On captitalism vs. socialism

The preference for capitalism or socialism over the other appears to be a profound distinction among human beings. This preference lies at the foundation of how we believe people should perform and interact in a community. That is, the responsiblity of each person to himself vs. others and the rewards that each person should reap in relation to his contributions to and his needs within that community. Given that humans (and most other oranganisms) have evolved to be selfish for biological reasons, capitalism seems to be the clear choice. However, what if by evolving higher states of consciousness such as those advocated by the Eastern religions (and perhaps even Christianity and Judaism), we can leave the ego behind and recognize the connection we have with all people, the unity between ourselves and the universe. Perhaps we would find that the resulting harmony yields far greater spiritual rewards than can the constant struggle to distinguish ourselves from others through the attainment of fame and fortune. Essentially, we would have to evolve a mindset similar to that of the Hymenopterans (bees, ants, and wasps), which live in virtually clonal communities, making ultimate cooperation and unity between individuals a biological imperative. I strongly believe that capitalism is the superior economic system for humans as long as we remain true to our biological roots, but perhaps if we nurture and cultivate our minds to the point of universal love and awareness then socialism will be the clear answer.

The Poker Game of Science

A little more than a year ago I wrote a post dealing with the stark differences between poker and other forms of competition such as basketball. I made the point that nobody would ever bet $10,000 thinking that they could beat Michael Jordan in a heads up game of basketball without a handicap, but there are plenty of fools willing to put up $10k for a chance to win the main event of the World Series of Poker, which is perhaps the most poker-pro-infested event known to man. There are two reasons for this. First, in basketball it is easy to recognize good strategy and mastery of technical skills. Everybody knows that Jordan kicked serious ass. In contrast, basic poker strategy is far from intuitive to most people and even when they have learned it they may still have trouble applying it in the heat of battle. Therefore, most poker players have no clue of how bad they are, nor do they have any appreciation for just how good the best players can be. Second, there is a lot of luck in poker. Even if a player has taken the time to familiarize himself with the game sufficiently to understand the gigantic gulf between his skill level and that of an expert, he may still be tempted into a game with the experts in the hope that the deck will hit him over the head and he will take home the money. For this reason, luck is an important element in making poker so profitable for good players. However, the luck factor is large enough that it takes a long, long time to know whether or not you are any good. I know of several experienced pros who are huge life-long winners at Party Poker, yet have suffered through income plateaus spanning 50,000 hands or more. To put that into perspective, I have played around 130,000 hands since April of last year. Does this make poker sound like any other activity you know?

The other day I was talking to a friend who was upset because few of her experiments have been working lately. I said it sounded like science had been dealing her a lot of bad beats. She acknowledged that bad luck was likely to be the culprit, but pointed out that it's hard to maintain much confidence as a scientist after getting cold decked so many times. I assured her that she is the shit when it comes to lab, and that her luck would turn around soon. But it made me realize how much science is like poker in this regard. There are tons of intelligent, hard working people putting in the effort but not getting results. Sometimes this is because they are doing technically challenging experiments, and sometimes it's because shit just doesn't work and that's all you can say. On the flip side, there are plenty of ignorant twits who get assigned to fast track projects and end up publishing in Science without ever knowing which end of a pipetman is up. Obviously, luck plays a role in any job or activity you can think of. But science comes closer to poker in the degree of luck involved. There is voodoo and witchcraft and wizardry at work in this business. Today a student in the lab presented her work, and her first slide showed a cartoon with a scientist spinning around on his head next to a lab bench surrounded by candles. Another scientist is staring at this spectacle in disbelief. The caption reads "the protocol said this is the only way to get it to work, so I'm doing it!!" Sounds about right.

