atheism reading ideas

I get most of my atheism reading ideas from paulp, including most of these links.

Some good stuff I've seen lately, and some excerpts:

"You don't understand what's going on, none of this Santa stuff makes any sense and there's zero evidence for it, why can't everyone just admit that? What's the big conspiracy about? Why is everyone pretending there really is a Santa? Then it slowly dawns on you, around age ten or eleven ... the chilling, horrible truth:

They're Not Pretending. They REALLY Do Believe There Is a Santa Claus.

Egads! Holy Shit! You suddenly feel a little bit lonely at age sixteen as you come to realize that you may surrounded by fully grown adults who are delusional incompetents that cannot distinguish fiction from fact and are enthralled by some kind of massive group hysteria! They're most of them all like that! And they all think you're nuts for not buying into their delusion! What the hell is wrong with these fucking people, can't they see how crazy this shit is?"

That is just a piece of a long Santa/God analogy. As paulp said "The feeling that he expresses particularly well is the utter incredulity that rational people feel about the present state of affairs." Check out the whole thing at What It Feels Like to be an Atheist.

The same author continued with Why I'm an Atheist. His 3 personal reasons:

"It" makes no sense


There is no evidence for "it"


We're adults who can get by fine at Christmas time and enjoy ourselves without "it" having to be true

Here's a terrifying glimpse of America: Atheists are America's most distrusted minority. Rationality is pretty frightening to the irrational I suppose.

Zooming out for a view of atheism throughout the world, here is a very scientific-looking article that it is too late for me to read critically right now. But it does contain the following:

However, nations marked by high levels of organic atheism – such as Sweden, the Netherlands, and France -- are among the healthiest, wealthiest, most educated, and most free societies on earth.

Consider the Human Development Report (2004), commissioned by The United Nations Development Program. This report ranks 177 nations on a “Human Development Index,” which measures societal health through a weighing of such indicators as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate, per capita income, and educational attainment. According to the 2004 Report, the five highest ranked nations in terms of total human development were Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. All five of these countries are characterized by notably high degrees of organic atheism. Furthermore, of the top 25 nations ranked on the “Human Development Index,” all but one country ( Ireland) are top-ranking non-belief nations, containing some of the highest percentages of organic atheism on earth. Conversely, of those countries ranked at the bottom of the “Human Development Index” -- the bottom 50 -- all are countries lacking any statistically significant percentages of atheism.

Note my sarcasm when I introduced this article. I haven't read the whole thing, or figured out where it came from. It might be total bullshit. Or it might be pure. But I liked the quote so I just threw it in here.

DON'T BELIEVE IT JUST BECAUSE I QUOTED IT.

But if you are looking for something to believe in, here is the source of the one true religion: Pastafarianism.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

"new world"

I'm still easing my way into a new intellectual world . I don't call it a "new world" because all of the ideas are particularly new, or even because most of the ideas are new to me. What is new to me is that there are a lot of people out there who think the same way I think. Lots of the ideas I hear from these people make a lot of sense to me, and I want to learn more about them.

Two labels from this new world that I've embraced for myself are "atheist" and "skeptic." I keep hearing a lot about "humanism." I don't know exactly what that is yet, but maybe that will be my next thing to check out.

A quick visit to wikipedia yields the following information about each of those 3.

Atheism:

• Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who assert there are no gods as atheists, labelling the others as agnostics or simply non-theists.

Skepticism:

• Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (UK spelling, scepticism) sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a scientific, or practical, epistemological position (or paradigm) in which one questions the veracity of claims unless they can be empirically tested.

Humanism:

• Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on our capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or divinely revealed texts. Humanists endorse a recognition of a universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to our social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.

Maybe I'm getting geared up for a series of posts on these topics.

blah phase

I go through phases.

I had been in a fairly productive phase where I was trying to make good use of my time, figure out my future, and pursue ideas that interested me. But the last few days I've been in an extremely unmotivated phase where everything is just "blah."

1.) I just came across this article. Basically some guy in Afghanistan converted to Christianity, so his community is demanding that he be executed. "Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf.

The article also notes that Mr. Raoulf is considered a moderate.

2.) I also came across this blurb, which notes that according to a recent study, 30% of African women think a woman deserves to be beaten for burning dinner.

When I'm not in a "blah" phase, I often think that I'd like to pursue some career where I help improve the human condition. Lately I've concluded that my greatest strength is rational thinking, and I've thought that the best way for me to feel good about my career is to somehow professionally encourage rational thought and behavior.

