Staying Put for the Super Bowl

I remember some twenty-plus years ago living in Chapel Hill and going to graduate school. After getting an undergraduate degree there I continued on for the M.A., then would make a change for the doctorate afterwards (going to Indiana). Several years later I would return to my home state of North Carolina to live and teach.

In other words I’d been a lifelong Tarheel fan by the time the ’93-’94 season came around. The team’s run to a championship that year remains vivid in my memory, something I wrote a little about over on Ocelot Sports a couple of years ago and also chatted with Dr. Pauly about on a podcast we did for the 20th anniversary of the final game between UNC and Michigan.

One part of that memory that stands out was the way my friends not only found it necessary to watch all of the tournament games at the same place (one friend’s apartment), but for all of us to sit in the same seats as well as the Heels kept winning each game.

I recall more and more people joining us as they proceeded through the tournament, with about 20 crammed in the small living room for the final. But the core group all kept our same seats so as not to disturb the spell of Carolina’s streak. As my buddy the host explained, “You can’t prove it doesn’t have an effect.”

At the time I vaguely thought about the logic class I’d taken as an undergrad and phrases like “proving a negative” and “proof of impossibility” and “correlation does not imply causation.” I played cards occasionally then, but this was before I’d get heavily into poker and the study of the game, and so I don’t think I knew about the “gambler’s fallacy” then, or I’d have probably thought of that, too.

My buddy Bob (a.k.a. the “Poker Grump”) who regularly writes strategy articles for PokerNews has written smartly about the latter. In “What is the ‘Gambler’s Fallacy’ and How Does It Apply to Poker?” he explains how it works, starting with the example of a roulette player allowing the phenomenon of a ball landing on red nine straight times influence him to think that has something to do with what will happen on spin number ten.

Superstitions among sports fans aren’t quite the same thing, although they share a common lack of rationality. A poll conducted by Associated Press-Ipsos several years ago found that a little more than 20% of sports fans “say they do things in an attempt to bring good luck to their favorite team or avoid jinxing them.”

The Super Bowl is Sunday, and Vera and I have already been invited to a couple of viewing parties. As readers of the blog surely have picked up on by now, I have a rooting interest in the game, one that matches where I was with the Heels back in the spring of 1994. In this case my fandom has also been building for decades and through a long, exciting season’s worth of games, most of which have gone my team’s way.

I’ve watched all of those games this year from the couch here -- from the same side, actually, where I’m sitting and typing this post.

I’m thinking it might be nice just to stay at home on the farm on Sunday.

Horse Play and Other Best Bets

Full-blown farm life around here these days now that our two horses, Sammy and Maggie, have arrived. Vera has had Sammy forever -- pretty much since we’ve been together -- and Maggie for a good while, too, making it especially nice to have both of them with us... right in the back yard!

I tweeted that pic to the left a few days ago, and Dr. Pauly -- a.k.a. “Ocelot Sports” -- immediately inquired if they were race horses. No, I explained, but “you can bet on who finishes feeding first.” At that he eyed the competitors and quickly calculated money lines.

“Sammy -130, Maggie +125,” he estimated.

“Sounds about right,” said Vera after I explained to her that Pauly had made Sammy the favorite. Sammy is part-thoroughbred and has quite the appetite, even if their diets technically are such that Maggie gets fed a little more each day and night.

Between the farm duties, starting a new semester of “Poker in American Film and Culture,” and Learn.PokerNews-related activities, I’ll admit I’ve been distracted more than a little from much else here lately.

Speaking of the latter, let me say I’m excited about the start of a new series of articles on “Casino Poker for Beginners” by Bob Woolley, a.k.a. the Poker Grump. Bob is the perfect person in my opinion to deliver this kind of advice to new players, and I’m psyched about being able to add him to the line-up of writers at Learn. See his first piece on “Getting Into the Game.” And here he gives a short intro to the series on the Poker Grump blog.

Meanwhile starting the class again is always fun, and I’m beginning to think I might try to share some of the content of the course over on Learn as well as we move through our narrative of poker’s prominent place in American history and culture. Need to ponder a little more on the best strategy for doing that, but I think it could be fun to share some of readings and clips in that way. I’ve had people ask me frequently if they could audit the class, and this could be a way to share some of what we’re doing with a wider audience.

Finally, while we’re on the subject of Learn stuff, I had the chance to read and review Tricia Cardner’s new book Positive Poker (with contributions from Jonathan Little) which I quite liked. She’s got a couple of doctorates including one in psychology, is a license psychotherapist, and a good poker player, too, which positions her well to deliver the mental game advice she does in the book. Read the review here, and if you’re further interested you can read an interview with Cardner as well here.