Mouse in the house

We've got a mouse in the house. I say "a" mouse because I've only seen one, but I'm sure there are many more lurking in the walls and ceiling. I call our mouse mama mouse because I am sure that it's a female bent on birthing scads of baby mice. She has been getting more and more bold over the last few weeks. I used to only see her at night. Then one evening at around 7 she came out to have a look around. And just last weekend I saw her boucing around in the early afternoon as if she owned the place. Usually I see mama mouse when I'm playing poker. First I see her out of the corner of my eye running across the kitchen floor. Then she sneaks under the poker table, occluding herself from view. Eventually she reappears, often right at my feet. When this happens I don't move a muscle. It's not that I enjoy her company in the house. I don't want rodents shitting all over the place and spreading disease. I've considered trying to stomp her out right then and there. But I don't think it would work, as she is very fast, and she would freak out. I don't want that. I want her to feel right at home so that when I set out some sort of deadly trap she will have no suspicion of foul play. So what does this have to do with poker? Probably not very much, but it does make me wonder. How would other poker players react to a mouse in the house? And more particularly, a mouse at their feet? My poker style tends toward tight passive with marginal hands and extremely aggressive with big hands even with cards to come. I wait for the goods, and then I put down the hammer. This corresponds pretty well with the manner in which I plan to deal with mama mouse. I'm going to wait for the appropriate time, and then bury her. I suspect that your average maniac would just go for the stomp regardless of how the low chance of success. He would just keep on stomping and stomping until he got blisters on his feet. A loose passive player might not do anything. He accepts the bets that are thrown at him by aggressive players and won't raise back without a rock crusher. Thus, he would accept the mouse's company and not try to fight it. A tight passive player would similarly do nothing, but he would be quite upset about the mouse. He would probably have a good idea of how to deal with it, but would not have the confidence in his judgement to follow through. He would let mama mouse go about her merry way. What do you think? Am I tripping? Somebody needs to write a book called The Poker Game of Life. There's already a blog with that title, and for good reason. There are so many parallels between real life situations and poker. Somebody should take the time to elucidate them in text. Hell, I'd buy it.

