“People Call With Anything”

I typed that into chat last night after losing a modest amount in a silly PLO hand. I try my best not to gripe -- we all know little good can come from doing so. But in this particular instance my fingers somehow were able to operate independently of instructions from the ol’ cerebral cortex. It happens.

It was one of those “orphaned pot”-type hands. There had been a preflop raise from a player who’d been chucking out 3x bets preflop every other hand. This time I’d called his raise from late position with two middle pairs and we were heads-up. By the time we’d reached the river, I hadn’t improved, and there were four Broadway cards out there. So following my opponent’s check, I decided to take a crack at it, pushing an oversized bet (not quite pot) out into the middle.

I’m a conservative player, by nature, although I will gamble it up sometimes in PLO. Oftentimes I’ll build up a fairly tight image, then let loose a bluff like this which’ll often enough get respected & elicit the desired folds.

Didn’t work this time, tho’. Dude called me with nothing but a bare ace. That’s right -- a pair of aces. With four friggin’ Broadway cards on board.

He typed back a “LOL” after my whiny missive and we had a friendly chat afterwards. Tho’ I have to admit I felt like I was talking to someone who might very well be missing a chromosome.

The fact is, there are certain times when one finds a preponderance of untutored play going on at the PLO tables. I probably play the majority of my hours during the late afternoon or early evening, meaning there are many times when I find myself up against decent players, most of whom tend to have a clue about what’s what. However, at other times -- especially later in the evening (when I played last night) -- with the drunks and other assorted crazies, you see all kinds of nutty behavior.

For example, spent a good stretch last night sitting to the right of a guy who raised pot preflop every single hand for about fifty or sixty consecutive hands. Certainly affected the table dynamic. Problem was, he didn’t seem to have much idea what to do after the flop, so while he’d hit hands every once in a while, he was bleeding chips fairly quickly. I managed to pick him off a couple of times, although he was able to remain afloat a surprisingly long while by turning quads a couple of times.

You see many other obvious faux pas in this "party" atmosphere. A lot of overplayed aces, of course. Insta-all-ins with flush draws (even non-nut) is pretty common. And there’s a lot of overvaluing of non-wrapped straight draws (where one might not even have eight nut outs). Just have to be patient and wait for something, ’cos you will be paid.

Of course, while one is waiting there’s usually plenty enough going on to remain entertained. Aside from the crazy plays, this is the time when one is more likely to encounter funny chat, too. Like last night, when the dude with the word “blunt” in his nick saw someone win a $4.20 pot and typed “nice 420 lol.” (Cue Beavis and Butthead uncontrollable giggle clip.)

Or that other guy with his whiny “people call with anything” complaint. LOL.

Rewards (Others & One’s Own)

Had a nice moment at work this morning. Ain’t gonna get too specific here about particulars of the workplace, but the gist of the story is I just happened to be there when a colleague was told the higher-ups had approved his working another year. He’s a good guy, and the sincerity of his reaction -- a big ol’ happy handshake to the person who delivered the news -- was weirdly infectious. Not only did I feel good for the guy, but in a hard-to-explain way realized I felt happier for him than I tend to feel when good fortune comes my way.

I’m not pretending to claim I’m a wholly selfless person who only cares for others. I’m as self-interested as the next guy. Hell, writing 400 posts, the majority of which tend to involve communicating my own personal pleasures and pains, should stand as conclusive evidence of at least a latent strand of narcissicism that probably chararacterizes most poker players. Rather, there’s something about seeing others’ get rewarded for doing well -- for a modest example of justice being served, I suppose -- that is utterly reassuring to those of us who happen to witness such an occurrence.

Maybe I was more susceptible to the subject of others’ welfare because when I drove into work this morning I listened to the latest Two Plus Two Pokercast (with Brad Booth and Nolan Dalla). In particular I am referring to the brief interview with Steve Cooke, a.k.a. “bigbamboom,” one of the two fellows selected for that “Supernova Highway” challenge, that comes up at the end of the show.