Like me, Cardner has taught a college course focusing on poker, in her case one on the psychology of poker. It was that class as well as her dissertation that provided the impetus for her book, as you can read about in both the review and interview.

That’s all for now as I have to go take care of my nightly duties to clean the stalls, feed and water, and take care of the barn cats, too. I keep joking with people about my stall-cleaning duties, and it’s funny how many seem to respond by saying how great it all sounds.

They’re right. It’s pretty awesome. And you don’t even have to place bets on Sammy and Maggie to enjoy watching them.

Hoops Anniversaries (and Traveling Tales)

It’s another travel day for your jetsetting friend as I’m heading up the east coast to Foxwoods Resort Casino in Mashantucket, Connecticut to help cover the WSOP Circuit Main Event that starts tomorrow.

After that I’ll turn around and trip over to Harrah’s Cherokee for the WSOP-C Main Event stop next weekend. Am kind of marveling at the reports from Cherokee over the first couple of days of prelims there, as it sounds like the turnouts are huge for the first significant tournament poker series ever (really) in North Carolina.

On the topic of my home state, yesterday and today have marked a couple of significant anniversaries for two of the college basketball teams here.

Yesterday was the 30th anniversary of N.C. State’s incredible victory in the 1983 final versus heavily-favored Houston. I was writing here about that not too long ago, a post titled “Ordinary People Accomplishing Extraordinary Things” in which I compared the Wolfpack’s crazy, logic-defying run to Chris Moneymaker’s WSOP Main Event win a decade ago. I also wrote something over on Ocelot Sports about the ’83 game, if you’re curious to read more about it.

Meanwhile, today is the 20th anniversary of the NCAA triumph of my alma mater, UNC-Chapel Hill, who defeated Michigan in the finals on April 5, 1993. The Heels won titles before that one, and have picked up a couple more since, but that year stands out for me as a special one, and in fact the only time I was living in Chapel Hill during a successful NCAA tourney run.

Dr. Pauly and I recently listened to a radio broadcast of the game as it played over the Tarheel Radio Network 20 years ago, and we subsequently got together to talk about the broadcast and the game as well. We recorded our conversation, included some cool clips from the old radio broadcast, and today posted it as a first Ocelot Sports Podcast.

Most remember that game for its incredible finish, with Michigan superstar Chris Webber calling a timeout the team didn’t have, thereby giving Carolina technical free throws, possession of the ball, and ultimately ensuring the Heels’ victory. There were a ton of other interesting side stories associated with that drama, some of which were highlighted in interviews and other material included on the original radio broadcast.

Doing the show sort of felt a little like a belated reprise of my old Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show in which I also incorporated old time radio as part of the format. It was a fun time listening back and then talking about the game with Pauly, and if you’re at all interested in college basketball I think you might get a kick out of it. And if you do click over and give it a listen, give us some feedback as we’re now thinking of perhaps creating more shows down the road.

Meanwhile, Michigan has made it back to the Final Four this year -- the first time since 1993, in fact -- and I expect I’ll probably be sneaking peeks at the teevee screens while reporting on tomorrow’s Day 1 flights at Foxwood. I’ll be back here as well to give some updates on how it goes (starting Sunday).

Back to traveling and gathering more stories. Speaking of, among the many stories tucked into the podcast is one about Webber traveling on that fateful final play (and the real reason why no call was made). Check it out!

Having a Rational Streak

On Tuesday I posted something over on Ocelot Sports regarding the Miami Heat’s amazing 27-game winning streak. Am glad I managed to do that when I did, as last night the streak was finally halted by the Chicago Bulls.

Was quite something for the Heat to have managed to keep the streak alive as long as they did, although it is probably better for the team that it ended a few weeks shy of the playoffs. With the best record in the Eastern Conference already essentially locked up and the NBA’s overall best record firmly in hand -- they’ve yet to clinch that, but likely will within a few more games -- the Heat could probably use a breather to rest some players during the last few regular season games.

Following last night’s loss to the Bulls, Miami Heat forward Shane Battier offered some comments about the game and the streak as a whole that I found interesting. Battier, by the way, has been getting some extra attention of late for having also been part of the 2007-08 Houston Rockets team that won 22 games in a row, previously the second-best NBA mark behind the all-time best 33-game winning streak of the 1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers. In college Battier was also was part of a Duke team that won 32 straight games during the 1998-99 season.

