was a very deep, very loose and aggressive four-handed game all night. Josh was a super nice guy and a very good host. He bought some badass sea salt and red pepper corn chips that were absolutely amazing.

Although he played higher stakes than the rest of us did, sometimes as high as 10/25 NL at Foxwoods, he was pretty clearly the least experienced player. He wasn't bad by any means, but he was definitely too loose and passive pre-flop and on the flop, and he mishandled a few big river decisions. Because river bets are so large, though, even a few of those mistakes add up quickly.

I started off playing a few orbits very tight and straight-forward, without getting much in the way of even marginally playable hands. The first time I tangled with Josh, he called my button raise from the SB, checked and called an A34 flop, and checked and folded AT face-up on the turn. I showed him 53s for bottom pair and a gut shot, since I didn't intend to bluff him very much. I figured he had a marginal Ace given the pre-flop and flop action, and this is just a great board to double barrel, since it's so hard for an out of position caller to have anything more than a weak top pair.

Unfortunately my shown bluff didn't pay off immediately, as about 15 minutes later I opened for $8 with KK in the SB, Josh re-raised to $24, I made it $75, he called with $250 behind and folded TT face-up to a $75 bet on a 662 flop. I mucked, but he told me he was sure I had a big pair and was just looking to hit his set, which he wasn't nearly deep enough to do.

I actually ended up running a much larger bluff on him before I did any value betting. I don't recall the preflop action exactly, but three or four of us saw a 9c 8c 6c flop with me holding Qc Td out of position. Josh was in there right behind me, and I figured he was going to call a very wide range if I led out, so I checked my overcards, gutshot, and 3rd nut flush draw. Josh put out a large bet, which really looked like he was trying to protect some kind of hand. Although fast playing a flush draw here would often be correct, he seemed like he would be a slowplayer, or at least not the sort to pot it with a huge hand. Everyone elsed folded, and I called.

The turn was a harmless 3d, I checked, and he once again put out a big bet (relative to the pot) of $55. I was hoping my call would scare him enough to play for pot control on the turn, and I didn't want to risk getting blown off my draws on the flop, but now that there was only one card to come and I was staring at another big bet, they had lost a lot of value. I raised to $200, essentially turning my hand into a bluff since I didn't intend to call his shove for $300+ more.

"Now you're going to raise me with your draw," he said as I contemplated my bet size. He hemmed and hawed for a bit. "Can I take back $35 and fold?" he asked.

I thought about it. "I think I'm giving up too much. You can take about $25." He frowned as Logan and Darren laughed at our haggling.

"Fine," he finally agreed, taking his $25. I mucked and scooped the pot.

By this time I was falling into my usual rhythm for our games, which involves a lot of open raising. With these deep stacks, my standard preflop open was $8, though I sometimes mixed it up from $6-$10. Anyway, I opened for $8 UTG with 54o (ie the CO, since we were 4-handed) and Josh very blatantly considered folding and then decided to call on his button.

Then Logan raised to $40 out of the SB. I call bullshit. Logan's very capable of squeezing with anything, especially when Josh has already made clear that he doesn't have much. He knows I'm opening a very wide range, so it's a good opportunity for him. Except when re-re-raise him to $120. He clearly didn't believe me either, but elected not to put me to the test for $600 and threw away his hand.

I was the next to attempt a squeeze play, with Js 8s, after Logan opened for $6 and Darren called on the button. Unfortunately Josh in the BB cold called my re-raise to $30, and one of the others came along as well, which was not at all the result I was hoping for. Josh was loose enough pre-flop that I didn't put him on a monster hand with what would usually be the very strong play of calling a re-raise cold.

The flop was Ks Kd 5s, giving me a flush draw. Figuring that of the three of them I was the most likely to have a King, I kept pushing with what was now a semibluff. Josh called my flop bet, but there should be so few K's in his pre-flop range that I felt compelled to fire again. Again, he called, and I missed the river. I still didn't believe he had the K and was ready to bluff my last the $250 at him, but I wanted to see if he would give up any free info first. "How much will give me not to bet?"

He looked flustered. "Look I, I mean I'm priced in, right? There's no way I could fold this. Just don't bet, alright? Here, I'll- I'll tell you that I have trips and I'm not folding, OK."

"Is that binding?"

"Yeah, it's binding. Here, I'll show you." He turned over a King. I mucked. We broke to go get some dinner after this hand, and on the way to The Kebab Factory, Logan tried to explain to Josh why exposing his hand and telling me what he was going to do wasn't the best way to handle a tough river decision, but Josh continued to argue with him. I tuned out.

Josh's table talk was sometimes amusing, though. There was one hand between him and Logan where the board had come out Kc Qc 4s 7c Qc. On the river, Josh announced, "Ugh, I have trips," as he loaded up some chips.

"You don't have any clubs?" Logan asked.

"Nope," Josh frowned.

"You can't bet trips," Logan said kind of frustratedly, as though he felt bad about the foolish bet he was anticipating snapping off.

"Oh yes I can."

"What could I call with?"

"I don't know, you might call with 55 or something."

"What? 55? Why would I do that?"

"Look, I don't know, whatever, this is what I'm betting."

"OK I call," Logan said chidingly, in a 'I warned you' type of voice.

Josh turned over Q4 for a full house, smiled, and raked in the pot.

The next interesting hand, I raised with QT, Josh called, and Darren defended from his BB. I bet $18 on a Th 7c 4c flop, Josh folded, and Darren raised to $65. I called.