I’m not up on all of the particulars of the challenge, but my understanding is the candidates both play on PokerStars and when the challenge began both were sitting at one of the lower rungs of the VIP Club (i.e., “BronzeStar” or “SilverStar”). The idea is for the two of them to put in enough time at the tables to make it all of the way to SuperNova status by the end of the calendar year. Neither of the players -- Cooke and Simon Noel (a.k.a. “GrinningBuddha”) -- are being bankrolled, but they will receive some instruction from the TwoPlusTwo Pokercast hosts as well as other online pros along the way. I believe they might be getting a few other perks thrown their way as well (e.g., free subscriptions to online training sites).

Of the two, I am marginally more aware of Cooke since he contributes to the PokerSift blog (as “bigbamboom”) and has been reporting some over there about his Supernova Highway adventure. Enjoyed hearing him on the show discuss his poker-playing situation and goals. Like a lot of us, he’s a part-timer who has played only micro or low limits for a few years. As he says in the interview, he sees himself as “represent[ing] the low-level guy who’s really trying to learn and improve [his] game.” I was already predisposed in Cooke’s favor from reading his PokerSift posts, but I like him even more after hearing him on the show. He also mentions there how, in fact, his wife had just given birth to baby daughter. Definitely easy to identify with a guy like “bigbamboom” who has a full life outside of online poker.

All of this inspired me to check out whether I have any hopes of climbing up into the “SilverStar” range on Stars. I only play 10-15 hours a week, and so hadn’t ever really bothered to look into the VIP Club and its benefits. I realized, though, that I’m actually about a third of the way there in terms of VIP points to reaching SilverStar by month’s end, so I may give myself a little challenge here to pursue as well.

In any event, I’ll be following Cooke’s progress, too, and definitely wish him well -- both with the family stuff and with the challenge. As I say, there’s something rewarding about watching others who are deserving succeed.

Except when I’m heads-up against ’em, of course.

Tick, Tick, Tick: 60 Minutes Looking at Absolute Poker

Well, whaddya know. Apparently that there Absolute Poker insider cheating scandal isn’t going to vanish away after all.

Yesterday Nat Arem reported he had been contacted by 60 Minutes and the Washington Post for quotes regarding the AP scandal, and that 60 Minutes co-anchor Steve Croft was interested in interviewing him and Serge “Adanthar” Ravitch on camera. No word on when (or if, even) the piece may ultimately reach air, although something tells me a certain, celebrated poker event scheduled for early summer might provide a nifty segue for the person introducing the segment that Sunday night on CBS.

I think this is terrific news. The scandal and Absolute Poker’s handling of it were not just disgraceful, but criminal. Any negative repercussions a 60 Minutes exposé might bring to the site are entirely deserved. That seems plain enough.

Of course, there are some who are currently fretting about what angle 60 Minutes might choose to take with the story. Will they focus primarily on the wrongdoings down in Costa Rica, exposing (finally) the guilty as they deserve? Will they play up the admittedly fascinating super-sleuthing of Arem, Ravitch, and others who helped crack the case? Will they touch at all on how all this fits into the current legal imbroglio fostered by the UIGEA and those soon-to-be-finalized regulations . . . ?

Or will the story present the Absolute Poker scandal as evidence supporting some sort of comprehensive thesis damning the entire online poker industry? In other words, while the story is surely a positive insofar as it will shed light on Absolute Poker’s sorry behavior and treatment of its customer base, will there be collateral damage here? Will the online poker industry somehow suffer as a result of such negative press about AP?

Nolan Dalla fears as much. In a PokerListings article yesterday, Dalla says he worries that “the target” of the story will not be “the creep” (i.e., A.J. Green) “or Absolute Poker (which deserves scrutiny) -- but rather the entire online poker industry.”

Dalla goes on to point out that while, in his opinion, there is “no chance” the UIGEA will be revoked nor will any of the other proposed bills (e.g., Barney Frank’s IGREA) be passed by the current Congress, it bothers him that “public perceptions will be shaped for a long time by what is shown and seen by 20 million viewers on 60 Minutes.”

