Hopelatrons and seeing the future (non-grumpy content)

That just has to be the most intriguing post title I've had yet. If you're reading to find out what it could possibly be about, it has done its job.

There's a new poker publication out, called "Under the Gun." In Vegas, so far I've only seen it being distributed at Treasure Island, though I assume they've hit other rooms, too. It's a small magazine that basically is just ads plus an overview of the contents of a DVD, which is included. All free, of course. The DVD is like a poker feature magazine for TV. It's really quite well done. Nothing like in-depth analysis, but interesting feature pieces.

The magazine does have one bit of content that isn't on the DVD, and that's part of an interview with Phil Laak, who I think is one of the most interesting poker pros. I think he's an unusually bright guy. Hmmm. I should perhaps explain that comment. Nearly all poker pros are reasonably bright people. But there are a few who strike me as having the kind of IQs and general intellectual capacity that would allow them to successfully take on just about any subject if they found an interest in it. These include Barry Greenstein, Eric Seidel, Howard Lederer, Allen Cunningham, Chris Ferguson, David Sklansky, Paul Phillips, and Andy Bloch. I would not make the same statement about most pros, including, e.g., Daniel Negreanu, Phil Hellmuth, Hoyt Corkin, Gavin Smith, T.J. Cloutier, Johnny Chan, Doyle Brunson, or a zillion others. They are all highly talented and successful poker players, and undoubtedly a standard deviation or more above the population average in intelligence, but I see some much broader "smarts" in those on my smaller list. I would include Laak in that elite category, though I think he has less formal education (and less of the typical demeanor of those who have survived a PhD program) than most of the others.

Anyway, I try to read or watch anything about Laak that comes my way, because he always has something interesting to say. And the "Under the Gun" interview is no different. He introduces a term I hadn't heard before, one of his own coining:

"The best way to describe a hopelatron would be to imagine the middle earth soldier guys from Lord of the Rings. Collectively very strong, but from individual to individual very weak. None the less [sic; this new publication could seriously use a good copy editor], their strength is that there are so many of them. You are sure to take a beating from a hopelatron from time to time. Even thought [sic; see what I mean?] they can nail you in a hand, they are lifetime losers at poker. It is the hopelatrons that keep the pros in the money. Thank the good lord for each and every one of them. Basically it is a term of affection for all the army of weak players that comprise the poker universe."

I love that word. It has already eased the sting of a couple of bad beats I've received recently from their numbers. Just thinking of the Tolkienesque mass of the hopelatrons at poker tables all over the city is sufficiently amusing that it makes the inevitable occasional loss to one of them a tad more bearable.

The other amusing thing about him for discussion here is this story from the DVD (any errors in transcription are my own fault):

"I never feel that I can see the future. The only time in my life I saw the future was about six hours into Day 1 of the [World Series of Poker] Main Event last year, and I saw that I was winning the twelve million. It was really weird. I saw it. It was like I was prophetic, and it was as real as seeing, like, that table right there. It was so strange, and I was like, "Wow!" ... So two hands later, this guy enters the pot, and I went, "Wow," and I just knew that if I made a huge raise, he would have to fold. And I knew that if I made a huge raise and he re-raised I would be pot committed anyways if he had ace-king, so I decided to go all in. It was so smart a play. Except he had two kings and I had 8-3, and his kings held up handily, and I was eliminated from the tournament. So I've gone back to not seeing the future. It's a lot safer, y'know?"

Isn't it nice to know that even successful pros can make completely dumb-ass moves just like the rest of us?