Niches and Growth

As hard as it is to admit, I must do so now:  I am NOT an expert in all forms of poker.  Hell, I’m not an expert in most forms of poker.  But I do have a niche.

Most players are like me, but from my experience, few are ______ to admit it.  That blank space could be completed with a variety of words, such as,

• “few are stupid enough to admit it” or
• “few are smart enough to admit it” or
• “few are aware enough to admit it” or even
• “few are scared enough to admit it.”

That’s a lot of emotion for one aspect of one’s game.  I prefer to think I’m smart enough to admit I can’t play cash games as well as tournaments, and split-pot games are not my forte, but I seem to do very well with 7-card stud (even the few times I’ve played hi/lo).  While my live casino experience is very limited (closest casino in 40 years of playing is where I live right now - 2 1/2 hours away - no wonder I’m dying for online poker to return), I did well and I’ve always liked playing home poker games (and again, did well), so the jury is out on this one.

What’s your niche?  I know some players who prefer cash games, some who prefer tournaments, some who ONLY play Hold ‘em, some who loathe Hold ‘em, some who are lucky enough to live near a card room and practically live there, and others who actually considering moving to Mexico shortly after Black Friday. 

What’s more telling though, is how some players react when you ask them about their niche.  Some get all defensive - one cash player goes out of his way to mock and deride tournament players.  Truth is, his tournament experience can be summed up in one word - suckola.  So I guess this is his way of dealing with it.  Some know they are weak at PLO or Stud and just politely decline to be involved, and if they do get involved in HORSE they play very, very cautiously in their weaker games.

Still others know their weaknesses and try to improve (while remaining cautious about betting the farm if they do get involved).  This is by far the best way to play, and I’m about at this point in my poker development (after 40 years?) where I am coming out of my shell and trying to get better on my weak games and trying to improve in other areas of my game.

I gotta stop multi-tasking, for example.  I KNOW that distractions are, well…distracting, and I do not play my best when I’m doing something else while playing poker.  I stopped answering emails, doing payroll, and even writing this blog, and just last night I unplugged the headphones.  I like jazz, and it’ll have to wait…for now.

I am also starting to play the “other games” and I’m expanding my poker library, reading about strategy for Omaha and getting online in the forums for the new games like Badugi.  Thank goodness for play money (well spent when learning a new game).

And may I humbly suggest you do the same.  Here’s why - by learning other poker variations, it just might make your niche game better.  Here’s another reason - I believe that at some point more tournaments and more games in general will go the HORSE route.  Perhaps someday even the WSOP Main Event will move from Hold ‘em to HORSE.  And the final reason is this - if everyone plays nothing but Hold ‘em, you better be very, very good at Hold ‘em, or else they’ll be eating your lunch.  If your niche is their niche, perhaps you need another niche.

So what’s your niche?

Popeye Philosophy, or Sunday Keyboard Ramblings

My last post (Smörgåsbord Morality) got a number of people talking, most notably my wife.  She took exception to the idea that everyone succumbs to the “pick and choose” morality (though I explained that some are pickier than others).  I explained where I deviated from the “norm” (being careful not to accuse her of the same, since I like sleeping in a bed vs. the sofa), and she eventually came around. 

She also wondered why I was making so many posts about this topic, especially as it related to the current anti-online-poker crusade of Sheldon Adelson.  I told her it made no sense that his Coalition is trying to prevent legal online when the illegal offshore stuff will continue, plus, you can (a) gamble in other forms online (horses) and (b) you can play poker (just not online).  And it makes no sense that this is a campaign to stop people from gambling being funded by a guy who makes billions from…gambling.  She finally said she agreed, and replied, “Well, yeah, really, no one likes to be told what they can and can’t do.”

Ain’t that the truth?

If we all must have a personal morality, and we do (though many fail to develop one), mine is pretty simple.  Live by the Golden Rule, the tenets of Secular Humanism, and try to be consistent.  What you do in private is your business, not mine.  The old saying about “you being free to move your arms about until an inch from my nose” is pretty much the case – play your music up to the point of disturbance and no louder, enjoy life and leave it in better condition than you found, and so on.

On the negative side, only a few things stand out.  I hate hypocrites.  That, and litter, are two of my pet peeves.  Oh, and being told what to do and what not to do, especially by those who are, at best, sanctimonious (I had to go look that up to make certain it meant what I thought it did.  Yup).