“I fear the portrait will be ugly -- a slimy, unregulated, corrupt band of outlaws operating way outside the boundaries of the law or justice,” writes Dalla. “Never mind that many online sites are publicly traded companies with top-flight managers and personnel, and are strictly regulated within their host countries. Perception and reality are two completely different things.”

Is Dalla right? Should those of us who play online poker be worried? Will a 60 Minutes segment showing the world what happened at Absolute Poker last summer and fall bring undue harm to the industry in general, and a lot of extra headaches for those of us who like to play?

A couple of thoughts come to mind here.

For one, I don’t quite understand these fears about what might happen should the “entire online poker industry” start receiving “scrutiny.” Indeed, it is the lack of scrutiny that helps create an environment where scandals such as the one that happened at Absolute Poker are more likely to occur. Dalla himself points out that many online sites are, in fact, well-managed and regulated. If so, it would seem to follow that most of the industry could, in fact, withstand whatever close inspection Steve Kroft and his merry crew might bring.

Secondly, for those who truly worry about the effect the 60 Minutes story might have on “public perception,” tell me which you would prefer:

(1) The public to believe (wrongly) that the online poker industry is run by “a slimy, unregulated, corrupt band of outlaws operating way outside the boundaries of the law or justice”; or,

(2) That really to be the case.

‘Cause if you are against stories like the Absolute Poker scandal being told, well, you’re just making it easier for us all to get to the second option.

* * * * *
Damned if this doesn’t make 400 posts. Had thought I might engage in a bit of navel-gazing today, but as you can see, something else came up.

Just as well. I’m sure there are more than enough of them self-reflexive, whazzit-all-about type posts among the first 399, for those who want to go searching for such applesauce. (You can try out that fancy new search feature I added a couple of weeks ago.)

Big thanks again to everyone for reading & all them good vibes.

In the Fishbowl

Was kicking around the PLO tables on Stars yesterday afternoon and decided to watch a couple of the Sunday tourneys while I played. Spotted a short-stacked Annette “Annette_15” Obrestad bust out of the $200+$15 Sunday Warm Up. Moved over to the $100+$9 w/rebuys tourney and noticed a few familiar names up and down the leaderboard, including Jon “PearlJammer” Turner, Shane “Shaniac” Schleger, and Tim “Tmay420” West. Ended up spending a little bit of time railing a table featuring not one but two well-known online phenoms, Cliff “JohnnyBax” Josephy and Kevin “BeL0WaB0Ve” Saul. While there I witnessed a semi-interesting situation come up involving the two of them I thought I’d share.

This was not quite a couple of hours into the tourney – Level 8 (200/400 blinds with a 25-chip ante). Saul was actually the chip leader at the time with over 46,000 in chips. Meanwhile, Josephy had recently lost a chunk of his stack after missing a nut flush draw and found himself down to a lowly 4,145 in chips, putting him near the bottom of the 250 or so players remaining. Folded to Saul who from middle position put in a raise to 1,100. Another player folded, then Josephy raised all-in, pushing his remaining 4,120 into the middle.

It folded back around to Saul who took a few extra seconds deciding what to do. At the time, the pot was a little over 6,000, and it would take just about 3,000 for him to make the call -- about 2-to-1. As an untutored observer watching from afar, I couldn’t imagine Saul folding in this situation unless he had utter trash. And since he’d raised, it seemed as if he at least had something. But what do I know . . . .

Finally he made the call, and the cards were turned over. Josephy had a pair of kings, while Saul had . Both players sarcastically typed “RACE!” as the cards came out. A king flopped, and Josephy managed to survive. “NICE SUCKOUT BAD,” wryly typed Saul. (I think he meant either “Bax” or “bud.”) Josephy quickly responded with a “tyty.”

During the next hand, Saul typed “id love to fold there...” Then, “but everyone screams chipdump if i do.” He added a little frowny face.

