Poker Lessons from the Election - Mind the Data!

There’s been a lot of chatter on the liberal Blog-o-Sphere about the recent Presidential election.  I don’t mean the crowing, I mean the talk that most polls showed Barack Obama ahead, especially the state-by-state electoral count, and yet many Republicans felt “certain” that Mitt Romney would not just win, but win in a landslide! Yes, there were a couple of polls that showed Romney ahead in the popular vote, but NO ONE showed him winning by anything that could be considered a landslide.  Even when Fox News called it for Obama, there were many doubters.

Why?

Well, since this is a poker blog, and since I took a vow of political chastity until 2013 (I pissed off more than a few people on Facebook, I guess), allow me to answer that question and improve your poker playing at the same time.

First, people in general are lousy at calculating what we refer to as “risk.”  Americans are actually worse at it than others.  We underestimate our risk at being hit by lightning and overestimate being caught in a terrorist attack.  We underestimate our risk of losing our home to a fire or flood, and overestimate our chances of winning the lottery.  And so on.

Second, we tend to mis-calculate the odds when we really, really, really WANT something to happen.  We add “bonus points” to the odds to compensate for what we’d like to see occur, and disregard obvious signs that perhaps what we want to happen ain’t gonna happen.  Seriously - I just came across an article that discusses this phenomenon, although I must admit I’ve seen it enough on the poker felt to know it’s true.

So maybe that’s what happened last Tuesday.  Even though most polls showed an Obama victory, the Romney fans found “their own math” and “just knew” that Mitt would pull it out once all the votes were counted.

And when you play poker, are you the same?  Take this example:  Six-handed, it’s folded to you on the button, and you raise with a pair of red jacks.  The small blind folds, and the nitty big blind re-raises.  You call, and the flop comes Ace-King-Seven rainbow.  He checks, you bet about two-thirds the pot, and he raises.  Do you call?

Well, he either has air, or you are waaaayyyy behind.  And if he really is a nit, how often does he have air?  For most players this is an easy fold, but some folks get committed to their pocket face cards no matter what the data says.  If he has an ace or a king, you’re about a 9-1 dog.  In my book, that’s a landslide.

So pay attention to the cards and the data they provide.  Pay attention to the playing habits of your opponents.  If they never bluff and they like to chase flushes and there are three cards of one suit on the board and they go all-in…yeah, they probably have it.  You rarely have a complete situation like this, however.  It’s never quite this clear.  Poker is always a game of incomplete information, but often enough there IS plenty of information to make an educated decision, remembering that even being a 9-1 favorite doesn’t mean you ALWAYS win. 

Last election reference:  One pollster was accused of saying Romney had no chance of winning.  He replied, “I said it’s doubtful, not impossible.”  May the data always be in your favor, and for cryin’ out loud, pay attention to it when it’s not!

The Election Process…and Poker

I haven’t blogged in a while because (a) I spent a couple of weeks back in my ancestral home of Ann Arbor (MI) with family, and (b) the election.  And even though I was away from the keyboard, I opined plenty about the election.  Some of it was even electronic, and that pissed off my Facebook friends, so…I stopped that.

Still, I have plenty to say about the Election Process. Being a progressive, I can’t complain too much about the results, I guess, but I CAN complain about the process, and what better way to illustrate the failings of our national political system than…poker.

• In a word - MONEY.
• In two words - Special Interests.
• In another two words - States Rights.

Let me explain the first two…

If you followed some of the down-ballot results from election night, you’ll see that it was a pretty good night for poker and gaming. Rhode Island voters allowed expansion at one casino into table games (poker and blackjack) while defeating a similar measure for another casino (local voters held the talking stick here).  In Oregon, two casino expansion measures lost, but in Maryland, a casino expansion measure won allowing for both table games at existing casinos, and a new (6th) casino in that state.

What’s illustrative for our discussion is that in Maryland and in Oregon, opposition came from casino interests.  To be sure, there were OTHER casino interests that were in FAVOR of the measure, but unlike years ago when it was the casino business versus the religious right, now it’s casino vs. casino; money vs. money; those who are already in vs. those who want a piece of the action. 

In Oregon it was the Native American casinos against the new non-Indian casino hopefuls; in Maryland it was MGM battling Penn National.  And in both cases, the winners spent more money.  Plain and simple as that.

