crAAKKer

Gin Night at the Meadows

2012-01-23T21:20:00.000-06:00

Gin card: In poker, a card that gives two players strong but different hands. Usually, one player will make the strongest possible hand (often referred to as the "nuts"), while the other player will make a very strong but losing hand (e.g., a card gives one player a flush and another player a straight or smaller flush, or one player makes quads while another player makes a full house).* Alternatively, getting the specific card(s) one needs to make one's hand (e.g., hitting a set or an inside straight draw).

Last week, I made my Ali-like return to the Meadows ATM, where I hadn't played in several months. But, my buddy Santa Claus was in town for work, so we met up for Jethro's BBQ and some poker. After stuffing myself with smoked brisket, pulled pork, and andouille sausage, it was off to the Meadows poker room.

The crowd was typical for a Wednesday night, with eight or nine tables in action for the mid-week tournament. Santa and I had to wait only a few minutes before getting into a new $1/$2 NLHE cash game with several tournament bustouts. Seat selection is a key skill for poker success, so I made the important strategic decision to sit in the 3 seat. Santa, however, unwisely chose the 2 seat.

The game started rather tight, typical for a mid-week game. After a couple of orbits, I found As5s in the big blind. Shockingly, a bunch of us all limped. The flop was junky with a couple of hearts and one spade. A bad player two to my left bet $10, and I called along with the hijack, thinking my Ace might be live and figuring I could represent the flush if a heart hit. The turn was a big spade, giving me the backdoor flush draw. I checked, bad player bet $25, hijack called, and I called. River was a baby spade. Gin! I bet out $50, bad player called, and hijack folded. I rolled over the nuts and hilarity ensued. My opponent stared at the board and my hand, then commenced angry, non-stop muttering until he busted out a few hands later. As Dusty Schmidt says, "Just like in the porn industry, you need to backdoor it if you really want to get paid."

An orbit later, I was back in the blinds. A couple of aggressive guys who had busted out of the tournament had joined the game. Most of the table limped preflop, and I closed the action checking my option with JTo. The flop came down 9-8-3 rainbow. I checked, aggro guy in middle position bet $10, aggro in hijack called, and I called. Turn came a Queen. Gin! Believing in the theory that the best way to get money in the pot is to put money in the pot, I led out with a $25 bet. I was hoping to get one caller. Instead, first aggro guy raised to $50, then the next aggro guy pushed all-in for roughly $150. With the action back on me, I paused a moment, trying to figure out what was going on. The turn had put a backdoor flush draw on board, but I had one of that suit, so I couldn't be up against a freerolling straight with a flush redraw. I decided the worst case for me was to be dodging a flush draw and a set, and there's no way I could fold the current nuts even though those draws were live. The other guy had roughly $200 left behind, and I decided if he could call the current raise, he could call my push. So, I pushed, and he snap-called. I rolled my hand, and both opponents rolled over ... Q-9 for top two pair. Ruh roh Rooby! That's about as good as I could hope for. Variance was kind, and the river rolled off a blank. I scooped a nice pot, and a few hands later, racked up and cashed out with a tidy profit.

Santa, meanwhile, stuck to his silly Seat 2 strategy. I headed home to celebrate Gin Night:

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

* I've used the term "gin card" for years, as have several of my poker buddies. Interestingly, I was unable to find a definitive origin for the phrase, but did find several references going back to 2006 using the term, including United Poker Forum (May 2007), Full Contact Poker (August 2007), Two Plus Two (September 2009) (though the forum archives reference the term much earlier in strategy posts dating back at least to 2006), Poker News (November 2009), and the Durrrr Challenge website (December 2010).

The earliest reference I could find was in the Two Plus Two archives where there is discussion in 2005 about a blog post by Daniel Negreanu where he reports hitting his "gin card" and losing:

From his blog he says, "The flop came A-A-10 and I was pretty sure that my opponent had A-K, K-K, Q-Q, or maybe even AA or JJ. He checked and I checked. The turn was my gin card, an 8. Or not... the dude had four aces! Goodbye."

In any event, although the exact moment where "gin card" crossed over into the poker lexicon is probably lost to the mists of time, I think it's safe to say the phrase probably came into vogue sometime around the Moneymaker boom.

You Might Be the Sucker If ...

2012-01-17T16:27:00.001-06:00

"Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then you ARE the sucker."

~Mike McDermott (Matt Damon), in Rounders

I don't have an official trip report for my holiday hit and run in Vegas, but there were a few random amusing moments that are worth sharing. So, with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy ... no wait, he made millions with his redneck schtick, so screw him. Herewith is my first installment of what is likely to be a running theme:

You Might Be the Sucker If ...

The players send a car and driver to pick you up at the airport. We've all seen the hordes of limo drivers at the Vegas airport, many sent by the casinos to pick up their whales. But no casino is sending a car for a poker player, at least one who doesn't have a big craps or blackjack monkey on his back. I certainly will never be looking to gamble enough to get even the most desperate casino host to give me so much as cab fare.

So imagine my surprise when, after being stuck in airports for 16 hours due to storm delays, I landed in Vegas at midnight and discovered a chauffeur waiting for me with instructions from a group of poker players to take me directly to the Palms poker room for the Pokerati NLHE/PLO game. Though I would normally have drug my jet-lagged behind directly to bed ... Oh who am I kidding? I love me some Pot Limit Gambooool! So if a bunch of Vegas vultures need a chip-spewing lagtard, well I'm their huckleberry!

You think an overpair is a good PLO hand. The Pokerati game was in fine form, with a nearly full table when I arrived. Now, I'm not a PLO wunderkind by any means, but I've done some reading* and played fairly regularly on Vegas trips the past two years, so I can hold my own at the low-stakes tables. The Pokerati game had at least four players who made basic, newbie errors, most notably failing to adjust hand values to account for the differences between Omaha and Hold 'Em. Bread and butter Hold 'Em showdown hands—say, overpairs, two pair, trips—are rarely more than bluff catchers in Omaha. Yet time and time again several players got it all-in with those kinds of hands, often on the flop or turn, only to be mowed down by strong Omaha hands—wraps, wraps with redraws, sets with backdoor flush draws, etc.

So, I bided my time, playing tight in Hold 'Em, loosening up in Omaha, licking my chops. In three big hands, I got my money all-in with the nuts or a monster draw against weaker made hands or non-nut draws, each time raking in a healthy pot. My biggest hand of the night came when I played a run-down hand (Q-J-9-8 with one suit) on the button against an early position pot-raise and a late position re-pot raise. I figured I was up against A-A-x-x and another big pair (probably K-K-x-x), which made my hand easy to play postflop. The flop was perfect: J-T-8, though there were two of a suit other than mine (I did have a backdoor emergency flush draw). I had the nut straight, plus two pair (more useful for blocking full houses than making one), and my Jack made top set unlikely. Early position player bet, late position player raised, giving me some pause. Although I had the current nuts, my opponents could easily have draws to better straights or flushes. Still, they were prone to overplaying hands, and the pot was too large for me to fold at that point. So we got it all-in right there, and my hand held up. One player had A-A-rag-rag without any flush or straight draws, while the other player mucked without showing, letting me drag a $500+ pot. Thank you, come again!

You have to ask the rules to the game before you buy-in. While I was luckboxing a nice stack, a young guy walked into the room. By this point, it was nearly 3:00 a.m. and we were the only game running. My seat was within an arm's length of the counter, so I overheard the manager explain that we were playing a NLHE/PLOT mixed game. Then, I just about did a Snoopy Dance:

The young guy actually asked how to play Omaha! Then, he bought in for $300! Being the seasoned veteran I am, I simply wiped the drool from my chin and made sure the seat to my right was open. My dreams of stacking the newbie were dashed, however, as he won some pots at Hold 'Em, but then put his chips on virtual lockdown during the Omaha rounds. Disappointed and being overcome with travel fatigue, I decided to put my profits (just over $1,200) on lockdown as well, and went to cashout. Imagine my surprise when I turned around moments later and saw Poker Grump scooping all the kid's chips in a hand of Hold 'Em! Well, it was mighty sporting of the Grump to protect the kid from learning Omaha the hard way.

You don't know how blinds operate. On day two of my trip, I moved to the Caesars Palace poker room to rack up some Total Rewards tier points on my mission to hit Platinum status. I was seated at a new table, and immediately began making money off of several weak players. I was eventually joined by friends Grump and Carol (a/k/a "the Black Widow of Poker", or CKBWoP for short), who smelled blood in the water. Two young players were in the game at various points, neither of whom had the first clue how to play poker in a live setting. One sat on my immediate right, and constantly inquired whether it was his blinds, and if so, how much to post. Neither player could figure out elementary betting techniques such as how to raise. Not surprisingly, both players donated several buy-ins to the game. Honestly, I thought players like this were nearly extinct! I will definitely need to put Caesars back in my Vegas rotation.