He’s right, of course. That thought had crossed my mind as I watched. As Saul hesitated before making the call, I thought about how these guys all know one another, and might very well soft play in situations just like this one. (The fact that Saul and Josephy work together at PokerXFactor perhaps encourages such suspicions even further, for those who can’t help indulgin’ in them.) Completely unfair, of course, for me to think that way, although in today’s collusion-clouded climate, such thoughts are understandably hard to avoid.

While Saul certainly shouldn’t feel obligated to make an incorrect and/or marginal play in a spot like that just to stave off unfounded charges of complicity, I have to say I do appreciate seeing some of these guys showing an awareness of such matters. Would definitely be unfair should anything like that be happening, and I imagine a few of those who were sitting around the pair’s table probably appreciated Saul’s post-hand disclaimer.

Kind of makes missteps such as the one made by Jonathan Little last week even harder to comprehend. Once you experience some success -- online or live -- yr in the fishbowl, whether you like it or not. And people be watchin’.

Cheating “Scheme” Confirmed at UltimateBet

Rather than notify users or post anything on its website, Ultimate Bet -- following the same, questionable path of its partner, Absolute Poker -- has decided to publicize news regarding allegations of cheating on its site by sending messages to various poker people who then pass the stuff along to the poker community at large.

Around 9:00 p.m. (EST) on Friday, Mason Malmuth posted the following over on Two Plus Two:

Hi Everyone:

We just received this from Ultimate Bet and they asked us to post it. So here it is.

Best wishes,
Mason

ULTIMATEBET INTERIM STATEMENT

Contact: Press@ultimatebet.com

Montreal, Canada (March 6, 2008) – UltimateBet (UB), one of the ten largest online poker cardrooms, today issued the following interim statement with respect to allegations of unfair play on its site.

“On January 12, 2008, UltimateBet was alerted to allegations that a player with the online handle “NioNio” exhibited abnormally high winning statistics and was accused of having an unfair advantage during play. These allegations were made both directly to UltimateBet by concerned players and the KGC, and indirectly through several web forums. The allegations also included reports of suspicious activity concerning the deletion of the NioNio account and other accounts that may have been related to this scheme.

“We immediately launched an extensive inquiry involving an independent third-party expert to review hundreds of thousands of hand histories, all of which were promptly locked down and made available to this expert. The initial findings of our third-party expert confirm that the NioNio account’s winning statistics were indeed abnormal, and we have expanded the investigation to look into whether an unfair advantage existed, how such a scheme might have been perpetrated, and whether additional accounts beyond those of NioNio were involved.

“UltimateBet is in regular communications and contact with its regulatory authority, The Kahnawake Gaming Commission (KGC), and will continue to cooperate fully with that body.

“UltimateBet is determined to complete a full and thorough investigation. We pride ourselves on providing a safe, secure playing environment for our customers. The investigation has proven to be extremely complex and, therefore, has been more extensive and taken much longer than initially expected. We continue to aggressively pursue the matter and will communicate the findings of our full investigation to our regulatory authority and to our customer base as soon as practicable.”

Of course, when Ultimate Bet says they plan to communicate the findings to its customer base, I think we all know better. Only those among their customer base who happen to peruse forums like Two Plus Two, poker blogs, and/or a few of the poker news sites are ever going to hear the first word about cheating occurring on the site on which they play.

If you do happen to be one of those few who both play at Ultimate Bet and read the forums and/or Hard-Boiled Poker, tell me this: Does this vague report of a cheating “scheme” make you feel any safer about UB?

Avoiding Becoming “Ring Sour” (& Some Friday Funnies)

This week Vera Valmore asked me that question all poker players -- especially those of us marooned in non-pokery environs -- love love love to be asked:

“Do you think you might like to go to Vegas this summer?”

Didn’t take long to reply.

It could happen. This might be the summer I finally make it to a World Series of Poker. We’d probably shoot for a 4-5 day excursion, I’d imagine. Gotta look over the calendar and see what might work.