Another ballot issue I was passionate about suffered similarly.  Polls have shown repeatedly that as many as 2/3rds of Americans want food containing GMO ingredients to be labeled, and California’s Prop 37 was designed to do just that; the first in this country to do so (GMO labeling is common in Europe, Asia…heck, most everywhere else).  Early polls showed this measure winning handily, but then gobs of money from Monsanto and Hershey for TV ads spelled its doom.  Bummer.

So money rules.  We knew that.  More than SIX BILLION spent on this election cycle, and truthfully, just to re-elect most of the incumbents.  As if we didn’t already know what most of them stood for.  Six billion to convince the undecideds?  You can’t tell me that $6 billion couldn’t be used for something else, like….I dunno, flood relief, or school improvements, or job creation, or…SOMETHING WORTHWHILE?

Enough of that screed…on to point three. 

I’ve lived in four states, and I currently enjoy living in Oregon where EVERYONE votes by mail.  No lines.  No problems.  No hanging chads.  I have voted previously by punch cards and machines (old and new).  I have waited in line (nothing like some of the folks I saw in Ohio).  I have been the only one in the building voting (like in the white neighborhood in Ohio I saw on TV).  The fact that every state has its own system and its own methods and its own process seems to work OK until it doesn’t.  Again, some districts were late in counting ballots.  Some had machine screw-ups.  If you look at voting in other countries, they don’t seem to have the issues we do.  And that’s because they have a national voting system.  We do it state by state.

And now we’re talking, finally, about legalizing poker, but again, it’s not a national system, but state by state. Nevada for Nevadans.  Maryland for Marylanders (or whatever they call themselves).  And so on.  Yes, horse racing and lotteries overcame the intrastate issue (pooled pari-mutuel betting and PowerBall).  But will/can poker do likewise?  Players won’t be thrilled with small populations and limited choices (see: PokerStars and Full Tilt).  Poker won’t experience the growth it had back in 2003-6 unless there’s a BIG (read: National/International) pool of participants.  That means legalizing poker on a national scale.

Is that possible with the current/new congress and Obama?  Time will tell, but someone should call for the clock.

Win More by Losing Less

This point is not often stressed – you can win more (overall) by playing hands where you control the pot so that (a) if you win, you win a goodly sum, but (b) if you lose, you only lose a modest amount.

There are lots of ways to do this, and it’s easier if you’re last to act (or first to act in multi-way action).  It’s also easier if you’ve been the aggressor in this or previous pots.

Too often players will get their money in “good” – and then lose to a drawing hand or a hand that was behind but caught on the river.  Especially at the lower stakes levels, players often think of money as strength – the more money bet, the better the hand (or so it seems).  Too often an overbet signals weakness, and smart players will pounce.

OK, here’s a simple example.  On a non-threatening flop (no potential straights, flushes, etc.), most players who raised before the flop will make a continuation bet.  That’s normal (although you know you shouldn’t do it ALL the time, right?).  But how much to bet?  Let’s say there are two other players in the hand, and you’re last to act having raise to twice the blind and you got two callers…

If you hit the flop, of course you’ll bet.  If you bet big and they don’t have anything, they’ll fold, and you win a little.  If they’re on a draw, they might consider pot odds (remember, at lower stakes players don’t often do that) and either call (normal) or raise (not as common, though it can be a good play).  If your hand holds up, you win, but if you lose, you’ll lose big.  Heck, maybe they’re not on a draw, but were slow playing a low pocket pair and hit trips, and buddy, YOU’RE behind.  Not a good scenario.

It would be better to bet, but why bet 250 in a 120 pot when 80 or 100 might accomplish the same thing?  By controlling the size of the pot, you can make easier decisions down the road.

Another example: If the flop missed you the chances are that it hit one of them, and you’re behind.  Of course, tradition and common sense says you should make your C-bet.  But by putting ANY money in the pot, you’re fishing for information…did it hit one of them?  Which one?  How strong?  Again, a small bet will give you the same information as a big overbet.  If no one calls, you win.  If someone calls, you’re likely in trouble unless you improve in a hurry.  And if they raise?  Consider bailing now.

Remember, money not lost can be as good as money won, because no matter how you get it, at the end of the game it’s all YOUR money.  Make it so.