You try to bluff a calling station. During my Caesars' session, there was one older gent with a vaguely European accent who invested several buy-ins before going on a heater and luckboxing his way to a big stack. During his entire time at the table, he was a textbook ET (an uber-calling station), calling down with any pair, any draw. So what brilliant strategy did I employ to get his chips? Yes, I raised with 98 sooooted on the button preflop, then fired three barrels at a scary board that did not improve my hand. Of course, ET called me all the way down with flopped second pair, because that's what he does. Huckleberry redux. Sigh.

Orel Hershiser buys you a martini—with your money. This hand actually occurred during my WPBT trip earlier in December, but it fits well with the theme of this post. I had busted out of the Aria tournament and joined Carol at the $1/$3 PLO table to kill some time before dinner at CarneVino. A couple of hours into my session, I was treading water when Orel Hershiser sat down on my right. For a guy who was an MLB Cy Young winner, League MVP, and World Series MVP during a pretty illustrious career, Hershiser was surprisingly friendly and down-to-earth. Hershiser is a solid amateur poker player as well, known for making the final eight in the NBC Heads Up Poker Championship in 2008, and rumored to be a regular at the mid-limit cash game tables. Our baby game was clearly just a recreational activity for Hershiser, who seemed to be using the game both to relax and to try out some PLO tactics.

Hershiser was playing fairly loose, but he clearly knew what he was doing and didn't put big money in the pot without a quality Omaha hand. Like any Omaha player, Hershiser stuck around with some marginal hands and won some nice pots when his more improbable draws hit, but he was certainly playing well. My stack was around $350 when I found K-K-Q-T single-suited on the button. I three-bet it and we both saw a flop of J-T-2 rainbow with one of my suit. Herhsiser checked, I bet, and Hershiser moved all-in. I thought a bit, then decided his aggressive style merited a call. Hershiser showed K-J-9-2, also with a backdoor flush draw. Not the greatest hand for me to see, but I was alive. Then the turn came another deuce, giving Hershiser the baby boat and leaving me on life support, drawing to the case King. The river was the case duck, naturally, just to twist the knife with dangler quads.

I stared at the board a few seconds, then declared I was done for the night. Hershiser was still raking in the pot. He saw me stand up, and immediately turned and handed me three red chips from the stacks that only seconds before had been in front of me. In a completely sincere manner, Hershiser said:

"Here, let me buy you a drink! Have a great night!"

Let me tell you, I savored that free $335 martini.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For those who want to improve their Pot Limit Gamboooool game, I highly recommend this set of four books by Jeff Hwang (available in paperback or Kindle editions):

Pot-Limit Omaha Poker (a great introductory strategy book)
Advanced Pot-Limit Omaha I: Small Ball and Short-Handed Play
Advanced Pot-Limit Omaha II: LAG Play
Advanced Pot-Limit Omaha III: The Short-Handed Workbook

Now maybe I should make time to read them again ....

A Bad Case of Earworms: The 25 Greatest TV Theme Songs

2012-01-03T22:00:00.000-06:00

Last night, I came down with a bad case of earworms. I blame Poker Grump.

It started innocently enough. I got into a semi-spirited Twitter debate with Poker Grump and a motley assortment of misfit toys regarding what TV theme song was the best ever. I advocated for “Hawaii Five-O”, but the Twitterverse spit out a ton of intriguing alternatives. I was inspired by the debate to challenge Poker Grump to post our Top 25 TV theme songs simultaneously for criticism and frivolity (Grump’s list is cross-posted here). There really is no underlying wager to settle or winner to be determined, although I assume I will emerge victorious in the court of public opinion ….

Since Poker Grump accepted the challenge, things have taken an ugly turn, with several dozen TV theme songs running through my head non-stop for the past 24 hours. I started by listing TV theme songs off the top of my head, then searched iTunes and online lists (see here and here) for ideas of songs I had overlooked. Then, I started plugging in the obvious top songs and knocking out the obvious misfits until I had my list. The process was harder than I had anticipated; there was a lot of handwringing over the final fifteen spots, and I found myself having to make some tough cuts of songs I had assumed were locks for the Top 25. Obviously there’s a large element of “eye of the beholder” in play when judging the “best” TV theme songs, but there are a few criteria I tried to use to sort out my list:

Did the theme song set the mood and/or provide background for the show?
Was the theme song an earworm? When the song comes on, do you find yourself humming, whistling, and/or singing along?
Was the theme song for a show I regularly watched, and/or which was widely popular?
Has the theme song crossed over into popular culture—e.g., is the song used in other TV shows or commercials, or otherwise parodied, sampled, quoted, and/or referenced in pop culture?

So, without further ado, here's the list (in traditional inverse order) (where I couldn't find a different, "official" title, I went with "Theme from ________" as a default song title):

25. L.A. Law / “Theme from L.A. Law (instrumental)” by Unknown: Ripped off by a dozen law dramas since.

24. Bones / “Theme from Bones (instrumental) by The Crystal Method: Suspenseful, yet strangely scientific. Perfect fit for the show.

23. Monk / “It’s a Jungle Out There” by Randy Newman: Neurotic and playful. You had to see the series to get the song.

22. The X-Files / “Theme from the X-Files (instrumental)” by Mark Snow: Eerie mood-setter for a paranormal conspiracy show.

21. Rawhide / “Rawhide” by Ned Washington & Dimitri: None of us remember watching this show, but thanks to the Blues Brothers, we can all sing it. Rollin’, rollin’, rollin’, keep them doggies rollin’ …

20. The Muppet Show / “Theme from the Muppet Show” by Jim Henson & Sam Pottle: Catchy tune, and they played weekly games with the opening credits years before The Simpsons.

19. The Addams Family / “The Addams Family Theme” by Vic Mizzy: Oh snap! Snap!

18. The Flintstones / "Theme from The Flintstones" by Hoyt Curtin: It's a good time, a yabba, dabba, doo time, it's a gay, old time!

17. Hill Street Blues / “Theme from Hill Street Blues” (instrumental)” by Mike Post: Soft piano, soaring strings, good for a hankie before the first commercial.

16. Batman / “Batman Theme” by Neal Hefti: Perfect superhero theme. Great hook, greatly sampled and parodied.

15. Star Trek: The Next Generation / “Theme from Star Trek: The Next Generation (instrumental)”: The essence of pure space adventure.

14. The A-Team / “Theme from the A-Team (instrumental)” by Mike Post: Just a kick-azz theme song for a bunch of guys who kicked azz every week.

13. Family Feud / "Family Feud Theme Song (instrumental)" by Unknown: Easily the most recognizable game show theme of my lifetime.

12. Happy Days / “Happy Days” by Pratt & McClain: How better to make the mid-70s to early 80s feel like the late 50s?

11. The Brady Bunch / “Theme from The Brady Bunch” by Sherwood Schwartz: What color hair did the girls have? Now try to stop singing. ‘Nuff said.

10. Gilligan's Island / “The Ballad of Gilligan’s Island” by Sherwood Schwartz & George Wyle: What was the name of the ship? How many hours was the cruise? Now try to stop singing. ‘Nuff said.

9. The Beverly Hillbillies / “The Ballad of Jed Clampett” by Paul Henning: Someone says, “Bubblin’ crude.” You say, “Oil that is. Black gold. Texas tea.” Now try to stop singing. ‘Nuff said. Plus, there’s the Neal McCoy homage, “Hillbilly Rap”, where he takes “bubblin’” to new heights.

8. Dallas / “Theme from Dallas (instrumental)” by Jerrold Immel: Big musical theme to introduce big hats, big hair, and big stars.

7. Mission: Impossible / “Theme from Mission: Impossible (instrumental)” by Lalo Schifrin: Possibly the most ripped off TV theme song riff. That's a huge compliment.

6. M.A.S.H. / “Suicide Is Painless (instrumental)” by Johnny Mandel: A moody intro for a black comedy about war. Couldn’t argue if someone wanted to move this up a few spots.

5. Miami Vice / “Theme from Miami Vice (instrumental)” by Jan Hammer: This was a groundbreaking show for kids my age, and really ushered in a new style of TV show, with pop music soundtracks, fast paced / jump cut editing, and an emphasis on style over exposition. The song perfectly conveys the energy and excitement of both Miami and a cop show.

4. The Dukes of Hazzard / “The Dukes of Hazzard” by Waylon Jennings: One of my favorite childhood shows, and the catchy song perfectly encapsulates the essence of a couple of Southern good ‘ol boys fighting against the man and having a good ‘ol time.

3. The Jeffersons / “Movin’ On Up” by Ja’net Du Boise & Jeff Barry: Catchy gospel-inspired tune with some important cooking advice—“Fish don’t fry in the kitchen, beans don’t burn on the grill.” I dare you to find a person who doesn’t tap their feet and sing along to this one!

1. / 2. Cheers / “Where Everybody Knows Your Name” by Gary Portnoy: Look, it’s a song about drinking with friends at a bar, it’s a song you can sing with your friends at a bar, and the show is about a bunch of friends who hang out at a bar. Oh, and it’s impossible to get out of your head. Hard to top.