But when I'm in a "blah" phase, and I encounter stories like 1 and 2, I have a pretty hard time concluding that people aren't far beyond any help I could offer.

People aren't interested in rational thinking. Even if there was a nice way to tell someone that their irrational behavior is doing them more harm than good, and there generally isn't, they wouldn't care anyway. They'd spit in your face. Or if you were in Kabul, they'd hang you. And then they'd carry on with their idiocy.

Humans aren't built to live in a global society where we're often exposed to people who look, speak, and act a lot differently than themselves. We aren't built to have access to advanced scientific understanding of the world around us. And again and again and again our behavior reflects those basic facts.

I'm reminded of a Steven Pinker quote:

Many tragedies come from our physical and cognitive makeup... Our minds are adapted to a world that no longer exists, prone to misunderstandings correctable only by arduous education...

It is my belief that the only way to avoid irrational insanity is through Pinker's "arduous education." But it is hard enough for a responsible person to educate one's self - how do we make sure everyone is so educated?

You can't just storm into Kabul and teach Abdul Raoulf that killing someone for what they say isn't something we should be doing. After all, his position is very reasonable and moderate in his world.

Or you could establish widespread public education throughout your country, and then still have a nation full of anti-science fundamentalists who believe that the world is 6,000 years old and that evolution is a conspiracy.

Blah.

In this phase, it seems like holing up in my house and hustling chumps for their kid's college fund seems like an appropriate way to make a living. Why bother trying to improve the world? I just should look out for myself. Self-interest.

Self-interest is the one reason people have to overcome their irrationality. They might be built to hate their neighbors with the different skin color and the funny accents, but it is in everyone's best interests to just trade with them instead of squandering their resources trying to kill each other. If everyone could just somehow realize this, so many problems would be solved.

But naturally, most religions teach people that self-interest is bad. Religion gives wonderful advice like "die for this cause, and you will be rewarded in the afterlife (trust me, there's an afterlife)" and "if someone hits you, offer to let them hit you again... that is what Jesus did!"

Fortunately the "turn the other cheek" people don't seem jumping to offer more suicide bombing targets to the "virgins in paradise" people.

So even if you could somehow educate all these people that certain aspects of their beliefs are actually self-destructive bullshit, and even if you could show that rational thinking has improved their lives with centuries of technological advances (except for the ones who believe that medicine is evil, of course), they'd still fuck it all up, and they'd be ready with plenty of pseudo-logical excuses.

I think it's missing part of the Pinker quote that really screws us over:

We are certain to die, and smart enough to know it... and condemned to perplexity about the deepest questions we can entertain.

We're built to be so cause-and-effect oriented, and we know that death is at the end of every chain of choices we make. So all that fancy book-learnin' and logic don't make no difference cause we all end up in a grave. So why bother with it in the meantime? It is way too arduous. Fuck that, I'll just make up happy stories to believe in.

Blah.

Maybe the anti-science fundamentalists are right. Maybe technology is terrible, because without it we wouldn't have the global industrial society that we aren't built for. Maybe humankind would be better off if 99% of the world's population killed each other, and we'd go back to living in primitive hunter-gatherer tribes. On the brink of starvation, dirty, freezing, and ignorant. But hey, ignorance is bliss.

Of course I recognize that this whole depressing rant is part of the problem that it identifies. It is just a "pseudo-logical excuse" to justify my own irrational behavarior: the blah phase, the worthlessness of my daily pursuits, and frustration with being too lazy to change what I don't like about my life and the world.

How do I fight this? Or do I just keep playing poker and complaining about it.

more reasons my NL week was great

Last week was only the 4th week out of 52 that I had 5 days of $100+ results.

Its only the 3rd week that I've had 5 days of $200+ results.

It is the 4th time I've had 4 days of $300+ results.

It was my best overall results week since August, and my 4th best week ever.

adspar's thoughts on American Idol 50's night.

I cant believe this is what my blog is turning into, but I wrote this up in an email discussion, so I might as well publish it here.

adspar's thoughts on American Idol 50's night.

My bottom 3 this week would be Lisa, Bucky and Kevin. America's bottom 3 will include Lisa and Bucky. Not sure about the 3rd. Hopefully Kevin. Maybe Ace or even Elliott. I thought Ace was good enough this week though.

The way I look at this competition now is it stacks up into 2 groups - "finished products" and "potential talents".

