From the Desk of the Poker Philosopher

These were all against a strong but possibly over-aggressive opponent:

Full Tilt Poker, $4/$8 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 4 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

UTG: $1,325.80
Hero (BTN): $1,910.90
SB: $1,626
BB: $1,600

Pre-Flop: 3 3 dealt to Hero (BTN)
UTG folds, Hero raises to $28, SB folds, BB raises to $88, Hero calls $60

Flop: ($180) 5 J 2 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $122, BB raises to $320, Hero calls $198

Turn: ($820) 6 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero checks

River: ($820) K (2 Players)
BB bets $520, Hero calls $520

Results: $1,860 Pot ($2 Rake)
Hero showed 3 3 (a pair of Threes) and WON $1,858 (+$930 NET)
BB showed A 7 (Ace King high) and LOST (-$928 NET)

Kx is a very reasonable hand for him to have here, but the K is also a great card for him to bluff. I expect to lose a fair amount of the time here, but I don't have to be good all that often to call profitably.

I was ready to call down on the river here, but his bet size suggested he had a better pair than mine, so I tried to take him off of it:

Full Tilt Poker, $4/$8 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (SB): $3,273.90
BB: $1,608

Pre-Flop: 9 9 dealt to Hero (SB)
Hero raises to $24, BB raises to $72, Hero calls $48

Flop: ($144) 8 T 5 (2 Players)
BB bets $112, Hero calls $112

Turn: ($368) 6 (2 Players)
BB bets $144, Hero calls $144

River: ($656) 8 (2 Players)
BB bets $248, Hero raises to $2,945.90 and is All-In, BB calls $1,032 and is All-In

Results: $3,216 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero showed 9 9 (two pair, Nines and Eights) and LOST (-$1,608 NET)
BB showed J J (two pair, Jacks and Eights) and WON $3,215.50 (+$1,607.50 NET)

In retrospect, I think it was a bad idea, because unless he thinks I'm shoving rivered trips, my line doesn't make sense. With two pair or a set, I almost certainly would have been more aggressive earlier in the hand.

Another one, similar to the first:

Full Tilt Poker, $4/$8 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (SB): $1,875.40
BB: $2,999

Pre-Flop: 6 9 dealt to Hero (SB)
Hero raises to $24, BB calls $16

Flop: ($48) 6 J 4 (2 Players)
BB bets $48, Hero raises to $151, BB raises to $336, Hero calls $185

Turn: ($720) 3 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $365, BB folds

Results: $720 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero mucked 6 9 and WON $719.50 (+$359.50 NET)


Valuetown:

Full Tilt Poker, $4/$8 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (SB): $2,186.40
BB: $2,686.50

Pre-Flop: Q 7 dealt to Hero (SB)
Hero raises to $24, BB calls $16

Flop: ($48) K 5 9 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $48, BB calls $48

Turn: ($144) Q (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero checks

River: ($144) 4 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $114, BB calls $114

Results: $372 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero showed Q 7 (a pair of Queens) and WON $371.50 (+$185.50 NET)
BB mucked 9 J (a pair of Nines) and LOST (-$186 NET)

He quit me after this hand.

Labels: NLHE, poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

Gary Wise has a great column for ESPN about the whole JJ Prodigy incident and the consequences of his being allowed to play at the Aussie Millions (my summary, for those not familiar with the situation):

"Cheating, unfortunately, is inherently human. We as a species are never wholly content to sit on our laurels when there are advantages offered, especially without matching consequences. It's frustrating to know that players like Field have cheated, but if it weren't him, it would be someone else, and then someone else and then someone else. It's also inherently human to strike out at those few individuals who tarnish the game in loud, emotional but ultimately forgotten strokes. Companies of massive standing have the power to be inhuman, to do the things that individuals can't for the greater and enduring good. The real blame should be placed on the shoulders of those with the power to make change that aren't seizing the opportunity. Until they do so, the Josh Field's of the world won't have much to disincline them from doing what they do."

An article like this was badly needed. It both exposes and explains the relatively minimal impact of one of the biggest cheating scandals to hit online poker to ESPN's audience of largely recreational players. Hopefully it will both inform these players of the risks and also make them less irrationally paranoid about playing online, at least eventually.

It's also nice that he proposes something of a solution that involves bringing the issue to light rather than burying it.

Labels: poker

Stumble It!

Full Tilt Poker, $10/$20 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 7 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (SB): $2,330
BB: $1,770
UTG: $1,854
UTG+1: $2,227
MP: $2,000
CO: $2,018.25
BTN: $2,000

Pre-Flop: A K dealt to Hero (SB)
5 folds, Hero raises to $80, BB raises to $240, Hero raises to $2,330 and is All-In, BB folds

Results: $480 Pot
Hero mucked A K and WON $480 (+$240 NET)

Villain: your so easy to play against
Villain: u make decsions so easy

Yeah, ok, buddy. Here are the next two big pots we played, on different tables:

Full Tilt Poker, $10/$20 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 5 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

SB: $1,292
BB: $2,001
Hero (UTG): $2,257.50
CO: $780
BTN: $3,449

Pre-Flop: Q A dealt to Hero (UTG)
Hero raises to $70, CO folds, BTN calls $70, 2 folds

Flop: ($170) 2 3 9 (2 Players)
Hero checks, BTN checks

Turn: ($170) T (2 Players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $160, Hero calls $160

River: ($490) 8 (2 Players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $220, Hero raises to $777, BTN folds

Results: $930 Pot ($3 Rake)
Hero mucked Q A and WON $927 (+$477 NET)


Full Tilt Poker, $10/$20 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 4 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (BB): $2,048
UTG: $2,615
BTN: $2,334
SB: $1,878.50

Pre-Flop: A 6 dealt to Hero (BB)
2 folds, SB calls $10, Hero raises to $60, SB calls $40

Flop: ($120) 8 5 A (2 Players)
SB checks, Hero bets $88, SB calls $88

Turn: ($296) 2 (2 Players)
SB checks, Hero bets $200, SB calls $200

River: ($696) 2 (2 Players)
SB checks, Hero checks

Results: $696 Pot ($2 Rake)
Hero showed A 6 (two pair, Aces and Twos) and WON $694 (+$346 NET)
SB mucked T 8 (two pair, Eights and Twos) and LOST (-$348 NET)

Me: I make it so easy.
Villain: Way to miss a river bet. Want to play heads up?