2. / 1. Hawaii Five-O / “Theme from Hawaii Five-O (instrumental)” by Morton Stevens: The opening drums leading into the horn power riff, juxtaposed over images of huge surf waves. Perfection!

ADDENDUM (4 January 2012): Mea culpa. I should have kept the courage of my convictions. Hawaii Five-O is perfection, and must be placed in its rightful Numero Uno position. Just take a look at this Brian Setzer Orchestra live performance posted by Lucki Duck over on his blog, Small Potatoes Poker & Sports Betting:

Honorable Mentions (a/k/a TV theme songs that made my initial list but didn’t make the cut):

All In the Family: Iconic, but honestly, the show is no longer a cultural touchstone the way Cheers or the other shows are, particularly to people under 50. It’s the War & Peace of TV theme songs; everyone is supposed to remember it and revere it, but most people couldn’t sing a line from the song or relate a classic scene from the show.

Cool theme songs, but the shows are largely forgotten (you might know a scene or two, but characters? Episodes? Memorable quotes? Come on, now!): SWAT, Barney Miller, Bonanza, Laverne & Shirley, Taxi.

Good theme songs, but just not as good as others in their genre: WKRP in Cincinnati, Night Court, Charlie's Angels, Law & Order, Seinfeld, Psych, South Park, Entourage, The Simpsons, Magnum P.I.

Overly sappy / cringe-inducing theme songs (memorable doesn’t mean good): Sesame Street, The Greatest American Hero, The Golden Girls, Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.

Radio hits masquerading as TV theme songs: Dawson’s Creek, Friends, Party of Five.

So, which songs did I get right? Where did I botch it horribly? What is your top five? What TV theme song did I utterly overlook? Comments are open!!

Corn earworms (image source).

The Feeling of Silence

2011-12-29T22:27:00.000-06:00

“Silence is a source of great strength.”

~Lao Tzu

The fear started in July. I was back home in rural Nebraska to watch my parents serve as grand marshals of our hometown parade. My younger brother Kurt was home as well, with his wife Nicole and their two young daughters, Lily and Violet.* Kurt and I drove our parents down Main Street—all three blocks of it—while my sig other Chad helped Nicole watch my nieces wave at Grandpa and Grandma before gathering up candy thrown from the floats. Then we retreated from the sweltering 110 degree heat to enjoy a few beers in the air-conditioned comfort of our childhood home.

We talked for hours, catching up on local news, hearing plans for the farm, and reliving old family memories, while Lily and Violet played with the cornucopia of toys Grandpa and Grandma had purchased just for their visit. My nieces and parents all eventually made their way to bed, while the rest of us stayed up to talk. It was then, nearing midnight, that Kurt and Nicole shared with us their concerns about Violet. She was nearing 16 months old, but was small for her age and having trouble walking. A physical therapist was making twice weekly visits to work on Violet's balance and strength, but her lack of progress was worrisome. Yet, Violet otherwise seemed to be a healthy and happy young girl. It was probably nothing to worry about. Still, I worried, and I'm sure Kurt and Nicole worried even more.

The phone call came in November. But it was the voicemails that caused me concern. Kurt and I often go a few weeks without talking, then catch up with a lengthy call some evening or weekend. But the first week of November was different. Kurt and I exchanged messages as usual, but he called me mid-day to give me specific times to call him back. There was definitely something on his mind. So, I made the call that evening.

Part of the news was good. Kurt, Nicole, and my nieces were all doing fine. In fact, Violet had even been walking unassisted for a few weeks. Just that night she had made it all the way down the hall from the dining room to the living room on her own, under the watchful eyes of Buffy and Porter, the family dogs.

Unfortunately, most of the news was bad. Kurt and Nicole had for some time harbored concerns about Violet's slow development. Their fears dated back to Nicole's pregnancy, when Kurt had come down with a serious cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. In most adults, CMV infection has few or no symptoms, while for a few people (like my brother) the virus causes symptoms similar to mononucelosis, causing fatigue for a period of several days to a few weeks. In pregnant women, however, CMV is the "C" in TORCH—the set of infectious diseases responsible for many birth defects. CMV is a particularly nasty virus for infants, leading in many cases to physical and mental developmental deficits, while also causing blindness or deafness in some victims. Still, in utero CMV infection does not always lead to problems for the child, and in a decent percentage of cases, the child goes through life with few or no problems related to the infection.

Violet was not among those fortunate enough to roll the dice and beat CMV. Although Violet had passed her hearing and vision tests at birth and had begun walking, she had yet to start talking or even babbling. Violet went in for a battery of diagnostic tests. Hearing tests raised concerns about compromised hearing. Sleep studies indicated either seizures (a common CMV complication) or a constricted throat (due to Violet's small size) were affecting her ability to sleep. An MRI of the brain revealed calcified lesions consistent with an in utero CMV infection. Still, nothing could be known definitively.

Surgery was scheduled for a few days after Christmas. The main purpose of the surgery was to remove the adenoids that were constricting Violet's throat, to help her breathe better during sleep. However, the surgery was also an opportunity to conduct a more sophisticated hearing test that required an infant to be partially sedated. The surgery was successful, and Violet was taken to recovery to awaken and be taken home that afternoon.

The otolaryngologist (ENT specialist) approached Kurt and Nicole. "Let's go into the conference room and talk," he said.

Nothing good ever follows that invitation.

The doctor was kind, but didn't sugarcoat the news. Violet is completely deaf. Her cochlea are non-functional. Deafness is an unfortunately all too common effect of CMV infection, sometimes apparent at birth, often developing before age 5, occasionally waiting to strike even into the teenage years. Violet is yet another CMV victim.

Medically, options are limited. Insurance requires that hearing aids be tried, even when doctors know they are useless. Cochlear implants are an option, but they tend to work better for people who have had hearing for a number of years and then lost it, while having poorer results for people like Violet who develop deafness early in life. Violet has been learning sign language for a few months, but my brother and sister-in-law face a difficult decision whether to pursue her education in a deaf or a mainstream, auditory environment.

Upon hearing the news, my initial feeling was sadness. Sad that Violet will never hear birds chirping on a hike with her family. Sad that Violet will never hear Buffy and Porter bark when she comes home from school. Sad that Violet will never hear the roar of a crowd, or the whispered sweet nothings of a boyfriend. Sad that Violet will travel alone in an auditory world.

I'm also afraid. Afraid Violet won't hear a smoke alarm or a car horn. Afraid Violet's education will be stunted by the communication barrier. Afraid Violet will face social isolation.

But, after further reflection, I'm also thankful. Thankful my brother is able to support his family and allow Nicole to leave her job to be at home with Violet. Thankful government programs exist to provide physical and cognitive therapy, and eventually educational opportunities. Thankful Violet has an extended family—two sets of grandparents; an aunt, uncle, and cousins in town; and even this more distant uncle—to provide love and support.

Mostly, though, I'm hopeful. Hopeful that medical science will provide Violet with some degree of hearing, whether now or a decade from now. Hopeful that Violet has escaped other physical or mental impairments that so often afflict infants with CMV. During my Christmas visit, I saw a girl who was climbing on chairs, playing with toys, serving fake coffee to her Grandpa and Grandma, and imitating her big sister, just like any other girl her age. Violet's deafness is something no parent would want for their child, yet, in the grand scheme of things, deafness is a disability that can be dealt with. There are plenty of parents who would gladly accept deafness for their child if doing so would cure their child of more serious physical or cognitive conditions. Most of all, I'm hopeful that Violet will grow up to be as happy as she is today.

My brother and sister-in-law are both civil engineers, and have already moved on to viewing Violet's situation as a problem to manage. I think their approach is absolutely correct. Violet's deafness is a challenge, not a tragedy. Violet is a happy, outgoing girl who is doing quite well despite her lack of hearing. Certainly Violet is going to face a lot of obstacles, as will her parents and sister. I have every confidence all of them will not only overcome these obstacles, but thrive in spite of them.

Violet loves her Christmas toys, but loves her

gift box even more.

Violet takes a moment away from cooking lunch for

Grandpa and Grandma to flirt with the camera.

AFTERWORD: There are many worthy charities out there. But, if you want to donate to charities devoted to research about and support for victims of birth defects, please consider making a donation to one of these organizations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Names of my family members have all been changed to protect their privacy.

Online Poker Legalization Will Ultimately Be a State by State Fight

2011-12-24T15:29:00.001-06:00

"All politics is local."

~Former House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill

Earlier today I discussed the reasons why online poker isn't legal despite the DOJ's recent formal opinion stating that the Wire Act applies only to sports-related gambling. Essentially, because poker, like all gambling, is regulated at the state level, the DOJ's position regarding the Wire Act ultimately has little direct effect on the legality of online poker. An important corollary to this point is that the online poker legalization battle will have to be fought and won in each individual state.

I know poker players and the PPA are focused (correctly) on federal legislation to legalize online poker. Technically, Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to preempt state gambling laws and impose a national online poker system. Given that gambling issues are traditionally the province of the individual states, and given the lack of national consensus as to legalization of online gambling, a sweeping federal plan is a complete non-starter.