Finally

Well I haven't written a post since February but something fairly momentous happened yesterday in my online poker career. I finally emerged from an earnings plateau that lasted about 6 months and some 50,000 hands. Thank god for Poker Tracker, without which I would have no idea how much money I've made at the tables compared to money from bonuses. When I first got Poker Tracker I was playing mostly $50 and $100 NL and was making around $400/month. At least I did for about 6 months. Then I gave $2/4 and $3/6 limit a try, both 6 max and full ring. I had a great run at $3/6 and then everything fell apart. I lost some $200 at $3/6, then went to $2/4, feeling that I could beat the 6 max games at Poker Stars. That resulted in a $440 beat down. I was probably playing a little too aggressively in some cases but there certainly were a lot of idiots in those games and I'm pretty sure I would have been a winner if I had persevered, but losing 110 big bets in just a few days really killed my confidence at limit, so I switched back to NL. That didn't go much better either, which was very disconcerting because I felt like my skills at NL had improved dramatically since I first started out. I broke even for a few months but was still making a bunch of money from Party and Empire reload bonuses. But over the last month or so I've had a sweet run of cards at $50 and $100 NL and have surpassed my old Poker Tracker high of $3K. I've also solidified in my mind the reason why I can make a lot of money in these games, or put another way, why the competition is so bad. Knowing these leaks makes it easier to identify profitable situations at the poker table. Some of the more significant leaks include: 1) habitually slowplaying AA-QQ preflop. People are so afraid of scaring people out that they just limp in or min raise with these premium hands. They think they are trapping their opponents, but often end up trapping themselves. I love limping in or calling min raises with small pairs, knowing that if I hit my set I will have a good shot at taking some poor fool's whole stack if he has aces or kings. Certainly there are cases where it is profitable to slow play AA or KK preflop, but they are infrequent, and it requires a lot of skill to play these hands post flop. It is generally best to get as much money into the pot preflop when you know you are a big favorite. 2) calling without sufficient pot odds. So many times I see people calling pot sized bets with str8 and flush draws, which will obviously have detrimental effects on the bankroll. 3) bluffing too much with missed draws. Often when I'm out of position and I have a good, but vulnerable hand such as an overpair, I'll put in pot sized bets and get called down by somebody. If they're not raising me then they generally have a worse made hand, like top pair decent kicker, or they are on a draw. Either way, I find the best play is to check the river. The guy with the made hand will bet my hand for me since he sees my check as a sign of weakness and will now value bet his top pair. If I had bet the river he would have just called. But the guy with the draw will not call a bet on the river unless he hit. Therefore betting out on the river against someone who was on a draw is generally minus EV. But if I check to him, showing weakness, he will very often take the bait and make a ridiculous bluff. I'm not saying people should never bluff in this spot. They should. But they do it way to much, so much so that check/calling on the river out of position is a pretty obvious play when there are flush or str8 draws that didn't come through. 4) complete ignorance of how to play on the river. As Sklansky states in the most kick ass poker book ever, "The Theory of Poker," there are many reasons to bet on the early rounds of a poker hand, but there are only two reasons to bet once all the cards are out. Those reasons are to be called down by a worse hand, ie to bet for value, and to get a better hand to fold, ie to bluff. But what I see tons of people doing is making bets and raises on the river that can only be called by better hands. That is, they are making value bets with cards that just aren't that valuble. Here's an example. The other day I had A7o in the big blind. Two people limped in and the small blind completed. The flop came AKx. I wasn't too thrilled with my kicker but opted to bet out to protect my and and to see where I was. The first limper called and the other two players folded. The turn was a blank and I made another half-pot sized bet. Again the guy called. The river was another blank. I decided to make a small blocking bet on the river. This is the opposite of inducing the bluff. In this spot my hand wasn't good enough to call a big bet on the river, so I wanted to dissuade my opponent from making a big bluff, as the bluff would work. Much to my surprise, the guy min raised me. Now it was hard to imagine how the guy could make that play with a worse hand than mine (mostly because I would never consider doing it I guess), but I was getting something like 5:1 pot odds, and since I wasn't 80% sure he was ahead due to the crazyness factor of online players I called. The dude showed K8 and I won the pot. What was he thinking? Was he value betting? Did he really think that I could call a raise holding something worse than middle pair with a shitty kicker? Or was he bluffing? Did he read me for having an ace and a weak kicker and actually believe that he could get me to muck my hand with just a minimum raise on the end? The fact that I actually considered folding is beside the point because 95% of people playing those stakes will call that min raise without a second thought regardless of how weak their kicker may be. Clearly he was not thinking and didn't understand what he was doing. And thank god for people like that, who make it possible to make some decent money playing a card game.

More Bizarreness

G. Johnston: OK, a limosine that can fly. Now I have seen everything.
Spottswoode: Really? Have you seen a man eat his own head?
G. Johnston: No.
Spottswoode: So then, you haven't seen everything.

Team America, World Police

I just finished playing 2000 raked hands at Empire to get their juicy February bonus and I thought I'd share some of the more amusing hands from the session. I suppose I still haven't seen everything in poker, but after this run of cards I must be pretty close.

***** Hand History for Game 2927943486 *****
0/0 Texas Hold'em Game Table (NL) - Sun Feb 26 18:20:52 EST 2006
Table Table 36632 (6 max) (Real Money) -- Seat 6 is the button
Total number of players : 6
Seat 1: diveunderh20 ( $54.80)
Seat 2: leggo1234 ( $28.20)
Seat 3: Ihateseals ( $39.93)
Seat 4: bobjimmyjoe2 ( $50.10)
Seat 5: fishy1777 ( $50.28)
Seat 6: rutlandmedic ( $52.97)
diveunderh20 posts small blind (0.25)
leggo1234 posts big blind (0.50)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to fishy1777 [ Ks, Kc ]
Ihateseals folds.
bobjimmyjoe2 folds.
fishy1777 raises (2) to 2
rutlandmedic raises (3.50) to 3.50
diveunderh20 folds.
leggo1234 folds.