To me, the winner has to be a finished product - someone who goes on stage knowing exactly who they are and what they can do with a song. They own the stage in their own way, and they PERFORM, not AUDITION. They are comfortable with their own style and enjoy themselves. They might improve, but they aren't going to CHANGE much. The potential talents haven't achieved that self-awareness and comfort yet, but they might be just a change or two away - but those changes are important. Some are closer than others.

Here are my rankings in each category

Finished Products:

1) Chris - Not much to say about this guy that hasn't been said, except perhaps that he's is being very smart the way he's approaching this. Never exposes any weakness. Great performer and very good singer.

2) Mandisa - I never really "got" her until this week. This girl can sing. Hopefully for her she keeps in her comfort zone.

3) Taylor - I really see his limitations this week. He's someone you want to sing at your frat party. He's like the Blues Brothers. You know he's going to put on a very fun show and everyone is going to have fun. But he's a better performer than he is a singer. Actually he's a better entertainer. He makes you smile, but I don't think he can really win a singing competition.

4) Kevin - I don't know who keeps voting for this kid, but Simon is right that he knows how to work HIS audience. I don't know at what point HIS audience won't be big enough compared to the entire audience to vote him out, but until that time we're stuck with him. He does have a good singing voice, but hasn't figured out how to use it to have broad appeal, so in that regard I'd put him in the potential talent. But as far as this competition goes, I don't think he's likely to improve. He's going to keep playing to the same audience (granny vote?) and so he's basically a finished product.

5) Kellie - Kelly is kind of the same as Kevin, except I don't even think she's as good as him. She seems confused all the time (because she's kinda dumb), even when she's singing. She just doesn't seem to get it. Good voice, very cute in a busted way, or kinda of cute in a normal way. Like Kevin, she's relying on a certain charm to carry her farther than her singing performance could carry her. But a blonde country girl kept getting votes last year, so who knows.

6) Bucky - End of the line for him. He's a decent country/southern rock singer. He's never going to get better than what we saw from him tonight. He's one dimensional, which is fine (see Chris), but he isn't strong enough in that dimension to be a star. Plus he's not clever enough to take songs from outside his wheelhouse and make them his own.


Potential Talents

1) McPhee - If I put her in the Finished Products category right now, she'd either be 3 or 4. I still don't feel like she's quite figured out exactly who she is as a singer, but she's improving every week, although I wouldn't go as far as Simon based on this week ("this week you became a star"). I think by the end she'll be better than Taylor, so I think she's a lock for top 3. The question is when she's head to head against Mandisa, will she have found her comfort zone, and will she be better. I'm genuinely not sure. For women though, attractiveness matters and she might get past Mandisa even if she's not as good a singer (yet).

2) Elliott - Barry Manilow totally hit it on the head - amazing voice, but he doesn't quite feel it yet. Ranking him as a finished product, he'd be behind Mcphee and Taylor, and even Paris. Tons of potential though, and seems smart enough that he might be able to take advantage of all the training he's getting right now and get himself into the top 4. But I also think he's in danger of getting booted if he doesn't improve quickly.

3) Paris - I actually think as a finished product she's further along than Elliott, but has less potential to improve. That being said, she still seems less comfortable with and aware of her talent than Kevin or even Kellie. Maybe its because she's young and being "aw shucks cute" and very talented has always been enough for her. But she hasn't found her comfort zone the way Chris and Mandisa have, and she'll start to look like a weak link pretty soon unless she finds it. I don't think she will.

4) Lisa - I've always liked Lisa, but Simon is right - she seems like the star of a high school musical, not an American Idol. Its funny because they always bring up that she has tons of performance experience, but she doesn't seem like she knows how to pull that together and perform the way she needs to for a given song in this contest. She's got tons of talent though. I bet in like 5 years she could be an American Idol, but she just isn't ready. She's got a powerful voice, just not quite ready to use it. I think her voice makes more sense coming from a WOMAN, not a GIRL. She needs to mature, calm down a bit, and pull it all together. She's got as much vocal talent as anyone.

5) Ace - Blah. He's got some vocal talent, but he's relying on his pretty face and the smoke and mirrors of his falsetto to carry him. If you got this guy a vocals coach to teach him to sing the upper register in tune, you could put him as the front man of a boy band and make millions from teenage girls. But for this competition, especially if the judges keep commenting on his weaknesses, he can't really last much longer.

NO LIMIT... huh?