The best result poker players can hope for on a federal level is legislation permitting online poker on a national basis, while allowing individual states to choose whether to participate in the system. An "opt-out" system (where states are included in the system unless they specifically choose not to participate) is superior to a federal "opt-in" system (where states must affirmatively choose to join the system). For any controversial issue, it is politically easiest to maintain the status quo, as political change requires affirmative use of political muscle. So, an opt-out system is almost certain to bring many states into a federal system which otherwise would lack the political will to affirmatively join under an opt-in system (as of now, Nevada, California, New Jersey, Florida*, and Iowa are the only states which have actively explored legalizing online poker).

If federal legislation fails, then individual states will likely begin to legalize online poker on an intra-state basis. As I have discussed previously, it is likely states will adopt some type of reciprocity system to permit players from states where online poker is legal to play against players from other states with similar online poker regulations. Consortiums like this would improve liquidity and create synergy for all participating states, leading to increased numbers of players (and greater rake and tax receipts). It's also possible, even probable, that as states become comfortable with security issues, foreign players from countries where online poker is legal would be permitted to play as well (though there likely would be some tax and money transfer issues to work out on a federal level first).

The most important point to remember, however, is that whether online poker legalization occurs at the federal or state level, the online poker legalization process is controlled by each of the 50 state legislatures. The legalization process will be easy in some states. But in many states, online poker advocates will have to engage in a political battle against a variety of opponents. Obviously, the usual groups opposed to gambling on moral and social grounds will be vocal. In some states, local or tribal casino interests fearing loss of revenues may oppose online poker, and may have the money and political clout to prevent legalization. There will certainly be a few states where opportunistic politicians will shanghai the online poker issue to strong-arm political concessions for completely unrelated issues.

Make no mistake about it, the online poker legalization fight will be a long and messy process. Regardless of whether a federal or state level system develops, it's entirely possible that online poker may not be uniformly available in all of the states for several years, possibly even a decade. Professional players willing to relocate will likely be able to find a state where they can play legally within a year or so. Unfortunately, many recreational players will not have that option, and will be left to the whims of their state political process.

It's time for poker players to get to know their state legislators.

----------------------------------------------------------------
* ADDENDUM (26 December 2011): Edited to add Florida to the list of states which have actively explored legalizing online poker. I was inspired to go back over my post by a thoughtful discussion of the DOJ opinion posted today by Shamus at Hard-Boiled Poker. Just more evidence my memory isn't what it used to be!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Why the DOJ's Wire Act Opinion Is No Big Deal for Online Poker

2011-12-24T04:12:00.001-06:00

"I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. ... I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."

~Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

The DOJ today gave the poker world a nice Festivus gift, issuing an opinion letter stating the DOJ believes the Wire Act is applicable only to sports-related gambling. Consequently, by implication it is the DOJ's position that the Wire Act does not apply to bar online poker. Predictably, the poker world overreacted, misconstruing the DOJ opinion as either conceding that Black Friday was invalid, and/or that online poker is now legal.

I'm currently on vacation for a couple of days of poker in Vegas before moving on to celebrate Christmas with my brother and his family, so I have neither the time nor the computer access to write a lengthy post. However, I'm pecking a post out on my iPhone because I wanted to provide a skeleton argument to explain the interplay of federal and state gaming laws in an attempt to help combat some of the widely held misconceptions being bandied about by many poker players on Twitter and by some in the poker media. This post is just an outline of several lengthier posts I started some time ago in my poker and the law series, but shelved when Black Friday made them somewhat superfluous. I will probably resurrect a few of them to provide a fuller treatment of the topic in the near future.

First, the good news. The title of this post is hyperbolic; the change in the DOJ opinion on the Wire Act is a big deal in two respects. First, it removes one federal criminal statute from the weapons prosecutors can wield over online poker companies. Second, and to my mind more important, it removes a potential legal barrier that would otherwise prevent states which legalize intrastate online poker from forming multi-state online poker consortiums to permit residents of states with reciprocal regulations to play against each other (akin to multi-state lotteries) in the event poker legalization occurs at the state level rather than the federal level (as increasingly seems the most likely path forward). The Wire Act does contain an exemption for transmitting wagering information from a state or country where it's legal to another such state or country, but when it comes to federal criminal law, it's better to know you aren't covered by the law in the DOJ's eyes than to have to worry about how a prosecutor or judge will interpret the law.

Now the bad news. First, the DOJ opinion will have no effect at all on the Black Friday criminal or civil cases. Those cases are based on federal statutes other than the Wire Act. Frankly, I think the DOJ knew applying the Wire Act in the Black Friday prosecution would add a problematic legal issue, so they chose to rely on other criminal statutes. Going forward, if the DOJ should choose to pursue cases against other online poker sites, the DOJ has plenty of other statutory arrows left in its quiver—the UIGEA, the Travel Act, and Illegal Gambling Business Act spring to mind.

Second, and more significantly, the DOJ opinion does not change the current legal status of online poker. Online poker has been illegal since its inception and remains illegal today.

The first step in analyzing the legality of online poker is to recognize that gambling has historically been regulated at the state level, as a function of a state's police powers. Most states banned all gambling until recently, while a few (notably Nevada and New Jersey) were far ahead of the curve in permitting some forms of regulated, legal gambling.

There are a number of federal laws that criminalize gambling related activities; e.g., the Wire Act, the UIGEA, the Travel Act, and the Illegal Gambling Business Act to name a few of the more prominent. These laws, however, are generally dependent on violations of state gambling laws as a predicate act triggering federal criminal liability. Congress could, if it wished, use its Commerce Clause power to preempt the field of gambling law (or just online gambling law—which it might do if online gambling seems inevitable at the state level). But instead, Congress essentially lets each state determine the level of legalized gambling it wants available to its residents. Federal law then provides the legal tools needed to apprehend criminals who try to evade state gaming laws by crossing state lines in some aspect of operating an illegal gambling business.

The next analytical step is the key to understanding online gambling regulation. Currently, every state either bans poker or regulates poker as a form of gambling. To be a bit more precise, every state either bans operating a poker game for profit or only permits such for-profit poker business subject to strict state regulations; even though the playing of poker may not be illegal in many states, the offering of poker as a business (e.g., as a casino, card room, or online poker site) is the key operative activity subject to state regulation.* Note that I said "poker" and did not distinguish between live and online poker, because most states do not make that distinction.

Now many poker players assert that online poker is not illegal under state law unless the state law specifically bans online gambling. I'm not certain where this argument comes from, but it's pretty sketchy legal reasoning. If it's illegal under state law to run a for-profit poker room in your basement, simply setting up a computer server across state lines to run your poker game online doesn't magically make your poker business legal (or beyond the law). As I have discussed in prior posts on jurisdictional issues, states have routinely exercised criminal jurisdiction over people outside the state's borders who engage in illegal conduct that affects people within the state's borders (a prime example is child pornography or solicitation). If a company uses the Internet to offer gambling within a state where that form of gambling is illegal outright or only legal subject to state regulations, then that company is breaking state gambling laws. Break the state gambling laws, and the federal gambling statutes kick in. Presto! We have Black Friday.

As of right now, it's safe to say that poker is either illegal altogether or regulated as gambling in every state. As of right now, no gaming company has ever been licensed by any state gaming commission to offer online poker (or online gambling of any kind). Therefore, online poker is, and always has been, illegal under existing state gambling laws. States that added a specific statutory or regulatory prohibition against online gambling did so to make the law crystal clear or to strengthen penalties, not because there was some online gambling loophole that made online poker legal.

In sum, the new DOJ Wire Act opinion has no immediate effect on online poker. Online poker remains illegal under state law as it exists today. However, Nevada and other states may soon begin issuing licenses permitting gaming companies to offer intrastate online poker. If and when multiple states permit online poker, then one should expect multi-state consortiums to develop to permit online poker play between residents of states with similar online poker regulations. Nonetheless, the days of unlicensed foreign companies like PokerStars or Full Tilt offering online poker are at an end. All hail the new, licensed, regulated, domestic online poker sites!

------------------------------------------------------------
* ADDENDUM (26 December 2011): Edited to add the second half of the sentence to clarify the distinction between laws covering playing poker and those addressing those who offer poker as a for-profit business (e.g., casino, card room, online poker site).

Also added a link in the final paragraph to a post by Shamus at Hard-Boiled Poker which has some excellent discussion linking the DOJ opinion letter to the recent Nevada state legislation setting up the regulatory framework for intrastate online poker.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

The Poker Gods Send Omens

2011-12-14T01:00:00.001-06:00

So, as of a week ago, my Christmas plans involved port, gourmet salamis and cheeses, bad movies, and a sleepy boxer in my lap at home. My parents were headed from western Nebraska to Salt Lake City to see my brother and his family (including my two adorable nieces, ages 5 and 2). My sig other was headed to eastern Iowa to his family and their personal "don't ask, don't tell" detente where I am just the landlord for the house where my sig other lives.