It’s no wonder that I (now) own my own business (along with my best friend and severest critic).  I can’t remember any position (er, job), that didn’t entail someone telling me what to do, or what not to do…and then, seeing them not doing what I was told to do and doing what I was told not to.  “We have to work late tonight,” said the boss who left at 4:45pm.  “Don’t use the office Xerox for personal copies,” said the boss who used it for…oh, you know the drill.

The best boss I ever had was Jack Trumpy, VP and Head Auditor back at the Ann Arbor Bank.  He and I were at opposite ends of the social/political/you-name-it spectrum, but a better man was not to be had.  Jack had two rules – One, if you made a call out in the field and were right, he’d back you 110%, but if you were wrong he’d explain why you were wrong, how it affected others, and how to correct it so it didn’t happen again.  Two, and more importantly, he would never ask you to do something he would not do himself.  And he would occasionally go out of his way to show you he meant this.

Two episodes stand out.  One, when we had a teller discrepancy of more than $1,000, he and I went through every scrap of paper (including the trash) in the entire branch.  He could have easily assigned me the trash room while he took the manager’s office, but it was important, so everyone did everything.  The other was when the back decided to enforce their “no facial hair” policy (this was the early 70s) after I grew a beard.  Jack thought it a stupid rule.  And grew a mustache. 

But back to being told what to do and what not to do.  My wife is right, no one likes that.  And it seems to me that the people who like it least are the people who spend much of their time trying to tell others what to do, or what not to do.  Is this a defense mechanism?  Projection?  Sickness?

I have great difficulty understanding why, in today’s society with our current issues of economic inequality, environmental pollution, global warming, peak oil, personal security and safety, and so on…that so many people worry about the trivial matters of behavior, that, quite frankly, are none of their fucking business.  Period.  Obviously, I include a ban of online poker in this category (especially the clown in Pennsylvania who wants criminal charges against those who play online).  And I have decided that, since I have a blog and a voice, I’ll try to use it to speak out.  To what impact this will have, I cannot say, but it’s what I can do.

I don’t like labels (forgot to mention this above).  I’ve been called Liberal but usually by those who think it means something nasty.  I like Progressive more than Liberal, but it’s not quite accurate.  I’m more Libertine than Libertarian, as I can see an important role for government, especially a government of the people (do we still have one of those).  Speaking of – didja ever notice that government is more of a problem and seems to work worse when it’s being run by people who believe that government is the problem?  Just sayin’.

So however you want to define me, this is who I am.  This is why I will fight the good fight.  Online poker.  Human rights – ALL rights.  Free speech for all, including douche bags.  And so on.

It was Popeye who famously said, “I yam what I yam and tha's all what I yam.”  So yam I.

Smörgåsbord Morality

For those of you unfamiliar with the term “Smörgåsbord,” it’s what my folks called a buffet (it’s a Scandinavian term, though we’re German-Irish.  Go figure).  And this isn’t about how to behave at a buffet (though some folks could use a primer).  It’s what I call the type of morality, or ethics, that most people have.  Even me.

It’s a “pick and choose” morality, as one selects the ethical items they want and discards and ignores others.  It’s not limited to morality, either, as rules and laws can also be selected as if at a buffet line.  And like the buffet, you can take an item on the first go around, then not take it the next time.  Lack of consistency is another key to this type of morality.

Like I said earlier, most people live their lives this way.  Some only dabble in the buffet line, while others feast.  A good many people have standards, and keep them, only diverging a little from time to time.  Upstanding, decent folks, they perhaps only cheat at tax time and maybe they steal a few office pens from time to time.  Maybe they speed on the interstate or toss litter from the car.  Some folks are a bit less ethical, as cheating comes as natural to them as walking.  They cheat their kids, their spouse, their boss, the government…pretty much everyone they come in contact with.

Then there are those who are just confused about their morality.  They think they are the untainted ones, the ones who are closest to perfection, and it’s everyone else who needs to get it line.  They know they are pure in heart and deed, and have the strictest moral code there can be.  Except they just don’t follow it.  Smörgåsbord morality.

