Blog worth reading

It's been a long time since I started reading a new (as in, new to me) poker blog and liked it enough to point y'all to it. (I live in the South now, so I'm not just allowed to say "y'all"--I'm required to.) But I've now found one that is worth calling your attention to. It's written by Rachel Kranz, and it's called "Adventures in Poker."

I first became aware of it because Jennifer Newell started posting links to it on both Facebook and Twitter a few weeks ago. I thought I'd get around to checking it out sooner or later, but didn't actually do so.

But then Nina (my girlfriend, aka Cardgrrl) told me that she had started reading, too, and was impressed at the quality of the writing. Nina is not easily impressed by blog writing, but she was this time--to the point of saying that she was envious: "If I were still doing my poker blog, I hope it would be that good." So yeah, that got my attention.

And now that I've read the last three posts, I see why both Jennifer and Nina thought it stood out from the field. It's well-written, thoughtful, introspective, brutally honest and even confessional. Really quite compelling.

You might want to go check it out.

PokerNews article #121

Shannon Elizabeth, the "law of attraction," and the illusion of control in poker.


http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/what-you-can-and-cant-control-in-poker-and-why-it-matters-25357.htm

Which presidential candidate is best for poker?

See here for the answer:

http://www.pokerupdate.com/news/law-and-legislation/7141-gary-johnson-still-friend-online-poker/

PokerNews article #120

Five more poker-room promotions, and how to approach them.


http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/five-poker-room-promotions-and-how-to-exploit-them-25297.htm

PokerNews article #119

Tony asked if he had misplayed a hand. This is my detailed analysis.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/important-hold-em-lessons-from-a-seemingly-ordinary-hand-25221.htm

PokerNews article #118

An evolutionary biologist and George Costanza team up to teach you how to bluff better.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/deception-detection-bluffing-25151.htm

PokerNews article #117

Muhammad Ali has some poker advice for you.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/muhammad-ali-on-how-to-be-the-greatest-poker-player-25090.htm

On abrogating constitutional rights without due process (no poker content)

I wrote this for Facebook, then decided I might as well make it more accessible by posting it here. What got me thinking about the subject was this blog post by legal scholar Josh Blackman, whose writings I have come to like--including, e.g., his book on the legal challenges to Obamacare.



I've been ruminating more on the proposals--by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, and others--that if you're on a terrorist watch list or a no-fly list, you should be barred from being able to buy a gun. It's important to keep in mind that placement on such lists is based only on suspicion--by definition, less than needed to constitute "probable cause" for an arrest warrant, let alone evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" necessary for a criminal conviction.

The Adam Winkler proposal to have such determinations rubber-stamped by a FISA-like court (see the link I posted earlier today) doesn't improve matters much, because those are secret proceedings, in which the accused does not get to examine or contest the evidence the government claims to have against him. In fact, the accused doesn't even know that such a proceeding is taking place, so there's no right to be represented by an attorney, to confront witnesses, etc.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine if the result of being placed on one of those lists of suspects were a clear violation of some clear constitutional right *other* than that protected by the second amendment.

First amendment: "Citizen, you are under suspicion, and may no longer post your opinions about Islam anywhere on the Internet."

First amendment, again: "Citizen, you are under suspicion, and may no longer attend any Islamic place of worship."

First amendment, again: "Citizen, you are under suspicion, and may no longer have contact with friends or family members who are of the Muslim faith."

First amendment, again: "Citizen, you are under suspicion, and may no longer join in petitions to the government relative to the grievances you claim in the treatment of Muslims."

Fourth amendment: "Citizen, you are under suspicion, and law enforcement agencies from every level of government are now empowered to search your person at any time, and to enter your home and business and search all of your belongings, at their sole discretion, seizing any items they deem relevant, without a warrant."

Fifth amendment: "Citizen, you are under suspicion, and are now required to cooperate in our gathering of evidence against you. This means, specifically, that you must answer all of our questions about your various activities, businesses, social contacts, religious beliefs, ideas, and plans. If you do not comply willingly, you will be jailed in order to coerce your compliance."

Eighth amendment: "Citizen, you are under suspicion. Should jailing you fail to produce your compliance with the questioning described above, we are authorized to employ methods of torture to gain your cooperation."

Thirteenth amendment: "Citizen, you are under suspicion. Therefore, you are hereby declared to be a slave of the federal government. The US Marshal presenting you these papers will now escort you to the forced-labor camp. Noncompliance with any order will be severely punished."

If you would be willing to stand for ANY of these consequences on the grounds of being a mere *suspect*, without evidence sufficient for arrest (much less prosecution), then I'm afraid that your views and mine about rights, liberty, the constitution, and what it means to live in "the land of the free" are so far apart that there is no way to bridge the divide.

If, however, you share my sense of revulsion at the thought that the government could treat a citizen in this manner, then I respectfully invite you to consider whether we should allow the right to own/purchase a firearm, as guaranteed in the second amendment, to be abrogated with that lessened threshold of mere "suspicion."

PokerNews article #116

On why you shouldn't be the table's poker teacher.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/seven-reasons-not-to-be-the-tables-poker-know-it-all-25018.htm

Deuce-Four wins a WSOP bracelet

http://www.wsop.com/tournaments/update/1ECN/jean-gaspard-wins-the-10k-dealers-choice-championship/

Thanks to Eric Farbman for pointing this out to me.

What would you do?

Interesting story by Lee Jones. How would you react?

https://www.pokerstars.com/en/blog/lee_jones_journal/2016/letting-one-off-the-hook-162093.shtml

PokerNews article #115

Mind control in poker--it's totally possible!