Then, a cosmic convergence of omens occurred. I found out I was one round trip from making Elite status on United. I am a mere 220 points from making Platinum on Caesars' Total Rewards for the first time (screw you folks who can play in a Caesars property year round and get to cut lines with your freakin' Diamond cards). I have a handful of "use it or lose it" vacation days at work. My sig other's youngest niece demanded that he bring her "best friend" Berkeley home to play at Christmas. What were the poker gods trying to tell me?

Not fully believing the portents, I checked out Orbitz, United.com, and Total Rewards. What to my wondering eyes appeared but an opportunity for an awesome holiday excursion. A round-trip flight from Des Moines to Salt Lake was within $30 of the cost of a multi-way trip from Des Moines to Vegas to Salt Lake. I had two free nights at Planet Hollywood or Paris to use. Could the signs be any clearer?!?

Suddenly, my sedate holiday at home has transformed into a whirlwind itinerary of two days in Vegas, followed by two days in Salt Lake with my parents, my brother and sister-in-law, and my nieces. Not quite "home for the holidays", but still a perfect Christmas nonetheless.

Happy Holidays to all my followers, from me and Berkeley!

Berkeley bored by another Packers win.

The Packers are up three TDs. Can we play now?

How about a run? Frisbee? Heads up Badugi for rollz?

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum! What?

Santa better bring me a goose and a bag of duck treats.

The WPBT Presents Food Porn

2011-12-11T15:35:00.001-06:00

"We should look for someone to eat and drink with before looking for something to eat and drink."

~ Epicurus

One of the great things about Vegas is that there are dozens of great places to eat crammed in a small area. On the Strip alone one can find excellent dining experiences at every price point and in every style of cuisine. Every trip I take to Vegas, I make it a point to treat myself to at least one meal each day that I can't experience in Des Moines. Sometimes it's as simple as a gourmet burger or top notch Mexican or Asian cuisine with a fun vibe, while at least once each trip I venture into a higher end steakhouse or TV chef food joint. There's no shame in having a cheap sandwich or chowing down at a mediocre buffet to accommodate time and travel budgets. But it's a damn shame to spend more than a day within an easy walk of so many interesting dining experiences and never veer off the fast food and buffet path.

During the recent WPBT, I got to enjoy several excellent meals. The culinary trip got off to a fast start Thursday night as I went straight from the airport to dinner at Jaleo in the Cosmopolitan. I met up with a hilarious group including Astin, April, Heather, Ryan, Dan, and Stephane, with an after dinner appearance by the lovely Miss Chako. Jaleo is a Spanish tapas restaurant with some intriguing options. We took turns ordering dishes to share with the table, and I can't think of a single dud. Some of my favorites were the lobster paella, the asparagus, the grilled mushrooms, and the Iberico ham fritters. My favorite dishes, however, were the salad of grilled Brussels sprouts and Serrano ham, the endive with goat cheese, and the veal cheeks. Even with wine and cocktails thrown in, the total bill still came in well under $100 per head. Not too shabby a start to the weekend's festivities!

Stephane, Miss Chako, & April at Jaleo.

Astin tries Jaleo's amazing gin & tonic.

A close up of the world's greatest gin & tonic.

Friday was my birthday, but because I stayed up until 9:00 a.m. playing poker, I slept in until mid-afternoon. Since I was staying at Paris and had a Total Rewards coupon for a free burger, I treated myself to a burger at Le Burger Brasserie, one of my favorite solo Vegas dining locations. I went with my standard—the Saveur, a lamb burger on a wheat bun with mushrooms, mozzarella, and herbs. Tasty! For some reason, I forgot to use my coupon, so my last meal of the trip—lunch on Monday—was a repeat trip for another lamb burger, this time built from scratch with pancetta, chevre, and roasted red peppers, with a side of sweet potato fries. A perfect end to a great culinary weekend!

My personalized lamb burger at Le Burger Brasserie.

Even though I was stuffed from my birthday burger, a small part of my stomach was jealous of the Friday night dinner antics of a group that included FTrain, MrChako, and culinary genius Astin. I know those three were enjoying a great meal at Raku because they tweeted a course by course rundown of the delectable dishes they were served, often with pictures. Just check out Astin's photos of the meal (here, here, here, and here) and tell me you aren't drooling just a little.

Saturday saw me waking up bright and early by 9:30 a.m., anticipating the noon WPBT tourney at Aria. My worries about pre-tourney sustenance were assuaged by a Twitter invite from Heather to join a motley crew for the brunch buffet at Wicked Spoon in the Cosmopolitan. I think it was most of the Jaleo crew, plus Chilly, Gus, Marty, and OhCaptain. This was easily the best buffet I have ever sampled (though in the interest of full disclosure, I have never tried the buffets at Wynn, Bellagio, or Aria). There was a great spread of food, including a salad bar I breezed past on the way to a meat carving station loaded with ham, linguica sausage, leg of lamb, turkey, slab bacon, and prime rib. I also grabbed single serve pots of short rib eggs Benedict, asiago gnocchi, and bacon mac 'n cheese, along with some awesome mushroom polenta and a variety of desserts. As is the case with most buffets, there were some hits and some misses, but overall the buffet offered great variety and good value for the money (~$30, $39 with the all you can drink mimosas and bloody marys). My personal favorites were the short rib eggs Benedict, leg of lamb, and bacon mac 'n cheese. Definitely worth another visit for dinner, where rumor has it there is a made to order mac 'n cheese station.

Plate 1: From bottom right, leg of lamb with chimichurri

sauce, egg scramble, bacon mac 'n cheese, short rib

eggs Benedict, bacon, apple turkey sausage, mushroom

polenta, linguica sausage, and carved slab bacon.

Plate 2: From bottom left, mini pecan pie,

chocolate dessert cup, asiago gnocchi, prime rib,

and mixed berry shot glass dessert.

Plate 3: From bottom center, passion fruit fudge,

chocolate passion fruit dessert shot, raspberry chocolate

dessert shot with gold flake, and molten chocolate

brownie in caramel sauce.

Pastry and dessert case.

Gelato bar.

Gay man's heaven—the hot meat station.

Saturday night rolled around, and I found myself headed to CarneVino, super chef Mario Batali's restaurant at Palazzo, with friends Caity, Carol (a/k/a the Black Widow of Poker), and Astin (living up to his reputation as a culinary slut). CarneVino is one of my favorite Vegas restaurants (as an aside, if you're in Vegas solo, eating at the bar in a fancy restaurant is a great dining option; no need to feel bashful!). Carol happens to be connected to the manager, so we were given a little hook-up for our meal. We began with pastrami with duck egg, another appetizer I've forgotten, and a tuna tartare compliments of the chef (thank you Carol!). The tartare was amazing! For the pasta course, we sampled the duck cannelloni, the duck liver and pork ravioli, and the gnocchi bolognese (again, compliments of the chef). For this course, the ravioli stole the show. For the entree course, Astin picked a solid barolo that paired well with our grilled veal sweetbreads, grilled venison with huckleberry demiglace, grilled lamb chops, and grilled bison. Despite my solid credentials as a former farm kid who showed livestock and judged meat, I was a sweetbreads virgin, and the ones here were underwhelming—not bad, just not as amazing as the red meat dishes. My personal favorite had to be the venison—just a bit gamey like a good lamb dish, but melt in your mouth tender and exploding with flavor. However, what truly made the dinner a major highlight of my trip was getting to know my companions better, where they came from, how they tick, some of their quirks, and what makes them laugh. Dinner took almost three hours, but seemed to fly by in a wink. Truly a wonderful experience that made the whole WPBT trip worthwhile.

Caity, Carol, & Astin at CarneVino.

Sunday marked the winding down of the WPBT festivities, but my culinary adventures were not quite concluded. After cheering on some of our WPBT compatriots in the Rock 'N Roll Marathon, I found myself starving and headed to Lemongrass at Aria for a late dinner with Allen, Steve, and Dave. This dinner was a real treat, as I had really not had much interaction with these three gents beyond a cursory howdy and an hour or two at the poker tables. Despite reading their blogs and following them on Twitter, this dinner was the first chance I had to get to know them a little bit as regular folks. Well, perhaps irregular folks. In any event, dinner was an hour or two of laughs, and a truly memorable evening. One of the highlights was when Steve articulated my motto for fine dining and fine living—when you get the chance, you might as well try something new. For Steve and me, that meant diving into an appetizer of—cold jellyfish. The dish was actually quite tasty, with a surprisingly firm crunchy-chewy texture, seasoned with a little vinegar, sesame oil, and chili flake. Certainly not anything like what I expected, but something I would gladly order again. For my entree, I went with my standard Drunken Noodle, but this time, a "6" on the heat scale went to an unexpected inferno level, causing me to break out in a sweat quite noticeable on my fuzzy bald head. And yes, my companions might have noticed. But a little ribbing fit right into the light-hearted banter that made dinner a fun way to wrap up the WPBT weekend.

Jellyfish appetizer at Lemongrass.

