PokerNews article #129

This is the last of a series of articles I've written on insights about deception and its application to poker from the realm of evolutionary biology.

https://www.pokernews.com/strategy/dangers-of-selective-attention-why-we-repeat-poker-mistakes-25794.htm

PokerNews article #128

Here I continue with insights about deception in poker from a book by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers about deception in the natural world.


http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/why-bluffing-is-hard-and-other-poker-insights-from-biology-25744.htm

PokerNews article #127

You can make more money just by wasting less time at the table. Here's how:

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/seven-ways-to-keep-the-game-moving-increase-hourly-profit-25691.htm

PokerNews #126

This is a long piece trying to dispose of a common--but wrong--objection that I've encountered several times about the standard way of calculating poker probabilities.

Something that got cut from the article because of length was a link back to the first time I addressed it in this blog. It started with me doing a probability calculation here, to which an anonymous reader replied. My further explanation got too long for a comment, so I made it into a new blog post here. That, in turn, triggered a long and quite interesting discussion in the comments. By the end, I think we had finally convinced the doubter that the standard calculation is, in fact, correct.

Last week a friend (who knew nothing of that years-old blog exchange) mentioned to me the very same objection, in the context of the standard way of calculating the probability of hitting a flush draw. So I decided to try to refute it as carefully and thoroughly as I knew how to do, and this was the result:

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/six-ways-of-correcting-a-common-poker-probability-error-25628.htm

Phil Laak rocks the Deuce-Four

I just came across this while browsing YouTube. If I've ever seen it before, I don't remember it.

Lee Jones responds

Lee Jones has an article at PokerNews responding to mine of earlier this week (see post immediately below). As would be expected from him, it's thoughtful, articulate, and comes down on the side of going out of your way to make the game friendly and fun, even at the cost of "a shekel or two less that ends up in your pocket."

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/using-poker-rules-for-a-tactical-advantage-a-rebuttal-25614.htm

I have no quarrel with the position he takes. Moreover, it is perfectly consistent with the general attitude he has shown in a couple of other recent controversies about the intersection of rules, angle-shooting, and generosity to other players--see here and here.


Though Lee addresses all three of my examples, most attention from others has focused on my first one, which has caused me to think about it more. Specifically, I've thought about how the situation is both similar to and different from the common one of a relative newcomer to poker putting out a single oversized chip after another player bets, intending it as a raise, but with no verbal announcement.

The two situations are similar in that an ambiguity has been created by a player's action. Is the tapping a check or not a check? Is the single chip a call or a raise?

The key difference is that in the latter scenario, we have a pretty robust, universal rule that dictates how the ambiguity is to be resolved. In home games or pub poker, the player might be given a chance to explain his intention and let it stand, whatever it may be. But in any other setting that I've experienced, whether tournament or cash game, the dealer will automatically announce it as a call, and, if the player protests that it was meant to be a raise, explain the applicable rule. There's no grace period; the outcome is not dependent on the player's intention or level of experience with live play, nor is it decided by asking the other players whether or not to allow it to stand as a raise. Players tend to make this mistake just once, because the consequences of getting it wrong are politely but consistently enforced.

With the questionable check, though, we don't have a comparable interpretive rule. I quoted Roy Cooke's rule book, and I think he's right to have such a rule, but it's by no means universally treated as such. This means that every time the tapping ambiguity is created, it has to get resolved on some sort of ad hoc basis: The dealer tries to determine intent, perhaps other players are questioned about whether they were misled or whether they want to allow the offending player to still be able to bet if he wants to, perhaps the decision is guided by whether others acted in turn afterward.

If we had a universally enforced rule along the lines of Cooke's wording, and, as with the oversized chip, it were universally regarded as the dealer's job to announce the ambiguous tapping as a check, it would end the need to devise a custom resolution of the ambiguity every time it occurs. It, too, would become a mistake that new players would tend to make just once. Other players wouldn't be put in the position of having to decide whether to extend generosity or protect their own interests.

Perhaps the TDA will deem this worthy of consideration for a new rule at their next meeting?

PokerNews article #125

This one is about using less-known poker rules to create a tactical edge for yourself.


http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/three-lesser-known-poker-rules-you-can-use-to-your-advantage-25570.htm



ADDENDUM:

I see that some people on Twitter are saying that my article is encouraging and/or teaching angle-shooting. See here.