We’ve been to Vegas a few times before, more than once to see the Fédération Équestre Internationale World Cup which happens in Vegas every other year. As I’ve said here a few times, Vera rides dressage, which is one of the areas of competition featured in the FEI World Cup (along with jumping, eventing, and driving).

Speaking of dressage, Vera mentioned to me the other day something about a phenomenon occasionally affecting horses in which they become what is called “ring sour.” When I asked Vera what that exactly meant, she explained that such a horse has begun to express signs of being discontent with its routine -- specifically with regard to training for shows, being used for lessons, and other activities that take place inside the ring. The horse becomes increasingly less manageable and often simply needs a break from the customary pattern (e.g., getting turned out to roam freely for an extended period). That old bromide about how “you can lead a horse to water” comes to mind here . . . .

It is tempting to apply the term “ring sour” to poker, although to do so probably glosses over the precise meaning of the concept. I’m sure most players have experienced this feeling of boredom or restlessness, particularly if they find themselves playing the same game at the same stakes (and perhaps with the same opponents) day in and day out. I know I did during that long stretch of nothing but limit Hold ’em that characterized the first year or so of this blog. Then I moved over to PLO and more recently have been playing the mixed games, all of which has helped prevent me from becoming “ring sour.”

I suppose the idea could be applied even more broadly to the cash game-vs.-tourney distinction. I don’t play many tourneys, and so even though I’m playing a variety of games at the cash tables, I could see becoming weary of the non-conclusive nature of the perpetual ring game. Another good reason to go play Saturdays with Pauly tomorrow. (And I invite you along.)

Will definitely let you know if & when a WSOP trip falls into place. (Indeed, just the idea of it is enough to stave off any feelings of being “ring sour.”)

Meanwhile, if for some reason you’ve been feeling sour lately, let me point you to a few Two Plus Two threads that will help brighten your mood. (And no, there ain’t no Hawbakerian applesauce happenin’ in any of these whatsoever, as far as I know.)

This first is a thread that started last month called PA calls Jman "worlds biggest nit" jman220/Edit: Will The Cat Make The Jump? I think I remember the guys on the Two Plus Two Pokercast refer to this one. Lotsa funnies here, but for my money, post #45 gets the prize for truly inspired absurdist wit. (As is the case with all of these, do read from the beginning for the full effect.)

Then check out this seemingly sincere suggestion from a new poster to Eliminate Sunday Million that didn’t take very long to veer headlong into unchecked lunacy.

Finally, this one began yesterday afternoon and appears as though it may have some potential: FTP Avatar as a tell.

Have a good weekend, all.

Withdrawing Online Funds -- WWJD?

Withdrawing funds from online poker sites continues to be a relatively easy procedure -- much simpler (especially for Americans) than is depositing.

The sites with which I have had experience all operate in pretty much the same fashion when it comes to withdrawing funds. You click a button, enter an amount, and a check arrives (usually) in short order. (Have encountered one frustrating exception with Ultimate Bet, but as I no longer play there I am relatively less concerned with their issues.) And so far, thankfully, the bank has yet to object whenever I go to deposit those suckers.

For example, when one withdraws funds from Full Tilt Poker, one selects a method of payment, enters an amount, then lands on a final screen announcing that the withdrawal is in process. All of the screens are text-only until the last one, when one encounters a stylized, darkly-lit image of Chris “Jesus” Ferguson looking back at you:

Was able to withdraw a bit from Full Tilt yesterday and when I reached this screen I found myself momentarily mesmerized by the picture. Had seen it when withdrawing before, though forgot “Jesus” was there waiting for me at the end of my cash-out.

Stare long enough and eventually you realize there’s a ghostly image of Phil Ivey discernable in Ferguson’s sunglasses (his right, our left). I suppose an academic might want to suggest some sort of effort being made here to invite the viewer to identify with Ivey, but doing so requires a leap of abstraction I don’t personally feel inclined to make. (Besides, it is never a good idea -- even when pretending -- to think one is Ivey.)

