More on Gambling and Ethics

I've followed the ongoing saga of JJprodigy and ZeeJustin with a combination of incredulity and dismay.

There's no doubt what these guys did was wrong, and I'm pretty surprised Party and Stars took so long to get their act together.

I'm even more dismayed at the laissez faire approach being taken by Stars to the reports of soft play at the big NLH games.

No doubt in the short term this is all bad for the image of the game, and will be seized upon by opportunistic politicians and special interest groups as evidence as to why online gambling must be banned.

However, I'd like to offer an alternative viewpoint.

As Bill Rini mentions in his summation of the ZeeJustin/JJprodigy cheating, these guys are actually getting off lightly, since if they were caught cheating in a B&M casino they could be looking at jail rather than what is effectively a substantial on-the-spot fine levied at the discretion of the affected poker rooms.

Were the poker rooms to be legitimate, and accountable to national laws, it would be perfectly feasible for Party or Stars to hand over the evidence of wrong doing and expect to see these guys put before a court.

Furthermore, acts of collusion online would easily fall within most nations definition of conspiracy to defraud, which I'd imagine would give most online cheaters reason to think twice before logging into MSN or picking up their mobile phone.

As I argued previously in my Ethics and Economics of Gambling post, the US government would be better served by legitimising, rather than demonising, online gambling.

This Post Brought To You By The Letter 'S'

'S' is for supremely stupid.
'S' is for sickening suckout.
'S' is for schooling simpletons.

Most importantly 'S' is for stupendous self-control.

Seriously, my mind is boggling right now. I've just lost a big pot to a guy who called a raise and a re-raise pre-flop in a PLO8B game with an incredible:

Old Div would have given him a free lesson at the table. New improved Div turned beetroot purple, emitted a gurgling, strangulated grunt, and got on with the next hand.

Turning off chat may be unsociable, but I think it's +EV for me (even though I am losing tonight!). A theory which I passed on to The Tank - Scotland's own SNG specialist, and a man whose blinds are somewhat difficult to acquire.

He has just started his own blog, so pop over and check out his musings.


(Swift Edit: Vindication. I've just wiped out the aforementioned moron when, me having flopped the nut straight, and turned the nut low, he called off all his cash against me with an overpair and no low!! Rattling off the above post in 5 minutes was all it took to bring me back to a level keel. Possibly my most productive post ever, in it's own way.)

Book Review: How Good Is Your Pot-Limit Omaha?

In his book How Good Is You Pot-Limit Omaha, Stewart Reuben guides the reader through over fifty hands played out in various casinos throughout his extensive poker career.

Each hand is discussed and evaluated, with a range of options presented at each decision point, and an overall rating awarded to the reader based on their points tally.

The focus is very much on cash games, and some hands will find very thin edges being pushed by the author.

As readers progress through the book, they will become familiar not only with Reuben's aggressive, and slightly hyperactive playing style, but also with that of several of his regular adversaries and their varied approaches to the game.

To understand the lessons proferred, it is important to recognise a few differences between the games Reuben plays, and those most 'normal' players will encounter online.

In general the stakes are much higher. Blinds of £10 or even £25 are not uncommon - roughly $17 or $43.

The stacks tend to be very deep too, with 500 or 600 big blinds often to be found in front of each participant in a hand. Combative play is often in evidence, with raising and reraising both pre and post-flop.

Such deep stacks offer big implied odds, and may make drawing hands more powerful than in smaller games.

By contrast, most online games are smaller stakes, generally the max buy-in is capped at 100BB and, at the lower stakes, players will be predominantly looser and more passive.

That said, Reuben is anything but tight, and is willing to see some very speculative flops.

Where the book excels is the detailed hand analysis, based not only on cards in hand, but on the board, the nature of opponents, and the relative stack sizes.

Some actual situations are varied for the purposes of comparison.

Relative stack sizes are changed, alternative turn or river cards are proposed, and Reuben explains how this would change his approach.

Almost every hand is played from inception to showdown, and points are awarded dependent not on actual result, but on quality of decision making at each stage of the hand.

Often the actual decisions made by Reuben are not those which he awards full points to in a theoretical sense. In the heat of the moment, everyone makes mistakes it seems.

In truth, the point scoring was almost an irrelevance to me. Of much more interest was the train of thought which guided Reuben to each decision. This is the most interesting aspect of the book.

On the negative side, I was somewhat concerned that the nature of the book meant a lot of fairly speculative starting hands were taken to showdown.

In another of Reuben's publications Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker(with Bob Ciaffone), he is described as 'attacking' and 'fierce' by no less an authority than Mr Ciaffone.

As might be expected, many of his starting hands are not those which would be recommended to a novice.

If a multitude of chapters started out with loose pre-flop calls, and insta-folds on unhelpful flops, there would hardly be a strong page turning imperative.

Therefore it follows that we tend to see only the successful calls, without a representative sample of whiffed flops.

This led me to be concerned that a novice might interpret the starting hand requirements to be recommendations, when Reuben himself would presumably agree it is the way the hand develops which should be instructive.

A degree of prior knowledge is assumed, and for someone entirely new to Omaha, this is perhaps not the ideal starting point.

This is very much the Porsche of poker books. Great fun when you have the skill and environment to exercise it to the max, but unsuited to learners navigating the slower poker lanes.

For those with prior experience, wishing to move their game onto a higher plane, this is a worthwhile read, but not an essential buy.

The Ultimate Poker Blogger

Now blogging
live
from the
LA PokerClassic

Commerce Casino

I want Pauly's job.

Even though, since he doesn't always get paid for it, it doesn't strictly match my precise criteria for a proper job.

Still he has played poker with Shannon Elizabeth, which has to be some sort of compensation!


Since the Etims guys kindly pimped me in their Rumour Mill, this seems an opportune moment to link to an old post of mine - How To Play Online Poker - as there will probably be quite a few poker newbies passing through the site just now. Enjoy.