As much as I love poker and degenerate gambling, what makes WPBT special is the people. And this trip, food gave me the opportunity to truly enjoy those people as people, not as poker players. Poker might bring us together, but all of us are much more than poker players. I'm grateful something as basic as food gave me the opportunity to glimpse the human sides of so many WPBT folks.

“If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.”

~ Thorin Oakenshield in The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien

Harry Poker & The Magical Muck

2011-11-26T10:41:00.001-06:00

Harry: I swear I don't know. One minute the glass was there and then it was gone. It was like magic.

Uncle Vernon: There's no such thing as magic!

—Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Poker player and blogger Robert Taylor posted today about a controversial ruling that arose during a low-stakes NLHE cash game at the Rivers Casino poker room in Pittsburgh. I started to write a comment, then decided the "magical muck" issue—the idea that a hand becomes automatically and irretrievably dead merely because one or both cards have touched any part of the muck—is a common misconception among poker players that deserves a lengthier discussion.

The scene as set by Robert is a pretty typical backdrop for "magical muck" situations. To sum up, an aggressive young player ("Moneybags") bet on the river. An opponent verbally declared himself all-in, and another player in the hand folded. With action back on him, Moneybags threw his cards forward. It is unclear whether the cards touched the muck. When the dealer began to push the pot to his opponent, Moneybags objected that he hadn't been aware there was another live hand, and declared he would call the all-in. The floor and later a manager were called, and based upon the dealer's representation that Moneybags' hand had not touched the muck, declared the hand live. Moneybags had a full house which beat his opponent's straight. Moneybags was awarded the pot, his opponent stormed out of the room, and controversy ensued.

Robert's discussion of the situation tracked with the obsession by the floor and manager with the question of whether the player’s cards hit the muck. Setting aside any idiosyncratic house rules for the poker room, all of the focus on the muck is misplaced under the general rules of poker. Despite widespread player assumptions to the contrary, the muck is actually not magical; nothing special occurs to a hand once it hits the muck. Let’s look at Robert’s Rules of Poker, beginning in Chapter 3, "GENERAL RULES OF POKER", where we learn:

DEAD HANDS
1. Your hand is declared dead if:
(a) You fold or announce that you are folding when facing a bet or a raise.
(b) You throw your hand away in a forward motion causing another player to act behind you (even if not facing a bet).

In this case, Moneybags did not announce a fold. Moneybags did not cause another player to act behind. Based on the subsequent action, it is arguable whether he folded or was merely surrendering his hand in the (mistaken) belief he held the only live hand and had won the pot. Let’s look at another rule under “DEAD HANDS”:

2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

Here’s where we find the source of the routinely misunderstood “magical muck” rule. Note that whether the cards touch the muck is not the determining factor in whether a hand is dead; the hand merely may be ruled dead. The muck is not magical; it's touch does not turn a hand to stone, transform it into a rabbit, or even kill it. In this case, there is no question that the hand was “clearly identifiable”, so the real issue to debate is not whether the cards hit the muck, but whether the player intended to fold, folded in error, or had not actually folded at all but was merely surrendering what he thought was the uncontested winning hand.

We do, however, need some way to help us resolve the ambiguity of the situation. This brings us to another couple of rules from Chapter 2, "HOUSE POLICIES":

DECISION-MAKING
1. Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.
….
8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

Here, Moneybags clearly did not realize he was the last person standing, so his throwing his cards forward is not a clear “fold” as it is also consistent with surrendering cards as the winner of the hand. Thus, the player's action was ambiguous, and not a definitive fold.

Now some players may argue that Moneybags had a duty to protect his own hand by not surrendering it before the dealer awarded the pot to him. This is unquestionably true, but it is not decisive in this type of situation. Of course, Moneybags should have known the other player had a live hand, and should have protected his hand until the pot was pushed to him. But players do in fact make mistakes, and the rules do permit some of those mistakes to be corrected under some circumstances. Let's look at the relevant rule, again in Chapter 3, "GENERAL RULES OF POKER":

IRREGULARITIES2. You must protect your own hand at all times. Your cards may be protected with your hands, a chip, or other object placed on top of them. If you fail to protect your hand, you will have no redress if it becomes fouled or the dealer accidentally kills it.

Notice that the rule states that a player has no redress (i.e., makes a mistake for which there is no remedy) for an unprotected hand only if the hand "becomes fouled or the dealer accidentally kills it". In this situation, the hand was not fouled because it remained identifiable; there was no need to dig through the muck to retrieve the hand. Neither had the dealer killed the hand, because as we have already discussed above, the muck rule merely provides that the hand may be ruled dead, but may be retrieved as a live hand depending on the circumstances (keep in mind that other rules or actions may irretrievably kill a hand which might affect the operation of this rule under circumstances not present in the scenario under discusssion).

So, under the general rules of poker, Moneybags' hand was not necessarily dead merely because he threw them forward, or because the dealer might have touched them to the muck. Moneybags' hand was clearly identifiable. So what ruling is in the best interest of the game?

Ultimately, we should want the best hand to win, while also discouraging angle shooting. These goals will often be in tension. In my view, the correct ruling in this situation was to allow Moneybags' hand to remain live, in large part because Moneybags held a very strong hand consistent with his claim that his action was not a fold. This is not a situation where Moneybags folded a hand like Ace-high or even one or two pair on a scary board, then tried to belatedly retrieve his hand when shown a bluff by his opponent. In this case, knowing Moneybags’ hand is strong evidence resolving the ambiguity in his action—a floor could rule with a high degree of confidence that Moneybags was not shooting an angle, but rather had erroneously assumed he held the only live hand and was merely surrendering his cards thinking he had won the pot.

Although it is always satisfying to see arrogant jerks get their comeuppance, even jerks deserve to be treated fairly. Here, Moneybags made a silly mistake, but it was an error that could be corrected within the letter and the spirit of the rules. Demanding strict adherence to bright line rules (e.g., “cards touching the muck are always irretrievably dead”) can make rulings absolutely consistent, but at the price of player dissatisfaction with results that may be excessively harsh in some circumstances. Slavish devotion to bright line rules is rarely in the best interests of any game, particularly at low stakes games with a wider range of player ability and in settings that generally cater to recreational players. Rules work best and games play best when there is room for common sense and judgment calls. I think the floor and manager made the right call here, even if for the wrong reason.

Poker! Yay!

2011-11-24T08:46:00.001-06:00

With WPBT almost upon us (yikes how time flies!), I have become painfully aware of the poker dearth in my life. It's rather amusing that, as a guy who hadn't played online in over five years, I've played poker barely a handful of times since Black Friday (not counting my Vegas trip in June). [FN1] Out in the real world, I've run into quite a few of the regular players from the Meadows, and apparently my absence has drawn some comments at the tables, likely the same kind of coffee talk as heard between barracuda when they notice a drop off in the local clown fish population.

My last visit to the poker tables was the first weekend in October, when I had scheduled a guys' weekend trip to Kansas City for drinking, gambling, and football. From my house, it's an easy 2.5 hour drive down I-35 to the Harrah's North Kansas City casino, which is pretty convenient. My crew for the weekend consisted of Santa, Jugweed, and Big E (our designated degenerate). Two Iowa State Cyclown fans, a Husker fan, and a Jayhawk fan, riding in a car with Iowa plates in rural Missouri—what could go wrong??

On our journey, I was driving so the other guys had broken out some libations, requiring a pit stop in Deliveranceville. We found a highly sketchy gas station / closed diner combo that would make a great Criminal Minds set after dark. Thankfully, it was mid-day, so we took a chance. On the front door we saw this important notice:

Yes, apparently in Missouri it's common to have as pets chickens, cats, dogs, and donkeys ... who are circus-trained. Also, it's important to advise folks to keep their pets outside, lest they be microwaved and served to passing tourists. (Perhaps I'm misreading the sign; I'm not fluent in redneck pictogaphy.)

We arrived at the casino mid-afternoon and immediately hit the poker room, except for Big E who headed off for some Pai Gow. As is often the case, I had a good start, making nearly $300 before dinner. As is usually the case, I should have stopped there. As is always the case, I forged ahead.

Dinner was an entertaining affair, in the Irish wake fashion. The Cyclowns kicked off against Texas as we sat down for dinner in the Harrah's sports bar (interestingly, 'Clown superfan Big E was wearing a Texas burnt orange sweatshirt). The 'Clowns promptly imploded. We enjoyed beer and bleu balls until the Huskers kicked off against Wisconsin in their Big Ten debut. The Huskers waited until nearly halftime before gagging up all hopes for a BCS bowl. Santa and Big E gave up on the 'Clowns and headed back to the poker and pai gow tables. I moved to the bar for a rum and diet or five while cursing the Huskers during their spectcular second half collapse.

Santa in typical Cyclown form.

Santa & Big E in full Cyclown denial.