The Td turn gave me trips, Darren bet $95, and I raised to $250 with like $400 behind. Darren called and checked the Ac river. Obviously I'm value betting a ton of rivers, but this one didn't feel right. At this point I felt like he had trips also, but JT was about the only thing I beat. I'm not sure why he didn't shove the turn, especially if he had AT, but he's obviously not paying me off with a busted draw either. Finally I decided that if his calling range was KT and JT then a bet was EV-neutral, and the risk that he had rivered a flush or full house dictated a check. He showed JT and I won my biggest pot so far.

Raises and re-raises get so little respect in our game that players are always looking for more creative ways of representing big hands. In one hand, Logan raised to 7 UTG, Darren re-raised to $22 from the Button, and I four-bet them both cold with KQo to $66 from the SB. To my dismay, they both called. However, I got the feeling that Logan was only calling because he knew how strong that call would look and he loves to pull fancy stuff like that. At the point Darren was priced in, so I still wasn't convinced anyone had anything.

The flop came out 689 with two hearts. I checked, and Logan bet $100. I was contemplating a check-raise both because I suspected he was FOS all along and because even if he had a big pair, he knew his line looked like a big pair and he'd have to be worried if I still was interested in the pot. However, Darren shoved all in for like $500, and we both folded. He tabled AKo with no heart, and Logan got angry that his flat call got no respect. "I was raising you if Darren didn't," I told him, just to get under his skin.

A little while later I completed 7d 4d in the SB and saw a 4s 9h Th flop. I decided to pot it from the SB and see what happened. Only Logan called. The turn was the 8h, giving me an open-ended draw and a good hand to represent (I'll often pot the flop with a flush draw). I potted again, for $45, and Logan called. I bet $120 on a blank river, Logan put in a big raise, and I folded quickly. He told me later he had the nuts.

We had already changed seats once, but I still ended up on Josh's right. His constant pre-flop and flop calls made it tough to play my usual aggressive game, and I had been looking for an opportunity to punish him with a turn check-raise. Logan opened for $6 UTG, I called with 6d 8d in the SB, and Josh called in the BB. The flop was a lovely 7d 9d 4c. I led out, hoping to 3-bet, but Josh just called and Logan folded.

The turn, however, was the even lovelier 5d, giving me a straight flush, an unbeatable hand. I checked, Josh bet $30, and I raised to $102. He re-raised to $250, and I announced "all in" as he had less than 250 behind. He started talking, asking what I had, etc. I ignored him and stared stone-faced at the felt. This went on for several minutes before he finally asked me something like, "What are you going to do? You have to fold or go all in, right?"

I stared at him for a second to see if he was just looking for a tell. "I went all in like 5 minutes ago."

"Really? Oh I call." He quickly turned over Kd 6s for a gut shot and a draw to a King-high flush. "Wanna do business?" he offered.

"Sorry, there's no business to do," I informed him, flipping over the stone cold nuts. The tabled ooh'ed and aah'ed at my first live straight flush as I scooped my largest pot of the night.

Towards the end of the night, I opened T9 from the button and Josh called in the SB. Ah, much nicer to play in position against this guy. He led into me on a 6d 8d 6s flop, and I called with my overcards and gut shot. Leads on dry boards like this tend to be pretty weak.

A Qd turn gave me a double gutter and a flush to represent. Josh checked and called, then led out $95 on a blank river. "I put you on a flush draw on the flop, but then it was too good of a card to bluff when you checked the turn. Well played," I told him as I mucked. He showed me 97o for a busted open-ender. Dammit, I should have called!

There were a few other interesting hands, but I'm having trouble remembering/reading my notes, so I'll leave it here. I had a good time, played some interesting hands, and won $554. Can't complain about that.

Labels: poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

Sorry for the recent silence, but I've had a busy few days. On Tuesday, my non-profit organization, the Boston Debate League (BDL), co-hosted a luncheon with the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL). To be brutally honest, the BDL's organizational and institutional capacity is severely underdeveloped right now. That is to say, we've accomplished a lot in terms of bringing schools into the League, teaching kids to debate, hosting competitions, etc., but not nearly enough has been done to raise money, build relations with important institutions like the Boston Public Schools, or establish a sustainable infrastructure. If I were to leave Boston tomorrow, everything would fall apart. Or as the NAUDL's executive director put it, "You've got good programming, very good programming, but you don't have an organization."

The purpose of Tuesday's luncheon was to build that capacity. The NAUDL's staff and Board members have a lot of expertise and experience with this sort of thing, which I do not. Their Board draws heavily on former debaters who went on to business or law school at Harvard University, which means that specifically they are well-connected in the Boston region.

I knew the NAUDL's contribution to the event was going to be substantial, but I was still shocked by just how impressive it was. One of our guests expressed surprise that Harvard Law School was still in session, what with so much of their faculty at our luncheon, including Louis Kaplow, Sonja Starr, and Larry Tribe. For many, he will need no introduction, but for those who don't know, Larry Tribe is one of the most prominent lawyers in the country, having argued before the Supreme Court in such landmark cases as Bowers v. Hardwick (where he challenged the constitutionality of anti-sodomy statutes) and Bush v. Gore.