Sublime

The Brit Awards never fail to come up with a humorous moment or two.

Last year it was the Bedingfield siblings cringeworthy 'performance', that wouldn't have looked out of place in an old Brookside episode.

This year, hats off to the genius who had Paris Hilton presenting the Best International Album award to Green Day, for their album American Idiot.

I doubt the joke - whether intentional or not - registered with the vacant blonde one.

I foresee another big Green Day award, coming up sometime in (probably) April.

Donald McVicar, The Whistleblower, and Me

Some of you may recall that in December I posted some thoughts on the SFA Whistleblower website. In particular, I pointed out an apparent discrepancy in their explanation of a key penalty incident.

This was picked up by Celtic Quick News, and got me quite a lot of traffic for a few days.

It was suggested to me that I contact the SFA, and ask for an explanation, which I did.

There then followed a short correspondence with Donald McVicar - SFA referee-in-chief.

After this correspondence ceased, Mr McVicar was contacted by Celtic Quick News, but did not respond to their requests for information.

I then passed the story along to one of the more esteemed Scottish sports journalists - an elite club indeed - who initially indicated his interest, but failed to follow it up.

So, for posterity, I am recording my full correspondence with Mr McVicar below.

I shall leave you to form your own judgements on why Mr McVicar ceased to correspond with me.

---------------------------------------------------------------
21/12/05 Div to SFA:

"Dear Sirs

In your most recent update to the Whistleblower website, Stuart Dougal states that a penalty was awarded to Inverness Caledonian Thistle when Stephen McManus committed the offence of 'impeding'.

However, as Mr Dougal should be aware, under Law 12 of the Laws of Football, 'impeding' is punishable by the award of an indirect free kick.

Therefore, as Law 14 of the Laws of Football clearly states a penalty should only be awarded for the ten offences punishable by a direct free kick, Mr Dougal has confirmed that a penalty was incorrectly awarded.

Instead, an indirect free kick was the appropriate punishment.

As the SFA has now confirmed on the Whistleblower website that Mr Dougal saw the offence as 'impeding', but incorrectly punished it by awarding a penalty, can you confirm what steps will be taken to remedy this situation?

Thank you."

22/12/2005 Donald McVicar to Div:

"The offence was of an impeding nature with physical contact which, if inside the penalty area, is considered to be a penalty kick. Your obvious knowledge of the Laws of the Game will remind you that obstruction formerly produced identical punishment but the term impeding the progress has taken its place."

22/12/2005 Div to Donald McVicar:

"Dear Mr McVicar

Thank you for the very swift response to my query.

I was not aware of the existence of the offence described by yourself as being of an 'impeding nature with physical contact' which is punishable by a penalty kick if committed within the penalty area.

Upon receipt of your email I tried to locate a description of this offence within the Laws of the Game.

I also checked the SFA website, but the only reference to impeding was to document the impeding offence as defined in Rule 12.

Finally I checked the latest clarifications to the Laws of the Game, issued by FIFA and available at:

http://www.fifa.com/documents/static/regulations/Q&A2005_E.pdf

Unfortunately I could not locate any reference to such an offence. Can you tell me if this offence is defined separately, perhaps as an addendum to the Laws of the Game, or is this an offence sanctioned at a local level by the SFA but not enforced internationally?

In either case, I would be grateful if you could refer me to some documentation which describes this offence.

Thanks again for your assistance."

22/12/05 Donald McVicar to Div:

"I take it that your name is not DIV 1970 and since it is the practice that we only correspond with those who identify themselves with a name and address please do so and I shall respond.

Regards"

(Editors Note: This left me in something of a quandary, since I have not sacrificed my anonymity on my blog. After some consideration I passed the details on to Paul at Celtic Quick News, who agreed to take up the reins. I also emailed Mr McVicar on Christmas Eve, to let him know someone else would contact him, who was happy to identify themselves to him.)

24/12/2005 Div to Donald McVicar:

"Dear Mr McVicar

Thanks again for your swift responses.

Since you do not wish to respond to me, I have passed on our correspondence to someone who complies with your practises.

May I take this opportunity to wish you a very merry Christmas."

26/12/2005 Donald McVicar to Div:

"I do wish to respond to you but you seem keen not to reveal who you are!

Happy Xmas"

---------------------------------------------------------------

As I stated earlier, Mr McVicar seemed to take a vow of silence at this point, and did not respond to Paul's approach.

Which is a shame, since I'd be very interested to find out more about the offence which is of 'impeding nature with physical contact' as described in his email.

That must be an interesting offence to document and interpret.

Or, maybe he tried to bluster his way out of an obvious mistake, and simply dug a deeper hole for himself? I genuinely don't know.

Perhaps Mr McVicar will be happy to provide an explanation of this offence to anyone who wishes to contact him now. It would be somewhat crass of me to publish his email address on the internet for spambots to harvest, but suffice to say it should not be difficult to work out when you know that the SFA domain is: scottishfa.co.uk

Getting Better

Well, faithful readers, it's been six days since my last post, so surely I have lots to report?

Think again.

Not been a huge amount of time for poker this week, though in my short time at the tables I have managed to stem the flow and keep the bankroll on an even keel.

Really I should be ahead, but I've made the mistake of betting several decent but non-nut hands into people holding the second or third nuts who don't raise, but don't fold either. Very frustrating.

The other problem I've had this week is that while I'm perfectly capable of the occasional donkey moves, sometimes I just play too well.

Yes I did just write that, and I kept a straight face while I did.

Don't believe me? Well, let me offer up an example...

PLO8 game - I'm on the button and limp into a family pot with A3xx single suited.

Not a monster, but the right flop would give me scoop possibilities, and I'm in position.

The flop is 2xx - all low cards, giving me the nut low. But it's also a flush board, and not in my suit.

By the time the action reaches me it's gone - bet, raise, re-raise. This is pot limit remember!