It's very rare for me to decline a heads up challenge from these guys, and in fact getting such challenges is the reason I engage in chat/trash-talk at all. But in this instance, I was in eight fairly good 10/20 and 25/50 games, so I wasn't looking to cut all that out to play one or two heads up tables with this guy. Hopefully I can find him and take him up on it some other time.

Labels: NLHE, poker, session review

Stumble It!

Until this year, I'd taken two shots at 25/50 NL games when I saw a fish sitting. It didn't go well, as this post from last month documents. Anyway, Matusow was at three full ring tables tonight, so I had a seat and things went a bit better. I think I've finally figured out how to beat that game:

Full Tilt Poker, $25/$50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

CO: $8,822
Hero (BTN): $5,180
SB: $975
BB: $1,072
UTG: $5,972
UTG+1: $6,716
UTG+2: $5,346
MP1: $550
MP2: $5,397

Pre-Flop: A A dealt to Hero (BTN)
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls $50, UTG+2 raises to $200, 3 folds, Hero raises to $725, 3 folds, UTG+2 raises to $2,000, Hero raises to $5,180 and is All-In, UTG+2 calls $3,180

Flop: ($10,485) 3 8 2 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Turn: ($10,485) 2 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

River: ($10,485) Q (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: $10,485 Pot ($3 Rake)
Hero showed A A (two pair, Aces and Twos) and WON $10,482 (+$5,302 NET)
UTG+2 showed K K (two pair, Kings and Twos) and LOST (-$5,180 NET)


Full Tilt Poker, $25/$50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 8 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

BB: $1,097
UTG: $9,074
UTG+1: $5,556
MP1: $5,271
Hero (MP2): $5,000
CO: $3,764
BTN: $900
SB: $1,744

Pre-Flop: A A dealt to Hero (MP2)
2 folds, MP1 raises to $175, Hero raises to $600, 4 folds, MP1 raises to $1,409, Hero raises to $5,000 and is All-In, MP1 calls $3,591

Flop: ($10,075) 4 4 3 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Turn: ($10,075) Q (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

River: ($10,075) 8 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: $10,075 Pot ($3 Rake)
MP1 showed K K (two pair, Kings and Fours) and LOST (-$5,000 NET)
Hero showed A A (two pair, Aces and Fours) and WON $10,072 (+$5,072 NET)

Full Tilt Poker, $25/$50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 5 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

SB: $4,975
BB: $7,222
Hero (UTG): $8,500
CO: $1,180
BTN: $2,460

Pre-Flop: 8 8 dealt to Hero (UTG)
Hero raises to $175, 3 folds, BB raises to $635, Hero calls $460

Flop: ($1,295) 9 6 8 (2 Players)
BB bets $875, Hero raises to $2,365, BB raises to $6,587 and is All-In, Hero calls $4,222

Turn: ($14,469) T (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

River: ($14,469) 2 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: $14,469 Pot ($3 Rake)
BB showed A A (a pair of Aces) and LOST (-$7,222 NET)
Hero showed 8 8 (three of a kind, Eights) and WON $14,466 (+$7,244 NET)


Full Tilt Poker, $25/$50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 8 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

UTG: $11,043
Hero (UTG+1): $10,105
MP1: $3,688
MP2: $4,362
CO: $5,522
BTN: $1,925
SB: $5,047
BB: $4,875

Pre-Flop: A A dealt to Hero (UTG+1)
2 folds, Hero raises to $150, 4 folds, SB calls $100

Flop: ($300) 9 2 8 (2 Players)
SB checks, Hero bets $255, SB raises to $899, Hero calls $644

Turn: ($2,098) 6 (2 Players)
SB bets $1,750, Hero raises to $3,500, SB raises to $3,998 and is All-In, Hero calls $498

River: ($10,094) 2 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: $10,094 Pot ($3 Rake)
Hero showed A A (two pair, Aces and Twos) and WON $10,091 (+$5,044 NET)
SB showed 7 A (a pair of Twos) and LOST (-$5,047 NET)


Now I just need to learn to read the board. This is a thin river shove even if the board isn't paired, which I failed to see that it was.

Full Tilt Poker, $25/$50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 8 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

MP2: $8,185
Hero (CO): $6,648
BTN: $1,072
SB: $2,057.50
BB: $5,000
UTG: $6,244
UTG+1: $5,075
MP1: $3,052

Pre-Flop: 7 9 dealt to Hero (CO)
3 folds, MP2 raises to $150, Hero calls $150, BTN folds, SB calls $125, BB folds

Flop: ($500) 6 K J (3 Players)
SB checks, MP2 bets $400, Hero calls $400, SB folds

Turn: ($1,300) 6 (2 Players)
MP2 bets $1,000, Hero calls $1,000

River: ($3,300) T (2 Players)
MP2 bets $2,000, Hero raises to $5,098 and is All-In, MP2 calls $3,098

Results: $13,496 Pot ($3 Rake)
MP2 showed J J (a full house, Jacks full of Sixes) and WON $13,493 (+$6,845 NET)
Hero showed 7 9 (a flush, King high) and LOST (-$6,648 NET)

Labels: NLHE, poker, session review

Stumble It!

