Saturday, April 29, 2006

Las Vegas: April 15-25 (final update)

Well I'm back from a long trip to Las Vegas, and by the end it did turn out to be a long trip. I have lots to recap for all my loyal readers anxiously awaiting the report.

The Tournament

The reason I was out there was because my buddy Erm won a seat in the $25,000 WPT Championship event. He battled nerves, dead cards, and an awkward table draw that found him with 2 aggressive maniacs on his right and Daniel Negreanu on his left to survive day 1. He got off to a fast start against a much easier table on day 2 only to bust out on a brutal bad beat within the first hour (flopping top set with pocket 9s and getting a player with pocket tens to push all-in... and catch his 2-outer on the river). Congrats to Erm for surviving a day in his first ever big live event.

Unfortunately, the way the event was set up I wasn't able to watch much of his play on day 1. The event seemed beyond the Bellagio's capacity, which I didn't understand at all. They had to split the field into 2 different "day 1" days, and the room was too packed for anyone but players. On Erm's second day, he luckily drew a table in the main poker room where I could have watched, but my plans to camp out on the rail after a quick breakfast were shattered by the painful early exit.

I got a good flavor for the whole tournament scene though, and it is definitely a unique and fun atmosphere. I'll have to get out to Vegas during the WSOP in 2007 maybe.

My Poker Results - Summary

I'm disappointed with the way my poker results worked out.

I played about 40 hours of mid-limit hold'em and lost about $700. I lost another $600 between some drunken low-limit shenanigans and a shamefully unfocused delve into a small no-limit game.

$15/30: 8 hours, +$100
$20/40: 15 hours, +$318
$30/60: 19 hours, -$1088

For the first time in my poker career, I played with someone else's money under a staking deal, and from the way I handled myself, I probably don't deserve another shot. I'm not basing that on results, as I put in 37 hours and lost about 10 big bets while being staked. Even if I generously assume 35 hands dealt per hour, I didn't even play 1300 hands, so the results are almost meaningless as an assessment of the quality of my play. That being said, I have plenty of criticism of my poker play and general decision-making on this trip. I'll get to that.


Relevant info - detailed recap, commentary

Saturday:

Got into town, and found a seat in a good $20/40 game at Mirage around 9:45pm. Played for 6 hours and lost $450.

Sunday:

Played in a very good $30/60 game at Bellagio from 6pm to 1:30am. After dropping $1,000 very quickly, I went on a nice run to finish up $1450.

  • I don't recall exactly why I left this game, but I think I told myself it was a combination of feeling tired and the game getting tighter. I've always had a tendency to play less when I'm winning and more when I'm losing. It is a psychological defense mechanism: make the good feeling of winning last a long as possible, and fight off the bad feeling of losing. But of course this tendency is exactly backwards from what I logically should do, which is play more when I'm winning and quit when I'm losing. I'm not sure if wanting to book my win was a factor here, but it probably was.

Monday:

Starting around 5:30 that evening, I blew $180 goofing around at $3/6 and drinking whiskey sours with Erm. We proceeded to a party where we got hammered, offended everyone, and I lost my credit card. (I had to call my girlfriend at 4am eastern time to have her find me the phone number to call and cancel the card. I suck.) At one point Erm knocked Full Tilt pro Gavin Smith to the ground. That was after Erm challenged him to a $5million last-longer bet. Gavin had agreed to a series of bets escalating up to half a million, but balked at the $5,000,000 figure. "That's out of my price range... I could maybe get backers though." Eventually they shook hands on a $5,000 bet that neither of them had any intention of honoring.

  • Here is where wanting to hold on to the win was clearly a factor. Instead of jumping back into the $30/60 and trying to keep making money, I wasted an entire day just slacking off. This was completely irresponsible. I had a good time and all, but this was a major mistake.

Tuesday:

I was hung over all day. Sat in a decent $15/30 game for 2 hours and won $300. Took the rest of the night off from poker.

  • So basically I lost 2 days to the combination of wanting to hold onto the feeling of a big win and the bad decision to drink too much.

Wednesday:

Watched Erm play from about noon to 3, but then it got too hard to see the action. Lost $300 in an hour at a $15/30 table while waiting for a seat in a $30/60 game. Won $700 at a decent table, then quit for dinner around 9pm. Around midnight I took a seat in a wild $30/60 game at the Bellagio and left after 3 hours down $1800.