I decided to min reraise him again to get a better sense of his strength. I didn't have any data on the dude so if he had decided to push all in at this point it would be a tough decision.

fishy1777 raises (3) to 5
rutlandmedic raises (3) to 6.50

Oh shit, does he have AA? Need to at least see the flop.

fishy1777 calls (1.50)
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 3s, 7d, 9h ]
fishy1777 checks.
rutlandmedic bets (5)
fishy1777 calls (5)

Kind of a weak bet given the pot size at this point. As Sammy Farha says, I call a weak bet. You make a strong bet, maybe I fold.

** Dealing Turn ** : [ 6d ]
fishy1777 checks.
rutlandmedic bets (0.50)
fishy1777 calls (0.50)

What the hell is that? Does he have AA and he's just trying to milk me? Now I'm totally confused.

** Dealing River ** : [ Th ]
fishy1777 checks.
rutlandmedic bets (5)

Ah, back to the $5 bet. I figure I'm either way ahead or way behind now, making a call the only option.

fishy1777 calls (5)
** Summary **
Main Pot: $33.05 | Rake: $1.70
Board: [ 3s 7d 9h 6d Th ]
diveunderh20 balance $54.55, lost $0.25 (folded)
leggo1234 balance $27.70, lost $0.50 (folded)
Ihateseals balance $39.93, didn't bet (folded)
bobjimmyjoe2 balance $50.10, didn't bet (folded)
fishy1777 balance $66.33, bet $17, collected $33.05, net +$16.05 [ Ks Kc ] [ a pair of kings -- Ks,Kc,Th,9h,7d ]
rutlandmedic balance $35.97, lost $17 [ 4h Qc ] [ high card queen -- Qc,Th,9h,7d,6d ]

Q4 offsuit? Wow. You occasionally run across these people who just short circuit inexplicably, and it sure is nice to have cowboys when they do.


Nothing too fascinating about this hand. I just think it's funny that the guy pretty much knew he was totally fucked, yet still called my reraise. Oh yeah, and that the turn and river had me sweating cynder blocks.

***** Hand History for Game 2927091985 *****
0/0 Texas Hold'em Game Table (NL) - Fri Feb 24 20:18:48 EST 2006
Table Table 54822 (6 max) (No DP) (Real Money) -- Seat 3 is the button
Total number of players : 6
Seat 1: BuddyR43 ( $49)
Seat 2: cognac333 ( $65.40)
Seat 3: JASPER244 ( $27.50)
Seat 4: Turbotruth ( $51.40)
Seat 5: fishy1777 ( $49.25)
Seat 6: NCAAfanatic ( $135.97)
Turbotruth posts small blind (0.25)
Ajaxkicker posts big blind (0.50)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to fishy1777 [ 9d, 9s ]
BuddyR43 calls (0.50)
cognac333 folds.
JASPER244 raises (1) to 1
Turbotruth calls (0.75)
Ajaxkicker calls (0.50)
BuddyR43 calls (0.50)
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 9c, 6c, Jh ]
Turbotruth checks.
fishy1777bets (0.50)
BuddyR43 calls (0.50)
JASPER244 raises (1) to 1
Turbotruth calls (1)
fishy1777 raises (3.50) to 4
BuddyR43 calls (3.50)
JASPER244 raises (6) to 7
Turbotruth calls (6)
fishy1777 raises (41) to 45
JASPER244: lol
JASPER244: oh well
BuddyR43 folds.
JASPER244 calls (19.50)
JASPER244 is all-In.
Turbotruth folds.
** Dealing Turn ** : [ Kc ]
** Dealing River ** : [ Qc ]
Creating Main Pot with $66 with JASPER244
** Summary **
Main Pot: $66 | Side Pot 1: $18.50 | Rake: $2
Board: [ 9c 6c Jh Kc Qc ]
BuddyR43 balance $44, lost $5 (folded)
cognac333 balance $65.40, didn't bet (folded)
JASPER244 balance $0, lost $27.50 [ Jd Qs ] [ two pairs, queens and jacks -- Kc,Qs,Qc,Jd,Jh ]
Turbotruth balance $43.40, lost $8 (folded)
fishy1777 balance $87.75, bet $46, collected $84.50, net +$38.50 [ 9d 9s ] [ three of a kind, nines -- Kc,Qc,9d,9s,9c ]
NCAAfanatic balance $135.97, sits out