I think I might be trying a little too hard to make thin value bets, especially when I've already shown a lot of strength. People are generally pretty reluctant to make big river calls in tournaments, which means they either fold or call with a better hand and crush me. Here's one from yesterday's $300:

Poker Stars, $300 + $20 NL Hold'em Tournament, 15/30 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

UTG+2: 2,780
MP1: 3,255
MP2: 3,425
CO: 2,725
BTN: 2,730
SB: 3,120
Hero (BB): 3,325
UTG: 2,535
UTG+1: 3,135

Pre-Flop: (45) K K dealt to Hero (BB)
7 folds, SB raises to 90, Hero raises to 280, SB calls 190

Flop: (560) 2 Q 6 (2 Players)
SB checks, Hero bets 345, SB calls 345

Turn: (1,250) 7 (2 Players)
SB checks, Hero bets 800, SB calls 800

River: (2,850) 9 (2 Players)
SB checks, Hero bets 1,900 and is All-In, SB calls 1,695 and is All-In

Results: 6,240 Pot
SB showed Q 9 (two pair, Queens and Nines) and WON 6,240 (+3,120 NET)
Hero showed K K (a pair of Kings) and LOST (-3,120 NET)

Especially with the flush getting there on the river, I think he's unlikely to call with worse. If he had a strong Q, he probably would have shoved the turn, and that's the hand most likely to pay me off.

And from today's Sunda Million:

Poker Stars, $500 + $30 NL Hold'em Tournament, 300/600 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

UTG+2: 4,670
MP1: 14,545
MP2: 8,350
CO: 9,185
Hero (BTN): 29,200
SB: 27,275
BB: 15,472
UTG: 16,100
UTG+1: 23,710

Pre-Flop: (900) 5 A dealt to Hero (BTN)
6 folds, Hero raises to 1,450, SB calls 1,150, BB folds

Flop: (3,500) A 2 J (2 Players)
SB checks, Hero checks

Turn: (3,500) 5 (2 Players)
SB bets 2,400, Hero raises to 7,750, SB calls 5,350

River: (19,000) K (2 Players)
SB checks, Hero bets 19,000, SB calls 18,075 and is All-In

Results: 55,150 Pot
Hero showed 5 A (two pair, Aces and Fives) and LOST (-27,275 NET)
SB showed Q T (a straight, Ten to Ace) and WON 55,150 (+27,875 NET)

In retrospect, it's clear he has a draw on the turn, as he'd almost certainly shove on me with a made hand that he thinks is good. Granted, almost every draw missed on the river, but what am I hoping he calls with? KJ is about the only plausible hand, and really I'm representing something stronger than that.

Well, if I can't value bet thin, I should be bluffing, right?

Full Tilt Poker, NL Hold'em Tournament, 150/300 Blinds, 25 Ante, 8 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

BTN: 7,543
SB: 3,205
BB: 12,860
Hero (UTG): 9,477
UTG+1: 21,650
MP1: 5,147
MP2: 6,680
CO: 8,788

Pre-Flop: (650) A J dealt to Hero (UTG)
Hero raises to 802, 6 folds, BB calls 502

Flop: (1,954) 8 3 8 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero checks

Turn: (1,954) Q (2 Players)
BB bets 1,200, Hero calls 1,200

River: (4,354) Q (2 Players)
BB bets 1,800, Hero raises to 7,450 and is All-In, BB calls 5,650

Results: 19,254 Pot
BB showed Q T (a full house, Queens full of Eights) and WON 19,254 (+9,777 NET)
Hero showed A J (two pair, Queens and Eights) and LOST (-9,477 NET)

I was intending to call a river like this after calling the turn, but his bet sizing made me think he was trying value bet something like a mid-pair or an 8. The POS slow-rolled me on this one, too. Oh well, hopefully he will teach me a lesson.

Thin value bets still kick ass in cash games:

Full Tilt Poker, $10/$20 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 5 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (UTG): $2,095
CO: $2,667.50
BTN: $1,900
SB: $2,000
BB: $257

Pre-Flop: 5 6 dealt to Hero (UTG)
Hero raises to $45, CO calls $45, 3 folds

Flop: ($120) 3 6 4 (2 Players)
Hero checks, CO bets $40, Hero raises to $150, CO calls $110

Turn: ($420) Q (2 Players)
Hero checks, CO checks

River: ($420) 5 (2 Players)
Hero bets $400, CO calls $400

Results: $1,220 Pot ($3 Rake)
Hero showed 5 6 (two pair, Sixes and Fives) and WON $1,217 (+$622 NET)
CO mucked A A (a pair of Aces) and LOST (-$595 NET)

I realize I played this pretty strangely on all streets, and I don't really want to get into why, but on the river I was hoping to represent a bluff. I thought my opponent assumed I would have either a straight or air, and since a straight wasn't too plausible, he might be inclined to call light. In retrospect, I think this was just a case of "OMGACES!!!!" That is to say, even a guy's equity versus your range is the same with AA as it would be with like 99, he is more likely to call just because from the moment he was dealt those Aces he'd already assumed he was going to win the pot.

Labels: poker, poker strategy, session review, tournament

Stumble It!

PokerNews has a review today of the new poker tables at Mohegan Sun. As they point out, it isn't a technically a poker room, as they are just electronic tables on the casino floor:

"They have PokerPro™ poker machines. No dealers, no chips, no cash at the table, and no cards. Everything but the play itself is done by a computer – like playing poker on the Internet, only with the opponents all facing each other around a large table that is in essence a large computer screen."

The review of the automated tables is fairly positive, though the reviewer correctly points out that given the casino's lack of overhead (no dealers to pay), the players really ought to see a greater reduction in rake. I haven't been myself, and I am kind of curious about the new tables, but I can't say it's a priority for me. It sounds like they most commonly spread 1/2 NLHE and 3/6 FLHE.