  • I don't remember exactly how I lost in the $15/30, but I do remember thinking I had made 1 or 2 questionable plays. They weren't obviously terrible mistakes - it might have been something like calling a turn raise and a river bet with a good top pair hand that I should have known was beaten. But I think maybe I let myself get a little sloppy in the smaller stakes game after having a successful session at higher stakes.
  • The 2nd $30/60 session of the night was disappointing, because the game was so good. There was a drunk Canadian next to me who usually played $4/8 who was giving some crazy action, and then an old guy on my left who called any number of raises with ace-rag and always called until the river with any semblance of a hand. Unfortunately he kept catching weird 2-pairs or backdoor straights against me, and my stacks melted away. I felt like I played fairly well, but just was unlucky. So it goes sometimes.
Thursday:

After Erm busted out of the tournament, I took a seat in a weird $20/40 game at Mirage. It had a couple very soft spots, and the rest of the players were obviously regulars and total rocks. I had a nice run of cards though, and quit when the soft spots left around 6pm, up $600 in 4.5 hours of play. I took a seat in a $1-2 no limit game around 9pm and blew through a pair of $200 buy-ins in under 2 hours. I moved back to an excellent $20/40 game, and played about 3 hours and lost $200.

  • The first 20/40 session was one of my best poker performances of the trip. The Bellagio poker room was full because of the tournament, so this was the best game I could find that afternoon. I played very well for a few hours, won and lost some huge pots, and left the game at the right time based on game conditions, in spite being on a $1,000 downswing (I was up about $1500 at my peak in the session). I was particularly proud of the way I adjusted my strategies to changing conditions in this game - one or two players coming and going made a huge difference.
  • I followed that up with an atrocious performance in my only no-limit session. I twice put my whole stack in with strong 2nd best hands that I knew were second best. I was very disappointed with my play here, and I think it influenced my decision to leave the excellent $20/40 game too early.
  • That game featured a player with a stack of $20k in front of him (most of it in gold $1,000 chips) who played every hand to the river and only raised with an overpair to the board or better. There was also a player who had just busted out of the Bellagio tournament and was playing limit hold'em for the first time. I'm not sure who was a worse player, but they both seemed to have no regard for money, which didn't seem fair because they were the only ones winning any. I guess the emotional rollercoaster of the day - playing well in a tougher game, playing terribly in an easy no-limit game, and then not cashing in on the juicy game - was too much for me, and that's why I decided to leave the game.
  • Choosing to leave a good game is always a tough call. I don't regret leaving the great $30/60 game the night before - I had lost 30 big bets, so my table image was weak and my confidence had to be a bit shaken, the drunk Canadian was racking up his chips, plus it was 3am and I was pretty tired. That isn't a recipe for poker success. But leaving this $20/40 game was a different. I was about even at the time, the table respected my play, I wasn't too tired, and the bad players showed no signs of slowing down.
Friday:

I sat in a pretty good $20/40 game and took down a few quick pots to win $500 in under an hour. I left the game to grab a bite with Luke, and then we both took seats in a terrible $20/40 game. We played mostly shorthanded with a few other good players, and decided to leave after about 2 hours. I was lucky to only lose $100 there. I grabbed a seat in an excellent $30/60 game at Bellagio around 8pm, and left it at 2am after losing $1400.