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/mind-control-in-poker-24954.htm

Just for fun, here's some screen captures from that "Jessica Jones" scene described in the article:

PokerNews article #114

Tips for playing in seniors' tournaments:

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/seniors-events-strategy-24830.htm

When non-poker-players pick license plates

PokerNews article #113

This is the second half of the article started last week, on using a combinations calculator to solve poker probability problems.

Thanks once again to the readers who sniffed out several goofs in this before it went online.


http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/how-to-take-your-poker-math-beyond-counting-outs-2-24776.htm

PokerNews article #112

This is the first half of a two-part article on how to do poker probability problems using combinations of cards, with the difficult math done by something called a combinations calculator.

I spent far longer writing this one than most of my PN contributions, and I'm really pleased with the result. If you follow along and do the work with me, rather than just blast through it as fast as your eyeballs can scan the words, you'll go from knowing nothing about this kind of calculation to being able to pose and answer complex poker-math problems on your own.

I owe a giant thanks to five blog readers who responded to my plea in the previous post, and took considerable time and effort to proofread my first draft. Between them, they found six mistakes, ranging from trivial to huge. Without their help in advance, I would now have to spend the next few days being embarrassed and submitting corrections as PokerNews readers pointed out my mistakes. But due to their careful scrutiny, I'm now pretty confident that everything is right.

And thanks also to "TBC" Tony, whose report of the unusual poker-room promotion in Shreveport is what got me thinking about tackling this subject for PokerNews. The calculation of how often that promotion is expected to hit is the last and most complex example I work through in the article, at the end of Part Two, next week.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/how-to-take-your-poker-math-beyond-counting-outs-1-24726.htm

Math double-check

I've written a thing for an upcoming PokerNews article that involves a lot of math--not highly advanced, but moderately complex poker probability stuff that can't be looked up online. I'd like to have any embarrassing errors discovered before it gets published, rather than after.

If you're reasonably good at figuring out probabilities using the formula for card combinations, and you're willing to spend what I think would be 30 minutes or so looking over my work, please let me know: submit a comment below with "do not publish" or words to that effect, and your name and email, and I'll send it to you for a look-over.

Thanks.

PokerNews article #111

Have you ever lamented that you finally pick up a big hand, and everybody folds to your raise? Here's how to fix that.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/everybody-folds-when-you-finally-have-a-big-hand-how-to-fix--24664.htm

PokerNews article #110

Autism, Star Trek, and Kenny Rogers:

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/reading-emotions-and-poker-24610.htm

Full day of poker

Yesterday Nina and I went to Harrah's Cherokee to play in the second WSOP-C seniors event. (The first was April 17.) I did decently well in it, going out with about 150 left out of 568 entrants, but not well enough to make the money (last 63). As is often the case in such things, winning instead of losing one 50/50 race would have made all the difference.

Next I played in a cash game for a while. It's actually been three years since I played a $1-2 NLHE cash game with chips and a dealer instead of PokerPro machines. I kept forgetting to tip the dealer when I won pots. I started well, but eventually made a bad all-in move and lost my buy-in. The game was already breaking up, so I decided not to start over.

But they were assembling a 10-player, $125 sit-and-go for $1100 cash, winner take all. I don't think I've ever done a tournament format like that. The closest I've come has been some WSOP single-table satellites. I figured I had a couple of hours of good poker left in me, so I signed up. Nina came by when there was just one seat left, and I persuaded her to take it.

I picked a seat card at random and ended up sitting next to a blog reader, who lives in Durham. He recognized me and introduced himself. (Hi, Matt!) It wasn't too uncommon to run into readers at the poker tables in Las Vegas, but this is the first time it's happened since I moved to North Carolina.

I started the tournament epically card-dead. Just could not pick up a real hand to save my life. And every time I thought a good steal opportunity was coming my way, Matt, on my right, beat me to it.

The structure was fast. 2000 in starting chips, blinds going up every 15 minutes, starting at 25/25, then 25/50, 50/100, etc. The whole thing took less than two hours. So after losing some chips to blinds and speculative hands that went nowhere, I had to do something. When there were a few limpers but no raise, I decided to shove with A-3 offsuit and hope for the best. It worked. Matt thought a long time about calling, but finally folded with the rest of them, and I was back to my original stack.

Then card-dead again, until I finally made a stand with pocket 8s, flopped a set, and tripled up. Then I finally had enough chips to start really playing.

We had four women starting this event, and three of them, along with me, were the final four. That's right--I was the last man standing.

One got knocked out and it was down to me, Nina, and an odd older woman. She looked rather like a caricature of everybody's grandmother, including a hat that looked like it was meant for gardening. She was impossible to figure out--not because she was particularly skilled, but because she was so random. She would show up with hands that made no sense to have been playing in the spots she was playing them, and she made bad calls that somehow worked out almost every time.

Nina went out in third place, and I was left heads-up with Grandma. She wanted to chop the prize money. I gather that chopping the last two, three, or four places is pretty much de rigueur in these events, but I politely declined her repeated offers to do so. I wanted the whole $1100, I started heads-up play with more chips than she had (1200 to 800), and I was absolutely certain I was the better player. Besides, the tavern poker league I've been meddling in for the last year or so has given me a decent amount of experience heads-up with weaker players at the end of fast-structured tournaments. As long as I didn't do anything too stupid and didn't get too unlucky, I should be able to win.

And I did. The final blow came when I had pocket queens on the button. She called my raise. The flop was all low, uncoordinated, perfectly safe-looking. She checked, I shoved, and she insta-called with king-high, no pair. That was all she wrote.