Well, That Was Quick – The Answer

I mentioned (just yesterday) that I would post an update to my post on “Can Poker Keep You Young?” once I heard back from Dr. Alan Schoonmaker, who wrote the original article that I based my post on.  Well, I heard back from the good doctor, and…I can’t tell you a thing.

The reason is that his NEXT column for Card Player magazine is Part Two of this topic, and it goes into great detail on this subject.  He let me have a sneak peak, and I loved it, partly because it’s somewhat similar to things I mention in my book, which isn’t necessarily geared to old folks like me, but to any poker player (in the small stakes venues).  Yeah, it’s ALL good advice, and even though I can’t comment on it here, you’ll want to read about it in the next issue.  Plug, plug, plug.  Seriously, it’s that good.

A second plug would be for any of Dr. Al’s five poker psychology books or the one he co-authored with David Sklansky's, DUCY?(Do You See Why?).  His Amazon’s page is right here.  Mine are over to the right, should you have any money left.

Thanks, Dr. Al!  I now have a new Amazon Wish List started!

And once Part Two is published, I will add some comments here.

Can Poker Keep You Young?

A recent article in Card Player magazine by Dr. Alan Schoonmaker asks, and then answers (mostly) this very question.  Titled, “Stay Young, Play Poker,” the good doctor suggests that besides eating right and  getting physical exercise (something we all need), older folk also need to keep the ol’ gray cells active, and what better way than playing poker?  In fact, Dr. Al points to research showing that mental activity does in fact keep brains (and their owners) healthy, and certainly poker is a cerebral activity of the highest order.  Since I’m now in the “can take the AARP discount, thank you” category myself, I find this news of great comfort.

Except…he also says that one should not play poker “on auto pilot.”  Now, I’d argue that no one, young or old, should do this (except for those multi-tablers who feel they must grind it out at 24 seats at a time, playing by rote to make a meager existence).  But what does this mean, exactly?

I confess I didn’t get a clear idea from the article, so I wrote to Dr. Schoonmaker for clarification.  Once I hear back, I will update this blog.

For now, I consider the info good news, and I have taken the advice to heart, somewhat.  I have long considered getting into mixed games, including Stud, Omaha, and the various HORSE/HOSE options, if for nothing else than to break the tedium of no limit Hold ‘em.  Not that I’ve mastered NLHE of course, but to continue my education.  But I do worry that by trying to learn multiple games it might affect my Hold ‘em performance.  So, I think I might have another way to ”mix it up.”

Since I’m in the USA, I can’t play for real money.  It doesn’t matter if I win or lose play money; it won’t break me or cause my wife to divorce me if I lose all $2.7M of it.  But I can test new “theories” and “playing styles” in these free games to see how well they work.  Yes, I know I’m playing other freebies, and it’s “not the same” as playing for keep, but…in this testing mode I can try new things, stimulate my brain, and, hopefully, learn something.

That’s the plan.  I will keep you posted as to what I learn and how I do.  For now, I’ve been trying to make up for lost time (tourist season) when I couldn’t play poker for weeks on end.  That’s one reason blogging has been light - playing too much poker!

The Hell with Morality?

The hell with morality.  As an argument against online gambling, anyway.

Even though gambling in some form has been with the human race since…well, since the human race began, and even though there is some form of gambling that’s legal almost everywhere in the U.S. (only Utah and Hawaii have no form of legal gambling), there are some who object to gambling, and specifically poker, on “moral grounds.”  Now I am taking a bit of liberty in using that term in this post, but I can’t think of another term to use other than morality.  But I think it’s not moral to do so, because it’s a misuse of the term.

OK, let’s start with the ol’ dictionary definition:  Morality - conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.   OK, keep this in mind.

My ire today was redirected at the current political platforms as spelled out in this year’s national conventions.  The GOP went so far as to title part of their platform “making the Internet Family-Friendly” (that’s a moral statement, isn’t it?).  It calls for a reversal of a recent DOJ decision on the 1961 Interstate Wire Act, and says,

"Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet and call for reversal of the Justice Department's decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to Internet betting."

So what’s wrong with this?

Well, the “door” to “Internet betting” has been open for so long it’s hard to remember when it was closed.  I’ve been able to make horse race wagers (ain’t that gambling?) on the Internet since the middle 90s. Why say one form of gambling is legal online, and another isn’t?  Better yet, why say one form of gambling is legal one way (live) but illegal another (online)?  Conformity is missing here.