I fold, exactly as Ray Zee or Bobby Baldwin (in SS2) would tell me to. With action like that, my vulnerable low is definitely getting quartered. I must be up against a made nut low, and the nut flush.

Or must I? Imagine my reaction when after heavy action, showdown is between two moderate flushes for high. The lesser of whom gets out of jail with a very rough low for half the pot.

Disaster! That would have been a very juicy pot. I did have a nagging urge to call, but clearly it would be the wrong move, even although in this particular case it would have been rewarded handsomely.

But there's the predicament for someone such as myself who is slowly building up their bankroll. The games I play in are populated by a lot of bad players, and sometimes bad play can be rewarded.

Which can lead to bad habits, and a failure to improve my own game.

It's times like this, we need to grit our teeth, and focus on the *fact* that better performance will lead to improved results. In the long term!

That's where my motivation lies. Sure I want to make money, but more than that, I want to become a better player.

On Poker 425 this week there was an excellent interview with Paul 'Action Jack' Jackson, in which he discussed his heads up duel with Phil Ivey in the Monte Carlo Millions.

The depth of thinking was incredible, and Jackson himself admitted that just playing Ivey had given a new level to his game. The relish and awe permeated his every word.

They went for a drink after the tourney and had a chat about how the key hands had played out. Imagine that!

To get to that level is an unlikely dream, but it wouldn't be a worthwhile dream if it were easily achievable.

Poker 425 is legitimately available on Bit Torrent and can be downloaded here. It's well worth viewing!

(EDIT: The interview starts at 35 minutes into the programme)

Playing With The Bookies Money

I've never been much of a gambler. Which perhaps explains why I've settled on poker as my preferred vice.

The local casinos are always fun to visit. Pre-poker I'd play a little roulette and some blackjack, but never for great amounts, and I'd always have a stop-loss amount fixed before I crossed the threshold.

Usually I'd lose. Sometimes I'd win. That's the way of table games. In my mind the losses are the fee for a good night out. Winnings an unexpected bonus.

The local horse track is fun to visit too. Though it's more of a social thing, than a serious betting expedition for me.

My horse racing knowledge is almost non-existent, and again there's a stop-loss.

Fiver a race does me fine. Usually there's six races, so the thirty pounds is filed in the 'necessary expenditure' section of my mind, alongside gate money, taxis, and beer.

As with the casino, any winnings are an unexpected bonus and a great buzz.

Winning the first or second race is fantastic, since any decent price winner effectively makes the rest of the event a freeroll. This is what we refer to as 'playing with the bookies money'.

Which is how I found myself lumping a big - by my standards - wodge of cash on the Pittsburgh Steelers at the weekend.

The story starts some time ago, when I dabbled with betting on the financial markets on Betfair. Strictly small beer, but it was interesting for a while, until a change of job took me out of reach of the Betfair site during market hours.

The way the market worked, there was always some odds available on what were almost guaranteed events, albeit at ultra short prices.

So, it was never going to be a way to get rich quick, but if I was in front of a PC and had 2 minutes free to check the charts and stick on a bet, it was a sure fire winner.

The dregs of my account lay dormant until May last year. I was one of the sizeable minority of Celtic fans who still harboured misgivings about our league campaign even after our defeat of Rangers in the final head-to-head of the season.

The suggestion was posted on one of the many Celtic online forums that any pessimists should get their money on Rangers for the league, at the very generous odds then available, as a sort of insurance policy against Celtic losing.

It seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me, and despite my misgivings over having a punt on Rangers to win, I figured it was a fair way to invest my Betfair winnings.

Alas, it was not to be. The account had been dormant for so long it had been frozen, and by the time the necessary paperwork was complete to release the funds, Celtic had crashed to Hibs and the odds were no longer so long on Rangers.

As history records, Celtic went on to throw away the title on the final day, and I was left with not even the winnings from a slightly traitorous bet to show for my disconsolate state. Winnings which would have comfortably funded a Vegas return flight from Glasgow!

So the cash remained in the account until last weekend when on the Blonde Poker forum, Brian Wilson was sending out good vibrations about the Steelers chances in the Superbowl.

What the hell, I thought. It doesn't even feel like my money anymore. It's been on Betfair for so long.

So, I lumped the lot on the Steelers, at not very generous odds, and spent the Monday morning drive to work straining for a mention of the score.

I won't be paying for a trip to Vegas with the winnings, but it's always nice to see the balance moving in the right direction, though I suspect Pittsburgh's most decorated poker blogger was somewhat more elated than me.

January Summary

There's an oft quoted saying that in poker it's not about the result, it's about the performance.

Which I tend to agree with. Though it still hurts like hell to see chips sliding across the table to someone who displays scant knowledge of the rules, and even less awareness of the location of their fold and raise buttons.

That said, performance was my crutch, in the face of some very nasty results during January.

On the whole, I was very happy with the way I was playing. With the exception of one very tilty session which contributed half my total losses of about $230.

A painful lesson learned. Big bet poker punishes tilt much more than wimpy old limit betting.

Even that session may have been worth it, since it's the first time I've experienced such an excrutiating explosion of pent up frustration, built up over a series of punishing sessions.

Everyone runs bad sometimes, and everyone has sessions where they can't win a hand. But I've never gone through such an unremitting run of bad cards, and vicious suckouts spread over a sustained time period.

Suffering the run, and the consequences, should set me up well for the future.

Reading through the inhabitants of my bloglines account. January seemed to be very much the month for bad runs, and bad feelings about out games.

It was nice to find the antidote within the very same pages, as Maudie succinctly summarised some of the thoughts of Michael Craig.

My focus for the entire month was almost exclusively on Omaha - more by accident than design. The only Hold Em I played was two NLH freerolls. One for a juicy $50k from Party Poker, and one for a very decent $10k from Rake The Rake.

Mrs Div actually played some of the Party Poker tourney for me, as I was on baby bathing duties. She did ok, too. I've set her up with her own Party Poker account now.

Look out TPT - the Mrs will be gunning for us all soon!