I knew Larry was going to be there but had never met him before and had no idea what he looked like. We were expecting more than twenty guests, most of whom I had never met, but the moment Larry walked into the room, I knew it was him. He's a small man, somewhat short and fit (though another guest commented that he had lost a good deal of weight, so that may be a recent development), with a tremendous presence about him. Sporting a handsome and well-tailored suit, he really seemed to exude confidence and competence. Tom Wolfe coined the phrase "Masters of the Universe" to refer to brokers and other Wall Street types, but the term leapt to my mind immediately upon shaking Larry's hand.

The esteemed attorney, however, also came across as extraordinarily kind, gracious, and humble. I can only imagine what kind of hourly rate this man pulls down as a consultant, and here he is attending a luncheon for our little organization for the sole purpose of learning how he might able to help us more in the future. It's really unbelievable.

This also demonstrates the potent gravitational pull of the debate world. It's been decades since Mr. Tribe and some of our other guests participated in this activity, but they still remember it fondly and attribute much of their current success to their participation. A commonly echoed sentiment, and one with which I can sympathize, was that, "debate changed the trajectory of my life." I know literally hundreds of people who would agree with this statement, which reminds me of why I'm so committed to expanding access for those who have the most to gain from it.

On that note, I had brought with me two students from the Boston Debate League to speak to our guests about their experiences and how they feel debate has helped them. Both were seniors, young black men in their late teens from low income families. One of them, Charles, is in his third year of debate and was one of the very first students to join the League during our inaugural season. The other, Stephen, is finishing up his first and only year of high school debate (both of these names are pseudonyms).

Looking at them in contrast to the rest of the room, I had to wonder to what extent they felt like a part of this debate fraternity. Nearly everyone in attendance was a former debater, and most were white men of middle age or older. Those who weren't already wealthy were certainly well on their way, with connections to prominent institutions like Harvard University.

I had prepped them ahead of time, and the kids understood their role as both spokespeople for the League and evidence of our accomplishments. The very fact that they were able to speak extemporaneously, coherently, and persuasively to this distinguished audience was proof that we were doing something right, after all.

Charles thanked me afterwards for the opportunity and told me he was honored to have been chosen. Still, I couldn't help but wander what that room looked like to them. Did they see their own futures, debaters who had parlayed a valuable extracurricular activity into prestigious and lucrative careers? Or did they see foreigners, people separated from them by the great gulfs of wealth, money, and power?

And how did I look as I, also a white man who for some reason could afford to volunteer so much time and money (they don't know that I play poker), worked the room, introducing myself to the illuminati and thanking them for their support? Did they see me as a fellow-in-arms, playing the same game they were to try to direct some of this wealth and influence towards their less fortunate peers? Or was I just another white guy glad-handing the good ol' boys as they looked on silently?

Labels: boston debate league, personal, urban debate league

Stumble It!

Ever since I first heard it on the soundtrack to Trainspotting, I've been a huge fan of the Lou Reed song, "Perfect Day." Cameron from 2+2 just sent me this amazing link to a live performance in which Lou Reed sings a duet with a most unlikely partner.
Stumble It!

This isn't really all that interesting of a hand, but I'm supposed to do one from every day I play, so this is from the $500 Sunday tournament that Full Tilt has quarterly or whatever.

We're about two hours into the tournament, which has a very good structure. Blinds are 120/240 with probably some kind of ante. I am dealt Q's in the SB, which is the best hand I've seen all tournament. A very tight player min-raised to 480 UTG+1, and already I wasn't happy with the situation. He had around 8000 chips, which was going to make things very awkward for me. I can't really reraise and then fold to an all in (or maybe I can? as you'll see, the situation grew more complicated), but I'm not in very good shape against his jamming range. If I just call, the blinds may well come in too, and I could end up playing QQ out of position in a 3- or 4-way pot.

Anway, before I could worry too much about this, the CO-1 reraised to 1500. Given that I was already a little suspicious of UTG+1's min-raise, I could maybe have just folded right here. But I decided to call the reraise cold instead, hoping that the strength of this call would freeze the action unless someone had a really big hand. I left about 9000 behind.

Undeterred UTG+1 reraised, but not all in. Super fishy, though I was surely folding even if he jammed. CO-1 jammed over the top, I folded, and they had AA and KK, respectively. My Q hit, but so did the K.

Labels: poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

I ran like ass in everything I played yesterday except the Stars $300, but I ran very well in that and finished 3rd for just under $9000, so it was still a quite good day. I've uploaded the entire hand history from the tournament using Pokerxfactor's hand history replayer. This is an amazing tool for reviewing and analyzing tournament play, and frankly it's the only reason I'm still a PXF member. Their videos are good, but not great, and I feel like you can get most of what you're going to get from Sheets or Bax after watching a few videos from each of them.

Anyway, here's the link to the replay of my 3rd place finish. You don't have to be a member to look at it. I'm including commentary on some key hands here:

Great starting table. No particularly good players whom I recognize, and a few known fish to my immediate right.

16- This is a little passive. Bart is a weak player, and I should have isolated him with position and likely the best hand.

61- I wasn’t really sure what to do here. I’m pretty sure dpeters viewed me as aggressive, and his check-raise sort of felt like a probe to me. However, if it is any kind of made hand, I’m drawing very slim, which is why I decided to let it go.

75- I wonder if I missed a value bet on the river? I thought a while before checking. The problem is not a lot of draws missed, which means his calling range will probably be kind of narrow. I guesshe real question is how often he checks better hands like AQ on the river.

222- I definitely should have open shoved this pre-flop.

273- I’ll sometimes flat call here with weaker hands that I want to run against the short stack so that I can get away if one of the blinds decides to get involved. I felt like since the shorty was going to get his money in anyway I’d try to invite in someone behind me.