I’ve decided that image of Ferguson punctuating the withdrawal process is highly appropriate. As we were reminded of repeatedly last weekend when Ferguson took down the NBC Heads-Up Poker Championship, he’s a so-called “math guy” with a Ph.D. in computer science and a formidable knowledge of game theory. And we also all know about Ferguson’s various experiments with and advice regarding bankroll management, such as demonstrated by that “Starting from Zero” challenge he gave himself last spring.

The fact is, the decision to cash out some of of one’s online roll always should be thoughtfully made. You know Ferguson never makes that move without thinking in through carefully ahead of time. I try to be thoughtful there, too -- especially now that depositing has become so arduous.

Perhaps the photographer originally intended to connote themes of intimidation, circumspection, or perhaps just poker celebrity when snapping the shot of Ferguson. I’m reading the photo differently, though. I’ve decided to read it as a salute of sorts from the bankroll master to a potential disciple.

“Cashing out some, eh?” says Ferguson. “Well done.”

Here’s hoping you get to enjoy a glimpse of Ferguson’s photo in the near future.

Little Did He Realize

What is this? Online poker’s version of The Golden Goose?

Yesterday a post appeared over on the Full Tilt Poker forum announcing that Jonathan Little would no longer be representing the online poker site. According to the post, Little “violated the terms and conditions of Full Tilt Poker by allowing other players to play his account.”

As a site rep, Little’s name appeared in red whenever he sat down at one of the virtual tables. According to the higher-ups, “When a player on Full Tilt Poker plays against and chats with a red pro on the site, it is imperative that they [sic] be able to trust that it is really the advertised pro playing the account.” Once Little began allowing others to play under his account -- and his doing so became known -- Full Tilt decided to part ways with him. (This thread on Pocket Fives from early last month appears to be where hints at something nefarious going on were first publicized.)

Little’s violation looks as though it was primarily motivated by profit. As a Full Tilt pro, Little received 100% rakeback (among other perks), thereby increasing his incentive to put in a high volume of hands. By sharing his account with others, “Little” apparently was able to log a whopping 1,200-plus SNGs in the first week of February -- an early clue, perhaps, that something illicit might be afoot.

A lot of folks are having fun on forums and elsewhere with Little’s online nick -- “FieryJustice” -- and its newly ironic connotation. The sudden loss of sponsorship represents an unexpected fender bender in a career that had recently been racing in high-gear. Little won the WPT Mirage Poker Showdown last May and placed 2nd in the WPT North American Poker Championship in Ontario last October. He also just finished making the round of 8 in the NBC Heads-Up Poker Championship over the weekend.

The news regarding Little revived previous stories -- of varying degrees of authenticity -- of other Full Tilt pros having acted similarly in the past. A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned hearing Mike Matusow blithely recount his having taken over for a friend late in an online tournament (though he purposely omitted mentioning the site on which the account-sharing occurred). While that story did not specifically involve the pro allowing others to play under his account, some have suggested instances where they have witnessed pros playing live while also somehow playing online at the same time. (See, for instance, Jimmy “Gobboboy” Fricke’s post about Matusow.)

Not quite sure what Little was thinking here. A pretty serious misstep, it seems. Especially for a guy who otherwise has demonstrated such proficiency at determining risk-reward ratios.

On the Poker Haters

Was thinking a bit about why so many folks find poker such an objectionable activity. Probably because I heard the fellows over on PokerRoad Radio talking about the issue over the weekend (on the 3/1 episode).

In a brief “Poker News” segment they mentioned how Barney Frank had managed to secure a 46th co-sponsor to sign on to his Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046). I’d heard that last week. Incidentally, I’m not sure why Julia Carson’s name continues to appear on the list of co-sponsors (She died in December.) I suppose the deceased still count as co-sponsors (?).