Following the Huskers debacle, I debated between seppukku and poker as the proper method of purging my shame. Poker being the more painful option, I headed back to the tables. After mucking around some $2/$5 NLHE, I heard the siren song of the $2/$5 PLG (Pot Limit Gamboool) game. It was a lot of fun as always, but variance was not kind to me or my bankroll (down three $300 buy-ins net by night end). I worked up a stack over $1,000 after each buy-in, but four big hands all went against me—twice my sets were run down by combo draws, twice my combo draws failed to run down sets. Eh. PLG giveth, PLG taketh away. Praise be PLG!

The Harrah's North Kansas City poker room does have a couple of annoying quirks I had not noticed on prior visits. The most annoying is the chip buying system. No chips can be sold by the dealer, and they do not allow chip runners. So players who want to rebuy or even top off their stack must go up to the poker room front desk. This isn't a big problem, except the front desk is never staffed to sell chips except during the room's busiest periods. So, much of the time (particularly after midnight which is generally a lucrative time to play against bad or stuck players), players have to go across the casino floor to the nearest cashier cage to get chips, often standing in line for five minutes or so to buy chips. The problem with this arrangement is that many bad players who would've rebought if they had stayed at the table or been able to rebuy at the poker room counter end up cooling off on the walk to the cage and keep on walking on to a table game in the pits or out to their car or hotel room. Not a great way to keep players at the poker tables.

After catching a short nap, we met up at the Harrah's buffet to fuel up for the Chiefs-Vikings game. The food was decent, nothing special, but good omelets made to order, bacon, and coffee are really all I need. Our beverage server was a nice lady with a heavy, possibly Caribbean accent. She kept us refilled with juice and coffee, speaking little, mostly one-word questions or statements. Toward the end of the meal, our server came over with a fresh cup of coffee for me. Setting it down next to me, she gave a small fist pump and declared in a soft voice: "Coffee! Yay!" So, for the remainder of the trip, and for the next couple of weeks, our crew would point something out in the same manner: "Field goals! Yay!" "Popcorn! Yay!" "Cheerleaders! Yay!" I'm certain our spouses enjoyed our phrase-of-the-month as much as we did.

The Chiefs-Vikes game promised to be spectacularly bad, considering neither team had won a game at that point, and both teams appeared actively engaged in the "Suck for Luck" festivities. Somehow, an exciting game broke out, made even more entertaining because it was probably my last chance to see Donovan McNabb suck in person. McNabb lived down to his reputation and led the Vikes to a rather pitiful defeat.

Santa, Big E, and Jugweed enjoy a tailgate beverage.

Great view from our seats of McNabb's utter suckitude.

OK, this play was a TD, but McNabb still sucked.

This was my first game at Arrowhead Stadium, and I have to wonder about some of their management decisions. At the gates, there was security screening, but it was cartoon security theatre. Men had to lift up hats, raise their arms, and be patted down on the chest and back, but I could've easily had a knife or gun in my cargo shorts pockets and it would never have been noticed. Why bother with this kind of security charade?

I'm not certain how this lady made it

past the fashion police at the gate.

Similarly, the game entertainment presentation was overtly sexualized, making me wonder about how comfortable parents would be bringing younger children to the game (not to mention the way such shenanigans are received by female fans). It's not just that there are official dance teams and cheerleaders in skimpy outfits on the field, but those women are shown on TVs throughout the stadium in a variety of regularly repeated announcements, providing close-ups of cleavage and booty. The worst moment, however, was at halftime, when the cheerleaders introduced fifty or so "Junior Chiefs Cheerleaders"—young girls from 6-12 years old, all in cheerleader outfits. They put on a dance routine, complete with suggestive moves, set to a medley of songs which included:

"Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"—Cyndi Lauper (not too bad)
"Barbie Girl"—Aqua (seriously, read the lyrics)
"Material Girl"—Madonna (women as money grubbers)
"Girls, Girls, Girls"—Motley Crue (an ode to strip clubs)
Several hip hop songs I couldn't name, but all with sexual lyrics

Look, anyone who knows me knows I'm far from a prude. I have no problem with adult women dancing around to whatever music they want, wherever they want, and for money if they want. I also don't mind the concept of a junior cheerleaders program; plenty of girls enjoy being cheerleaders. What struck me about this program was the utter obliviousness to whether the music and dance moves were appropriate for girls that age. I know we live in a hypersexualized society, but seeing a bunch of elementary school girls tarted up and dancing around to that soundtrack in front of an crowd of mostly middle-aged, half-drunk men just seemed a little inappropriate. Certainly not my idea of family entertainment.

Happy Thanksgiving to all! Hope to see some of you soon at WPBT, and for those who can't attend, I'll be certain to post the highlights of the hijinks.

WPBT! Yay!

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

[FN1] Since my last post, work has gotten even busier, rather than more settled, after one of my staff attorneys left to take a new position. Sh*t flows uphill in some universes. Hopefully we'll have someone hired and in place by end of the year.

On top of the work situation, I coached a middle school mock trial team again this year. It was a great group of smart, funny kids who I had also coached last year as 7th graders when they qualified for state, but fell just short of the top 10 (who get trophies). This year, we practiced starting in early September, twice a week for three hours. In October, we added another day of practice as well as three dress rehearsal trials. Prior to regionals and state, we practiced six out of seven days in the week before competition, plus two days of regionals and three days at state. Quite a time commitment, not just for me, but also for the kids and their parents. But, it paid off as the kids won their first three trials at state and qualified for the final four. They got to try their semi-final case in the Iowa Court of Appeals courtroom, which they won. The kids then got to try the final round case in the Iowa Supreme Court courtroom with the Chief Justice presiding and the entire spectacle filmed for broadcast later this month on the local cable network. The team ended up finishing second, which is quite the accomplishment considering our regional alone had 48 teams (with eight going on to state), and the state competition had 32 teams. These kids (as well as the team that won state) frankly are better at evidentiary objections and cross-exams than many attorneys with years of experience. Mock trial! Yay!

I'm Not Dead Yet!

2011-10-11T20:46:00.002-05:00

It's been over two months since I last posted. I appreciate the many kind comments and emails I have received inquiring as to my blogging hiatus. It was nothing intentional, just a perfect storm of circumstances.

The major factor in my absence from these parts has been a work project the past few months involving the sale of one of our subsidiaries. Deals like this require a lot of "due diligence" and secrecy bordering on a Masonic-Illuminati conspiracy. So, given my position in the company, I was one of the very small group of folks responsible for working on the deal in addition to my normal work duties. It wasn't particularly tough—mostly lots of conference calls and endless emails—but it did cut into my free time. So, when I got home, I was more interested in playing with the dog and spending time with the sig other than in blogging. Also, with less free time, I played less poker, leading to less blog-worthy material. I think I've played maybe five sessions in the four months since my last trip to Vegas, my driest streak in years.

Of course, a lot has happened in the poker world in the past two months. Recent revelations about the depth of the problems at Full Tilt have dominated discussion, and I do have a couple of partially written posts about those yahoos that will likely find their way to publication soon. But, there has been a ton of great writing on that topic already, and I really don't want to throw something out there that doesn't add some kind of unique take on events.

I also have a handful of lengthy draft posts, most which have been a long time in the making (in some cases, having been started a year or more ago). Although these draft posts are not exactly tied to current events, there is no question that Black Friday has made them less urgent in some cases, and more in need of updating in other cases. In this vein are a critique of the overreach in the PPA's "poker is a game of skill" argument, a completion of the venue and choice of laws discussions for my poker-and-the-law series, an examination of class actions in the context of suits against Full Tilt, commentary about the need for better regulation of online poker, and similar kinds of projects. The problem with these kinds of law-related posts is that they require a significant amount of research time to meet my standards for publication, and they also are the type of posts that require several hours of uninterrupted writing time to get the kind of finished product I want to share. Partly this is my background in appellate briefing, partly it's my obsessive side that rears its ugly head when I write. For better or worse, my law posts tend to run on for some length. This probably results mostly in a lot of "too long, didn't read" (or "tl;dr" for my ADHD readers who made it this far) reaction from readers, but for legal issues, detail and nuance matter. And, over the past couple of months, I just haven't had the luxury of extra free time to devote to finishing the necessary research and polishing the analysis to bring many of my drafts to the point where I would be willing to hit "publish".

In any event, my work schedule is slowly returning to "normal". But I have to admit part of me has enjoyed the hiatus from regular blogging, even as part of me missed it greatly. It's a lot like my running habit. When I ran nearly every day for a over a decade, it felt weird to miss more than a day. But when a foot injury sidelined me for a few months recently, it became a real struggle to get back in the swing of running every day. So, please bear with me as I get back up to speed with my writing. It may take a few weeks, but I have no doubt I can shake off the cobwebs.

I would normally end with a poker analogy, witty turn of phrase, or pop culture reference. Alas, I am out of practice, not to mention I am suddenly being run over by a truck.

Revenge of the Non Sequiturs—Slots, ATMs, and Online Poker

2011-07-31T23:39:00.003-05:00

"More slot machines than ATM's in USA. Yet online poker illegal! ..."