Grandma shook hands politely, but walked away muttering something about my unwillingness to chop.

I liked the format. Not a huge time commitment, not too much of a financial investment, but a handsome payoff. It felt good to win.

PokerNews article #109

This installment is about anger--how it costs you money, and how it can make you money.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/three-ways-anger-costs-you-profit-from-others-anger-24563.htm

PokerNews article #108

This week's column is all about, well, this:






For the explanation, see:

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/lyin-truthin-nancy-sinatra-rule-of-poker-24511.htm

PokerNews article #107

This is about dealing with freeroll-entry poker room promotions.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/three-strategies-for-approaching-freeroll-tournaments-24459.htm

WSOP photos

My friend Elizabeth Wolynski has compiled some of her fine WSOP photographs into a video. I especially like many of the black & white portraits in the first couple of minutes.

PokerNews article #106

A new study of the psychology of Rock Paper Scissors can teach you something about poker, too.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/make-your-poker-game-less-exploitable-rock-paper-scissors-24419.htm

PokerNews article #105

In this one, I categorize the different ways that players observe the flop.


http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/six-kinds-of-players-are-taking-in-the-flop-which-are-you-24363.htm

PokerNews article #104

The pros and cons of having a lucky hand.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/four-reasons-lucky-poker-hand-24295.htm

Strategy quiz

This is a good one. I got 8/8, but I had to really stop and think hard about some of them.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/the-weekly-pokernews-strategy-quiz-everything-is-not-even-mo-24291.htm

PokerNews article #103

Three ways to avoid repeating your mistakes in poker.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/three-ways-to-avoid-repeating-your-poker-mistakes-24247.htm

PokerNews article #102

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/book-the-win-advice-on-breaking-a-losing-streak-24184.htm

PokerNews article #101

This is part two of my introduction to Bayes' theorem for poker players.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/call-or-fold-bayes-theorem-poker-uncertainty-2-24133.htm

Poker quiz from Mike Caro

Question on his Facebook page:

Okay, so you're playing hold 'em and all cards have been dealt. As you begin the final betting round, you realize that you have the lowest-ranking hand that can't possibly be beat or even tied. What's on the board and what cards do you hold?

See here for his answer and explanation. But try to work it out for yourself first. It's a worthwhile brain exercise.

(I got it right. Did you?)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Today I went to Harrah's Cherokee today. Got a seat right away in a $1/2 NLHE game at one of the PokerPro electronic tables. I bought in for $200.

On my third or fourth hand, I had 3d-6d one off the button. I raised to $8, because The Spanish Inquisition is awesome. The button called (sitting on $450 or so), as did the big blind (short stack).

Flop: 3s-7c-3c. Yahtzee! BB checked. I bet $12. Button called. Big blind check-raised all-in for $22. It wasn't enough to reopen the betting, so I could only call. Button called, too.

Turn: Qh. The pot was about $90. I bet $60. I was surprised when the button called. I didn't think most people would call that with a flush draw. I thought his most likely holding was a medium pair--something between 8s and jacks. If so, he was calling only as a bluff-catcher.

River: 7d. This was problematic. If the button had called me on the flop and turn because he had a 7, he had just backed into a bigger full house than mine. But I decided that was relatively unlikely, and I should stick with my read that he thought I was bluffing with something like A-K, and therefore might call again. The pot was now about $210, so I threw my last $110 at it. Sure enough, the button called, though not as quickly or eagerly as I thought he would have if he had a 7.

I was sort of right: He had been slow-playing pocket aces. Ouch! Sorry, sir, but your three pair do not beat my treys full.

The BB had As-5s, so he was just going for the flush draw.

I think it's safe to conclude that neither of them expected The Spanish Inquisition.

I kept getting hit by the deck. I raised with 7h-8h, and got a 7-7-10 flop. I raised with Q-K off, and got a Q-Q-J flop. Won them both with a continuation bet. In fact, during this session I won every single hand in which I put in money on the flop and/or turn.

The final example of the poker gods' kindness to me today was this one: I raised to $9 from the button with Qc-9c. Two callers. Flop: 7-8-J rainbow. Checked around. My only hope was really a 10 for the straight. Turn: 10 of the fourth suit! Nutterific! First guy bet $10. Next guy raised to $25. He immediately became my target, because if he's raising here, with me still to act, he might be willing to get it all in while I'm holding the nuts. Besides, I don't want to have to make a horribly difficult decision if the river pairs the board. He had about $115 left. I shoved. First guy folded, second guy called. He had J-8. He had flopped top two pair, and was probably planning a check-raise on the flop, which got foiled when I checked behind. He was springing his trap one street too late. River was a deuce, I think. I'll take that virtual stack of chips you were playing, sir, thankyouverymuch.

I folded a couple more hands, then logged out. I was up $395 in 35 minutes, and it kind of felt like I had used up more than my fair share of good luck, so I took the money and ran.

That turned out to be the shortest session I've ever played at Harrah's Cherokee.

PokerNews article #100

This two-part article (Part One now, Part Two next week) is one I've had in mind to write for a year or more. But it was a daunting challenge. Bayes' Theorem is a difficult mathematical concept for people to grasp, because it often leads to counterintuitive results. But I finally spent enough time over the last few days to put together what I hope is a reasonably user-friendly introduction to the subject. Next week we get to how it applies to poker.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/call-or-fold-bayes-theorem-poker-uncertainty-24077.htm

PokerNews article #99

Four steps to success in unfamiliar poker variants:

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/four-steps-to-success-in-unfamiliar-poker-variants-24021.htm

"Top Pair" podcast

This week, the boys talk about my recent visit to the Salt Lake City home game, one of my recent PokerNews articles, and other stuff. Listen here, with show notes:

http://www.toppair.net/pls/apex/f?p=TOPPAIR:1:0

There will be more about that Utah home-game experience in my next PokerNews article, probably coming out Monday.