Only playing one game type worked out pretty well for me. I want to learn a few new games this year, but chopping-and-changing too regularly can be distracting and off putting.

Sticking with one game forced me to think harder about how I was playing, and gave more of a focus on maintaining discipline rather than stomping off in the huff to play with other toys when things were running bad.

So, I've decided to follow up Omaha January, with Omaha Hi-Lo February. A gentle transition into split pots.

I've also got reviews pending of two Omaha books, which should be on the site soon.

Away from the wonderful world of poker, the new job continues to run much better than my poker playing.

The role I'm performing is old hat technically, but involves a lot of delving into how the business is operating, and the interactions between various systems - seeking out clues as to why strange faults are occurring.

My job is to fix the complicated faults which have been set aside over a period of time, in favour of resolving bigger numbers of simpler problems.

I'm cautiously optimistic I've found a nice little niche, and I'm already hoping the contract will be extended. The management seem pretty decent and I'm pretty much left to my own devices to forge ahead.

Parenthood continues to go very well too. We had Baby Div out with the grandparents and my brother tonight for my dad's birthday, and she's now happy enough to keep herself occupied in a restaurant high chair.

Still no teeth, but rosy cheeks have been promising an imminent arrival for weeks now, and she has a rottweiller-like bite on hand for anyone, or anything, which passes within range.

The most noticeable change is in mobility. Whereas previously she hated lying on her stomach, now she can't wait to roll over and make strenuous - though as yet unsuccessful - attempts at crawling.

When all else is going bad, the baby is an eternal source of joy and an all encompassing feeling of wellbeing. I only have to look at her to feel simultaneously inspired and restful.

Heck, I think I'll sneak in a picture down here where Felicia might not notice ;)

Mrs Div was experimenting with some black and white shots...



Finally, I didn't win Euromillions. A 76 million to one shot, and I didn't even get close. How unfair is that?

Bwwaahhhhaahhhaaahhhaaaha

Just had to post before bedtime.

I've just broken a punishing stint of six losing sessions by posting a profit tonight of, wait for it, ONE dollar.

Seriously, it feels good. I was down all night, until the last orbit when I actually stole a small pot to put me in 'profit'.

Back in October, I won twelve nights in a row without breaking sweat.

The last couple of evenings I've been Homer Simpson with tourette's syndrome. Random exclamations, outbursts, and rants to the monitor. As well as more visits to the fridge than usual.

I was beginning to think I'd never win another pot, and it was starting to REALLY hurt.

Maybe I got some good karma from railbirding Scottish Dave, as he turned $3 in a Stars rebuy satellite into a ticket to the Sunday night $750k guaranteed.

Nice one Dave. I hope you signed up through my link!

One guy on his starting table had 40 rebuys. Dave had none. You couldn't make it up.

God bless online poker.

Bah, Humbug

Yesterday's post was brought to you by the Dept. of Speaking Too Soon.

No sooner had I posted, than I was wading into a multitabling extravaganza of tomfoolery and bad cards that ultimately tipped me headlong into tiltdom.

The most frustrating thing is that the alarm bells were already ringing before the worst hands occurred.

I genuinely thought to myself, 'I should just log out and go to bed, I'm starting to get quite tilty', only for the 'I'll just give it ten more minutes' impulse to prevail.

Ten minutes later, the spreadsheet was firmly in the red.

As is often my problem, I got bored after a very long run of bad cards, and tried to push a few players around.

I thought that not having played a hand for 45 minutes might have established some sort of tight table image, but it wasn't enough to get someone to put down bottom set on a straightening board.

Sure he took his full time allocation on both turn and river to call, but call he did, and top two pair was no good.

The instigator of most of my angst was one of the more innocuous players at the table. Seated directly to my left he was as loose-passive as you could get - a calling station to rival Vodafone.

Which SHOULD be just perfect. Make your hand, bet into him, and get called down by second best hand, or bad draws.

Except, of course, he just could not lose against me. He lasted almost all night purely at the expense of my bankroll.

The inevitable pattern was, he'd lose a chunk of his stack, we'd get into a hand, he'd call me down with a dodgy straight or flush draw, and hit on the river.

How can I be so sure he was hitting? Because, when the scare card came, I'd check, and he'd min bet it - that is, when he still had chips left. Every time. A min bet.

Given the pot sizes, even though I KNEW I was beat, that's got to be a call. And every time, I was right, he had hit.

One orbit later, he'd be back to where he started, having bled the chips off elsewhere.

When this happens once, it's unfortunate. Twice, is galling. The third time and beyond, I REALLY start to get annoyed. Which is where we came in.

Still, I'm trying to be philosophical. I lost some money, but hopefully I learned a few things about myself.

I'm beginning to think I should timebox my sessions, since my tolerance declines rapidly over time, and definitely impacts how I play.

In the grander scheme of things, losing a few dollars is hardly the end of the world. There are people in much worse situations than me.

Take, for example, my cousin. He's over in Iraq on his 2nd tour of the present conflict.

On his first tour, my aunt had to go to a local outdoor shop and buy a pair of desert boots to post to him, since the army had run out of his size and he was running around the desert in boots made for European fields and rain, not Iraqi sand and sun.

On his current tour, the guys have been freezing at night when out on foot patrol.

So my mum went to a local shop, bought a whole bundle of mini hot water bottles, and shipped them out to Iraq. Now his patrol fill them with hot water before they go out, and shove them inside their flak jackets to keep warm.

Did you know the UK Ministry of Defence has more civil servants than the army has soldiers? Yet they still can't procure the proper kit - desert boots, uniforms suitable for the conditions, or even guns that fire properly. What a joke!

My cousin sent me an email at New Year where he mentioned that 'Has been quite quiet here for a while, haven't been attacked for about a week.'

In the face of that lifestyle, and all the other problems they have to face, I can hardly sulk around all day fretting over a few dollars frittered away on the tables.