In the 52nd week of my "pro" poker career, I decided to play some no-limit. I'm not really sure why. Maybe I'm just sick of being a 1BB/100 limit donk.

When I first started playing poker in $10 buy-in dealer's choice games in college, every game was played no-limit. But when I visited the Taj in Atlantic City, and signed up on Paradise Poker starting in around 1999 or so, the only low stakes games were limit games. So that must be how I started to consider myself a limit player.

As you can see from the graph, I've had a good start to my online no-limit career. If a year playing limit hold'em full time has taught me anything, its that I should try not to feel too high on the highs or too low on the lows. But I am encouraged by how things have started. I feel good. I'm having fun. This feels like poker used to feel. I'm making good reads and acting on them.

I played $1/2 NL 6max with a $200 buy-in, and only played 2 tables. I'm not quite sure what I should do next week. Add a table? Try some $2/4? I dunno.

Billy Joel

He might be pushing 60, but the man has still got it. Billy sounded damn good last night.

He's funny too. "Thank you all for buying those tickets up in the nosebleed seats - cause I really need the money. You should see my car insurance bills." (Referencing a recent DUI.) Later he changed the words of Scenes from an Italian restaurant to "Bottle of white, bottle of red, perhaps a glass of ginger ale instead" and "Bottle of red, bottle of white, I won't be having either of those tonight..." Good times. A little self-deprecation goes a long way.



I was going to wear my "I started the fire" T-shirt, but I remembered that I don't have one.

science, education, generalizations

I recently linked to an article from the University of Maryland's student newspaper where the author describes a strange encounter between elite scientists and a creationist, and uses that encounter to make the generalization that scientists are out of touch with the general public. He goes on to defend science in general and suggest that scientists should more actively do the same.

I agree with the author that "Everyone who considers himself a rationalist should take just a few hours out of his life to learn the responses to the most common attacks on science." His point that the public is often more likely to be moved by an eloquent speaker than sound logic is an important one.

The Monitors chimed in with a great response that I want to highlight:

Although this isn't the best outlet to reach the masses, I have to say that, as both an "insider" and an "outsider" in the science world, there are many misconceptions about science and education.

The first of which is that scientists are not interested in education. Scientists train graduate, doctoral, and post-doctoral students at a large rate. 26,000 Ph.D.'s were awarded in 2004 to science and engineering fields, this doesn't include medical doctors, psychiatrists, educators, etc who make up another 15,000. Do these students come out of the woodwork? No. They are trained from the fourth year of undergraduate until they finish their studies.

Another misconception is that scientists do not care about K-12 education and public outreach. First of all, it is not necessarily a scientist's ambition, nor place, to take part in such activities. After all, when's the last time your friendly neighborhood investment banker came and gave a kid-friendly lecture series at the local elementary school? Sometimes the subject matter isn't so appropriate, or the person isn't so qualified. However, many professional scientists do indeed take part in such activities, and they have as much passion as any teacher would. Scientists need students, they cannot function without them. They need their time, they need their insight, and they need the additional funding they bring with them. But undergrads don't just pop out of thin air, either, they come form high schools. Every physicist, chemist, astronomer, biologist, whoever, that I have spoken with, and I've spoken with hundreds, understands this, and many do their part for outreach. The Hubble Space Telescope Science Institute spends over $6M/year on public outreach. Countless programs system-wide incorporate public outreach components.

Another misconception is that kids don't know science because scientists don't want to teach them. A child is more likely to learn physics from an English or history major than a person with training in physical sciences. Conversely, a student is far less likely to learn English or history from a physical scientist than from an English/history major. This suggests a very powerful notion: there is a belief that scientists are not as capable of teaching English/history as an English/history major is of teaching physical sciences. Not only does this help explain the public disconnect with science, it also depicts a K-12 educational system that has lost its interest in teaching science. Further, you cannot expect one trained in English or history to be able to communicate the archaics of physical sciences.

So why is it such a surprise that there is a resurgence of anti-evolutionism? It's a relatively simple linear trend, just look at the time between now and the Renaissance. As scientific literacy increased, people became less and less reliant upon religious myths to explain events. For instance, the Chief Seismologist of Turkey is trying to assuage public fears that an earthquake is imminent due to the coming total solar eclipse at the end of March. Turkey is a far less scientifically cognizant society. Charles Darwin waited to publish his theory of evolution until his death, and was buried in an unmarked grave to avoid the desecration of his body. And then there's Scopes, etc. Until the age of invention, most advances in mechanics or chemistry, aside from items used for warfare of course, were basically considered witchcraft.