287- Whoops. This was a slightly larger pre-flop jam than would be ideal, but as the chipleader, that guy ought to be opening a fairly wide range.

303- Villain’s putting in a good chunk of his stack pre-flop, and even on this safe flop I was kind of worried. I felt like I’d have to call a check-raise on such a dry board, but didn’t want to be in that spot, so I figured I could get more bluffs into his range and avoid playing for stacks with a flop check.

314- We’re on the final table bubble. Stacks are awkward for anyone except the button to jam on me, and since he’s got two left to act behind him, he’ll need a tighter range than the others to shove. Deni claimed he folded Q’s there.

329- I don’t know about this fold. Halfrek is a smart, aggressive player, and I’ve been raising a lot from late position. I think I should have either open limped the button or called this shove.

330- PokerSavage is also a pretty good player, and I’m kind of surprised he was willing to shove so much preflop. Tourney donk syndrome, I suppose.

352- This was a close decision. Ultimately this is a spot where I don’t want to take a close gamble with a healthy stack on the bubble of the final table.

356- I considered shoving preflop to isolate julucas with great pot odds, but moffen was short enough that he shouldn’t fold anything. Frankly I was a little worried he was trapping, since he should really be in push/fold preflop mode. I can’t go anywhere once I flop top pair, though.

357- PokerSavage’s shoves finally get him in trouble, though I would have played this one the same in his shoes.

364- Another close one, given my image and a history of Deni reraising me. In this case, though, I’m UTG and he’s UTG+1, which should tighten his range. Also, I’m chipleader by a good margin with like ten left right now, and I’m not looking to gamble for most of my stack. With 9’s I get it in here.

367- We’re at the final table. Stacks are lined up pretty nicely for me, with the 2nd place guy two to my right. Pabs has a decent stack, position on me, and is kind of loose, which could be a problem. With so many short stacks around, my plan is to slow down until there aren’t so many desperate players looking to shove. Meanwhile I’ll try to snap off their pushes when it’s profitable to do so.

371- Again, I’m hoping one of the shorty’s decides to get involved. I’m in position, and a call is going to suggest a much wider range for me than a reraise would. The board is kind of a draw-heavy, but Halfrek could have a very wide range, so I don’t have to be too concerned about any particular draw. More importantly, it would be very difficult for him to continue past the flop if I raised. I’m hoping he picks up a draw, decides to bluff a scare card on the turn, or puts me on a draw if a blank comes. Oh well.

376- Tempting to reraise here, since I should be way ahead of his range, but I don’t want to set him up to 4-bet me, nor do I want to shove 11x his raise preflop. So I’ll take a flop and see what happens. Nothing for me to represent here. With A high I might peel, but I can afford just to give this one up. I’m only passing chips to my right, so they’ll come back eventually.

392- I thought this was a pretty standard call against a 5x open shove from the shortest stack at the table. However, it seemed to really kill my table image, so I guess no one else thought so.

409- I was hoping I could still pressure Halfrek, since chipleader or not he shouldn’t be looking to play out of position against me. He wasn’t having it, though.

413- I’m almost always giving up postflop against someone who calls off most of his stack preflop, but since players will generally jam Aces preflop in this spot, I thought it was worth stabbing at this flop.

418- I figured pabs for Ace high, and I seriously considered firing at the river. I probably should have, because it’s not that likely that he’s checking any pair here.

421- I’d been dying to resteal from halfrek, and the latest blind jump finally gave us the right stack sizes. This is any two cards.

423- I’m not getting enough respect to open A7 with these stacks.

430- Playing the button aggressively is very important when three handed. This board is so likely to hit pabs, though, and he’s not folding any piece to me, so I’d rather just take a free card for my draw. Oh well. Keeping playing pots out of position with me, buddy, you can’t river a chop every time.

432- This was close given how much pabs has been plying back at me. Once I call the turn, though, I can’t see how he would expect me to fold for half pot on the river.

435- A lot of people sweating me didn’t like this hand, and for good reason. I think I should have called flop and evaluated the turn, maybe check-raised all in. I didn’t expect him to fold any pair, but I didn’t think he needed a pair to raise the flop, especially since I had led at a similarly dry board last orbit and eventually given up.

Labels: poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

I found a kind of interesting article on Card Runners recently by one of their guest pros named Zimba. The piece, entitled "The Myth of the Socially Non Redeeming Activity", disputes not only the claim that poker is actively harmful but also the claim that it is, "inherently unproductive from a social perspective," that is, that it contributes nothing to society. I was expecting to disagree with him, and while that's not exactly how I ended up feeling, I believe this was only because he didn't ultimately prove what he intended to prove. In other words, I agree with what he argues, but I don't think what he argues is really what he was trying to argue.

His central claim is that, "poker is no better or worse than any other activity." I just don't see how this can be true. Although I don't believe poker is really a destructive force, it can't really be compared to professions, such as many of those in the fields of education and medicine, that produce something clearly of use to others and to society as a whole. Of course there are bad teachers and doctors who do more harm than good, but there are also good ones, people whose work make the lives of those around them indisputably better.

The same can't really be said about poker players. Some, such as cheaters or degenerates, are worse than others, but I can't think of a single example of someone who accomplishes something actively good or useful by the very act of playing poker.