And if some Americans suffer from problem gambling, why eliminate it for everyone?  Taking this same argument further - many Americans are overweight, so we should eliminate takeout food and delivery service.  Or we should shut down all restaurants that serve fattening foods (uh-oh, I’m out of work).

Many Americans can’t hold their liquor, and drunk driving is a problem.  Alcoholism and alcohol abuse are on the rise, so, let’s prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages.  Oh, wait…tried that.

What is so virtuous about not allowing people to do something they enjoy when it doesn’t hurt anyone?  I don’t get that.

I always tend to see conformity as consistency, and that’s my problem with many people who try to hold onto a position.  They’re not consistent.  I really don’t mean to make the comparison of poker to abortion, but I’ll tell you a story that illustrates the lack of consistency and let you draw conclusions.

A number of years ago I argued with a co-worker about abortion.  She felt very strongly about this, and felt that abortion was wrong, a sin, evil, you name it - abortion had no place in a civil society.

“So you’re against all abortions, no matter what.” I said.  “Even in cases of rape or if the mother is endangered?”

“Well, no, I don’t think a young girl who’s been raped should have to have the baby,” she replied.

“What about the endangerment of the mother?”

“Well, I’m not sure about that.  I guess it depends.  But I am pro-life.  All life is precious.”

“Are you against the death penalty, too?”

“No, I’m not.  That’s different, and don’t try to change the subject.  I only want to stop seeing so many abortions.  They’re so wrong, and I feel so bad for all those innocent…”

“So reducing the number of abortions is your goal.  Is that right?” I asked.

“Absolutely.”

“So you’re in favor of sex education in the schools so more kids don’t get pregnant in the first place, right.”

“Absolutely NOT.”

See?  Consistency.  Or lack thereof.

If you’re going to argue against online gambling, find another approach other than the weaker-than-hell morality angle.  That dog will not hunt worth a damn.

Details Do Matter

If you’re a teacher, you know that if you had a nickel every time a student asked, “Does spelling and/or grammar count?” you’d have a small fortune.  Of course, every teacher (save for one I had in college) responds in the affirmative, because, as we all know, “DETAILS MATTER.”  I have a great story from my teaching days that illustrates this, but I’ll save it for the end.

This being a poker/gambling blog, you’ve no doubt guessed that this somehow relates.  Of course it does.  Anyone can play poker, but to be better than the other players, you have to mind the details.  And there’s a lot to mind - playing tendencies, bet sizing, tells, meta-game, stack sizes…the list goes on.  Every time I pick up a poker magazine or read some online site, there’s information to digest, to process, to utilize.  Some of it is refresher, some of it is new to me. But the more I can use the better.  Like money.  And that’s how we get more money, by minding the details.

Too many players play as if on auto-pilot.  They always make the same moves, interpret opponents the same way, and often don’t put their full mind to the game.  Like the book report where proper spelling goes out the window,  playing with less than full concentration is not the way to win.

You say you don’t have time to keep proper records, to categorize your opponents, to play will the full concentration you need to mind all the details?  Fine, then play that way, but if you still expect to come out a winner, you’re only kidding yourself.

Or, as someone wrote earlier this week: “your only kidding yourself.”

That’s not quite what was said, but the Facebook post in question (which I naturally criticized) they used the wrong word, writing “your” instead of “you’re” (for you are).  When I pointed out the error, I was reprimanded thusly: “man i sure wish i could be a grammar troll and spend all day looking on facebook to correct small errors... my life would be great.”  What’s sad about this is that the post was from a college radio station (my alma mater) and yes, this person is going to major in communications.  And I had a sad.  And my story as to why spelling counts comes from the same field. 

 

When students asked me if “spelling counts”, I told them this tale: 

I was teaching a radio management course, and one project had the students write a policy and procedures manual for their fictitious radio stations.  One group wrote about the basic requirements for on-air personnel, and was doing quite well until the part about work beyond their regular weekday shift…

“All Full-time on-air personnel will be required to do voice work for commercials and station promos as needed.  In addition, each disc jockey will be required to take a four hour shit on weekends, on either Saturday or Sunday as per the discretion of the Program Director.”

I would have hated to go the pizza buffet on Friday night only to find out I was working on Sunday rather than Saturday…