I'm rambling, but if we want to avoid ridiculous assertions like "intelligent design," which is only semantically different from creationism, then we had better dispel the idea of the scientist from the 1920's with crazy hair and in a white lab coat who's cross-breeding nuclear weapons and puppies. The problem lies at the root of society, and that's where the education has to begin.

A lot of good stuff there. I very strongly agree with the last sentence, and that is why I'm considering going back to school with a career goal of encouraging people to think and act more rationally.

I'm not sure how out of touch the science world is with the public, but I agree that a huge part of that community is very concerned about education and the popular perception of science. I'd guess that the 1920's style weirdos with the crazy hair that the Diamondback commentator encountered are the exception, not the rule.

I admit it - I like American Idol now

For years I refused to watch American Idol and thought it was crap. Now I'm hooked. This would fall under guilty pleasures. And I'm very gay.

Some of the contestants remind me of people.

Chris looks like Vin Diesel.


Taylor looks and acts like Mark Cuban.



Elliott looks like that fawn thing from the Narnia movie.



And Kevin looks like a Peanuts character.

Hell Yes

Interesting reading

How Bush Bankrupted America

"Bush is more like Richard Nixon [than Ronald Reagan]—a man who used the right to pursue his agenda but was never really part of it. In short, he is an impostor, a pretend conservative."


How Republicans became defenders of Big Government

"Not so long ago, Republicans were eager to make the case for smaller government and, at times, backed up their rhetoric with action. In 1994, they won a majority of the votes cast in Congressional elections for the first time since 1946 – at least in part because they offered a credible alternative to government growth. Indeed, the budget they proposed in 1995 would have eliminated three cabinet agencies and more than 200 federal programs.

Ten years later, the one-time party of fiscal prudence has ceded all claims to the high moral ground on budget matters, overseeing the largest increase in government spending since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society."



What Should We Think about Americans’ Beliefs Regarding Evolution?

"Of course, most Americans have studied at least some science at the elementary-school and high-school levels. Most high-school students, indeed, have taken some sort of biology course. Have they learned nothing at all? My own experience in teaching university-level physics casts some light on this question. Students in the introductory level course soon find that much of what they must learn is counterintuitive...

...an awful lot of students who solve enough homework problems to pass the course come to believe that the real world and the “physics-class world” operate according to different laws....

...I am sure that biology teachers can tell similar stories. One can see why citizens who don’t “believe” in evolution are nevertheless quite happy to have it taught in schools."



All eyes on evolution

"There is a fundamental disconnect between the scientific community and the community at large. In science, there is no controversy over evolution; it’s simply a fact, backed up by millions upon millions of evidences from experiments and fossils. But scientists would be wise to pay attention to the rising trend of anti-science among the public and stop living in a naive world so they can focus all of their efforts on research."

For the kids

I need to do 2 things really quickly. First I have to start devoting some time to figuring out what I plan to do with my life, both for the next few years and beyond. And second, I need to figure out a better way to approach poker as long as it is going to be my primary income source.

I wrote that in my last post. (For an awesome blog entry, start by quoting yourself. Write that down, kids.) Working towards a solution for the 2nd thing, I've started attempting an analysis of the effect of multitabling on my winrate. I'm not sure if I expect to finding anything meaningful in the data, but I think the process of going through the analysis might in some ways help me with both things. (Repeat vague words like "thing" over and over, but highlight the reference points in bold orange. That way you don't have to actually write very well, but you don't make your reader do all the work of going back to figure out what the hell you meant. Meet your reader halfway. Write that down, kids.)

The multitable analysis is here.
Donk Bet: 1BB/100: Multi-tabling Analysis Part 1

time to wake up

I've lost $2600 so far this week. I've spewed away over 250 big bets in about 5,000 hands. And I decided to play some $10/20 this week, so some of that is at double my normal stakes.

So, let's put things in perspective. This is my 2006:



Yeah, after this week I've won $1,000 so far this year. Pretty awe-inspiring.

This week is once again forcing me to stop and do some serious self-evaluation. I can't hide any more from the following observations:

• I'm not making a very good living from poker.
  
• I don't seem to be improving.
  
• I'm not enjoying the game, or this lifestyle, nearly as much at I used to.
  

This is leading me to form these theories:

• I'm not good enough at poker to make a living from it.
• I'm never going to get any better. I'm maxed out.
• I hate poker, and I hated my old job. So I need to figure something else out.