Zimba's contention, which doesn't really support his claim that poker is not inherently unproductive, is that what people do with their money and how they behave is what matters. Although Zimba doesn't mention him, Barry Greenstein, a famous poker professional who has donated well over $1 million to charity, seems to be an example of a poker player who has had a clearly beneficial impact on the livers of others. But this wasn't a direct result of his poker playing. He could have made millions in any line of work and donated it to charity.

A doctor, regardless of what he chooses to do with the money he earns, earns his money by doing something useful for someone else. This is crucially different from the professional poker player, who makes his money by passing colored chips back and forth across a table, or in the case of the internet pro, by clicking buttons on his mouse.

I certainly don't mean to discourage any poker players from donating their time and money to worthy causes. Quite the opposite, I would argue that precisely because their work is not inherently productive, they have an obligation to do something useful with their spare time and money.

In the conventional order of things, people do something that needs to be done, in other words they work, and in exchange, they get things that they need or want, in other words they get paid or otherwise compensated for their efforts. Undoubtedly, there is no shortage of useless or even harmful jobs and professions out there. I obviously do not think it is inherently immoral to play poker professionally. But I don't see how one can argue that poker is, in of itself, anything but unproductive.

Thus, poker players, who deviate from the usual 'deal' by getting the things they want and need without doing something that needs to be done, ought to do their part by finding other ways to contribute to society and better the lives of those around them. On this point, I think that Kimba agrees with me, or at least his logic does. He concludes that, "as long as the way you accumlate your wealth is legal, then how you choose to spend it defines your legacy and standing in society."

No argument. But there are people whose very work defines their "legacy and standing in society," to use his phrasing. Poker players are not among them, and nothing in Kimba's article demonstrates otherwise.

Labels: poker

Stumble It!

I've posted once before about my home game, (but something's wrong with my permalinks- gonna have to figure that out, stupid Blogger), so I'm going to skip a lot of that introductory material. If you haven't seen that, you can search for it (it's in the February archives or under the Personal label) or just try to keep up.

We've got a strong core of regular players but not quite enough to fill a game. So we're constantly trying to bring in fresh blood, not so much because we're looking to take their money but because we need the players in the game. As you can guess, though, the average unknown player is going to get eaten alive in this game, so what usually happens is that we play for a few hours until the newbs have gone broke and quit, and then we play some really exciting, tough, deep-stacked, and super aggressive short-handed poker where we pass their money around between us.

I don't feel at all like we're hustling them. We're pretty up front and generally warn people ahead of time that it will be a tough game (but everyone thinks he's good at poker). If anyone asks what I do, I tell them I'm a semi-professional poker player. We talk about the World Series (both Darren and I have played), the Aussie Millions (Darren has played), and eight-tabling mid-stakes no limit online.

On this particular night, the new players were three of Darren's friends who had their own home game consisting mostly of $20 tournaments. One of them played a straight forward but tight aggressive game, but the other two were destined to go broke. They were just getting way too involved with bad hands and making it way too obvious when they didn't have anything.

Justin

I ran a big bluff on Justin in one of my first hands of the night. MP opened for $1.50, the CO called, I called with 54o on the button, and Justin called out of the SB. The board was like J62hh or something that gave me a gut shot. The action checked to me, and I bet $4. Only Justin called. the turn was an off-suit A, and he checked and called about $12. The river was another A, he checked, and I overbet shoved for around $40.

Justin is the only good new player we've had in the game in a while. He makes good reads, is capable of making some moves, and in general plays cards well. But he doesn't play nearly as often as the rest of us and consequently doesn't have a poker bankroll. The result is that he's sometimes hesitant to make a big call or bluff when he suspects it's the right play because he can't really afford to absorb the variance. I feel a little guilty for taking advantage of that, because even though he's a student at Harvard Law School, his interest is in public service-type work, so he's probably not going to be pulling down the absurd salaries that some of the other guys in this game will upon graduating.

But that's the game, and I think he understands and expects that I'm going to exploit his weaknesses whatever they are. In my defense, he drinks a lot less than the rest of us, so by the end of the night he's got the advantage of being more sober (though generally no one is more than buzzed). Anyway in this hand I was pretty sure he wouldn't call with less than trips and wouldn't check the river with trips or better. Sure enough, he folded after some suspicious chip shuffling.

I felt a lot less bad when a few orbits later I opened for $1.50 from the CO with AKo and he made it $6.50 from the button. Even though he often has a tight reraising range pre-flop, he knows I'm opening extremely wide from the CO, and I sort of expected him to make a play. More importantly, I didn't think he was going to give up, since I knew he suspected me of bullying him out of our last pot. I made it $20, he shoved for $60 with, and I obviously called. By the river, his QTs had made a straight and was good.

Unh, Triple Up, Unh Unh!

I reload. Next big pot, Logan raises to $1.50 UTG, one of Darren's pretty bad friends calls UTG+1, I call with KQo, a semi-regular named Jeremy calls on the button, and probably one of the blinds came along too. Flop AJTcc. Nice. Logan checks, UTG+1 bets $10, and I just call. This is an action board, and it's likely someone will raise. If not, the bad player is very likely to lead the turn hard with a lot of hands he shouldn't. Jeremy makes it $30 from the button, Logan cold shoves $60 from UTG, UTG+1 folds, I call, and Jeremy is priced in but not feeling good about his TT for bottom set. Logan shows AJ, which is nice because they are holding each other's outs. In fact, it turns out that Logan's two pair is way ahead of Jeremy's set, as Jeremy can win only with a T or a running pair. My hand holds, and I triple up.