My major complaint with this review is that it hedges on the matter of why Mohegan closed its poker room four years ago:

"Mohegan Sun used to have a great poker room, but that room closed on Labor Day, 2004, with the announced reason that there wasn't enough interest in poker in New England to support two poker rooms. This left Foxwoods with a monopoly on live casino poker in New England. This also meant that Mohegan Sun's poker room was closed, allegedly due to lack of a player base, during the period that will be remembered for the greatest increase in poker players in the history of the game. It's a curious circumstance at the least."

I don't have any first-hand knowledge of this, but everything I've heard suggests that there were some serious allegations of misconduct in the way they ran their tournaments, specifically that they were shorting the prize pool. PokerNews insinuates something like this, but a serious news agency (which of course PN is not) would look into these allegations and what steps, if any, had been taken to prevent similar abuses in the future.

Labels: poker

Stumble It!

Full Tilt Poker, $10/$20 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 3 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

BTN: $2,573.50
SB: $2,737.70
Hero (BB): $3,441.50

Pre-Flop: T T dealt to Hero (BB)
BTN raises to $70, SB raises to $260, Hero raises to $591, 2 folds

Results: $590 Pot
Hero mucked T T and WON $590 (+$330 NET)

I found this to be initially a tricky spot but with a fairly simple solution once I thought about it. Both of these players were loose and aggressive when we were playing 6-max and even moreso once we got short-handed. Even with a raise and a re-raise in front of me, TT is in good shape against these player's ranges. The problem is that it's awkward to enter the pot now. If I just call, I'm putting a ton of money into a pot where I'm going to be out of position post-flop (assuming the button overcalls, which he almost always will) and have not taken the betting lead (though my cold call shows enough strength that it may accomplish a similar effect). I also reveal a lot about the strength of my hand while giving worse hands or unpaired overcards good odds to try to out-flop me. It's a clear reverse implied odds situation.

Coming in for a cold 4-bet is nice because it forces the button off of damn near anything, probably even JJ, QQ, and AK, since the only option he really has is to make a shove into two reraisers that will only get called by KK+. The SB won't have to play quite so tightly once he knows the button is out, but he's still probably not going to shove worse hands than mine except maybe AK. That means I can comfortably fold to an all in without losing much value.

I'm not turning my hand completely into a bluff, either, because given the odds he's getting, the SB may call with some pocket pairs or maybe AQs or something, and in those cases, it matters quite a bit that I have TT and not 85s or something.

The only thing I think I'd do differently is raise a touch more, to $625 or so. This makes a bit harder for the SB to call and still leaves me plenty of room to fold to a shove.

Labels: NLHE, poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

It's got nothing to do with poker. But WJMN, a Boston hip hop station, recently interviewed me and a few students from the Boston Debate League. I'm only going to post my portion of it here, which is about 10 minutes long. I was very happy with how it came out, which surprised me, because I've generally never liked the way my voice sounds on tape.

Labels: boston debate league, personal

Stumble It!

Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners

Seat 0: VaMtnGal ($647.90) - -
Seat 3: urbandb888 ($3836.55) -


PRE-FLOP:

VaMtnGal posts small blind $10
urbandb888 posts BIG blind $25
Dealt To: urbandb888


CALL VaMtnGal ($25)
CHECK urbandb888


FLOP:

Pot: $60


CHECK urbandb888
CHECK VaMtnGal


TURN:

Pot: $60


CHECK urbandb888
CHECK VaMtnGal


RIVER:

Pot: $60


CHECK urbandb888
BET VaMtnGal ($50)
CALL urbandb888 ($50)


SHOWDOWN:
VaMtnGal:

MUCK urbandb888

VaMtnGal collected $149 from main pot with a pair of tens

SUMMARY:
Total pot: $150 Rake: $1

Final Board:


Seat 0: Kd 7s Tc 6c Th: a pair of tens. - Net Gain/Loss: ($74)



Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners

This is why you shouldn't try to impose logic on the monkeys (see my recent article Level-Headed Thinking). I was pretty sure she would not have checked a T on the flop nor a 6 or 7 on the turn, and I didn't think she would pot the river if she paired the deuce or had A high. I'm certainly never folding A-high here, and I don't imagine she expected me too, ie she wasn't trying to bluff. I think she just decided she had the best hand, and, without even considering my calling range, was going to bet it. And I outmaneuvered myself by trying to impose second-level thinking on a first-level player. I stacked her later, though, so it's all good.

Labels: NLHE, poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

I just saw him a few days ago and he didn't say a word about this to me. Pretty sweet though!

Labels: legislation, poker

Stumble It!

More good press for the Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society, with PokerNews running a piece on them today:

"The Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society already has chapters established or planned at Harvard, UCLA, Stanford, Carnegie-Mellon, Cornell, Michigan, Tufts, Indiana–South Bend, and George Washington, and is looking to establish chapters at many more schools. Although the GPSTS was just recently started, the growth and development of the program is a fast success."

Labels: legislation, poker

Stumble It!

This guy wasn't great, but he was better than I gave him credit for sometimes. In particular, he did a reasonable job of adapting to my thin calls and not bluffing in some obvious spots, which should have made me a little more reluctant to call him down in some other spots. But he really was a psychopath and capable of some crazy moves on any street. The hand histories I've pulled out here are really just a taste.

River Call With Q-High

I think this may be the weakest hand, in absolute terms, with which I've ever called a river bet. I've made a few KQ-high calls, but I can't recall ever calling Q high before, at least not correctly.

Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (BB): $985.50
SB: $932.10

Pre-Flop: 7 Q dealt to Hero (BB)
SB calls $5, Hero checks

Flop: ($20) J 6 J (2 Players)
Hero checks, SB bets $20, Hero calls $20

Turn: ($60) 3 (2 Players)
Hero checks, SB checks

River: ($60) K (2 Players)
Hero checks, SB bets $65, Hero calls $65

Results: $190 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero showed 7 Q (a pair of Jacks) and WON $189.50 (+$94.50 NET)
SB showed 5 9 (a pair of Jacks) and LOST (-$95 NET)


But I Sucked Out First!