PokerNews article #98

This one is about how we fail to improve at both driving and poker because of the lack of effective feedback mechanisms.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/you-might-play-poker-as-badly-as-you-drive-but-how-can-you-k-23977.htm

Utah home game

I just got back home last night from my annual trip to Utah to visit family. My father lives there with my sister and her husband, and my brother and his wife flew out from Minnesota so we could all be there together for a few days. This year, for the first time, Nina came along with me.

We did something else new and different: We went to a home poker game. When I was a guest on the "Top Pair" podcast, which focuses primarily on home games, the hosts each invited me to drop in on their games if I were ever in their neighborhoods. One of them lives in Israel, so that's probably not happening anytime soon. But the other, Bruce Briggs, is in Salt Lake City. I emailed him a few weeks ago to see if the offer still stood, and he was gracious enough to contact some friends and put together a game night when Nina and I could attend.

It was a delight. Friendly people, crazy games, and low stakes--what more could one ask for in a home poker game? Well, I guess one could ask to win, but since my losses totaled exactly $1, I'm not complaining too loudly. Where else can you get almost five hours of that level of entertainment for a dollar?

Some of the participants are pictured above. One had already left. Bruce is second from left. Our husband-and-wife hosts are in the middle. Nina was on the other side of the camera, so you'll have to flip your computer around 180 degrees to see her.

I think I'll have more to say about the interesting game selection in an upcoming PokerNews article.

The old saying was entirely applicable here: A good time was had by all.

PokerNews article #97

I don't always come up with my own titles, but I did this one:

"Rebel Without a Hand: Playing 'Chicken' with the All-In Bluff" 

PokerNews article #96

Five poker lessons from Powerball:

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/five-poker-lessons-from-the-powerball-drawing-23782.htm

Stubborn

Here's the stubbornest razz player on the planet:

A reminder: Deuce-Four always wins...

...even when it's the worst possible hand! 

Pottymouth

Notice the chat from just-knocked-out player handycrab11.

Here's the bad beat I put on him that got him riled: 

Yeah, I reported him. Hope he gets chat-banned. Poker doesn't need stuff like that. 

PokerNews article #95

How to break your bad poker habits.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/resolutions-arent-enough-change-your-bad-poker-habits-23723.htm

Deuce-Four rides again!

From the same tournament as the previous post:

Finished up in third place, $76.

Strangest hand in the history of razz

This is from a HORSE tournament on Carbon Poker that I'm still in as I post this. So no time for analysis and discussion. I'll just post this hand history and let y'all ponder the weirdness of it.

PokerNews article #94

This one is about how a small sample size of observations can badly distort your view of an opponent's playing style, and thus lead you into a bad decision.


http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/call-or-fold-a-dilemma-caused-by-small-sample-size-23694.htm

PokerNews article #93

When you lose money at poker, it's gone forever, and you can't win it back. But that's OK. Here's why.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/you-cant-win-back-what-you-lost-previous-session-heres-why-23644.htm

PokerNews article #92

3 ways poker can help you make better decisions in your life.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/three-ways-poker-can-help-you-with-life-decisions-23579.htm

Deuce-Four update

It's been quite a while since I wrote about the Mighty Deuce-Four, so I thought I'd tell you that it's still working. I just played this hand in a HORSE tournament:

Of course I made a flush. And of course it beat the other guy's straight.

LDO.

The problem, in a nutshell

Read from the bottom up here:

Those tweets were soon followed by this series of replies, all from one dude asshole:  

So a female poker player reports a session in which the sexual harassment was so thick that, in recounting it, she even forgot to mention the rape threat--and a male poker player is willing to go on the record publicly telling her that she has no right to play without being harassed, that she should "get over it," that she's being a "baby," that harassing "the new girl is not over the line," that she shouldn't "whine about it," that if she's being harassed she should "leave" and/or "man up," that "nobody cares" about her harassment, that her harassment is "Part of the game" and "standard," that she's being "2 sensitive," that surely what she perceived as harassment was said "in gest [sic]" (despite him not having been there), and that her complaints are "crap that doesn't matter." 

I think there are relatively few men who would lay on the sexual harassment at a poker game to the point that somebody like Cate Hall--who strikes me as quite evidently tough-minded and resilient--would take to Twitter to denounce it. But I think there are a very, very large number of male poker players who share one or more of Andrew's reactions to it: It's part of the game, it's not over the line, it doesn't matter, she should respond by leaving or enduring it without objection. 

IMHO, it is the latter group, rather than the former, who make this such a difficult problem to eradicate. If it were only handful of obnoxious jerks who were quickly, reliably, and sternly rebuked and shunned for their crass behavior by everybody else at the table (and, not incidentally, ejected from the game by the poker room staff), it would soon be extinguished. It's the fact that women end up having to deal with the ill-bred mouth-breathers all alone--with the silence of others constituting tacit approval--that makes their conduct so damaging. 

Thanks, Andrew, for encapsulating the problem so perfectly. 

(Please insert here all the standard caveats that as a male I can't know what it feels like, shouldn't be mansplaining, etc.) 