Logan's call is obviously pretty questionable, but his reasoning almost makes sense. He said that he didn't expect to see TT, KK, AK, or AA since there was no reraise preflop. KQ was really the only thing he was worried about, and I felt like AT and JT might be giving him action. Jeremy's a tight enough player that with his raise, plus two others left to act, I think Logan needs to let the AJ go anyway, but I can see where he's coming from. Logan generally makes very good reads and is not at all afraid to make a heroic, seemingly bad call based on them, which is definitely one of his strengths.

I was still stacking my chips when Darren opened for $2 UTG+1 and a loose player called next to act. I looked down at QQ and raised to $10. The action folded back to Darren, who quickly shoved $65 more. Loose player folded. As you'll see, I'm willing to stack off for a lot more money with a lot less when the game gets wild later in the night. But here, we were 9-handed (we rarely play more than 7, so I know less about Darren's full ring play), he had made a larger than standard raise from EP and a big shove against a fairly early position reraise. He didn't have a lot of reason to think I was on a wide range except that I like to make squeeze plays. But he's smart enough to realize this isn't the best spot for it. I fold face up, and he shows me 88. Oh well. I try to convince myself that this fold made me money by encouraging Darren to make crazy bluffs on me later. Not that he really needs the encouragement.

Somewhere around here I took about $40 from one of Darren's friends who limped behind some limpers and called a raise to $3.50. I had AQ and bet an AT8 flop and an 8 turn. She check-shoved the turn, and her T7o was no good. Her husband, who was the solid one, gave her $55 to reload.

Short-Handed

Finally, a tenth player shows up to save us from full ring hell. His name is Alfred, but he goes by Chief. He's an alumnus of MIT, but Logan met him when he was dealing at a local poker club. Chief's a pretty cool guy, with a great personality that makes him fun to play cards with. He's also very smart, aggressive, and above all creative. He played with us once last year, and the pot that sticks out in my mind is one where he checked the river to me after I had bluff called the turn planning to represent the Ace. I figured him for a medium pocket pair, and was very surprised when he check-raised the river. I wasn't going to 3-bet shove air, though, so I folded. He showed JJ and told me he thought I had the Ace but would fold it. Not likely, since I was reluctant to fold air!

So now I'm playing five-handed with Justin, Chief, the T7 girl, and there must have been someone else but I don't remember who. Chief and I were definitely the most aggressive players at the table, but for whatever reason we didn't end up clashing much. Instead, it was Justin who was playing back at me quite a bit. This was good to see, because in the past I've felt like the biggest impediment to his improving as a player (which isn't to say he isn't improving, but it was definitely slowing him down) was a reluctance to mix it up in marginal spots and make some questionable plays just for the sake of trying things out.

There was one pot where the girl opened for $2, I called with like 85s or something in the CO, and Justin called on the button. I flopped a flush draw on a KQ6 board and potted it when she checked to me. Justin called and she folded. The turn was a 4 to give me a gut shot. I potted again for $15, and Justin raised to $45 with around $100 behind. I really felt like he wasn't going to be able to call a shove, but I just couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger and eventually folded. He showed K5, I told him I had a feeling I could push him off, and he admitted that he would have folded. I'm not sure I like the turn raise there if he's going to fold to a shove, but it's hard to say.

Soon we had another pot with similar preflop action. This time I called the girl's raise with 9h6h and saw a Qd6s4s flop. We checked it through. The turn was the Jd, I bet $4.50, and Justin raised to $12. I thought for a long time and decided he would have bet any pair or flopped draw when it was checked to him the first time around. I'm not sure he raises a J here, either, though that is how he played the K5. I finally called intending to call any river except for a diamond and possibly an A. The river was a very safe offsuit 4, I checked, and Justin pretty quickly bet $25. I thought for a few seconds, but couldn't see him on a value bet of any kind here. I called and waited for him to show me busted diamonds before revealing what I had called down with.

Welcome to the Jungle

That was my last big pot from the 5-handed table, as not long after two of Darren's friends busted and we went back to one table. Stacks were getting pretty deep now, with the average probably well over $100, and most of us were a few beers in as well. This is when the game starts getting really fun. In the next hour, there were some wild pre-flop spots, largely between myself, Darren, Logan, and Chief, though Justin was mixing it up occasionally as well. There were probably two or three pots per orbit that saw four or more bets go in preflop. There was also a lot of straddling, re-straddling, and re-re-straddling going on. Just as an example, here's a play I tried to set up:

Chief straddled for $1 UTG, and Logan put in $1.50 from the Button. I don't think he would ever deliberately min-raise the straddle, so I assumed that he didn't see it. Justin called $1.50 from the SB, and I made it $7.50 with 84o from the BB. My hope was that Logan would realize he had errantly min-raised, assume I was attacking him for that reason, and re-pop my squeeze. I was ready to 6-bet bluff all in for over $200, but Chief called cold from the straddle and ruined my plans. I ended up checking it all the way because I knew he was expecting me to stab at it post-flop and I had whiffed completely.

The next big pot is explainable by what I call the 'broken brain' theorem. Basically this happens when a by the book player sees a lot of unconventional plays and doesn't have a deep enough understanding of poker to figure out what is going on. He just sees all these pots getting 4- and 5-bet pre-flop with air but doesn't know how to identify spots where a bluff is likely and those where hands need to be strong. He gets tired of sitting around waiting for monsters and decides to get in on the action by making some uncharacteristic play.