  • I only played the shorthanded game for the social value of hanging out with Luke for a bit, and because the floor let us play without rake because he knew none of us really wanted to play such a tough game when there are much easier games to be found.
  • My 6 hour session in the $30/60 game was my other best performance of the trip, in spite of the terrible bottom line. I made excellent decisions, and I detached myself from emotion better than I ever have before. I'm really hoping I can bring that back with my to my online play.
  • In regards to the results, I just didn't have the cards, and at a table with a maniac and 3 to 5 calling stations, you just have to have cards to win at limit hold'em. But I made the most with the few hands I did win - making some good reads and thin value bets with marginal hands. And with one exception that I recall, I minimized the damage when my few big hands got cracked. Basically, I don't think an expert high-limit player could have lost much less than I did this session.
  • The one play I remember not liking was calling a turn raise and a river bet with top pair/top kicker. The maniac, who had been raising with any suited cards and making flush after flush, raised in late position and everyone folded to my small blind. I hadn't played a hand in hours, and I reraised with As-Ks. The big blind, a woman who obviously playing with her husband's money and couldn't fold anything, called, along with the maniac. The flop was a King and some rags, all diamonds. I bet and they both called. I bet a blank turn, the lady called, and the maniac raised. We both called the raise, and check-called his river bet. Maniac had 9d-3d for the flopped flush, and the woman yelled at him because she though her Kc-Qh should have won. I should have folded to the maniac's river bet, if not his turn raise. He was loose and wild, but he wasn't an idiot. He knew I hadn't played a hand in a long time, so his turn raise definitely said that he wasn't afraid of A-A, A-K or even K-K. There was just no way my pair was good, but I paid it off anyway.
  • The only hands I played after that were pocket Queens and pocket Aces, both of which lost the minimum on threatening boards.

Saturday:

The sore throat I noticed worsening all day Friday turned into a full blown bronchitis crapfest. I was tossing and turning all night with a fever, and playing poker just wasn't an option on Saturday. I stayed in my shitty hotel room all day, sleeping and watching the NBA playoffs while doped up on cold medication. This was the worst day of the illness, but it slowed me down for the rest of the trip, and I've still got a painful cough and sore throat right now (6 days later).

Sunday:

I felt significantly better after day of rest, but still far from 100%. I sat in a rather crappy $15/30 game at the Bellagio for a few hours and won about $300.

  • There were 2 crappy $15/30 games going, and 5 good $30/60 games, but because of a bunch of weird circumstances, I figured it would be better for me to stay in the smaller game. First, my staking situation was questionable - my staker was on a plane heading home so I wasn't in touch with him. I didn't have a lot of cash on me, because he had unexpectedly needed his cash back before he left. We had planned for him to stake me for my whole trip, but he had suffered some losses of his own, so I wasn't 100% sure that he was still comfortable with the arrangement. But even if he was still planning to honor the staking deal while I was playing with my own cash (which he was), I wasn't thrilled with the idea of throwing my last few thousand dollars into play, especially since I was on a $3200 downswing in the 30/60 game, and I was still fairly ill. Basically, jumping back into the highest limits I had ever played seemed like a bad idea.

Monday:

Still feeling pretty crappy, and not wanting to risk a huge loss on my last day, I decided to check out the Wynn's poker room. I sat in a terrible $15/30 game for 3 hours and lost $160. After 9 days in Las Vegas, I decided to do some non-poker gambling, and I bet on the Chicago Bulls +7 over the Miami Heat, which ended up a push. And I didn't think I'd be able to sleep before leaving at 4am to catch an early morning flight, so from about midnight to 3am I played casino blackjack for my first time and lost $225.

  • While it was good that I left the bad poker game, I really should have known to leave a lot earlier. It was obvious right away that the game was terrible. Also, why the hell was I betting sports and playing blackjack?

Discussion -

I realized that this trip basically highlights several factors that have limited my success in a year of playing poker full time. Faults include prioritizing, discipline, adjusting to changing conditions, and a touch of bad luck.

Bad Luck

Let's get the bad luck on this trip out of the way first, because it is the least related to my long-term struggles and I whine too much already. I should also point out that "you make your own luck" and maybe there were ways I could have avoided the unfortunate things.

Obviously it was unlucky that I got sick and missed out on the Saturday action, which probably would have been the best action of the trip. On the other hand, if I had taken a little bit better care of myself, maybe my immune system would have worked better. I had a night where I drank way too much, and I probably wasn't eating particularly well or staying well-hydrated for most of the trip.

It is unlucky that my backer lost some money and needed his cash back. On the other hand, if he and I had planned our cash situation better, maybe I would have been in a better situation to sit in bigger games towards the end of the trip.

It is unlucky that when I was booking hotel for the trip, none of my friends had been able to commit to meeting me out there. So I had to plan under the assumption I'd be paying for everything, and so I bounced back and forth between 2 hotels to keep my costs down. So I saved some expense, but that left me at inconvenient locations (and in one of the cases, an amazingly crappy room). It turned out that 2 buddies were able to meet me out there, so we would all have been better off splitting a more expensive room in a better location.