ADDENDUM: At first I couldn't figure out who "Andrew" was. But then it occurred to me to do a Google image search on the photo he uses on his Twitter account. The photo is of an Andrew Liporace; see here. Hendon Mob info is here. I assume, but do not know, that that's who we're dealing with here. 

Winner

The epic last hand:

PokerNews article #91

Could your game use a little cognitive-behavioral therapy?

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/training-your-brain-could-your-poker-game-use-a-little-cbt-23505.htm

Mahjong raid

"Police had to take action. If the cops had allowed elderly mahjong players to win more than $10 at a time, middle-aged poker players might think they could get away with the same sort of thing. What a terrifying world that would be."

https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/30/florida-cops-shut-down-old-ladies-mahjon

I could've had...

...a royal flush.

But I folded.

Strange rule at Harrah's Cherokee

I was at Harrah's Cherokee over the weekend. While I was waiting in line at the cashier, I noticed this list of house rules on one of the monitors. Look at the third one.

I suppose banning Google Glass has some rationale, because one might theoretically use it to beam images of one's cards to somebody outside the game and surreptitiously get advice on how to play via an earbud. But I'm unable to come up with a justification for banning "smart watches."

Any plausible ideas?

PokerNews article #90

Daniel Negreanu made an offhand comment during a hand of this year's WSOP Main Event. He probably didn't intend it to be a strategy lesson--but I made it into one.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/thinking-ahead-one-sentence-poker-lesson-daniel-negreanu-23382.htm

Part 2 of "Bust"

Just as riveting as part 1, linked yesterday.

http://bittersoutherner.com/bust/part-2

Home poker game gone really, really wrong

Fabulous long-form reporting by my friend Brad Willis:

http://bittersoutherner.com/bust/part-1

PokerNews article #89

This one is about how poker players tend to use and misuse the idea of some event being "due."

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/think-youre-due-to-flop-a-set-this-time-think-again-23316.htm

PokerNews article #88

This one doesn't have any practical strategic advice, but hopefully will open your eyes to the weird ways that randomness works in poker.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/on-improbable-events-in-poker-learn-how-to-take-your-lumps-23242.htm

TitanBet article

The good folks at TitanBet poker asked me to write a long article on poker etiquette--so I did. You can read it here.

If you're blocked from accessing the article directly because of geography, you may be able to work around the firewall. Search Google for this phrase, in quotation marks: "poker etiquette protects the sociability of the game." With any luck, that will yield exactly one result. (Well, probably two now, because it will find this blog post, too!) Going through Google may sneak you in--but no guarantees. 

PokerNews article #87

This one is all about self-control: why we need it, what taxes it, and what increases it.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/self-control-most-important-poker-resource-how-to-get-more-o-23180.htm

Best televised hands

PokerUpdate has been running a "tournament" to determine readers' most memorable televised poker hand, out of 32 nominees. I haven't been following closely as things progress, but I popped in to see what the final four were--and they are all excellent, well worth re-watching.

http://www.pokerupdate.com/news/poker-opinion/the-most-memorable-televised-poker-hand/

For sheer poker skill, the one with Tom Dwan is the clear winner. But for viewing pleasure, it's hard to top seeing Phil Hellmuth take the bad end of one of the most incredible suckouts of all time.

Podcast with moi

Ashley Adams recently interviewed me for his "House of Cards" radio show. It was broadcast this past week through its syndicated stations across the fruited plain, and is now available as a podcast, here. It's the one dated October 19, 2015.

The impetus for the interview was my PokerNews article on the newest edition of the tournament poker rules. But we ended up chatting much more about my general life history and getting into and subsequently out of poker as a career. Only in the last few minutes did we get to talking about new tournament rules.

I apologize for the bad sound quality. I know what I was saying, and still find it kind of hard to understand. I'm not sure what went wrong with the call, though it must have been on my end, since Ashley is clear as a bell. Maybe my phone sucks worse than I was aware of.

BTW, in case you don't recognize Adams's name, I've written about him a few times before. See all those posts collected here.

PokerNews article #86

This one is about paying attention to gut feelings you get while playing poker.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/gut-feelings-in-poker-what-do-they-mean-23095.htm

"Top Pair" podcast

The boys discuss a couple of my recent PokerNews pieces in their newest episode:

http://toppair.net/pls/apex/f?p=TOPPAIR:1:0

PokerNews article #85

How should you interpret a player voluntarily showing his cards after a hand?

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/what-does-it-mean-when-a-player-voluntarily-shows-a-hand-23009.htm

PokerNews article #84

This one is about the problem of being too stubborn, in science and in poker.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/in-poker-being-stubborn-as-a-mule-can-make-you-a-donkey-22886.htm

King Ball

The biggest hand of my poker session yesterday:

From early position, I raised to $7 or $8 with A-K. Guy three seats to my left, who had overdosed on the scented body wash and/or cologne, called. The man with the love bird moved all in for about $70 from the big blind.

I was willing to call him for that much, on the assumption that he did not have aces or kings, and we would most likely be flipping. But I wanted to shut out Fragrant Man, so I moved all in myself, which was something like $400. After tanking for a while, Fragrant Man said, "Oh, what the hell," and called for about $170. Yikes. I just hoped that he didn't have any of my outs.

Cards revealed: 8-8 for Bird Man, 7-7 for Fragrant Man.

The flop was all bricks. No pairs for me, no draws for anybody.

Turn: More of the same. It was looking grim for me. I was set to lose about $70 to Bird Man, and about $100 on top of that to Fragrant Man.

But the Poker Pro circuitry took mercy on me, and delivered a king ball, corner pocket.

It's nice to get a little run-good at the perfect moment.