The player in question is the only one of Darren's friends left. He's worked his initial $60 up to around $140 while playing like one pot per hour. Out of nowhere, he open raises for $3 and gets called in three spots, largely because people assume he will have a big pair and want to crack him. The flop comes out JT5r, and he quickly fires out $15. I and pretty much everyone at the table assume he has QQ+.

Darren raises to $50, and I sort of sigh to myself. I know that Darren should know better than to raise here without two pair or better, but I also know he doesn't have that kind of discipline.

His friend shrugs. "I'm all in."

"Dammit," Darren says. We all laugh at him, knowing he's gotten himself into a spot with something marginal.

"I hope you at least have KQ," I tell him.

"Guess I have to call," he says, turning over KQs. His friend doesn't flip, but the turn and river come a Q and a K. Darren waits with kind of an apologetic look on his face, and his friend finally turns over J8o. Not what any of us were expecting to see, and a hand that justifies Darren's play. Perhaps because he's so attuned to the maniac vibe, Darren seems to have a 6th sense for when people are up to some crazy shit.

His friend is clearly disappointed, but he takes it well, recognizing that it was a coinflip. These are higher stakes than he usually plays, though, and it makes me remember that losing $150 in a hand of poker is not something that the average person is mentally prepared to do. He takes off, and now we're more short-handed than ever.

After he leaves, we talk about the play. "Jack 8? Where the hell did that come from?"

"What do you think about his flop play? Darren really ought to have better most of the time."

"Maybe he put Darren on a draw?"

"Meh, I think he just said, 'Fuck it, it's Darren and I have top pair,'" I concluded.

[b]Fuck It, It's Logan and I have AQ[/b]

Now we're even more short-handed, and the action gets more intense, as mostly just the maniacs are left. Darren raises UTG to $2, Logan called on the button, I make it $10 from the SB with AQo, Darren calls, and Logan reaches for chips.

Darren: Go ahead, squeeze it.

Logan: I think I'm going to.

Darren: I was hoping you would.

Logan: It really sounds like you don't want me to.

Logan pushes out a stack and a half of blues, worth $75 in our game. "There's some crazy metagame shit going on right now," Darren comments. This is true. When we were in Vegas a few weeks ago, we were making fun of some of the blatant 'weak means strong' verbal tells that bad live players will give off, stuff like "Guess I'll get a lot of sight seeing done" as they shove the nuts on the river. Logan has been talking for a long time about wanting to give off a reverse one of these tells sooner or later. But then again, he knows that we know that. Etc.

The action is back to me, and I have about $250 in my stack. I have to think quickly, because too much delay is going to make me look weak. I don't think Logan flat calls AK the first time. Maybe QQ+ hoping to see a squeeze behind, but he's certainly reraising those a lot of the time. Still, I don't think he's on complete air. It seems to me, in part based on the size of his raise, that he's got a hand he thinks is best, which certainly does not have to be QQ+. A mid pocket pair would make sense.

Darren could have a monster, but he screws around enough pre-flop that I'm prepared to say, "God bless him if he's got it." With Logan left to act behind him, he'll need an even tighter calling range. So I shove with my AQ. Darren thinks for a little bit, and I know he's got something laughable but wants to make a heroic call. "Go ahead, 66 is good. You know you want to make the hero call."

"I do," he laughs and folds. I'm not really trying to bait him into calling, especially not with a small pair, but I think baiting him will make me look stronger to Logan.

When the action gets back to Logan and he doesn't snap call, I know I'm OK. I may end up racing him, but he doesn't have me crushed. I wouldn't expect him to think about QQ+ or AK here. "Ugh, why did I raise so much? I'm getting 2:1. Darren your big mouth is going to cost me $200." Finally he says, "I'm priced in," and calls with 99.

"It's a good call," I tell him, and indeed it is, as his 99 holds up to win a 1000 BB coin flip.

Gotta Get My Stack Back

At this point in the night, I'm allowed to buy in for $100, but that's still nothing compared to the stacks that some people have at the table. If I want to enjoy the super deep stacked phase of the game, I need to gamble. I overcall a raise preflop with K6s, flop the nut draw, and shove with virtually no fold equity against Justin's lead on an A high flop. He's got an easy call with AQ, and I'm reloading again.

A few hands later there's a raise to $2, Darren calls, Justin calls on the button, and I call with 76o in the SB. The flop is 89K, I check, Darren bets $8, and Justin quickly raises to $20. Having seen him do something similar with K5 a while ago, I feel like he's not going to show up with a monster here all that often. K9 and K8 aren't really the kinds of hands he plays in this spot, and I don't think he plays a set so fast (which isn't to say he shouldn't). But we would have at least some Hollywood from him if he had those. I shove for $100, Darren folds quick, and Justin folds angrily. I show.

"Same hand," he says, annoyed.

"Yeah, I didn't think you'd call without a set."

He's starting to steam now and gets snapped off a few times when bluffing the river, something he rarely does. That only serves to tilt him more. It's a shame, because this kind of creative play is the kind of stuff I think he needs to be doing more often both to improve his game and to make himself tougher to play against. Sometimes you're going to make the right play and be unlucky enough to run into a big hand, sometimes you're going to make a bad move and lose, but you've got to be willing to take the lumps. It's not a reason to get discouraged and stop trying.