It was a compelling, hard-fought, and super physical game in Chicago. Indeed, I’ve been spending some time lately watching some college basketball from a couple of decades ago, and when watching that Miami-Chicago slugfest last night I was reminded how the game they are playing today is altogether different from the one I grew up playing and watching.

But while most of those watching probably thought the game stood out from the usual late-season NBA offerings when most of the playoff spots are already locked up and the level of competition isn’t always high, Battier downplayed the game’s uniqueness, noting that only the streak ending made it at all notable.

“Pretty much a garden-variety road loss in the NBA,” said Battier of the game. “You don’t play with energy to start, the other team comes out firing, guys shoot above their percentages, and that fuels the confidence of the rest of the team. I’ve been in this league long enough, that’s pretty much the recipe for a road loss.”

I shouldn’t like Battier. He’s a Dookie, after all, which as a diehard UNC fan makes it very difficult for me to send any praises in his direction. But in truth, he’s one of the few Duke players I’ve found it hard not to like over the years, along with Grant Hill, Mike Gminski, and a couple of others. (Meanwhile, you better believe I’ll be pulling for Michigan State against Duke tomorrow night, and not just because I have MSU making the Elite Eight in my bracket.)

I very much like how Battier speaks in rational terms about how the game went as well as what he says about the game having fit a common pattern when it comes to favored teams losing road contests. Unlike so much sports commentary that gets bogged down with endless “intangibles” like playing with “heart” or other such applesauce, Battier smartly connects concrete events (aggressive play, shots falling) to an increase in confidence which in turn (one understands) improves energy, focus, and the ability to execute.

It’s like a poker player recognizing how losing a few hands early in a session might negatively affect his or her decision-making thereafter, thus creating more difficult situations that lessen the likelihood for success.

Finally, Battier noted how another way of looking at the “garden-variety” game that just ended was to point out how lately -- to employ another poker analogy -- Miami has been on the good side of variance.

“What’s amazing is that we’ve avoided that for so long,” said Battier, speaking of the outcome (a loss). “That was my first thought after the game... ‘We’ve avoided a loss like this for a long time.’”

Indeed, as I was writing about in that Ocelot Sports post, 13 of the Heat’s 27 wins during the streak had come on the road. And a number of those featured this same “recipe” that saw Miami come out sluggishly, the other team taking an early lead, then Miami having to deal not only with overcoming a deficit but also competing against a team for whom the early lead gave them confidence.

But the Heat managed to keep winning, and just like there were rational explanations for other teams getting those leads, there were reasons why the Heat kept coming back, too. On average -- as Battier recognizes -- they likely should not have been able to do so as often as they did. But their hands kept holding and/or they kept drawing out when they needed to, and thus did the streak continue.

It’s probably no accident that a level-headed guy like Battier has been part of so many winning streaks, and it’s my impression that the other Heat players also share this same sort of analytical ability when it comes to assessing their own and their opponents’ performances. LeBron, D-Wade, and company are also pretty damn gifted, too, which perhaps makes it easier to have that sort of perspective.

“Rushes” happen in poker, but they generally result from a combination of good decision-making and good fortune. The same is true in other games, with the ability to recognize and understand the role luck plays being perhaps one of the most important skills of all.

Watching Poker, Watching Sports

Made it home yesterday in one piece. Am still looking to catch up on sleep, but am reasonably rested and glad to be staying put for the next month or so until I rejoin the WSOP Circuit in for a couple of events April.

I’ve been contributing to the Ocelot Sports blog lately, writing alongside Dr. Pauly and a few others. Last week we did a couple of “round table” posts in which we took a shot picking the over/unders for win totals for all 30 Major League Baseball teams this year. Here are those posts, if you’re curious, one each for the American League and the National League.

I’ve been posting a couple of times a week over there since December. Recent contributions included a post about my ambivalence regarding NASCAR (despite living right in the heart of race country) and another about how all the conference realignments and rapid turnover of rosters these days is affecting my college hoops watching.

Writing about sports over the last few months has gotten me thinking more specifically about sports writing, and in fact as I was helping cover that WSOP Circuit event at Caesars Atlantic City I was again considering how much a poker tournament resembles a sporting event, especially when it comes to reporting on it.

We’ve gone over the whole “poker as a sport” debate many times over by now, and so I’m not going to restart it today. I’m thinking way back to a post I wrote here way back in 2007 responding to an especially obtuse ESPN column by Mark Kreidler about poker. I’m also thinking about one of my now-scrubbed-from-the-internet Epic Poker columns titled “Poker As a Sport,” which I’ll look back at again and if it seems worthy I might repost here on Friday. (EDIT [added 3/15/13]: As that piece seemed kind of redundant, I decided against posting it, instead posting one about the use of poker in the film Havana.)