And it is unlucky that I didn't win in good games, especially at $30/60. Every one of those games I sat in was excellent, and while I've got a lot of room for improvement, I have no doubt I was a strong favorite at every table I sat at that limit. On the other hand, I was out there for over a week and I put in less than 20 hours at 30/60, playing less than 600 hands probably. I could have given myself a better chance to win by playing longer. More on that in a bit.


Priorities/Adjusting/Discipline

I really lost sight of my priorities on this trip. When I was planning, I had very clear and simple priorities in mind:

1. Support Erm in his tournament
2. Make as much money playing poker as possible (subpoints - pick the most profitable games, play a much as possible but not so much that I burn out, get enough sleep to play well)


I did fine with #1, but I ended up putting a lot of other things ahead of poker, and I think the main reason is that as things changed, I didn't adjust my plans to keep me on target with my priorities. Aside from lacking the vision to notice changing circumstances, I fell short on having the discipline to keep myself on track.

A few years ago I spent 8 days at the Commerce Casino in Los Angeles. I basically woke up, played poker all day, and then took the elevator back to my bed and slept. By about the 5th or 6th day of playing 12-16 hour days, I was totally burnt out and my play started to suffer. I had that in mind when I was planning this trip. I knew Erm's tournament was starting on a Tuesday, and potentially continuing until the following Monday if he survived that long.

So I figured I'd fly out on Saturday to catch the weekend action, and then the tournament would provide me with a break so I wouldn't get burnt out like before. I knew that Paradise Poker, where Erm won his seat, was hosting a party for their players on the Monday night before the tournament started, so I figured I'd hang out there for a little bit that night, and then get to bed "early" so I could be ready for Erm's noon start.

That was a reasonable plan, and hanging out and having a few drinks made sense under that schedule. But when I found out that Erm wasn't starting until the 2nd "day 1" on Wednesday, I should have changed my plans. I had played well Sunday night, and now I didn't have Erm's tournament on Tuesday, so wasting Monday evening on a party didn't make sense any more. I should have hit the $30/60 again. So in this case I put partying and preserving the feeling of the win above making money.

Another way I confused my priorities was that I tended to hang around the casinos where my friends were playing, even if I knew I could probably find a more profitable game somewhere else. I had plenty of time to catch up with my buddies during meals and other times I wasn't playing. And its not like they were pressuring me too hard to hang around. They would have certainly understood, and its not like I often give in to peer pressure on anything anyway. I've got unprecedented access to enough cash to comfortably sit $30/60, and I'm wasting my time playing like a jackass in a $1-2 no limit game? So stupid.

Similarly, I tended to want to leave my game at the same time my friends were leaving their games, either for social reasons, or in some cases because I wanted to split the cost of a cab back to our hotel. Seriously, I'm sitting in a wild $20/40 game where a moron is playing with $20,000 in front of him, and I'm worried about splitting a $10 cab. What the hell is that?

These are so similar to problems I've encountered throughout my poker career. There have been times that I've suddenly realized that I'm playing without any purpose. I allow distractions like TV, email, IMs, or surfing the web to sneak into my playing routine. Or I find myself playing too long when I'm losing and quitting too early when I'm ahead. I don't want to take 20 minutes to review some hand histories and try to improve my game, but I'll spend an hour browsing through the gossip forums on 2+2. Or I'll keep logging heavy hours in a game without recognizing that something changed and made it less profitable for me.

Then by the last day of the trip, my behavior was barely recognizable as my own. I started out thinking I should play as much as possible in the best games I could find, and by the end I was playing a just a few hours in bad $15/30 games, and betting on sports and blackjack. Chicago +7 in game 2? WHAT THE FUCK?! Like losing Udonis Haslem is a crippling blow.

I wish I could blame it on the illness, but I have to think that spending so much time in Vegas just beat me into submission. Shit, if I had stayed out there for an entire month, I'd probably be alternating nights of snorting lines of cocaine off a hooker's ass while betting my house at the craps tables and reading scripture and singing in the church choir.