Smörgåsbord morality was on full display this week in Arizona.  The now-vetoed SB 1062, a bill passed by the legislature previously that would have allowed private businesses to cite religious beliefs as a defense against lawsuits over discriminatory treatment (author’s note – I copied this line directly from The Economist), was flawed from the start.  No, not because it discriminated, and let’s stop there for a moment and discuss this word – discrimination – as few understand it.

You WANT to be able to discriminate.  That is, you want to have the ability to tell one thing apart from another, to recognize a distinction.  You want to pick a good beer from a bad one, a stylish shirt from a unstylish one, a good haircut from a bad one, a good woman…go get the idea.  Discrimination is a talent, and in a poker game you want the ability to discriminate a good starting hand from a lousy one.

What you DON’T want to do is mass discrimination, which in reality isn’t very discriminate at all.  If you lump in all people of one type (gays, Latinos, women, Evangelicals, short guys with bad shirts and lousy haircuts), you aren’t discriminating – you’re classifying.  Piss-poorly, I might add.  You’re basing your “discrimination” on a bias that only differentiates the other class from you on one factor.   Color.  Nationality.  Heritage.  Sexual preference.  Etc.

So back to SB 1062 – to me, here’s the key portion of the bill (under Provisions):  This bill…

Stipulates that a person that asserts a violation of this Act must establish the following:

Ø The person’s action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief;
Ø The person’s religious belief is sincerely held; and
Ø The state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.  

Got that?  Action (or inaction) motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.   And this is where the bill fails for me. If a baker wants to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, because of a sincerely held religious belief (and here I am assuming we’re talking Christian, because the next few examples all come from the same “book” of ethics where the anti-gay thingy comes from), then he should also not bake a cake for:

• A couple where one (or both) have tattoos
• A couple wearing clothing from two different fabrics
• A couple who have committed adultery (good luck with that one)
• A couple who have pork or shellfish on the catering list
• And, of course, if the couple is clean and pure, he can’t bake the cake on Sunday.

Of course, most of this comes from Leviticus, but if I wasn’t so lazy I could find some other stuff in the New Testament (I remember Paul admonished long hair, so my wedding cake would’ve had to have been baked elsewhere, too).  Many Christians don’t MEAN to pick and choose their Biblical morality, but…they do.  We all do.

In the smorgasbord of life, there is much to enjoy and much to choose from.  When we discriminate unfairly, we ruin the meal for everyone.

Supremes say STOP, Everyone Else says GO

I was just going to write a quick post on the news that the Supreme Court declined to hear the DiCristina v. United States case, which many hoped would finally decide, perhaps once and for all, whether poker is a contest of skill or luck. I didn’t imagine they’d “step into the gambling/poker morass” - although I have to admit a 5-4 or 6-3 decision either way might have been appropriate. No matter - there are many more events in the news that tend to overshadow the Supremes decision, and my Monday pessimism departed in a hurry. In just twenty-four hours news that Full Tilt repayments are on the way and the announcement of the first interstate online poker partnership.(Nevada and Delaware) made my heart skip a beat, and I don’t even have money coming from FT. Add to this that both Illinois and California are expected to take a hard look at jumping into the online poker world, and…my nipples are hard.

I am a trained optimist, and it’s caused me more pain than I care to think about. Immediately after Black Friday I remained hopeful that the shutdown of PokerStars and Full Tilt were temporary, and that we’d regain our senses in DC and let play resume. Three years later and I can’t believe I was that stupid. I also believed in Joe Barton and his Internet Poker Freedom Act, and still murmur, “yeah, yeah”when he says that Federal legislation might be possible once more populous states launch their own markets. Joe says, “I can't say when…but I can say it will occur and that it won't be 20 years from now. It will be, if not next year, the year after or soon after that.”

 

Like so many things, the Feds dawdle, and the states take action.

There is a part of me that cannot believe we are even dicking with all of this. We have an energy crisis, an environmental crisis, lax rules for bankers and Wall Street and a huge divide between the 1% and everyone else, including the impoverished who keep voting for the assholes that do nothing to alleviate impoverishment. We want clean water, safe streets, a decent wage and a chance to enjoy life as best we can, and what is Congress doing today? Not much.

 

Do we really expect them to step into the gambling/poker morass? C’mon, get real. The states have led the way in all forms of gambling -lottery, casinos, card rooms, horse racing - you name it. With state budgets hurting, every dollar counts, and while still relatively tiny, online poker has the capacity to be huge - that’s why so many are fighting about it. Three states are already up and running, others have approved the idea, and now two more biggies are taking up the issue (and New York, Texas, and Iowa might not be that far behind).