I’ve always maintained that poker is best thought of as a game and not a sport, although as I say the dynamics of a tournament most certainly resemble certain sports, particularly individual ones like golf or tennis. Thus does reporting on a poker tournament often have a lot in common with other kinds of sports writing.

For one thing, like with sports writing, writing about poker is especially “results oriented,” with a primary focus on outcomes and reporting winners and losers. We frequently fall into talking about things like momentum and “comebacks” and players “dominating” opponents or the field as a whole, too. And we focus a lot on “play-by-play”-type relating of hands, narrowly concentrating on specific actions, especially when the contest is still ongoing.

However, I can also think of some significant differences between reporting on a poker tournament and, say, writing an article about a game of basketball or football or baseball or soccer or some other sport.

One obvious difference has to do with the fact that just as poker is a “partial information game” for the players, the same goes for reporters. We can’t see everything, obviously, and so cannot report comprehensively on even a single hand. Even with hands that go to showdown, we never know what other players folded. Unlike a basketball game where all of the actions by all ten players are plain for everyone to see, such is never the case in poker.

We also lack a lot of contextual information, too, when reporting certain “plays” or hands in a poker tournament. Unless we’re at a final table where we’ve witnessed every hand played, we generally don’t know everything about what has happened in earlier hands involving players whom we now see involved in a hand against each other. (Here is an old post titled “Anatomy of a Hand Report” in which I explored this point at length.) Meanwhile, when a play happens on the football field, we know all of the plays that went before and how they might potentially relate to the present one.

We could take this discussion of context even further, actually, to talk about the great variety of individuals who participate in a poker tournament, some of whom are well known to us and many of whom are not. There aren’t really any major sporting events where an “unknown” turns up and performs in a way that makes a difference in the outcome, whereas in a poker tournament that is a routine occurrence. (They even win, sometimes.)

There are more differences between reporting on poker tourneys and reporting on sporting events. In fact, for people who don’t play poker or who aren’t interested in the game, the contrast between watching a card game and a real sport couldn’t be greater.

But for those of us who understand and enjoy the game, watching a tourney play out really can resemble watching a sport. So it makes sense sometimes to report on it in ways that are similar.

Slow Starters

I am moving a little slow on this fine MLK day. And now I find myself on a tight schedule as I’m planning to head over to watch the Charlotte Bobcats game this afternoon versus the Houston Rockets.

My poor Bobcats enter the game with a woeful 10-30 record, and while the Rockets haven’t exactly dominated their opponents this year (they’re 21-21 at present), they are understandably favored and I’ll be surprised if they don’t take care of the ’Cats. It looks like the present line has Houston giving six-and-a-half points, despite the fact that they are coming into the Time Warner arena with a seven-game losing streak.

It’s been a while since I’ve been to a Bobcats game -- at least a couple of years, I think. Has been hard to muster the energy to go during what has now become an inordinately lengthy stretch of bottom-feeder play by the team we sometimes affectionately refer to as either the “Bobkittens” or the “Boobcats.” I wrote something over on Ocelot Sports not too long ago discussing “The Bobcats’ Blues” we’re all sharing around here regarding the local squad.

I do nonetheless tend to tune in frequently to watch most of the games as we get all of them on the teevee. So I know the players and find myself having a rooting interest despite the knowledge that there’s little likelihood of a favorable outcome.

One trend that has happened all season for Charlotte is to start games slowly, often digging an early hole of 10 or more points, then playing from behind the entire game. Sometimes they’ll close the gap and make things semi-interesting in the fourth quarter, but more often than not the opponent’s lead will continue to hover around 10-15 the entire way, thus making for a less than compelling contest to watch.

In fact, by my unofficial count through 40 games the Bobcats have only led seven times at the end of the first quarter. They are 5-2 in those games. Also, in their most recent victory last Friday versus Orlando they were tied after one period, so it is obvious that starting well has a lot to do with their chances of finishing well, too.

But unfortunately they are almost always playing catch-up. It’s a little like starting every cash session by losing a big chunk or getting stacked right away, thus ensuring that the primary goal thereafter isn’t so much to leave a winner as simply to get back to even.

I would go on about it some more, but obviously it is important for me not to get there late and miss the tip-off. After all, that will be the moment when I know for sure the game will be close!