I like to think that strategy is a strength of mine. But a strategy is useless if you don't follow it, or if you don't adjust it as conditions change. Too often I lack the discipline to keep me on a course I know is best, or the vision to identify changing circumstances so that I can adjust to them. And apparently after a while I just break down and do really weird things.

To sum up, I should have taken much better advantage of my time on this trip. With 10 full days out there, and with a stake freeing me up to pick the best available games, I should have played as high as possible for as long as possible. Hopefully I learn from my mistake on this relatively short trip, I apply the lesson to my day-to-day life.

The trip had its ups and downs, but I've mostly discussed the downs because I hope that being self-critical is productive. I'll close this entry with a goofy moment that made me laugh.


Amusing Anecdote: "The Poker Diva"

While I was sitting in the $30/60 game Sunday night, Liz Lieu came over to talk to a friend sitting at my table. I assume she had just arrived for the tournament, because they exchanged excited hugs like they hadn't seen each other for a while. I've been hearing a lot about her lately, but I wasn't sure if it was because of her poker prowess or because she's got nice boobs and a bellybutton ring. Her tournament results don't seem too sexy, as opposed a royal flush neatly tucked into her waistband.

Anyway, after she was talking for a while, a few more of her friends came over and one of them handed her a magazine. She exclaimed "oh! is that my magazine!?" and began furiously flipping through the pages.

I couldn't quite figure out what was going on until she turned to a different angle, revealing her face on the cover of the magazine. I just found something funny about that image of a girl standing next to me, excitedly looking through a magazine featuring her on the cover.

By the way, I didn't find her display to be obnoxious or conceited. She just seemed like a normal girl who was genuinely excited at achieving some level of success, and like any girl I've ever known, she wanted to see if she looked good in the pictures.

I imagine this poker boom has produced many moments like that one.

She must have taken this picture the next day:




And now I'm back to the online grind.

But just in case my girlfriend gets jealous that I posted 3 pictures of some other cute asian girl, I probably ought to post at least one picture of her. So here's yet another image of her being way more attractive than me.

She's always been supportive about everything I've done with poker, and she was awesome about letting me fly off to Las Vegas for 10 days, leaving her all alone in the house, especially with all the confidence-inspiring "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" propaganda. She didn't even get very mad when my stupid drunk ass woke her up to get my credit card company's phone number. She's way more understanding than I deserve. Actually she's way more everything than I deserve. I might have had a little bad luck in Vegas, but that is nothing compared to my good luck in coming home to her.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Gromphadorhina portentosa

These things are in my house right now. I just took these pics. Gross.







Madagascar Hissing Cockroach

Monday, April 10, 2006

A simple goal

I just think about doing things, but never actually do anything. It has now been a month since I started a blog entry about the idea of going back to school, and I haven't done anything with the idea since then. I don't want to be relying on poker income forever, but I'm doing absolutely nothing to move on.

So my very simple goal is to put some more effort into it before I leave for Las Vegas on April 15. If I haven't updated it by then, please berate me with hateful comments.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

again! protest the anti-online gambling legislation

http://capwiz.com/keep_it_legal/issues/alert/?alertid=8637406


Click the link to automatically send this letter to your Senators and Representative.

I am writing to urge you to oppose pending legislation that would limit the rights of individuals to play poker online. Currently, there are two bills in the House, H.R. 4411 introduced by Rep. James Leach (R-IA) and H.R. 4777 introduced by Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA). And in the Senate, Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is pushing similar legislation that he wants to introduce.

As an avid poker player, I feel strongly that these bills and any other legislation that deny Americans the right to play a game of skill such as poker on the Internet, seriously and egregiously violate my personal freedoms.

More than 70 million people today enjoy poker. And while most play at home, in taverns or poker clubs, many enjoy this game of skill with friends and family on the Internet. The possibility of the federal government stripping away this right to play online is very troubling to me.

These bills trample the freedoms of online poker players and represent a slippery slope that could lead to the federal government denying citizens the right to play poker in offline venues. The bills also hypocritically make exceptions for certain types of gambling, including internet state lotteries, placing online bets for horse races and select fantasy sports, while prohibiting poker, which is objectively a skill game.