Of course, I've known myself to overreact to downswings before, so I'm not jumping to conclusions right now. But I need to get serious about this in a hurry.

Commence serious rant.

From time to time I've observed that I tend to live my life as if I'm waiting for something to happen to me, instead of making something happen for myself. That's how I've been with poker too. I read stories about guys who were just grinding along at low limits and then one day something just clicks and they start crushing their game and soon they're playing $100/200 and winning 6 figures in a month. Its like I've been just sitting around waiting for that to happen to me. What the fuck? What a terrible approach.

How am I going to get make myself get better? Yeah I've read a couple books once or twice. Yeah I spend a lot of time reading poker forums. But I don't REALLY think about that stuff. I don't REALLY try to learn. I just kind of put it in front of my eyes and go through the motions without any heart behind it. I don't go back through my hand histories after a session and look for mistakes I made. I don't bust out a calculator and figure out if I had the odds to make that call.

At some point I stopped thinking about poker. I stopped working at it. I rarely put my opponents on hands. I mostly just play my own cards and hope I'm playing profitably. Sometimes I'll notice that a players stats look really bad, and so then I assume I'm better than them. Mostly I just isolate and then call down. I'm not playing poker, its like I'm playing Marco Polo and just treading water in the corner of the pool hoping the blind idiot doesn't bump into me. God forbid I actually swim around.

Going through the motions doesn't cut it in the real real world like it does in the fake real world (corporate world). Hell, going through the motions puts you on the fast track to success in the corporate world. People pretend to be busy all day, then they even stay in the office late to make it look like they're working reallllllly hard. Questioning the way things are done is more likely to get you scolded than rewarded. So you just sit at your desk and find ways to make your boss think that you're better than the guy sitting next to you. But your boss doesn't care because he's thinking of ways to make his boss think he's better than the guy in the office next to his.
When I lose, I assume bad luck is to blame. I'm playing well so it must be bad variance! So I'll make it up in volume! I'll play more tables and more hours! Who am I trying to convince? I've got hundreds of thousands of hands now, and they say that I'm winning at most 1BB/100 hands, and showing no sign of improvement from a year ago. I probably play even worse when I play more tables, and I certainly don't learn anything.

All of this makes perfect sense. I didn't quit my job to play poker, I quit my job because I didn't like it. When I quit, my idea was that I could pay the bills playing 20 hours per week and use the extra time to figure out what the hell to do with my life. And I've done the first part - I've won barely enough to pay my bills this whole time - but I haven't done the 2nd part. I don't know what I want to do with my life.

At some point I just started saying "I'm a poker player" and that was what I was doing with my life. Except I never actually have approached it that way. From time to time I've made token efforts to fix some problem but I've never truly approached poker like I'm running my own business and I have only myself to answer to.

Hopefully this latest loss has shocked me into coherence. I need to do 2 things really quickly. First I have to start devoting some time to figuring out what I plan to do with my life, both for the next few years and beyond. And second, I need to figure out a better way to approach poker as long as it is going to be my primary income source.

It has been almost a year since I quit that job. In some ways I've been living the dream. But I think it is time to wake up.

Movies: Most evil defeated villains

One of my buddies put together the Mel Gibson list. I did the Brad Pitt one.


Of these three people/groups that Mel Gibson has defeated, who was the most
evil?

1) William the Longshanks (Braveheart)
2) The Jews (Passion of the Christ)
3) That one British captain in (The Patriot)
4) Angel (Maverick)
5) Gary Sinise (Ransom)

Good arguments exist for all 5.


1) William the Longshanks -

WHY? Quite an evil dude. This man put up with
a gay son who had a hot wife, reinstituted the tradition of Prima Nocta, and believed that the trouble with Scotland is that it is full of Scots.

WHY NOT? Well, Wallace never actually defeated him. A tenuous argument exists that the pure sweet passion and loudness of Wallace's final word, "FREEDOM!" casued Longshanks' death, since there seems to be some sort of temporal correlation between the two. However, this word was spoken as Wallace was being executed at Longshanks' command, so there is a better
argument that Wallace was actually defeated by Longhshanks.

2) The Jews -

WHY? In this case, Mel has not actually defeated the Jews,
just shed light on their innate evil qualities for all the world to see.

WHY NOT? Again, there exists an argument that the Jews actually defeated Gibson, since they do an excellent job of torturing and killing the object of Mel's affection. (Jesus H. Christ).