Anyhow, co-hosts Joe Sebok, Gavin Smith, and Ali Nejad mentioned that bit of news, then goofed around a little while, trying unsuccessfully to determine just how many individuals actually comprise the House of Representatives. Such information would be helpful when trying to determine whether 47 supporters of the IGREA (including Frank) signified a meaningful number. (Answer below.)

Then they briefly lamented the UIGEA, the general prejudice against gambling, and the particular demonization of poker. Sebok pointed out how a segment of society believes “gambling -- it’s evil, it’s wrong.” Gavin Smith brought up the old bingo argument, asking why bingo is okay when poker is not. “Because it’s socially acceptable,” answered Sebok.

What makes poker socially unacceptable for so many? There are probably other explanations, but off the top of my head I came up with three different reasons why. Incidentally, all three arguments assume poker is gambling (a view with which I don’t happen to disagree), although all three also minimize or altogether fail to acknowledge poker’s skill component (a view with which I take issue).

The first objection comes from those who believe playing poker indicates the possibility of some kind of psychological disorder -- a symptom, perhaps, of a serious malady in need of correction. Those who make this objection tend not to distinguish between poker and other forms of gambling. I’ve written about this idea before in a post where I talked about mentioning to a co-worker that I played poker and his response was to ask if I thought I could develop a gambling problem. In the documentary No Limit: A Search for the American Dream on the Poker Tournament Trail, Mike Sexton says he believes “gambling is inherent in our blood.” Those who believe the person who gambles is exhibiting a psychological disorder may in fact agree with Sexton; the difference, though, is that while Sexton accepts this condition as a part of who we are, those others believe it a flaw that needs to be rectified.

The second objection is the moral one -- that poker playing is an example of an activity that fails to conform to societal codes of conduct. This objection also frequently is made with regard to other forms of gambling, although as Sebok suggests, one is more likely to see it directed toward poker than toward bingo or the lottery. There are various factors potentially in play here (including faith/religion), but it is the law -- the most patent influence on our notions of “codes of conduct” -- that has the most relevance in this context. Whereas poker is legal in certain places and under certain conditions, other forms of gambling enjoy a great deal more legal sanctioning, thereby causing them to be viewed as conforming to society’s mores -- to be morally unobjectionable.

The third objection is the ethical one, and I think this is the one that more often applies to poker than to other forms of gambling. With ethics we start talking more particularly about “good” and “bad” conduct. There are some who view all forms of gambling as “bad” because of the potential for it to cause harm to those who gamble and to others. Then there are those who especially object to poker because of how the game is played. To succeed, we must take money from other poker players; thus is our welfare dependent on others’ suffering (in a sense). Unlike the lottery or other games where we all play against the house (a faceless, unsympathetic foe), poker pits us against one another, encouraging what some believe to be “bad” forms of treating one another. An irony: that which we poker players might say makes poker more of a skill game than other forms of gambling -- the fact that we are competing against others, and not solely subjecting ourselves to chance -- is precisely that which some say makes poker ethically dubious.

By the way, there are 435 members of the House, meaning at the moment Frank still needs another 171 of the remaining 388 Congressmen and women to come along to have a majority. A long, long way to go . . . .

And, to be realistic, I gotta believe most of those remaining 388 are gonna be held back from supporting the IGREA by one or more of these objections. Don’t you?

The Search for Unambiguous Proof of Poker Playing Prowess

Have to say, am getting along real, real nice with poker at the moment. Both playing & following the pros’ adventures.

As far as playing goes, I ended up with a decent February (by my short-stacked standards), and a have enjoyed a good first couple of days of March, too. Once again had a fun time donating over at Saturdays with Pauly, this time finishing 16th of 38. That makes three for three making the final table before the final table. Whazzat prove? That yr humble servant needs to sharpen his tourney skills, probably. (Am gonna plead small sample size.)

This time around I played some with super-blogger-tourney-creator AlCantHang, Amy C, Change100, among others. Couldn’t get anything going early on, and ended up just folding a lot and taking a couple of small pots for the first hour. Then shortly after the first break, I had slipped down below 900 chips when I picked up K-J-T-8 double-suited and decided to go with it. Managed to double through there, then chip up to 2,200 or so by the middle of Level 6. That put me close to the middle of the pack -- 13 of 23 remaining.