Justin open limps the button (kind of weird, not something he often does), and I make it $3 from the SB with QQ. He calls pretty quickly. Flop AK5r, not what I was hoping to see. We check it through. Turn K, I check, he bets $6. Normally, I wouldn't expect him to do this with an A, but given how little respect he's gotten of late, I think he could have that or a K here. But given how I've played the hand, I can't fold yet. I call. The river is a blank, and I check again. I know he knows he's been snapped off a lot lately, and I don't think he would expect me to fold an A. So I'm ready to fold if he bets again. He checks angrily, and I show him the QQ. He mutters something about having the worst timing, but I actually think that was good tilt control by him. Although I would have folded QQ, I'm going to be checking an A or a K there a lot of the time, so I don't think in general it's a profitable spot to bluff. I called because I figured he was good enough to realize that, and he did. Cheers.

The River Sexy

Now with some ammo at my disposal, I call Logan's button raise with 44 on my BB. Flop Kh Th 4s BINGO! I check, because if I lead here he's going to float all kinds of stuff, and there are plenty of cards I don't want to see on the turn. Also, I don't think a check-raise is going to freeze him at all, and could even induce a 3-bet bluff. Alas, he checks behind.

T on the turn DOUBLE BINGO! I lead for $3, he makes it $12, I call. He could have trips, a draw, maybe even a K or air. The thing is, I've been caught on a few river check-raise bluffs in the last few months, and have been looking for a spot to check-raise for value. This seems ideal.

River something irrelevant, I check, he bets $30, I shove for about $100 more. He calls pretty quickly with what he says was AT.

It's going on 3AM, and the game's winding down. I'm finally up for the night, though only by about $20. I open for $2 with Kh Js on the button, and Darren makes it $10 from the BB. Arguably I should just fold here, but that's not what this game is about. Flop Th 6h 4h. He checks, I bet $15, and he makes it $45. Hmmm. I don't think he does this with a flush. But, especially given how I've been playing tonight, I don't think he expects me to 3-bet a flush here either. It may not be evident from the hands I've posted here, but I'd been doing a lot of calling, especially in position, with weak and strong hands. If I 3-bet, he's going to put me on exactly what I have. I call (we have $200+ behind).

The turn is another rag heart. He checks, I consider betting but decide he may not give me two streets worth of value and check behind. The river blanks he checks again. I bet $75, and he shoves. Fuck it, it's Darren and I have the second nuts. I call, and his Ah Qs is good for a 1200 BB pot. He covers me with a few dollars to spare. Heart the homegame.

Labels: poker, poker strategy, session review, trip report

Stumble It!

One of my goals for the year was to put some time into improving my play in poker games besides No Limit Hold 'Em. I bought Poker Tracker Stud and spent a good deal of time in January playing Stud games, but since then I haven't done much towards this goal.

At a cost of just $45 (if you already have Poker Tracker, which you should), Poker Tracker Stud is a nice program to have even if you use it only for tracking your results. It is somewhat less useful than the Hold 'Em version, as there are more starting hand combinations in Stud and more situational considerations on 3rd street than there are preflop in Hold 'Em, but it is still a great product.

Anyway, today I decided to play a little Stud/8 while doing some reading for work. Early on, I played a big pot very aggressively with a big draw:

7 Card Stud High-Low ($5/$10), Ante $0.50

3rd Street - (0.40 SB)
chopula: xx xx 5h___folds

Mephys: xx xx Qh___raises___calls

foucault82: 6d Ad 2d___raises

erich_fromm: xx xx Th___folds


4th Street - (4.40 SB)
Mephys: xx xx Qh 5s___bets

foucault82: 6d Ad 2d 8s___calls


5th Street - (3.20 BB)
Mephys: xx xx Qh 5d Qd___bets___raises___calls

foucault82: 6d Ad 2d 8s Td___raises___raises


6th Street - (11.20 BB)
Mephys: xx xx Qh 5s Qd Ks___bets

foucault82: 6d Ad 2d 8s Td 9c___calls


River - (13.20 BB)
Mephys: xx xx Qh 5s Qd Ks xx___bets___raises___calls

foucault82: 6d Ad 2d 8s Td 9c 3c___raises___raises

Total pot: (21.20 BB)


My opponent had quad Q's and was pretty upset that I took half the pot, but I ran the odds later, and even against his actual hand, which was better than I expected it to be, I was almost even money. If he had a buried pair with a diamond, I would have been a 53.5% favorite on 5th street, and if he doesn't have a diamond in the hole, my equity improves to 56%. In truth, I probably should have pushed him harder on 4th. On the river, I'm guaranteed half the pot, so I might as well jam it.

The Stud hand converter that I used can be found here, by the way. I used Two Dimes to do the equity calculations. Both of these tools are free and very useful.

Labels: poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

Labels: poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

I've been trying to balance a ton of stuff lately, between poker, my writing, my work with the Boston Debate League and the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues, my finances, etc. I'm also kind of absent minded and procrastinatory, so I've started keeping a To Do list. It's just a Word document that sits on the Desktop of my computer, but I think it's helped me to keep myself a little better organized and on top of important business than I otherwise would be.

In terms of preventing procrastination, it's kind of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, seeing the same stuff on there every day motivates me to do it eventually just because I am sick of looking at it. I even get a little thrill from deleting items and setting arbitrary goals for myself, like getting it down to two pages, etc.

However, it also sometimes becomes an excuse to procrastinate. If, for example, I am feeling like I ought to do something productive, I'll sometimes satiate that urge and get a sense of accomplishment simply by adding