My play here is surely questionable. The guy was 3-betting easily 25% of my raises, though, so I don't think it's inconceivable that I'm ahead of his range, and I do think there are some situations where I'll steal from his underpairs as well.

Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (SB): $1,153
BB: $993.60

Pre-Flop: K 8 dealt to Hero (SB)
Hero raises to $30, BB raises to $110, Hero calls $80

Flop: ($220) 4 4 7 (2 Players)
BB bets $175, Hero calls $175

Turn: ($570) K (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $263, BB raises to $708.60 and is All-In, Hero calls $445.60

River: ($1,987.20) A (2 Players - 1 is All-In)
Results: $1,987.20 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero showed K 8 (two pair, Kings and Fours) and LOST (-$993.60 NET)
BB showed 9 A (two pair, Aces and Fours) and WON $1,986.70 (+$993.10 NET)


I'm a Station

He was very capable of check-raising the turn with worse both as a bluff and, stupidly, with worse A's. That's what I was trying to induce. I'm not sure about the river call. I was thinking he could pretty much only have 3's full or quads as non-bluff hands, since he would have 3-bet AQ, QQ, and AA pre-flop. I forgot about Q5s. As you'll see, he's very capable of potting the river on a bluff, but I'm not sure he does that in conjunction with the turn min-check-raise.

Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (SB): $1,475
BB: $1,978.10

Pre-Flop: A J dealt to Hero (SB)
Hero raises to $30, BB calls $20

Flop: ($60) A 5 3 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $60, BB calls $60

Turn: ($180) Q (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $135, BB raises to $270, Hero calls $135

River: ($720) 5 (2 Players)
BB bets $720, Hero calls $720

Results: $2,160 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero mucked A J (two pair, Aces and Fives) and LOST (-$1,080 NET)
BB showed Q 5 (a full house, Fives full of Queens) and WON $2,159.50 (+$1,079.50 NET)


This One Was Definitely Tilt

Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (SB): $1,000
BB: $3,027.60

Pre-Flop: 9 8 dealt to Hero (SB)
Hero raises to $30, BB calls $20

Flop: ($60) 9 6 5 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $45, BB raises to $195, Hero calls $150

Turn: ($450) Q (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $375, BB raises to $775, Hero calls $400 and is All-In

River: ($2,000) A (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: $2,000 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero showed 9 8 (a pair of Nines) and LOST (-$1,000 NET)
BB showed K 9 (a pair of Nines) and WON $1,999.50 (+$999.50 NET)

Best case scenario is he shows up with a big draw here :-(.


Big Pot With Ace High

I was looking to check-raise all in on the turn, though I don't mind getting a free river, either. I was very sure I was going to see a counterfeited pair here.

Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (BB): $1,130.50
SB: $3,937.60

Pre-Flop: J A dealt to Hero (BB)
SB raises to $30, Hero raises to $105, SB calls $75

Flop: ($210) 8 8 Q (2 Players)
Hero bets $125, SB calls $125

Turn: ($460) T (2 Players)
Hero checks, SB checks

River: ($460) T (2 Players)
Hero checks, SB bets $460, Hero calls $460

Results: $1,380 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero showed J A (two pair, Tens and Eights) and WON $1,379.50 (+$689.50 NET)
SB showed 5 5 (two pair, Tens and Eights) and LOST (-$690 NET)


This is Why I Make Some of My Other Calls

The fact that he's playing AT like the nuts here led me to think I could beat some non-bluffs on a few of the other hands where I got all in against him. Kind of different situations, though.

Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (SB): $1,049.50
BB: $4,043.60

Pre-Flop: A Q dealt to Hero (SB)
Hero raises to $30, BB raises to $110, Hero calls $80

Flop: ($220) 6 4 A (2 Players)
BB bets $185, Hero calls $185

Turn: ($590) 2 (2 Players)
BB bets $590, Hero raises to $754.50 and is All-In, BB calls $164.50

River: ($2,099) T (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: $2,099 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero showed A Q (a pair of Aces) and LOST (-$1,049.50 NET)
BB showed T A (two pair, Aces and Tens) and WON $2,098.50 (+$1,049 NET)


Why Thin Value Bets Are Important

Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (BB): $2,929.50
SB: $3,359.10

Pre-Flop: 3 3 dealt to Hero (BB)
SB raises to $30, Hero calls $20

Flop: ($60) 2 2 Q (2 Players)
Hero checks, SB bets $60, Hero calls $60

Turn: ($180) 4 (2 Players)
Hero checks, SB bets $180, Hero calls $180

River: ($540) J (2 Players)
Hero checks, SB checks

Results: $540 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero mucked 3 3 (two pair, Threes and Twos) and LOST (-$270 NET)
SB showed T J (two pair, Jacks and Twos) and WON $539.50 (+$269.50 NET)

I was going to call a river bet here, and the fact that he's not betting JT for value is a big part of the reason why. When he does bet, his range is so polarized that I can call with 33 knowing he'll have either a good Q or a bluff. The more legitimate hands he's capable of value betting, the tougher it gets for me to be a hero.


Another Big A-High Win

My two biggest pots of the session were both won with A-high.

Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (BB): $1,329.50
SB: $4,968.60

Pre-Flop: A K dealt to Hero (BB)
SB raises to $30, Hero raises to $119, SB calls $89

Flop: ($238) J T T (2 Players)
Hero checks, SB bets $238, Hero calls $238

Turn: ($714) 3 (2 Players)
Hero checks, SB checks

River: ($714) 7 (2 Players)
Hero checks, SB bets $714, Hero calls $714

Results: $2,142 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero showed A K (a pair of Tens) and WON $2,141.50 (+$1,070.50 NET)
SB showed 8 A (a pair of Tens) and LOST (-$1,071 NET)


Another Poor Calldown

Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (SB): $2,863
BB: $3,423.60

Pre-Flop: Q K dealt to Hero (SB)
Hero raises to $30, BB calls $20

Flop: ($60) 7 K 2 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $60, BB raises to $120, Hero calls $60

Turn: ($300) 4 (2 Players)
BB bets $300, Hero calls $300

River: ($900) T (2 Players)
BB bets $900, Hero calls $900

Results: $2,700 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero mucked Q K (a pair of Kings) and LOST (-$1,350 NET)
BB showed K 2 (two pair, Kings and Twos) and WON $2,699.50 (+$1,349.50 NET)

Labels: NLHE, poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

There are probably better poker books out there, but I have never enjoyed reading one as much as I enjoyed Tommy Angelo's Elements of Poker. It's a delightful read, alternately light and weighty, funny and stern, but a lot of my enjoyment came from the realization that I was getting better at poker from reading it. I was thinking about things I had never considered before, and I was thinking about things I had considered before in a new light.

Elements of Poker is like no other poker book on the market. For the most part, it isn't about pot odds or percentages or hand ranges or bluffing or raising or any of that other stuff that other books tell you how to do. Technically, it does include a pre-flop starting hand chart for hold 'em, but- well, you'll see. Elements of Poker is about how to play poker, literally how you should be while you are playing. It's about where and how you should sit, what and how you should think, when and how you should act, how and to whom you should speak, and even how and why you should breath.

Angelo begins by explaining that you have three poker games: "Your A game is when you play your best and feel your best.... Your B-game is everything between your A-game and your C-game.... Your C-game is when you play poorly according to you." By his reckoning, most poker books tell you how to improve your A-game. That's all well and good, but as he makes clear, poker is a stressful, psychologically and physically brutal game. No one can play his A-game all the time. Most of Elements of Poker, and all of the best parts, is about how to lop off your C-game and spend more time playing your best. Whereas fiddling with the margins of your A-game may improve your win rate by .5 BB/hour or so, getting out of your C-game is usually worth much more. Often, it's the difference between winning and losing.

For Angelo, profit stems from reciprocality. That is, it flows from all of the things that you do better than your opponents. If you get Aces on the button and raise, you haven't won anything yet, because anyone can raise with a pair of Aces. But if you fold those same Aces to a check-raise on the turn, in a spot where your opponent would have lost his stack, then you have turned a (theoretical) profit.

But it's not just about how you play your hands. Every decision you make is an opportunity to decide better than your opponents will. You can eat better, choose your seat better, pay more attention at the table, and quit better than they would. Quitting is big in Angelo's world. Players more prone to tilt than myself will probably find his advice on this point especially valuable. Personally, I struggle to find time to play as much as I should, so I'm more interested in ways to recover from the C-game mentality or even to improve my C-game rather than ways to quit. Still, it's a good section and a powerful idea.

The underlying theme here is self-control. The reader certainly gets the sense that this book is the product of a long, perhaps ongoing struggle between Angelo and his tilt. He's been a professional poker player for a long time, and what he reveals in Elements of Poker are the paths that he has taken to acquire greater control over his thoughts and greater discipline in his actions. What worked for him may not work for everyone, but it at least makes for instructive examples:

Don't set expectations: "When you feel disappointment or relief, you have painted the Ace with your desires and fears- you attached."

Avoid entitlement: "You are not entitled to play bad just because they are playing bad. You are not entitled to tilt on the grounds that anyone would tilt with the terrible luck you've had.... If you have time and money, you are entitled to a seat at the table. That is all."

Don't think in terms of streaks: "All of my good streaks and all of my bad streaks... have had one thing in common. They did not exist in your mind. They only existed in my mind."

Ignore the chat box when playing online: "Let's say you wanted to make it more likely that you will make misclick mistakes. And that you wanted to increase the probability that you will be distracted from the game and miss something important. And let's say you wanted to disclose information to your opponents about yourself that will help them play better against you. How might you achieve all these goals with one action? Chat."

Keep your reads flexible: "If you have an inflexible image in your mind of an opponent, then whenever he changes, your evaluation of him will be wrong."

Breathe. Damn near an entire chapter is devoted to this one.

When he's at his best, Angelo seems to tell you things that you already know, except that he states them so simply, clearly, and powerfully that you attain a new and deeper sense of their importance. Pay attention. Play your position. Find games you can beat. Everyone knows this stuff, yet everyone gets it wrong all the time.

At its worst, Angelo's writing devolves into gross oversimplification or mystical mumbo-jumbo. When you know you want to get all in on the next street, bet 1/3 of the effective stacks on this street. No matter what. Guy with a $1000 open raises to $40 and you've got Aces? Make it $300. That's an actual example from the book.

A lot of the more traditional poker advice tends to veer off track like that. Most of the Tournaments chapter, for instance, is an argument for the importance of survival backed up by numbers the author seems to fabricate out of thin air. I do sympathize with his reasoning for giving up tournaments, though: "the pain equation is way out of whack." Busting out of a $100 tournament can feel as bad, or worse, than losing ten times that in a cash game.

Angelo's discussions of ethics may prove controversial as well. We're not talking about marking cards or multi-accounting here, but rather some genuine gray areas related to whether you should point out a dealer error in a pot that doesn't involve you or when and how you should reveal your hand at showdown. He admits that what he advises can result in your revealing more information than is necessary about your hand and maybe even open yourself up to angel-shooting. Ultimately, though, he offers a compelling, almost Nietzschean justification: "In the grander scheme, you could say that the reason your opponents say, 'I missed' is because they are weak, and the reason you say don't say 'I missed' is because you are strong, which means you are competing for money when you are strong and your opponents are weak. How fair is that?"