Dang. After that turn and river card I figured the pot was lost for sure. Guess that's just how the poker gods have fun jerking people.


***** Hand History for Game 2927075692 *****
0/0 Texas Hold'em Game Table (NL) - Fri Feb 24 19:36:35 EST 2006
Table Table 36554 (6 max) (Real Money) -- Seat 4 is the button
Total number of players : 5
Seat 2: Lastat699 ( $45.76)
Seat 3: Thorup1111 ( $79.83)
Seat 4: lydietaluy ( $50.40)
Seat 5: fishy1777 ( $50.85)
Seat 6: cicci81 ( $72.81)
Ajaxkicker posts small blind (0.25)
cicci81 posts big blind (0.50)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Ajaxkicker [ Kh, Kc ]
Lastat699 calls (0.50)
Thorup1111 calls (0.50)
lydietaluy calls (0.50)
fishy1777 raises (2.75) to 3
cicci81 calls (2.50)
Lastat699 folds.
Thorup1111 raises (9.50) to 10
lydietaluy folds.
fishy1777 calls (7)
cicci81 calls (7)
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 7s, 6d, 8h ]
fishy1777 checks.
cicci81 bets (15)
Thorup1111 raises (30) to 30
fishy1777 folds.
cicci81 raises (47.81) to 62.81
cicci81 is all-In.
Thorup1111 calls (32.81)
** Dealing Turn ** : [ Th ]
** Dealing River ** : [ Jh ]
Creating Main Pot with $154.62 with cicci81
** Summary **
Main Pot: $154.62 | | Rake: $2
Board: [ 7s 6d 8h Th Jh ]
sunley13 balance $50, sits out
Lastat699 balance $45.26, lost $0.50 (folded)
Thorup1111 balance $84.33, bet $72.81, collected $77.31, net +$4.50 [ As Ah ] [ a pair of aces -- As,Ah,Jh,Th,8h ]
lydietaluy balance $49.90, lost $0.50 (folded)
fishy1777 balance $40.85, lost $10 (folded)
cicci81 balance $77.31, bet $72.81, collected $77.31, net +$4.50 [ Ac Ad ] [ a pair of aces -- Ac,Ad,Jh,Th,8h ]

How is it that everybody at this site raises preflop with crap like QJ and A7 but they never do it with AA or KK unless someone has already raise in front of them (and even then sometimes, even with a bunch of other donks in the pot). They're just begging to get their aces cracked and lose a huge pot, but would be mortified if they ever just stole the blinds with them. People have to be so damn sneaky. Sometimes I find myself getting annoyed with it, but really it's a good thing once you realize that so many people play this way (ie so badly).



On this next hand I feel that Mango man played his holding just a smidgen too aggressively preflop, but perhaps I still have much to learn concerning the supreme power of the 5 3 offsuit. Plus it is essential that you deceive your opponent at all times. He sure as hell succeeded in that department.