Equally troubling, though, are the bill’s enforcement mechanisms. All three proposals contain banking enforcement provisions which would extend a “know your customer” relationship well beyond what I want my bankers to know about my financial affairs. This regulation would require bankers to monitor my on-line purchases and even review my checks. Like most Americans, I choose my bank, and deposit my paycheck for safekeeping, not for them to monitor my withdrawals, funds transfer or even individual checks. These provisions put the government too deep into my pocketbook. According to Forbes’ magazine there are 5 FBI agents assigned to internet gambling, I demand that American taxpayers know the full cost of enforcing a ban on my rights to play poker on-line.

Separately, in Rep. Goodlatte’s legislation, Internet service providers (ISPs) are forced to remove gambling related hyperlinks upon court order. Such mandates require ISPs to remove or disable access to online sites that the government deems violations. This is censorship of the Internet, plain and simple. Congress rightly criticized China for blocking the free flow of information to its citizens via the Internet, and now Goodlatte’s bill deserves similar scrutiny.

From average citizens to presidents, generals, Members of Congress and Supreme Court justices, Americans have been playing poker for centuries, making it a rich part of our cultural heritage. Today, the evolution of game on the Internet should not be restricted by overarching government interference, and simply by putting the word “internet” in front of poker does not make it wrong.

I urge you to take these concerns into consideration and oppose H.R. 4411, H.R. 4777 and the Kyl proposal that will make outlaws of poker players who enjoy the game online.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

SHOUT (what?) makes no sensez (IGGY!!!)

Alright, here we go. I haven't had much to say of any substance lately. And I've had a few beers, so what I'm about to say isn't really anything of substance either. But I'm going to have fun with a big fat tangential Iggy-inspired Sierra Nevada-fueled ubershat. Bonus code IGGY dammit!

(precise clarification: go to www.partypoker.com and sign up for a poker account. when you are signing up and prompted for a bonus code, type in IGGY. I don't care that I'm an affiliate too and trying to make some dollars. He earned it way more than me, and if this this particular terrible post of mine makes you sign up, kick the commission over to blogfather.)

1.)I'm going to record this post in running list form. This means enumeration. Ordinal systems are the order of the night. Deal with it.

2.)I was doing some random internet browsing, which usually takes me to poker sites. I checked out the official site of David Williams, a young poker player who is most famous for finishing 2nd to Greg Raymer in the 2005 WSOP main event. I've never met him, but from what I've seen of him on TV and from a distance in casinos he seems like the kind of nice guy who could easily be a part of anyone's circle of friends. And he never struck me as particularly full of himself. But then I noticed this page on his website.

It contains this quote:

David is popular with the media- his easygoing nature away from the table allows people to connect with him professionally and personally. No wonder he has so many friend on the touring circuit. With his good looks, natural charm and crisp personal style- everyone is looking at David to see what is next.


WTF? This is his website right? I looked it up on register.com which says the site is owned and operated by David Williams (and includes his address and email). And there's nothing to suggest that was intended sarcastically.

Can you imagine me writing this about myself:

adspar is popular with the media (and everyone else for that matter!) - his easygoing nature away from his computer allows people to connect with him professionally, personally, artistically, spiritually and most importantly sexually. No wonder he has so many friend wherever he goes. With his good looks, natural charm, gigantic cranium, and occasional personal grooming - everyone is looking at adspar to see what is the most important thing in all of life and time and space. I am, I mean, adspar is fucking awesome.

I'll assume that he has some agent that made this site for him and wrote that about him. Maybe he shares an agent with other full-of-themselves pros like Phil Hellmuth and Antonio Esfandiari (I accuse him based on an All-In magazine article that he may or may not have written. I can't find a direct link though so maybe I just imagined it.). Anyway, I'm willing to forgive David Williams for his apparent cockiness. Luke loves David Williams.

3.) I went to the DC Zoo recently. I wanted to check out the house with the elephants. When I went in I saw a hippo in a cage, and 2 thoughts simultaneously occurred to me. I'll call them thought A and thought B so as not to confuse them with my other number scheme.

Thought A: Holy shit, hippos are the most fucking terrifying animals that aren't obvious carnivorous stalkers. Actually they're right up there on the list of most terrifying animals in the world. Fuck here come more numbers:

  1. Sharks
  2. Grizzly Bears
  3. Lions/Tigers/Tiglons/Ligers
  4. Hippopotami
  5. Huge fucking snakes

I suppose it is possible that some of you disagree that the hippo is a scary animal. But you'd be terribly wrong. A hippo will rip your fucking face off and not even think twice.