PokerNews article #83

This one is all about bar poker, a venue that poses unique challenges.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/seven-tips-for-success-at-tavern-poker-22829.htm

What's the strangest thing a player has ever brought to a poker room?

I have a new answer to that question as of today, thanks to a guy who was playing at Harrah's Cherokee this afternoon with Nina and me.

A pet bird.

Not in a cage.

Inside his shirt.

My awareness of this oddity began when I heard a brief, high-pitched "tweep," which Nina later correctly compared to the chirp a smoke detector makes when its battery is running low. I figured it was some sort of notification on somebody's smart phone, and didn't think much more of it.

But a few minutes later I heard it again, and was better able to localize the direction it was coming from. I looked at the guy, and there is a BIRD POPPING ITS HEAD OUT OF HIS SHIRT COLLAR.

Mind you, this was not a stuffed bird. It was not a toy bird. It was a real, living, honest-to-goodness pet bird--a peach-faced lovebird, to be exact.

It would pop in and out of his shirt. It was out for quite a long time, sitting on his lap, as he fed it some birdseed from a little tray that he had brought along. When it chirped for attention, he would stroke and kiss it gently and talk to it softly. The bird's name is Smokey. It bit him once, and got a mild scolding, but otherwise was very well behaved. It never tried to fly away.

I know what you're thinking: "Pics or it didn't happen."

Well, OK then:

He gave me permission to take this picture, but for some reason wanted to partially hide his face.

Here's a super-cropped close-up of the bird from another shot I took a few seconds later:

I wonder how many bird poops there are inside his shirt.

PokerNews article #82

This one is about the basic steps in identifying and correcting our poker mistakes.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/three-sure-fire-steps-to-improving-your-poker-skills-22769.htm

PokerNews article #81

Four things not to get upset over while playing poker.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/four-things-not-to-get-upset-about-at-the-poker-table-22710.htm

Historical trivia quiz

Everybody knows that the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was the Enola Gay, named for the mother of its pilot, Paul Tibbets. But flying ahead of the Enola Gay was another B-29, a weather reconnaissance plane. It found that the weather was perfect, and OK'ed the attack on the primary target. Had it been too cloudy for accurate targeting, they would have diverted to a secondary target.

What was the name of that aircraft?

First correct answer in the comments wins the internets for today.

Hint: This is a poker blog.

PokerNews article #80

Long piece on all the new poker tournament rules announced last week.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/new-poker-tournament-rules-you-need-to-know-22655.htm

Quotation of the day

"Poker has the feeling of a sport, but you don't have to do push-ups."

--Penn Jillette

PokerNews article #79

The right and wrong ways to play a splash-pot promotion.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/the-right-and-wrong-ways-to-play-a-splash-pot-promotion-22587.htm

PokerNews article #78

What skills give you your edge at the poker table? Do you even know?

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/very-particular-set-of-poker-skills-22528.htm

The poker of politics

Clever, interesting, and original look at the presidential race as a poker tournament:

http://www.pokerupdate.com/articles/lifestyle/08122-presidential-poker-tournament-field-grows-beyond-expectations/

PokerNews article #77

Some musings on the newest word in the poker lexicon, "upstuck."

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/are-you-winning-or-losing-it-doesn-t-matter-22478.htm

Sexism

I'm about a week late getting around to reading it, but this essay by Cate Hall (whom I had never heard of before) is perhaps the most thoughtful, articulate statement I've read on the problem of sexism in poker.

http://www.pokerwomennews.com/opinion-cate-hall-on-pokers-woman-problem/

I noticed how women are treated at poker tables as soon as I moved to Vegas and started playing regularly. Though I never attempted a formal tally, my impression was that often a majority of things said by men to women during a poker game (excluding those immediately necessitated by game play) were things that could not and/or would not have been said if she were male. That is, they either were explicitly about her sex, alluded to her sex, or were dependent for meaning on the fact that the person being addressed was female.

Look, I'm not the most sensitive, politically correct of souls. But the cumulative effect was sufficiently sledgehammerish that one would have to be a troglodyte not to notice it. Confronting it directly is problematic for a host of social and poker-strategic reasons. However, I decided early on that I could at least avoid contributing to it.

So I set in place a mental filter on my conversation. When I was thinking of saying something to a female player, I'd stop and consider whether my comment or question was in that category I described above--the sort of thing that I could not or would not say to a male player in the same situation. By lifelong habit, I already heavily filter and pre-censor my speech in public settings anyway, so it was not particularly difficult to add another layer.

Of course there are common-sense exceptions, such as responding to something a woman has herself brought up that falls into that category. And I don't claim to be 100% perfect in following my own rule. But I am pretty good about it, and can recommend the practice to my male readers.

You're not individually obligated to clean up the mess along the highways, but you are individually obligated not to make it worse by throwing your Big Gulp cup out the window as you drive. Similarly, you don't have to be the sexist-speech police at the poker table, but you should take care not to add to it. As Ms. Hall makes clear, any one remark you make to a woman may feel to you innocuous, and may objectively be innocuous, but there is still a cumulative effect on a woman of her gender being the subject or cause for much of what is being said to her. I am not capable of experiencing that as a woman would, but I am capable of imagining it. It's sufficient unpleasant just in imagination that it makes me not want to be even a minor contributor--especially when it's so easy to avoid.