 

The Supremes had a hit called “There's No Stopping Us Now.” They sang about love. We love poker. I can’t take any lyrics from that song and make a good closing, but it I take the lyrics from “You've Really Got A Hold On Me” (originally sung by Smokey Robinson and the Miracles) and just switch around two letters (e and m) I can do it just fine:

…and all I want to do...

Is just hold em, hold em, hold em, hold em….

The Main Stream Media Gets Sheldon

 

It's Sunday and I have taxes to do, so no "real" post from me, but...It's nice to see that most in the MSM are getting the point of Sheldon Adelson's Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling. 

There have been several articles and columns this past week taking a good, long, hard look at Sheldon's group, but certainly Howard Stutz at the LVRJ sees the forest from the trees.

Money quote (literally): "This is not a money issue with me,”Adelson told pundit Jon Ralston in an interview that appeared in Politico last week. “This is a moral issue. When I started to imagine what would happen with legalized Internet gaming, it scared the heck out of me … because of what’s it’s going to do to our society.”  (emphases mine).

Remember - online poker has been a "thing" for almost 15 years,  And he just now "started to imagine...?"  Or, maybe, there's another reason?  Like, maybe you're not getting the action?  And who elected Adelson (a multi-billionaire with profits from...uh...gambling) to be a morals leader?

But read the whole thing here.  And click here for the cartoon, too - it's also spot on.

Separated at Birth?

Both of them seem dangerous, and have been recently seen hanging around with a bunch of nuts, too. 

Actually, I like one of these guys. Just askin' is all.  

Using Fear is Morally Repulsive – and Effective

Much has been made of late regarding the latest salvo from Sheldon Adelson’s Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling.  After a couple of FAILS using what passes for “facts and logic” (Congressional hearings and newspaper Op-Ed), the group put together a n over-the-top video (to be used as an ad?) that Poker Players Alliance VP of Player Relations Rich Muny called “going full Reefer Madness.”

It’s one thing for us in the poker community to mock and roll our eyes at the Coalition’s scare tactics.  It’s another to forget how effective fear is when trying to motivate individuals.

Depending on your age, you can recall several scary political ads that were short on facts and long on terror - The Daisy ad (LBJ vs. Goldwater) and the Willie Horton ad (Bush Sr. vs. Dukakis) are two of the best known.  There are plenty of others.  In fact, it becomes the de facto way to go once the campaign runs dry of good news and facts.  Which is to say, pretty damn early in the campaign.

There is a lot of psychological evidence to show that fear is a potent motivator.  And while we’re talking about actual politicians here, not voters, it makes sense to me that the fear aspect might work even better here.

First, politicians have a lot on their plate, and internet gambling is not high on the list of “must do” items.  Second, the idea of prohibiting an activity is more the speed of the current government, and in line with traditional action on vice – rarely does the Fed step in to allow an activity, especially vices like gambling.  Third, because the two top memes of politicians nowadays (as it related to their overall agenda – being re-elected) is terrorism and jobs, the Coalition’s scare tactics dovetail nicely.  Unfortunately.

So how does one combat a fear campaign?  One does not fight it – one overcomes it – with knowledge.

For fear is usually being afraid of something we don’t know, or don’t understand.  Fear of the unknown is irrational since if we don’t know what can hurt us it makes little sense to invent or imagine something in order to scare us…but that’s exactly what we do.  And if there’s a friendly source fanning the flames of our imagination – presto – FEAR!

Take the current marriage situation.  Of course, it’s not like the state of marriage is anything anyone has tried to legislate (irk irk).  Times past were filled will fearful images of marriages that bent from “normal,” and politicians and others played on those fears.  Of course in our enlightened 21^st Century those laws are gone, and a couple can be of any…race.  And yeah, the atmosphere is changing for same-gender marriage, too.  Slowly, but surely.  Yet, there’s plenty of fear being spread here, too.

Education.  Exposure (since the push to ban online gambling comes from those who make their money in the gambling business).  And the constant communication to let those that might be swayed by the fearful drumbeat that there is nothing to fear.

Especially when there really is no bogey-man except the man telling you about the bogey-man.