3) That captain from the Patriot -


WHY? This man's evilness is unquestioned as he plays Lucious Malfoy, a man known for being a Deatheater and kicking Dobby. However he also killed two of Mel's sons. As the Scottish captain from Braveheart knows. killing Mel Gibson's loved ones is rarely a good idea. He also was British, which, as the film makes clear, is bad.

WHY NOT? Mel kind of gets his ass kicked in their final battle, and really only wins because the captain gets cocky.

4) Angel from Maverick -

WHY? Angel was a pretty bad guy, who often lets people fall down for free. He pals about with cowboys with bad hygiene, and he is a cheat.

WHY NOT? He wasn't really as evil as the commodore, who was pulling the strings. And Mel didnt actually defeat the Commodore - that was Coop, whose security wasn't worth a damn.

5) Gary Sinise from Ransom -

WHY? Gary Sinise is pretty scary looking, he kidnapped his kid, and he tormented Mel with stupid references to "the Time Machine."

WHY NOT? The Time Machine is an excellent work of literary fiction, which cogently creates an allegory of classist society in the modern world.




The answer: The evil captain from the Patriot. What pushed him over the top was the fact that Mel stuck a bayonet through his throat, which is unbearably cool.

----

Most evil villian that Brad Pitt defeated:

1) The Credit Card Companies (Fight Club)
2) Terry Benedict (Ocean's 11)
3) Tom Cruise (Interview with the Vampire)
4) John Doe (Se7en)
5) Wilkenson Center and the guards (Sleepers)


1 - Credit Card Companies

WHY? Just ask any college kid that signed up for a credit card to get a free T-shirt, then ran up $20,000 in electronics and booze - credit card companies are pure evil. Tyler Durden's Project Mayhem sought to erase the debt record and start over, and don't ask any more questions about it.

WHY NOT? For the fiscally responsible, credit cards can be a very useful financial tool. Using a credit card is the first step towards establishing good credit, which helps millions of Americans own their own homes! Plus Ed Norton killed Tyler Durden just before all the buildings blew up, apparently cause he was in love with that harlot Marla and wanted to finally take a nap. And he let that ganster dude beat the shit out of him.

2 - Terry Benedict

WHY? Benedict was a ruthless greedmonger who made a living relieving degenerate gamblers of their cash. Plus he stole Rusty's friend Danny Ocean's wife and stole his buddy Reuben's hotel. Rusty played like 8 different roles in the heist, so take that, evil Andy Garcia!

WHY NOT? Hey, if drunken idiot want to blow all their money gambling, why shouldn't I... I mean Terry Bennedict take it. He provided a nice clean comfortable hotel for them, with first rate sports entertainment and a lovely art museum. Is he really that bad a guy? He just is protecting what's his, right? How did he know that Danny Ocean had just got out of prison but not know that Bernie Mac had a criminal record? A more evil man would have known.

3 - Tom Cruise


WHY? He's Tom Cruise. Come on, is there a more evil person in the world right now than Tom Cruise? He's completely insane, he has a billion dollars, he ruined Katie Holmes, he's a fucking scientologist, and he's like 5'1". Fuck him

WHY NOT? Well, Brad Pitt tried to kill LeStat but never got the job done, probably cause he was carrying Kirsten Dunst's dead weight. He almost killed him, but the alligator blood helped LeStat recover. So in the end, Christian Slater became a vampire too.. Anyway regardless of Cruise's evilness, there was no decisive victory here for Pitt.

4 - Kevin Spacey as John Doe

WHY? Evil in the classic mad genius serial killer way. This guy went on the killing spree of all killing sprees, culminating in the beheading of Brad Pitt's pregnant wife. Plus he threw up on a guy in the subway and has no fingerprints.

WHY NOT? With the exception of Gwyneth, all of John Doe's victims deserved their fate. Especially that fat dude - "a disgusting man who could barely stand up; a man who if you saw him on the street, you'd point him out to your friends so that they could join you in mocking him; a man, who if you saw him while you were eating, you wouldn't be able to finish your meal." How wrong could it be to kill a fat guy? I want to kill that guy Jared from Subway just cause he used to be fat. And even though Detective Mills technically killed John Doe, didn't John Doe win? Once again no decisive Pitt victory over the evil.