A tangential confession: One of the summers (probably 2009) that I was doing some work for PokerNews on WSOP reporting, I was of necessity following the series much more closely than I typically do, and began noticing that there seemed to be an unusual number of very attractive women having success. I started going through the PokerNews photo archives for the series and picking out pictures to put together into a post on my own blog, titled something awful like "The hot women of the WSOP." I had worked on it for an hour or two when I started to get a sense of general creepiness about what I was doing, and stopped. The next day I opened the draft post again, looked at what I had put together and thought, "What the hell is wrong with you?" I deleted it forthwith. I was sufficiently embarrassed that I had ever thought that to be a good idea that I believe I have never even told anybody I had done it--until now. Well, at least I had the good sense to abort it when I did.

PokerNews article #76

This one is my little tribute to the writings of Mike Caro, from whom I have learned so much over the years.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/what-can-you-learn-from-an-old-school-poker-player-plenty-22423.htm

Knoxville, Tennessee

Nina and I went to Knoxville, TN, yesterday for her early birthday present of tickets to a James Taylor concert. We spent the day doing some sightseeing before the main event.

First we took a long walk through the lovely Ijams Nature Center. A log just a few feet from the Tennessee River was studded with hundreds of mushrooms. I decided this photo of some of them worked best in black and white:

This is a "geologic fold."

Bee on a sunflower:

This magnificent creature is a red-tailed hawk. It has an irreparably damaged wing, and therefore can't be released back into the wild, so the nature center rehabilitated it and uses it for education about raptors. Her name, unofficially, is Tiger.

Next we went up into the Sunsphere, a structure built for the 1982 World's Fair. I have no good photos from that part of the day.

Then it was on to the Knoxville Museum of Art, just a stone's throw from the Sunsphere. One intriguing piece was this one, by Devorah Sperber. It's constructed of spools of thread:

There's a spherical lens on a post in front of the work, and when you look through it, you see this:

This is one of the creepiest sculptures I've ever seen. It's made of silicone, and it's extraordinarily lifelike:

We had dinner at Sunspot, a funky restaurant on the edge of the University of Tennessee campus. Highly recommended if you're in the area.

And then the concert. I didn't try sneaking any videos, like a lot of people were doing. (See here, for example.) But it was great. Even after 45 years or so of performing and thousands of concerts, there was not a single second when I got the impression that he was "phoning it in." He looked and felt fully engaged with the music, his band, and the audience for every song. I'm delighted to have seen him live.

Except for the heat and the humidity--OMG, the humidity!--it was a thoroughly delightful day. I'm lucky to have had such a wonderful companion to share it with.

PokerNews article #75

One weird trick for instantly recovering from a bad beat.

That's right--I used the "one weird trick" thing.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/one-weird-trick-for-instantly-recovering-from-a-bad-beat-22370.htm

Color Run

There was a "Color Run" in my neighborhood this morning. I took some photos, which you can see here.

PokerNews article #74

Should you play poker with maniacs, or find a different table?

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/should-you-play-poker-with-maniacs-or-find-another-game-22318.htm

PokerNews article #73

On how superstition hurts your poker game.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/how-your-superstitious-beliefs-are-costing-you-money-22268.htm

Going light

It's not often I hear of a poker term that is new to me, but it happened today.

I was listening to today's new episode of the "Top Pair" podcast when they talked about "going light." (The discussion goes from about 37:15 to 40:45.) The subject was prompted by one of the hosts having read this recent PokerNews article by Ashley Adams, which mentions it.

Here's the relevant part of Adams's article:

Some games allow players to “go light,” meaning that they may call a bet even if they don’t have enough money on the table to do so, then can settle up at before [sic] the next hand. Other games actually allow players to reduce the size of their bet after they make it, to accommodate the smaller stack of an opponent, as in: “I bet $15. Oh, you only have $6? Okay, make it $6.”

The second half of that is neither remarkable nor controversial, assuming there are only two players in the hand. It's just an informal shortcut to get to the same result as formally putting out $15, then taking back $9 when the player with the $6 stack calls. I assume that Adams is not trying to say that he has seen this allowed when there are other players still in the hand who can call the full bet; that would be a whole 'nuther thing.

But, like Bruce and Robbie (the "Top Pair" hosts), I was unfamiliar with the "going light" part. I have neither seen it done nor heard of it.

By happy coincidence, just yesterday I bought Michael Wiesenberg's "The Official Dictionary of Poker," second edition, for my Kindle--a bargain at just $5. (That is an unsolicited, unpaid endorsement.) Here's his discussion of the subject:

lights. (n) In a home game, a situation that comes up when a player is LIGHT (definition 1). In some home games, not played for TABLE STAKES, when a player does not have enough chips to continue betting in a pot, that player withdraws chips from the pot equal to the amount of the betting beyond his chips, (usually) stacking them neatly in front of him. These are called lights. (To withdraw chips in this manner is called go light.) At the end of the hand, if the player does not win the pot, he buys enough chips to cover his lights. He then matches his lights, that is, puts the lights into the pot plus an equivalent amount of chips from the ones he has just bought. For example, in a stud game, Emilie starts with $16. After the sixth card, she has $2 left. The high hand bets $4. She puts her last $2 in the pot, and pulls $2 from the pot, and stacks it in front of her. At this point, she might say, “I’m light,”or, “I’m going light.”On the last round, someone bets $4 and someone calls. She pulls another $4 from the pot, adding it to her pile of lights. On the showdown, she finds that her three 7s are beat by a small straight. She buys another $50 worth of chips from the banker, adds $6 to her lights, and puts the $12 in the pot. At this point, the winner takes the whole pot. In a split (two-way) pot, if either the winner of the high half or the winner of the low half has lights, or both do, they exchange lights and then split the pot. This is equivalent to each first matching lights, and then splitting the pot, and saves time. 