***** Hand History for Game 2926321846 *****
0/0 Texas Hold'em Game Table (NL) - Wed Feb 22 21:51:10 EST 2006
Table Table 36588 (6 max) (Real Money) -- Seat 1 is the button
Total number of players : 4
Seat 1: niborreuas ( $101.29)
Seat 3: fishy1777 ( $73.65)
Seat 4: fleerflair ( $20.32)
Seat 5: SurMango ( $58.29)
jwtyner123 posts small blind (0.25)
fleerflair posts big blind (0.50)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to jwtyner123 [ Qd, Qs ]
SurMango: told ya biatch
SurMango raises (1) to 1
niborreuas folds.
fishy1777 raises (3.25) to 3.50
fleerflair folds.
SurMango raises (5) to 6
fishy1777 calls (2.50)
** Dealing Flop ** : [ Jc, 9s, 3h ]
fishy1777 checks.
SurMango bets (5)
fishy1777 calls (5)
** Dealing Turn ** : [ 4d ]
fishy1777 checks.
SurMango bets (35)
fishy1777 raises (62.65) to 62.65
fishy1777 is all-In.
SurMango calls (12.29)
SurMango is all-In.
** Dealing River ** : [ 2s ]
Creating Main Pot with $115.08 with SurMango
Creating Side Pot 1 with $15.36 with fishy1777
** Summary **
Main Pot: $115.08 | Side Pot 1: $15.36 | Rake: $2
Board: [ Jc 9s 3h 4d 2s ]
niborreuas balance $101.29, didn't bet (folded)
fishy1777 balance $130.44, bet $73.65, collected $130.44, net +$56.79 [ Qd Qs ] [ a pair of queens -- Qd,Qs,Jc,9s,4d ]
fleerflair balance $19.82, lost $0.50 (folded)
SurMango balance $0, lost $58.29 [ 5c 3s ] [ a pair of threes -- Jc,9s,5c,3s,3h ]

Tales from 5 max

So last night I was playing some $2/4 five max at Pokerroom. I was in the small blind with KQ. It was folded to the button, and I was really hoping he wouldn't raise cause I didn't want to pay $3 more to see the flop. Plus just calling in that situation is not really an option. You're gotta fold or reraise in order to get out the big blind. Anyway the guy on the button just calls, which tells you immediately that he's a novice cause anyone else would know that any hand worth playing in that spot is worth a raise. So I was like hell yeah getting 5:1 with my KQ. I called and the bb checked. The flop was pretty dreamy: Q Q Q. Yeah, that's the third time in my life that's happened. So I figure nobody can have an ace or a pair cause there was no raise preflop so I decided to slowplay it and check. Note the criteria that must be fulfilled in order to make slowplaying correct according to Sklansky in the best book ever, The Theory of Poker: 1) your hand must be very strong. 2) The pot must be small. 3) there must be a good chance that your opponents will not call a bet now but that giving them a free card will make them a second best hand (e.g. a full house) with which they will pay you off. With all the criteria fulfilled, I checked, as did both opponents. The turn was a K which was not too bad, although I would have preferred a J or a T, so I bet out. The big blind immediately folded but the button raised!! Bingo, he has a K!! I reraised and he capped it. I led out again on the river, and yet again he raised, I reraised, and he capped. I couldn't resist the urge to trash talk so before I called his last raise I typed in "YOU ROCK!!!" And I could not believe what he showed: AA. Wow. Then I typed in "I've never seen aces played so badly before." One or two hands later the guy left the table. I guess he couldn't handle having his aces go down to a measly KQ offsuit. But he really did deserve it playing that way. There's just nothing better than people who can't resist the urge to check/call when they have the best hand but then go berserk once it turns into a steaming pile.

Freedom Isn't Free

I just read the first few pages of Hunter S. Thompson's classic work "Fear and loathing in Las Vegas." On page 3 I kinda chuckled under my breath. On page 5 I laughed out loud. On page 6 nearly busted my gut. And then it hit me. I want to retire. I want to be free of all the obligations that have prevented me from doing the things I need to do while I'm still young and able. I want to read books like this all day, travel the world, and catch behemoth tuna, all the while playing just enough poker to afford it. Seems worth a shot at least, despite the risk of burning the only bridge I have built for myself so far, the one leading to a career in science. Difficult choices lie ahead.