This is deeply mistaken--and it's not even a close call. There is no honest, reasonable reading of the article that sees it as promoting angle-shooting. (FWIW, I've previously done two articles denouncing angle-shooting, and teaching readers how to spot and combat it. See here and here.)

The hallmark of most forms of angle-shooting is either deliberately creating ambiguity or deliberately misrepresenting what is going on. An example of the former is sliding a stack of chips to a point just short of the betting line (in a casino that uses betting lines), so that it looks like a bet, raise, or call--but technically isn't. The player then either tries to withdraw it or make it count, depending on the opponent's reaction. An example of the latter is falsely declaring one's hand when the action is concluded, then, if caught, proclaim that it was an innocent mistake.

Not a single thing in my article advocates any attempt to trick or deceive another player, nor to misrepresent the truth, nor to create ambiguity, nor to evade or skirt the rules. Quite the opposite; in every case, I'm advocating following the rules.

In the first example, another player has created the ambiguity, which has to get resolved one way or the other. I'm simply advocating trying to get it resolved (1) according to published rules, and (2) in a direction that is advantageous. The blame for the ambiguity lies entirely with the player who created it, as does any fallout from having done so. (Moreover, the ambiguous maybe-a-check-maybe-not-a-check is something that an angle-shooter could do deliberately. I explain how to foil any such intention.)

In the second example, it's even harder for me to understand how anybody sees angle-shooting here. Again, the fault lies entirely with the player who didn't protect his hand. The worst interpretation you can give to my words is that I'm saying that the rules prescribe the outcome and that you don't have to be generous and let him reclaim a hand that the dealer killed. But the fact is that, nearly always, any such dispute will be left to the tournament personnel, and other players will have little say in what is decided.

My third example is what the attorneys would call black-letter law. I know of no set of poker rules (at least for American use) that disagrees on the prescribed order of showdown when the last round of betting has no action. My advice is simply to insist on following the rules. How that could even remotely be interpreted as "angle-shooting" wholly escapes me.

If people simply disagreed with the wisdom of following my advice, I wouldn't mind. After all, a good percentage of my own words were spent explaining why you might not want to. But angle-shooting is ugly and unethical. To say that I am promoting or teaching it is not merely mistaken (though it is that); it is outright insulting.

If you believe that an insistence on standard poker rules being followed constitutes angle-shooting, I'm at a loss to understand how you could so badly misunderstand what angle-shooting is.

Deuce-Four still awesome

Today I played in the seniors tournament at Harrah's Cherokee, part of the WSOP-C series.

The Deuce-Four did more than its share of work for me in the first couple of hours.

First time I had it, I raised, got a couple of callers, flopped a gutshot, and hit the wheel on the turn.

Second time, I flopped a pair and a flush draw, raised the initial bettor, and won the pot.

Third time was the big one--a full double-up. 2h-4h. I raised, got a couple of callers, flopped a flush, busted a guy with the same size chip stack who had flopped top pair/top kicker.

And finally, I must report that I overheard somebody at the table behind me saying, at one point, "I folded deuce-four. I woulda made the nuts." Some people are just too dumb to play poker right!

I made the money. There were 513 entries, 54 got paid. I finished in 33rd place for $530. Shoved my last 9 big blinds with AJ in late position, called by the big blind with A-10. Flop was 10-10-5, and that was all she wrote. If not for that, then, as Marlon Brando famously said, I coulda been a contender, instead of a bum, which is what I am.

PokerNews article #124

Play poker like an octopus, not like a mantis shrimp.


http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/play-poker-like-an-octopus-not-like-a-mantis-shrimp-25521.htm

PokerNews article #123

How might the information you don't have change a poker decision?

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/three-ways-missing-data-can-mislead-you-in-poker-25452.htm

PokerNews article #122

This one is about the endless chain of causation that determines how a poker hand plays out.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/of-john-f-kennedy-the-butterfly-effect-and-poker-hands-25409.htm


Hat tip to this old blog post from Grange95, which talks about many of the same ideas. The original draft of my article lifted a big chunk of his post, but ended up cut due to length. It's worth reading anyway.

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