But it won't stop me thinking about how I can do better next time.

If The Cat Was Around, He Could Have Been In Trouble

The road to poker success is strewn with a thousand fender benders.

This week has not been a success financially. I've had more wrecks than Mark Thatcher. Yet I actually feel I am playing really well.

After my aberrations at Big Laz's, I really knuckled down to online play.

This has involved some modifications to my Omaha cash game. I had a think about how I was playing, and decided I was being too gung ho on the flop.

Cash games demand a certain willingness to get all your money in when you may not even be favourite to win the hand, but will make a long term profit. For example if you are 40% to win a hand, and there's a 3-way all-in, that's a big long term winner.

However I felt I was giving up some of the edge I'm sure I have over a fair percentage of the players in the games I am playing.

Too often all the cash was going in on the flop and then it was a matter of trusting in the even fall of the cards to produce a successful outcome.

Now, I am trying to slow things down on the flop, see an extra card, then make a decision on how best to proceed.

I've been trying to keep the pots smaller on the flop, leaving more ammunition to fire on the turn. It's amazing how many people still can't get away from a bare flush draw with one card to come.

This strategy should, I hope, lead to lower variance, and a better return when the marginal hands lose their value.

For example, let's say I see a free flop from the big blind with

and along comes

Boy is that simultaneously tempting and scary! Top set (the nuts!) but so many ways to lose the hand. I could actually be a dog to someone with a wraparound draw and diamond flush draw.

Previously I'd be betting and raising here. Quite often getting all the chips in the middle.

Now if the field is big, I'll check-call and see what the turn brings.

If the turn is a horror card like say

...or...

it's time to wave goodbye to those four cards.

On the other hand, a total blank is the cue to spring into action.

That's been the plan in the latter half of the month, and on the whole I've been quite successful in finding lots of ways to get my money in ahead.

I've been making disciplined folds, playing good starting hands, and paying attention to the table.

Unfortunately all too often my cunning plans have gone awry, with some brutal defeats which send me scuttling back to Cardplayer to seek solace in the fact that 'I was 85% to win it when the money went in dammit!!'.

These words uttered to those most sympathetic of ears - my own.

It's thoroughly dispiriting to take assiduous notes on players - commenting on their tendency to overplay aces, draw to idiot straights, willingness to give free cards when they hit the flop hard, call down with bottom set when the whole table can see they are beat, etc. only to meet disaster at their hands.

Such as the guy tonight - a maniac if ever I saw one - who came to the table and on his first hand made a big raise, picked up a bunch of callers, and managed to get all his chips in on the flop with nothing but a gutshot straight draw. Which of course hit and doubled him through.

I already had notes on him which included his penchant for making raises with absolute crap pre-flop, then trying to bulldoze it through. Of course, I was eagerly anticipating tangling with him in a few tasty pots.

Oh how I was to regret that!

How we got to the situation matters not. What is important is that on the turn, we are in a big pot and I've just made the nut straight, plus potential improving straights.

First to act, I fire a pot size bet, only to pick up a caller and a reraise all-in from the resident maniac.

It was so screamingly obvious I'd just made my nut straight, whilst he was holding top set. Only for the case jack to come on the river making him quads.

In the cold light of Cardplayer, that wasn't quite so heinous a beat as it first appeared, though his reraise was quite wild.

Three players all in on the turn...

Me - nut straight made, plus redraw to higher straight, and medium flush draw (not perfect but it's a big hand, plus my two flush cards reduce the chances of anyone else hitting)
Maniac - top set, redraw to full house, or quads(!)
Calling Station - king high flush draw only (gotta love that play)

So, three players with all the chips in the middle. I was roughly 60% to win the hand. Not a massive favourite, but it was a big three way pot which well over half the time, I'm walking away with.

The EV in that is very lucrative. It just means that four times in ten one has to sink to the floor groaning, whilst grasping tender genitals.

Or, alternatively, stomp off to the fridge cursing wildly, and seek the numbing relief of several beers.

At which point Mrs Div enters and enquires as to my condition, and I can only reply through gritted teeth with a few vague utterances about luck and morons, culminating in the not entirely true summation that 'If the cat was around, he could have been in trouble.'

The Internet Is For P......

Just some Friday fun.

I've no idea how long this has been around but it made me laugh.

If you are still in work and have a particularly staid boss - or a militant feminist - within earshot, earphones might be advisable.

Property, Politics, and No Poker

Since initiating this blog over a year ago, the 'part-time property tycoon' phrase in my About Me section has received little mention.

This was something I got into, along with thousands of others, over the past few years as prices in the UK boomed.

I've always had an eye for the business pages, and a good understanding of how financial products work. One of my earliest jobs was working for a life assurance firm, and that was a good grounding in the ways money can be made to work for - or against - you.

So, by accident more than design, Mrs Div and I found ourselves with two rental flats (apartments to my US friends) and associated mortgages.

One a modern two bedroom in a fairly decent area, the other an older one bedroom tenement in a less salubrious, but very convenient for city centre, area.

Running the two was extremely uneventful. We got lucky in landing tenants for both who paid the bills on time, didn't rile the neighbours, and looked after the properties fairly well.

Late last year, in an unfortunate twist of fate, both tenants gave notice to quit on the same day. Which was something of a hassle.

Fortunately the bigger flat found a new taker within a few days. The smaller one, we initially intended to re-let also - but after some consideration we decided to sell.

The reason for selling is truly depressing to me. Despite being located only ten minutes from the biggest employment centres in the city, the area in which it is located is in a tailspin of decline.

The common areas of the property - known in Scotland as 'the close' are poorly cared for, the secure access is often broken, or purposely left open by other occupiers, and the garden/drying areas are strewn with broken glass and other refuse.

With drunks and junkies roaming the streets, the close was being used by some as a public convenience.

This is not to say the area is a total no-go zone. There are still many decent people running their own businesses, or working in local shops. Very close to the flat is a well attended private gym. So it's hardly an urban wasteland.