Then came a hand in which a short-stacked player UTG pushed his last 700 in the middle. I was in MP with -- another nice PLO starter -- and went ahead and reraised pot to isolate. No one else came along, and so before the flop our cards were turned over. He held -- a pretty nice match-up for me. The flop of made things even nicer. I was a huge favorite -- like 86% (according to the CardPlayer Omaha calculator). But a jack on the turn and a deuce on the river gave the hand to my chip-challenged opponent. I was back down to 1,500 or so, and with blinds at 100/200, time was running short.

Was forced to fold a full round, including both blinds, and so was down to 1,180 when I picked up on the button. With one limper in (plus one of the blinds who had started the hand with 105), I decided just to limp in as well to see what the flop brought. Flop came , and the early limper bet pot (705). Didn’t need much time to know what to do. Besides the diamond draw, I’d flopped one of those nice wraps where any eight, jack, queen, or king would give me the nut straight. If I’m adding ’em up correctly, that means 19 outs altogether. I pushed my remaining chips in the middle, got the call, and our cards were flipped over.

Was hoping not to see a better diamond draw, and I didn’t. Indeed, only one diamond appeared in either of my opponents’ hands -- that of the early limper who held . (The tiny-stacked guy in the blinds had 6-J-3-7, no diamonds.) I’m about 67% to win this sucker and get back into contention. But none of those 19 outs came, and I was done. Nice to be getting my money in good, but I have to start accumulating some chips earlier on in these things so I don’t have to win everytime I do.

Meanwhile, I have been motoring back and forth between PLO25, H.O.R.S.E., Razz, and Stud/8 (the latter three at $0.50/$1.00). Moving around from game to game has really kept up my interest and enjoyment. And I do think playing the other games regularly is helping me make better reads at the PLO tables. Not completely sure why, but I think it has to do with the way frequently switching games forces me to concentrate a little more.

As far as following the pros goes, it’s been an especially interesting few days with the conclusion of the WPT L.A. Poker Classic and the NBC Heads-Up Championship. I give CardPlayer a hard time here from time to time, but I’m going to go ahead and echo Pokerati Dan and commend CardPlayer for its coverage of the goings-on over at Caesar’s. Good stuff.

Was surprised like everyone else to see Orel Hershiser mow down Forrest, Cunningham, and Deeb like so many light-hitting shortstops. Saw them starting to fret over on 2+2 about what the “general view” -- of the non-poker playing public, I guess -- would be if Hershiser were to have gone all the way.

I personally don’t think these things mean a whole heck of a lot, ultimately -- not being “good for poker” or “bad for poker” or anything, really. If Hershiser had won, I suppose we might've heard Frank DeFord wax poetic on NPR about the Cy Young award-winning pitcher’s inordinate acumen helping him make an easy transition to a less-athletic, more-cerebral (?) realm. (Actually, we still might if DeFord can’t find anything better to yammer on about this week.) But most of the world probably wouldn’t have noticed.

Meanwhile, for those who want to view Hershiser’s accomplishment as proof that heads-up tournaments are all luck, Chris Ferguson’s run to a third final in four years (and finally winning this time) seems like it would disprove that thesis. Of course, I could be wrong. Heard Haralabos Voulgaris on Big Poker Sundays yesterday restate how the luck factor in heads-up tourneys outweighs all. As he put it, “these are like regular tournaments on a hundred times steroids in terms of luck.”

I ain’t gonna spend too much energy challenging the idea that luck is involved in these things. Still, for a guy to win 16 of 19 matches (as Ferguson has done over the past four years) is pretty remarkable, ain’t it? Of course, like my brief Saturdays with Pauly career, we’re still talking too small a sample size to “prove” anything . . . .

Even so, I’ll go ahead and say it: Jesus is more than just all right.