5 - Wilkenson Center and the guards - Sleepers

WHY? Let's start with Kevin Bacon making the little boys blow him. After a year of sexual and physical abuse in the juvenile corrections facility, Brad Pitt and that dude who played the traffic cop in Scent of a Woman and their friends were scarred for life. But they eventually got even, killing Bacon and bringing the whole uber-evil Wilkenson Center down in a travesty of a murder trial. The situation forced Bobby D the priest to commit perjury. The holy man told lies. That's how evil they were.

WHY NOT? Yeah there's no way anything can top this one. Wilkenson Center and Pedophile Rapist Kevin Bacon win easily.

I got a bottle of this Sriracha Hot Sauce.


Now I put it on everything.


It makes a delicious red chili fire in my mouth.


That is all, thank you.

Help out a poor Internet Gamblin Man

Passing along an idea from the blogfather:

There is legislation being introduced in the House of Representatives to ban internet gambling in the United States, making a criminal out of me. I sent the letter below in an email to my rep. You should look up yours here and do the same.

While I obviously would be strongly financially hurt by such legislation, I have philosophical qualms with any type of legislation of morality. Millions of Americans enjoying betting on a football game or playing poker using an online account. Many states allow casinos, and most states have lotteries that are huge sources of revenue for the state. A much better way to handle the growing online gambling market would be to regulate and tax it.

Dear Congressman Wynn, I am writing you in regard to H.R. 4777: The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act being introduced by Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Rick Boucher (D-VA). I wish to inform you that I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to this bill and among my friends my view is not in the minority. We will be watching your vote on this matter closely as it will greatly influence our future votes in the 4th district. Please speak for the majority of the citizens in your district and vote against this bill. Sincerely, Adam Sparks

Losing $3,000 to impress someone

If you want to see a message board thread that captures the essense of.... something, check this out.

It started with this challenge:

I am laying down a challenge for all of those people willing to blow 20k on blackjack. This will be much more fun.

The rules:
-you must play 100 hands of LIMIT poker
-you must play EVERY single hand to the river
-you must have a PFR of over 40% and an aggression factor over 1
-any limits are allowed (.25/5 to 1 billion dollars/2 billion dollars)
-this must be in a single session
-graphs and stats must be posted for you to compete in this challenge

Seems pretty stupid, but basically just some goofy fun.

Until some kid decided to do this at $5/10 and dropped almost $3,000.

So then some people started pointing out how completely insane it is that he deliberately lost thousands of dollars just to make a funny post on a message board. This kid had made over $100,000 in February playing poker, so having a little fun and losing $3,000 in an hour probably seemed like a good idea to him. Of course the rest of us realize that spending that on a week vacation at the beach would probably be a lot more fun.

So there were a bunch of "wasting that much money is crazy" vs "its not that much money to him" posts. Lots of people just telling the $3,000 kid how awesome he is. Then some kid from my University of Maryland made some great points I think, and people gave him all kinds of shit for it, although a few agreed with him:

• Hes a young kid who recently came across much more money then he is accustomed to. I am sure he is extrapolating his new found success into being a billionaire at 40. The idea that he is willing to blow 3k to simply say "look at me" shows an extreme amount of information about his personality, imo. Someone's value of an activity or object can be grossly skewed especially temporarily. The idea that the value of everything being self-deciding just doesn't hold that much water as an argument on a number of levels.
• A better analogy would be to watch a wealthy businessman go to the center of town and light money on fire, while his yes-men cream their pants.
• you don't realize how insulated many of you are within a community you have emerged yourself into. Its akin to body builder's approval of steroids, nazis approval of anti-semitism, and the like. The groupthink becomes an unfortunate byproduct of this forum.
• it easy to become so close-minded when no one is telling you anything different. Its detrimental to your growth, so its pretty unfortunate.
• I just think it is so scary that a 20 year old kid starts making a lot of money, and the first thing he wants to do is blow 3k to impress people he does not know. If you are going to waste 3k get a pound of weed or a sick plasma tv screen. You can donate it or give it to a friend that needs it.

Somebody else wrote:

it's really sick what poker can do to our sense of monetary value. our hourly swings can be 10-15 times our hourly earn, so the money seems to be so much less valuable. compound that with someone who ran super hot for a while and the money almost has no significance. but there's a time when we will all run bad and it sucks to think back at that money you could've had.

That is another great point. I lost $1,500 yesterday and won $1,000 tonight, so it can be easy to be distracted from the fact that an hour of poker is worth about $30 to me. Playing this game for a living really fucks with your mind.