We just felt that slowly but surely, the decent people are being subsumed by the neds; the people who don't care a toss about others; those who revel in their own ignorance and take pride in their total lack of contribution to society.

Keeping the flat threatened to be a high maintenance activity.

Bizarrely, as the area has grown visibly worse, the flat value had increased by 25% in two years - a product of the skewed property market rather than desirability of the area. So selling made a lot of sense.

It's such a shame these tenements are being misused in this way. The buildings are from a past age, when construction was much less profit oriented than today.

Whereas modern buildings tend to have small rooms, wooden frames, and a very average build quality, the old tenements are absolutely solid with big rooms, and lots of storage.

The sandstone walls are so thick, a hurricane would feel like a gentle tickle to them. They were built by people who took pride in their craft.

But what use is a great building, when the people within have no respect for themselves or their environment.

Judging by the picture I've painted, you'd imagine the economy in Glasgow must be a real shambles, but this simply isn't the case.

The skyline at present looks more like that of some up-and-coming Far Eastern city - the crane count is so high - as more and more offices and hotels go up.

The problem is, some people just won't work, as this article from The Herald proves - six thousand unfilled vacancies in the Glasgow service sector.

Apparently they reckon service sector jobs are too 'subservient'; but it's not subservient to sign on and claim unemployment or invalidity payments after coming up with a spurious excuse for not working?

Consequently employers are flying in staff from Eastern Europe to fill the vacancies. As I've said before, I welcome these people with open arms.

As do the airlines and airports which are opening up new routes direct from Scotland to Eastern Europe.

A recruitment agent told me how she had two vacancies to fill at a plant just outside Glasgow.

She got an afternoon call from two Polish guys who were in Liverpool - hundreds of miles away. They wanted the job. How soon could they be there? They would start tomorrow morning!

They travelled up overnight and started on time.

That sort of endeavour should shame the people I've referred to, but they'd probably just see the Poles as suckers. Why work when you can sign on?

With that sort of attitude, I'm quite happy to see the government finally getting it's act together.

Predictably, a lot of the back benchers and unions are up in arms about this.

I've always considered myself to have quite a socialist outlook on life. It always amazes me when Labour MPs and unions get upset about measures to get people off benefits and back to work.

To me, socialism has always been identifiable with the needs of the working classes. Not the benefit claiming classes.

Sure, when the economy is in decline and people are being laid off, they should be supported by the state - but when jobs are available, and within easy reach, there's no excuse for not wanting to work.

Anyone who sees themself as a socialist should surely despise those who choose not to work, and who drain the output of those who do work.

To me, the dole cheat who signs on and spends his days hanging around the streets, is just as much an enemy of the working classes as the Robert Maxwells of the world who ruin companies and squander their pension funds, leaving their employees facing a bleak future.

The MPs should get behind the government on this one, and push through the strictest measures they can muster. If they truly believe themselves to be socialists, there is no other justifiable response.

The current Labour government has been far from perfect - and in many ways has been a grave disappointment to me - but when they get it right, they deserve to be supported.

The Tolpuddle Martyrs wanted a fair wage for a fair day's work; not cash in hand for signing on when there was work to be had.

The government delivered a minimum wage early in their term. Now they should be supported in making people work for it when they can.

Thoughts On The Teflon Don

Most of the guys I play against in the local games tend to be No Limit Hold Em STT and MTT specialists.

I'm something of an oddity as someone who plays mainly cash, and also varies the types of poker I play.

The subject of Omaha cash came up at the Friday night game. The question posed being 'do you get paid when you hit?'

Considering the run I'm on, the most honest answer might be 'no', but realistically I KNOW that you can get paid big time at these games. How is this so?

Well, I have the evidence to hand from last night's session - where, incidentally, I managed to recoup my entire loss for the month.

It was a long grind for me. I've been focusing recently on cutting out the loose plays that have been frittering away my winnings from big hands. For others, it seems so much easier.

Whenever I've played recently, there always seems to be one player who is almost untouchable. The identity of this player changes each time, but the presence of a complete and utter luckbox is unavoidable. A few posts ago I referred to this presence as The Teflon Don.

It's such a frustrating experience watching a truly awful player hit time and again, while good poker gains small rewards.

Last night the star of the show was genuinely awesome. I first spotted him when he called my pot size flop bet with nothing more than TPTK. We then checked it down and split the pot.

On the flop he had TPTK and no obvious redraw. I had top two pair. A king on the turn improved me to a bigger top two pair but levelled our hands up.

Previously I'd have kept firing on the turn with top two, but I've become accustomed to people who flop middle or bottom set passively calling down their hands. So, I tend to shut down if I fire on the flop and get called when there's no obvious straight or flush draws.

By the time I'd finished writing notes on his flop call, he had doubled through. As the night progressed, he trebled, quadrupled, quintupled, and, yes, sextupled through. What a player! Well, err, no.

We all know the Omaha basics, which include:

• only play 4 cards that work together


• don't draw to the 2nd nuts


• don't slowplay big hands

The Teflon Don thinks and plays differently. His motto - 'I have a draw'

Where it all falls down is how they rationalise the draw.

Idiot straights, straights when there's a flush draw (or two) out, flush draws when the board has already paired. All of these are genuine calling hands.

Whether it be on flop or turn, and for quarter, half, or the full pot. No matter the odds on hitting. No matter how blindingly obvious it is that someone else is ahead.

Seeing a guy who plays like this hit time and again is intensely frustrating.

Thankfully last night I managed to avoid all of the monster pots he got involved in, otherwise I might have burst a blood vessel.

I say monster, and it's very true, that these guys tend to win a lot of BIG pots. The reason for this is simple. The guys with the genuine made hands and draws get priced in, then sucked out on.

Think how it feels to be the guy with top set, or draw to the nut flush and top straight, who loses to someone chasing a runner-runner idiot straight. Drawing to the wheel, when you are drawing to Broadway. It's crushing.