And that brings us back to reciprocality. Every time you make a better decision than your opponents, even when you're deciding about something seemingly tangential like what to eat or how much to sleep, you profit as surely as you do when you make a heroic call or amazing fold. The former a lot easier to address, though, and there's generally a lot more room for improvement there. So while the other poker books will tell you how to make even better decisions on a few key points (betting, folding, calling, raising, checking) that you probably understand pretty well already, Tommy Angelo's Elements of Poker will help you recognize and take advantage of the many other opportunities for profit that exist all around you.

Labels: book review, poker, poker strategy

Stumble It!

Too Thin

Full Tilt Poker Pot-Limit , $6 BB (6 handed) Hand History converter Courtesy of PokerZion.com

BB ($386.55)
UTG ($428.05)
Hero ($986.50)
CO ($618.45)
Button ($249.30)
SB ($538.15)

Preflop: Hero is MP with 5d, 6d, As, Ah.
1 fold, Hero raises to $21, CO calls $21, 1 fold, SB calls $18, 1 fold.

Flop: ($69) Jh, 8s, 5s (3 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $45, CO calls $45, SB calls $45.

Turn: ($204) Ac (3 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $145, CO folds, SB calls $145.

River: ($494) Tc (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $494, SB calls $327.15 (All-In).

Final Pot: $1315.15

Results in white below:

SB has 9d 6h 7d Kd (straight, jack high).

Hero has 5d 6d As Ah (three of a kind, aces).

Outcome: SB wins $1148.30. Hero wins $166.85.

It's not often that one ought to check back top set on the river when no obvious draws come in. But with this guy over-calling big bets on the flop and turn, he's almost certainly on a draw. And even though the obvious ones missed, there's no reason to think this guy has a hand that can call my river bet. He either missed, or he hit and checked something improbable.

Here's another one versus the same guy (he's the one in the middle):

Full Tilt Poker Pot-Limit , $6 BB (6 handed) Hand History converter Courtesy of PokerZion.com

CO ($778.95)
Hero ($1299.90)
SB ($467.85)
BB ($339.85)
UTG ($619.35)
MP ($1043.55)

Preflop: Hero is Button with Qh, 8s, Td, Qd.
1 fold, MP calls $6, 1 fold, Hero raises to $27, 1 fold, BB calls $21, MP calls $21.

Flop: ($84) Kh, Js, Qs (3 players)
BB checks, MP checks, Hero bets $72, BB raises to $300, MP calls $300, Hero calls $228.

Turn: ($984) 9h (3 players)
BB bets $12.85 (All-In), MP raises to $716.55 (All-In), Hero calls $716.55.

River: ($2429.95) 3h (3 players, 2 all-in)

Final Pot: $2429.95

Results in white below:

Hero has Qh 8s Td Qd (straight, king high).

BB has 5h Kc 9s Ks (three of a kind, kings).

MP has Ah 9d Th Kd (flush, ace high).

Outcome: MP wins $2429.95.

Given his demonstrated penchant for slowplaying, I was already feeling bad about his cold call on the flop. I told myself that my holding a T made it somewhat less likely for him to have a straight and that he would pay off if I boated up. Then I improved to the second nuts on the turn and decided there was some chance he was on a combo draw or the same hand I now had, and that T9 was a more likely combo than AT for him to be limp-calling. Bad bad bad really, I probably ought to have just folded the flop.

Labels: PLO, poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

2+2 Internet Magazine recently cut a deal with a German poker website called PokerOlymp that allows them to publish German translations of articles initially written for 2+2. This is great for us authors because whenever they choose one of our articles, we get an extra $100 for no additional work! Plus, they still have limited rights to the articles, meaning that they have exclusive right to use them for three months, and then the rights revert back to us and we can re-sell them or post them on our websites. So my December article, The Myth of Any Two Cards, is now available in German!

Labels: personal, poker

Stumble It!

While reading a relatively unrelated opinion piece in today's New York Times, I was reminded of a comment left by Jen on one of my recent Savage Inequalities posts. She asked whether Kozol addressed the question of inequality between states and pointed me to the condition of schools in her native South Carolina, where her mother is a public school teacher. I'll address that in a moment, but first, here's Bob Herbert on South Carolina's rural schools:

"If you were to walk into some of those schools — which are spread along a crescent-shaped corridor on either side of Interstate 95 from the southern edge of North Carolina to the northern edge of Georgia — you might forget that you were in the United States.

A former South Carolina commerce secretary, Charles Way, talks in the film about the time his car broke down near one of these schools and he went inside to use a phone.

“I just couldn’t really believe my eyes,” he said. “It was the most deplorable building condition that I’ve ever seen in my life. How the hell somebody could teach in an environment like that is really just beyond me.”

Among many other problems, ancient plumbing has resulted in raw sewage backing up into some schools, bringing in vermin and unbearable odors. The first school profiled in “Corridor of Shame” was built in 1896.

Some 700,000 students attend these rural schools, and they are being left behind in droves. One principal complained about nonfiction books in the school library that dated back to the 1940s and ’50s, including a volume that promised “one day man will land on the moon.”

The rural schools in South Carolina are symptoms of a much wider problem. Only about 50 percent of the state’s children graduate from high school."

Inter-state disparity in education funding isn't something that Kozol addresses, and my guess as to why is that public education is a right enshrined at the state rather than the federal level. Unlike the federal constitution, all 50 state constitutions make some provision for public education. When the US constitution has been applied to education, it's generally been via the 14th amendment's prohibition against any individual state's inequitable provision of a right, privilege, or public good. In other words, the US constitution does not guarantee citizens a public education, but it does guarantee that if your state chooses to provide public education, that it must do so equitably.

This is why the scheme of funding public education through local property taxes is so disingenuous. It is a right provided at the state level, yet in fulfilling this obligation, states delegate its provision to local governments in a way that guarantees funding disparities.