It's easy to see why no casino would ever allow this: there's no way to verify that a player has enough cash to cover the loss, and no way to force the money out of him should he lose and just walk away without settling up. I suppose they could allow a player to take money out of his wallet and use cash to cover each call he makes as the hand unfolds, but then you've got problems of confusion, making change, slowing down the game, etc. 

(Note that casinos do do something that looks similar, i.e., stacking chips from the pot in front of a player to represent the amount he has pledged to put in the pot. However, this is only when the player is awaiting delivery of chips, either because he just sat down or because he busted and bought in again. Either way, the cash has been handed over to a casino employee, so there's no worry about a player not making good on his commitment. One time I saw a new player lose his entire buy-in on the first hand, before his chips had been delivered to the table. See here for that story.) 

But what about a home game where everybody knows and trusts each other? I still think it's a terrible idea, for exactly the reason that Bruce and Robbie intuit: it invites angle-shooting. 

From both Adams's description and Weisenberg's discussion, I gather that the concept is limited to calling bets, and does not extend to making bets or raising, though neither source makes that completely clear. If I'm right about that inference, then it's a slightly less-terrible idea--but still terrible. Also, it's somewhat less terrible if the game structure is limit than if it's no-limit, pot-limit, or spread-limit--but still terrible. 

The problem is that it allows (I assume) a player to choose whether to "go light" or simply be all-in with less than a full call. It must do that, unless you're going to look in everybody's wallets before the game starts to see how much "light" they can cover. I can't imagine how you could have a "mandatory lights" policy; if Emilie says she has no more cash, functionally you have to accept that. 

But if a player can choose to call for more than he has on the table, obviously he will only do so selectively. It's like the players who abuse the disconnection protection feature of some online poker sites.* In both situations, you are allowed to choose to risk either less or more. It's as if you had two different chip stacks, and you can choose to be playing with either the big one or the small one, depending on how strong you think your hand is.

In at least some situations, it would allow you to win far more than you had at risk. Suppose after the first round of betting you have a $50 stack, while an opponent has $500. On the flop, your opponent moves all-in. If your hand is strong but not a monster, you can call just the $50 with the chips in front of you. But if you got lucky and flopped, say, an unbeatable straight flush, you can call "light" for the full $500--far more than you would be willing to put at risk if you had any serious doubt about the outcome of the hand. 

As I said, the wrongness of this is less egregious in limit games, because the discrepancy between your actual stack and your virtual one (i.e., the real one augmented by the cash you're willing to make up after the hand is over) is relatively small. But it's still a discrepancy. 

In poker, the amount you can win from another player and the amount you can lose to that player should always be identical. In poker, you should be able to limit your losses by folding, and by checking and calling rather than betting and raising. You should not be able to limit your losses by manipulating the amount of money in play in the course of a hand. 

*If you opt in to this feature, or on sites where it is automatic, then if you get disconnected in the middle of a hand, whatever you have already put into the pot is treated as if it had been your entire stack, rather than getting folded and forfeiting that money after the time to act has expired. Some players abuse this by deliberately unplugging their internet connection when short of being all-in because they fear losing more money on subsequent streets.

Something went wrong

I played an online tournament today for the first time in about 18 months.

The first time I was dealt The Mighty Deuce-Four, I called a pre-flop raise. We saw this excellent flop:

The only question here is whether the turn will be an ace for a 5-high straight, or a 6 for a 6-high straight. Right?

So Player 72 bets more than I have. I call all-in. Obviously.

And the turn was an ace. Of course. Got this hand locked up tight as a drum.

Until something went terribly, terribly wrong.

I'm reeling. I don't understand how something like this can happen.

PokerNews article #72

How should your play change when an aces-cracked promotion is in effect?

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/aces-cracked-promotions-do-you-go-for-the-pot-or-the-bonus-22174.htm

Smallest jackpot EVAR

Last night I was playing in a home game. You might say it's a small-stakes format, as we use blinds of $0.20/$0.20.

Somebody suggested that we start up a bad-beat jackpot. After some discussion about how much to take from each pot and what the requirements to win it would be, it was settled. We started raking one 20-cent chip from every pot and putting it in a special cup set aside for that purpose.

Four hands into the game, it hit, and the loser of the hand was awarded the new bad-beat jackpot of 80 cents.

There was much cheering and rejoicing.

PokerNews article #71

Today I discuss three common but false poker ideas that you should purge from your brain.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/three-common-poker-ideas-to-banish-from-your-mind-22096.htm

PokerNews article #70

Should you play more starting hands in order to increase your odds of hitting a high-hand bonus?

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/chasing-poker-room-high-hand-bonuses-is-it-worth-it-22010.htm

Two strange hands

A worthwhile read:

http://www.bluff.com/magazine/two-weird-hands-15286/

PokerNews article #69

This one is about the recently deceased mathematician John Nash and how his theories shed light on playing perfect poker.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/got-gto-connection-a-beautiful-mind-perfect-poker-21907.htm

PokerNews article #68

On the use and abuse of the minimum-raise:

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/when-the-minimum-raise-is-maximally-wrong-21819.htm

PokerNews article #67

How to be deceptive by not being deceptive.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/being-deceptive-by-not-being-deceptive-poker-paradox-21723.htm

Another witness of The Mighty Deuce-Four

See:

http://threeriverspoker.blogspot.com/2015/06/finally-i-have-my-own-grump-tale.html

PokerNews article #66

Do you know what "the gambler's fallacy" is? You will after you read this!

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/what-is-the-gamblers-fallacy-and-how-does-it-apply-to-poker-21631.htm