I hate playing against these guys when I have the made hand, since their money - which should be almost dead - prices in the more legitimate draws and builds huge pots. Which then slide their way.

Of course this is but a blip. A temporary phenomenon. In the long run (damn that phrase!) these guys are inevitable losers. But their results can be so spectacular in any one session that there's an insidious temptation to play like them.

The player who wants to improve his game, and values the long term, must resist. By all means, when in Rome do as Romans do, but at the tables remember you are an angler, not a fish.

Game Report: Big Laz's Homegame 20/1/06

The theme of Friday night could easily have been 'people do the strangest things'.

Which could have been amusing, if not for the fact that on two out of three occasions, the agent of strangeness was me. Twice I contrived to make truly donktastic plays at key moments.

The third occasion was more sinister than comedic.

To set the scene, I was playing for the first time in Big Laz's homegame. Whereas the TPT games tend to have around 6-8 players in a series of SitNGos, Laz had amassed 15 entrants for a 2-table game, including a couple of workmates from Alabama.

His set up is very impressive, with two tables and nice quality chips. My main achievement of the evening was finally mastering riffling 8 chips together.

The hospitality stretched to a sumptuous buffet, which was very well received - a polite euphemism for wolfed down in seconds - and fine whisky was also freely available from out host. I like his style!

In the main event I was going pretty well and had accumulated a fair number of chips.

Having not played a hand in the first few orbits, I ran into a succession of reasonable starting hands. 99, 55, AQs, and the like. Each time I managed to take the pot down pre-flop, or on the flop. So none of my cards were being seen.

The biggest pot came with 55, which Dave defended his big blind against. Calling my pre flop raise, and leading out with a big bet on a Q-high uncoordinated flop.

This sent me into a long dwell, which led to me concluding Dave was betting a queen he didn't have. He's much more likely to check-raise here with the queen.

I was proved right when he couldn't call my all-in bet.

From a position of relative strength, I then crashed out in flames after tangling in spectacularly dumb style with The Tank.

In MP I open raised with ATo, and was smooth called by The Tank. We both saw a flop of KK3 which, to me, looked well worth a sizeable continuation bet.

This was promptly reraised by The Tank, and effectively left me a choice of push or fold.

The obvious conclusion is fold. But I just couldn't see what was beating me. I began to fixate on the feeling that he couldn't possibly reraise here if he had a king.

With position, that would be a bet for the turn.

Equally I couldn't see him having a big pocket pair, since that would be a reraising hand pre-flop. Eventually I concluded my ace high was probably good against some sort of drawing hand.

When I pushed, he certainly looked pretty dismayed, which gave me hope.

Once he'd reluctantly called, and turned over AJs, the folly of my play became apparent. No ten or twice paired board for me, and I was out 7th of 15 in a battle of the kickers.

I won't even begin to list the number of mistakes I made in that hand. Suffice to say, I won't play it that way next time.

If you think that was bad, prepare to be astounded by even worse play in the next game.

After the main event had concluded with a 1,2,3 for Tank, Teacake and Dave, the participants split into two SitNGos.

Again I didn't see a huge number of great hands. Though I did get some chips reraising with QQ pre-flop and getting Teacake to make a disciplined laydown with what he later claimed was KQ.

Leaving him short stacked later proved to be the start if my downfall.

Players were dropping very slowly and the rising blinds meant there were a lot of pre-flop raises to take down the blinds from all positions.

Looking down at the mighty 72, and *thinking* I was open raising, I pushed all-in.

Only to discover Teacake had already pushed with his tiny stack. Crap! I was going to see a showdown.

For this execrable play I can only blame a combination of beer and fatigue. Another lesson relearned - always pay attention at the table. Phil Ivey I am not.

All folded around, and with cards on their backs I found myself up against Q2s. Dominated.

A 7 on the flop gave momentary hope, but a Q on the river brought Teacake back into the game. Which he duly went on to win, as I finished out of the money again.

So, a great venue, a munificent host, good company, and an abysmal performance by me.

If that wasn't odd enough, things were to get even odder as I arrived home at around 4am.

Unusually Mrs Div was waiting for me, and somewhat upset after something she had read on a website she is a member of.

The website is a sort of networking/community site for expectant mothers. Members are assigned to groups according to due date, and can publish diaries and participate in discussions on their forum. It lets women share their pregnancy experiences, as well as the progress of the newborns.

Whilst reading the diary of a new mother, she spotted a strangely familiar picture. A quick check of our records had confirmed to her it was indeed one of the earliest pictures taken of Baby Div - asleep in her Moses basket.

Even stranger, it wasn't one she had posted on the site. So not only was someone passing off our child as theirs, but she couldn't work out where the picture had been acquired.

On checking the site, I agreed with her opinion that it was our picture, and was able to confirm that I had published it on this very blog way back in July last year.

Of all the websites on the net, the imposter had lifted a picture from the site of the husband of one of the potential viewers of her diary.

I don't know what the odds are on that, but suddenly winning Euromillions doesn't seem so infeasible after all!

After a couple of emails/posts to the site in question, the imposter has now been revealed and their diary deleted. Investigations now suggest they were actually running more than one imaginary diary.

That's either someone with a very sick sense of humour, or severe psychological problems!

Which again goes to prove that people do the strangest things - and not just in poker.

Living For The Weekend

The weekend is here, and I've got beer in, a new poker game lined up, and permission from the wife to make a big night of it.

Tonight the TPT are venturing out to another home game, and there should be enough players to make it a 2-table SitNGo. Should be fun.

What more could I ask for?

Well......get a load of this!

Yes, I'm in for one of the biggest lottery jackpots ever.

Usually I ignore the Euromillions, but when the jackpot goes north of about £40 million, it usually catches my eye.

Tonight it should be around £85 million!!

Unlike some lotteries, there's NO tax, and NO staggered payments. The likelihood is that on Monday morning, someone will be depositing a single cheque for the equivalent of around $150 million with their suddenly obsequious local bank manager.