There are plenty of good reasons for local control of education that have nothing to do with racism or the perpetuation of inequality, but it is surely naive to think that those latter factors have nothing to do with the local funding scheme. Many school districts have been gerrymandered specifically to isolate a wealthy enclave, ensuring that its resources go only to its own children and often that its school stay largely white as a result.

These sometimes arbitrary school district lines are what enabled the "white flight" that followed the Supreme Court's Brown decision and the subsequent attempts to desegregate public schools. White families could keep their children in segregated schools by moving out of diverse urban school districts and into largely white suburbs. In a case called Milliken v. Bradley, the Court protected this strategy by holding that students could not be forced to desegregate across district lines.

The final chapter of Kozol's book is built around the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in San Antonio v. Rodriguez that intrastate disparities in funding for public education do not constitute actionable discrimination. Once again, the familiar canards of the "adequate" education and the indirect correlation between money and quality rear their ugly heads:

"The argument here is not that the children in districts having relatively low assessable property values are receiving no public education; rather, it is that they are receiving a poorer quality education than that available to children in districts having more assessable wealth. Apart from the unsettled and disputed question whether the quality of education may be determined by the amount of money [411 U.S. 1, 24] expended for it, 56 a sufficient answer to appellees' argument is that, at least where wealth is involved, the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages. 57 Nor, indeed, in view of the infinite variables affecting the educational process, can any system assure equal quality of education except in the most relative sense. Texas asserts that the Minimum Foundation Program provides an "adequate" education for all children in the State. By providing 12 years of free public-school education, and by assuring teachers, books, transportation, and operating funds, the Texas Legislature has endeavored to "guarantee, for the welfare of the state as a whole, that all people shall have at least an adequate program of education. This is what is meant by `A Minimum Foundation Program of Education.'"

In their dissent, Justices Marshall and Douglass point out the inherent inequality of local property tax as a funding mechanism for public education:

"It is clear, moreover, that the disparity of per-pupil revenues cannot be dismissed as the result of lack of local effort - that is, lower tax rates - by property-poor districts. To the contrary, the data presented below indicate that the poorest districts tend to have the highest tax rates and the richest districts tend to have the lowest tax rates. 12 Yet, despite the apparent extra effort being made by the poorest districts, they are unable even to begin to match the richest districts in terms of the production of local revenues. For example, the 10 richest districts studied by Professor Berke were able to produce $585 per pupil with an equalized tax rate of 31› [411 U.S. 1, 76] on $100 of equalized valuation, but the four poorest districts studied, with an equalized rate of 70› on $100 of equalized valuation, were able to produce only $60 per pupil. 13 Without more, this state-imposed system of educational funding presents a serious picture of widely varying treatment of Texas school districts, and thereby of Texas schoolchildren, in terms of the amount of funds available for public education."

In other words, school districts with a lower property base do not even have the option of providing an education on the order of what their wealthier counterparts can offer. Contrary to the popular claim that education is somehow undervalued in poor and/or minority communities, these districts often allocate larger portions of their income to education than do their suburban counterparts. However, a smaller chunk of the much higher suburban property base still goes a lot further. Justices Marshall and Douglas state even more clearly that,

Kozol also points out that tax-exempt public institutions such as libraries, museums, and universities are more likely to occupy urban than suburban real estate. Even though occupants of nearby suburbs may be equally or more likely to patronize these institutions, they are a drain on the urban tax base.

Following the Rodriguez decision's foreclosure of federal action against educational funding inequality, there was hope that state constitutions might provide a better avenue of appeal. Thirty years later, that approach has unfortunately not yet panned out.

Labels: personal

Stumble It!

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

It has been 25 years since Savage Inequalities was first published, and there have been some changes. Schools are still funded primarily by local property taxes, guaranteeing that wealthier school districts will produce better educated children. However, the federal role in education has greatly increased, and funds from Title I and other revenue streams have in some cases ironed out the most glaring disparities. According to a 2002 study by the Government Accounting Office, pupils in Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis now receive more investment than their suburban counterparts.

But I have worked in two of these districts, and I have seen and heard about conditions at some schools that would not be tolerated in Newton or New Trier. Without engaging in an extensive critique of the GAO's numbers, I will say that there are some reasons why they may be misleading. Dropout rates, in part of a product of inferior schools, are much higher in the city. In fact, as Kozol points out, schools often plan for and rely on substantial numbers of students dropping out. Thus, 35 students may be assigned to a classroom with 27 desks on the safe assumption that 8 of those students will not be attending school by the end of the first semester. While per-pupil spending may be high for those students who remain in school, the numbers may not be so rosy when distributed across all of the students that the district ought to be educating.

Moreover, federal education funds are from a free lunch. No Schools Left Behind, the latest incarnation of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act that authorizes most federal education spending, including Title I, imposes stringent requirements on schools to raise their standardized test scores or lose their money. The result is 'teaching to the test', an education built as much around test-taking skills as around knowledge. Even when asking very progressive, well-meaning administrators for relatively paltry sums of money, I am often asked about how debate affects test scores. Dutiful booster that I am, I'm prepared with an encouraging answer, but sometimes it's hard not to feel like a part of the problem myself.

In the realm of desegregation, there has been no improvement. If anything, segregation has gotten worse than it was when Savage Inequalities was published and is now as bad as it has been since the Brown decision more than 50 years ago. Sadly, the trend seems to be towards ever greater segregation, as courts around the country are scaling back or eliminating busing schemes. The new conservative majority in the Supreme Court ruled during its last term, in a decision in the case of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, that school districts may not even voluntarily elect to desegregate themselves by making race-based student assignments to public schools. It is cruel and ironic how the 13th amendment, the Brown decision, and even the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, have been co-opted by the conservative agenda in defense of segregation and, by extension, inequality.

Labels: narrative, personal

Stumble It!