B: Zoos are really fucked up places. Here's this ridiculous huge creature whose entire purpose in life is to chill in a lake and rip people's faces off and we have it locked up in a cage for our amusement. I don't want it to rip my face off, but I'm sure we could find a full-of-himself poker player to be defaced. Whatever, we're at the top of the food chain; we do what we want.

4.) If you don't know about it, check out Pandora. Lots of free music with no strings attached. Through this site I learned that I like "dynamic male vocalists" and "breathy female vocalists." Awesome.

5.)

I fucking hate people.

I hate Duke.

I hate lacrosse players. (Especially from Duke)

I love sports news.

I hate you. (no special link here)


6.) The Sopranos is the best TV show in the history of time. Lost is the best non-HBO show on TV right now. adspar is incredibly good looking, so it is no surprise that he is often featured on TV.

7.) The Komodo Dragon wants to rip my girlfriend's face off. If he does, at least I'll get a picture of it.

8.) This is another very useful free thing I've been using lately. It takes notes.

9.) I didn't space this shit very well. I pretty much shot my wad with the David Williams and the hippo. Those were the top notch items I knew I wanted to cover. But I was done with them within the first 3 items. It is all downhill from there.

10.) Lets piss off Clint for no reason.



11.) Holy shit I somehow majorly botches all the html code crap on this page and had to spend an hour fixing it. This is no doubt related to the booze. This list goes to 11.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Lady Terps: National Champs!

On the one hand, it is cool that we won a national championship. But on the other hand, women's sports are terrible. I don't have much else to say about it.

I'm pretty sure the idiots in College Park have used this event as an excuse to start yet another riot. (I had to mangle that whole sentence because I don't know if it is spelled "riotting" or "rioting" and neither looks right.) I pretty much hate anyone that is involved in a riot, which means I hate everyone at my alma mater. Awesome.

Monday, April 03, 2006

croc = adspar. baboon = miken27freak




FullTiltPoker Game #533629517: Table Galleria (6 max) - $1/$2 - No Limit Hold'em - 14:21:07 ET - 2006/03/30
Seat 1: miken27freak ($153.65)
Seat 2: sirbusto ($205.35)
Seat 3: fresh2def126 ($119.70)
Seat 4: allieq ($74.40)
Seat 5: llh120 ($197.35)
Seat 6: ADSPAR ($194)
allieq posts the small blind of $1
llh120 posts the big blind of $2
The button is in seat #3
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to ADSPAR [Kd Kc]
fresh2def126: yeah man i was worried about JK
fresh2def126: on turn
ADSPAR raises to $7
miken27freak raises to $12
sirbusto folds
fresh2def126 folds
allieq folds
llh120 folds
ADSPAR calls $5
*** FLOP *** [Ks 7h 5s]
ADSPAR bets $10
miken27freak raises to $141.65, and is all in
ADSPAR calls $131.65
miken27freak shows [Jh Jc]
LesterMurphy shows [Kd Kc]
*** TURN *** [Ks 7h 5s] [Jd]
*** RIVER *** [Ks 7h 5s Jd] [Js]
miken27freak shows four of a kind, Jacks
ADSPAR shows a full house, Kings full of Jacks
miken27freak wins the pot ($307.30) with four of a kind, Jacks
miken27freak: ohh
miken27freak: ohh
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $310.30 | Rake $3
Board: [Ks 7h 5s Jd Js]
Seat 1: miken27freak showed [Jh Jc] and won ($307.30) with four of a kind, Jacks
Seat 2: sirbusto didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: fresh2def126 (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: allieq (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 5: llh120 (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 6: ADSPAR showed [Kd Kc] and lost with a full house, Kings full of Jacks

Friday, March 31, 2006

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:

  1. "It" makes no sense
  2. There is no evidence for "it"
  3. 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.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

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.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

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.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

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.

Friday, March 17, 2006

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.

Image hosting by Photobucket

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

Thursday, March 16, 2006

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.

Monday, March 13, 2006

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.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

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."

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

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

Sunday, March 05, 2006

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.

Friday, March 03, 2006

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.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

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.