I've resisted the temptation to remortgage the house and 'invest' my lifetime savings in tickets. Even if I had, the odds on winning would still be infinitesimally low.

So, I won't be holding my breath.

I do hope that whoever wins is not some murderer or rapist out on parole, nor some nitwitted 16-year old girl who will be knocked up by her not so daft boyfriend before the cheque has cleared.

Equally I hope it's not some miserable 40-year old guy who still lives with his parents, and 6 months after collecting his winnings will still be living with them, still be driving his ten year old banger, still be doing the same menial job, and still won't have a girlfriend.

When I see these dull bastards moaning in the papers about how miserable the money has made them, it makes me wish Camelot had a clause in the contract that said they were entitled to reclaim the winnings if the person proved too dull to deserve the money.

Of course I want to win, but don't we all? Most of us are smart enough to know it's so unlikely as to be only worth joking about.

What I do hope for, is to hear that someone has won, chosen to remain anonymous, but has issued a statement saying they will be quitting their job immediately, sticking a prudent amount in long term investments, sorting out their friends and relatives mortgages, and heading off on a VERY long world tour with much cash in hand.

We can all hope for that.

Good News/Bad News

Good News - The maniacs are back, and they have money to spend.

Bad News - It's my money.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

Previously, I was bemoaning the lack of action at the tables. Last night had more action than Paris Hilton's bedroom.

Unfortunately for me, I got to spend the night with the chihuahua.

To be fair, the first big hit of the night was entirely my own fault.

Within a few hands, the table maniac had made himself known by raising every hand he played and playing like he had no fold button.

Soon thereafter I flopped the nut straight, with a bunch of low cards, but by the time the action got to me there'd been a raise and a reraise.

At this point, greed got the better of me. My vision coloured by the fact the reraise had come from the resident maniac, I re-reraised, only to see the first bettor fold and the maniac go all-in.

Cards on their backs, and my hand didn't look so good. The maniac had the same straight, but with a draw to a better one. Which duly arrived on the river.

Omaha 101. Don't get all your chips in on the flop with an unimprovable hand.

Unfortunately that was a lesson learned, which proved to be utterly futile.

The maniac proved to be the poker equivalent of The Teflon Don. No matter how bad his starting hands, or how stupidly he played them, nobody could lay a glove on him.

By the end of the night he'd quintupled his buy-in with gems such as:

• calling a raise and re-raise on the flop and hitting his 2-outer


• getting it all in on the turn with 2 pair against a made straight and nut flush draw, only to hit his full house on the river

According to Cardplayer he was 7% to hit the first, and 12% the second.

Meanwhile my hard earned lesson was going to waste. Three times I managed to get my chips in with the nuts, plus the best draw. Each time I either split the hand when there was no improvement, or lost it to a crazy outdraw.

Yes the maniac got me with his 12%er. Just as well Mrs Div was at the gym, and the baby was sleeping. I would not have been good company at that moment.

Even when he lost he still got lucky. Betting my made Broadway hard, I was sick to see the board pair on the river.

What could he have been drawing too? Only a full house I thought, so when he checked to me on the river I checked behind, fearing the worst.

I was happy to see the pot slide my way. Agog, when I saw he'd called a pot size bet on the turn, drawing to a WHEEL against my made Broadway. If only he'd hit.

Despite his successes, when he finally departed with his booty the rest of the table seemed genuinely disappointed. It was certainly action packed, and I doubt he will hold onto the cash for long.

For a few minutes after each beat I was steaming, but really you have to take the rough with the smooth.

That's the nature of the game. Without maniacs, there'd be a lot less fun, and a whole lot less cash on the table.

Every dog must have his day. Even if he is a 93/7 underdog.

A Poker Education

For the first time in a while I actually got some decent time at the virtual tables on Friday night.

The late night was hardly worth the effort since the play was so flat. I was pretty much card dead throughout, and my few decent hands didn't generate much action.

I've seen it suggested elsewhere that January is an arid month for online players, since many of the biggest donators are skint after Christmas, and don't reappear for a while.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Logic would dictate that the loose fishy players who are the key contributors to my online bankroll are probably the sort of feckless types who max out the credit card and overdraft in December, with no clear plan as to how to pay it off.

Of course, since they are losing players, they have no Neteller reserve to dip into to reload their poker accounts, so they need to await the arrival of the January salary to provide more funds to lose online.

Much more entertaining than Friday's online efforts was Saturday's outing to The Cincinnati Club in Glasgow.

Dave Colclough has overhauled the management of the cardroom, and introduced a £100 rebuy on Saturday's - which Littlewoods had sponsored by making it a £10k guaranteed prizepool.

I wasn't playing, but a few friends were, so I went in to railbird and enjoy the festivities.

My mates didn't cash, but we did get to spend some time with a few of the southern softies who had come up to support Dave in his new venture.

Chief amongst them were Rob Yong, Simon 'Chubbs' Nowab, and Nick Whiten.

Let me tell you, if those guys played as good as they talked, there would be no point anyone else turning up!! They probably drink so much for medicinal purposes - to keep their throats lubricated.

They're very good company, and generous to a fault. If anyone wants a new perspective on the WSOP, check out Rob's diary from 2005 on Blonde Poker. A cracking read.

The highlight of the night (sometime around 5am) was seeing Rob, then Chubbs, take on Dave Colclough heads up.

It's not often you get the chance to see such serious players at close quarters. Not only seeing every hand, but also hearing the speechplay, and seeing their mannerisms and reaction as the game ebbed and flowed.

I was shattered by that point, but the poker was gripping, and I'd consider it a priceless learning experience.

Let's Buy PokerStars

Saw this on Blondepoker - Let's Buy Poker Stars.

Or perhaps the bloggers should mount a counter-bid to the RGP offer?

After all, wasn't ScurvyDog suggesting 2006 was the year for bloggers to get more active?