—@oneouterdotcom

Variations on the Tweet above made the rounds of a number of poker players this evening. Although I share the general sentiment—gambling is widely legal, so poker should be as well—this type of argument is specious and ultimately proves nothing about the state of poker specifically or gambling in general.

The Tweet in question referenced a CBS News story about the spread of legalized gambling across the United States. The story cited one statistic relevant to the online poker legalization debate—38 states now have legal casino gambling. Given the prevalence of casino gambling, a strong argument could be made that online poker is a natural next step in the gambling market for those states. After all, those states already make money off of regulated casino gambling, online poker is being played anyway, why not cash in?

The CBS story, however, really goes off the track by throwing in the useless statistic comparing the number of slot machines (850,000) to the number of ATMs (425,000) in the United States. This type of statistical comparison is commonplace in news reporting, and is basically a variant on the time-honored method of demonstrating really big numbers in a superficial manner: "If you laid [objects, dollars, etc.] end-to-end they would stretch [from the earth to the moon and back, around the equator, etc.] X times." Considering most people don't have a clue how far away the moon is, or how many miles it is around the equator, or any other really big metric of choice, these types of comparisons are almost never useful in advancing the point of the story.

Looking at the slot machine / ATM comparison, there are two real problems with the comparison. First, most Americans don't have a clue how many ATMs there are in the United States, the same flaw inherent in most of these comparisons. Second, and more importantly, the CBS story doesn't provide any context for the statistic. What connection is there between the number of slots and ATMs? A statistic like "There are more health insurance processors than doctors" might generate useful debate about the relative impact of insurance paperwork on the delivery of health care in the United States. (Note: that statistic was created solely as an example and might or might not be true.) But where is the logical connection between ATMs and slot machines? The two might be connected within a casino (e.g., casino management might want one ATM for every 200 slot machines—again, an entirely fabricated statistic). But where is the significance in comparing slot machines to the number of ATMs in general? What possible useful conclusion can be drawn from that comparison?

To think about the absurdity of the comparison, let's compare slot machines to other categories. Why not state that there are more slot machines than:

MRSA infections (94,360)
Farmers (751,000)
NCAA student-athletes (420,000)
Annual adoptions (127,400)
African-Americans in prison (308,000)
Orphans (123,000)
Fast food restaurants (160,000)
Christian churches (322,000)

On the flip side, here are some things more common than slot machines:

Hurricane Katrina evacuees (1.5 million)
Gym memberships (45.3 million)
Guns (more than 238 million)
Annual DUI arrests (1.4 million)
Annual bankruptcy filings (1.4 million)
Bloggers (22.6 million)
Atheists (1.6 million)
Animals killed in tests (10 million)

These comparisons would be equally as true, and equally as pointless as the comparison drawn by CBS. But what logical insight would any of these comparisons support? What analytical connection exists between slots and ATMs?

Nonetheless, poker advocates take the slots / ATMs analytical non sequitur and double down by suggesting there is a logical connection between the number of slot machines in casinos and the legality of online poker. What if there were only 600,000 or 300,000 or 100,000 slot machines in casinos? Would those numbers change the argument as to whether online poker should be legalized? Does the legality of any form of casino gambling really bear any direct correlation to the debate over the legalization of online gambling in general or online poker specifically?

There are plenty of good arguments for legalizing online poker. Relying on the ratio of casino slot machines to ATMs is not one of them.

South Carolina Poker—Canary in the Coal Mine for Chimento?

2011-07-20T17:28:00.006-05:00

Last fall, the South Carolina supreme court heard oral arguments in Chimento v. Town of Mount Pleasant, an appeal asking the court to determine whether poker is banned as a game of chance by the state's anti-gambling statute. My analysis of the appeal is that the court will likely find that poker is illegal gambling, though the court may carve out an exception for purely recreational or social games where no rake or fee is charged.

Because oral arguments were held over eight months ago, I have been tracking the appellate decisions which are released on the South Carolina judicial website in anticipation of the Chimento decision. Although the supreme court has yet to release its opinion in Chimento, the South Carolina court of appeals recently issued a decision in South Carolina Law Enforcement Division v. 1-Speedmaster SN 00218, a gambling case that could be a sign of trouble for poker advocates.

In Speedmaster, the court of appeals was confronted with the question of whether an electronic gaming device violated the state's video gaming statutes. The magistrate (trial) court had held a hearing during which a Speedmaster technician had both testified and demonstrated that a skilled player could beat the machine and win every time. Based on this record, the court of appeals ultimately concluded that the Speedmaster game was not a game of chance, and there was no evidence that players wagered on the outcome of the game. Thus, the Speedmaster game was not an illegal gaming device.

Although this decision might superficially seem beneficial to the "poker is a game of skill" advocates in Chimento, the bulk of the Speedmaster court's analysis of the "skill vs. chance" argument—if adopted by the Chimento court—is strongly anti-poker. The Speedmaster court noted that the South Carolina supreme court has not yet adopted either the "dominant factor" test or the British common law "pure chance" test for determining whether a game qualifies as "gambling" under criminal law. [FN1]. The court defined the two competing tests:

The dominant factor test provides when "the dominant factor in a participant's success or failure in a particular scheme is beyond his control, the scheme is a lottery, even though the participant exercises some degree of skill or judgment." [cite]. "If a participant's skill does not govern the result of the game, the scheme contains the requisite chance necessary to constitute a lottery." [cite].

In contrast, under the "pure chance doctrine," founded in British law, "any skill, however minimal, is sufficient to remove a scheme from the definition of lottery. [cite]."

Note that the court's formulation of the dominant factor test does not require any weighing of the relative effect of skill and chance on the outcome of the game as is usually presumed by litigants advocating the "poker as game of skill" argument. Instead, so long as chance is an intrinsic or inherent element in determining the outcome of the game, it constitutes gambling. Under this interpretation of the dominant factor test, it is difficult to see poker being found to be anything other than gambling. However, the Speedmaster court declined to adopt either test, noting that under either test, the Speedmaster machine at issue was unquestionably a game of skill because a player demonstrably could win every time he played. [FN2].

The Speedmaster court then turned to the question of whether the Speedmaster machine was an illegal "gambling device". The court first referred to South Carolina common law (which is consistent with most states’ common law) and found that the elements of gambling are “consideration, chance, and reward”, with a particular analytical emphasis on the element of “chance”:

"As legal terms, 'gaming' and 'gambling' are the same and involve either fraud, or cheating or chance applied in a situation of agreement between two or more persons in which, in accordance with certain rules, the parties play a game or contest, or await the outcome of some event that will determine one or more winners or losers."

The court also looked to a state statute regulating gambling on certain gambling cruises:

"'Gambling' or gambling device' means any game of chance and includes, but is not limited to, slot machines, punchboards, video poker or blackjack machines, ke[]no, roulette, craps, or any other gaming table type gambling or poker, blackjack, or any other card gambling game."

The Speedmaster court’s reliance on the gambling cruise statute is important, because it emphasizes a point I have previously discussed: Where poker is legalized and regulated under some conditions (e.g., in a casino, on gambling cruises, or in a “charity” setting), courts will be reluctant to interpret a general gambling prohibition as permitting legalized poker outside the regulated settings permitted by state law. [FN3]. Here, the South Carolina legislature has enacted a recent statute declaring poker to be “gambling” subject to state regulation. The South Carolina supreme court in Chimento will likely rely on that statute in two ways. First, the gambling cruise statute expresses a public policy decision by the legislature that poker is included in the games to be regulated as gambling within the state. Second, the South Carolina supreme court will likely be reluctant to interpret the general anti-gambling statute at issue in Chimento as permitting poker to be played legally anywhere without regulation while poker on gambling cruises is subject to regulation.

Finally, the Speedmaster court noted in passing that even a skill game such as the Speedmaster machine could still involve gambling:

When parties wager on a game of skill, the element of chance is injected back into the game. For example, if Player A bets Player B $10 he can get a higher score in pinball, Player A has left to chance how Player B will perform. Even though Player A controls his own score, he does not control Player B's performance, and therefore, Player A does not control the outcome of the wager.

This view of the interplay between skill and gambling is also troubling for poker advocates. South Carolina’s general anti-gambling statute at issue in Chimento includes an exempt list of games of skill—billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, and whist—which are not gambling so long as no money is wagered on the outcome of the game. The problem for poker, of course, is that no matter how much skill dominates the game, money being wagered on the outcome is an inherent part of the game. Under the Speedmaster court’s analysis that wagering on a skill game causes “the element of chance to be injected back into the game”, poker played for monetary stakes is gambling regardless of whether a rake or fee is taken by the house.

Of course, the South Carolina supreme court is not obliged to follow or even take note of the Speedmaster decision, as court of appeals decisions are not binding on the supreme court. However, the Speedmaster decision is interesting and important because it reveals the general manner in which appellate judges in the state are likely to think about gambling statutes. [FN4]. Moreover, the Speedmaster decision is likely to at least be read by the supreme court justices given that the decision references a prior South Carolina supreme court decision, State v. Johnson, which found video poker games were not “lotteries” (leading to their immediate regulation by the legislature). Johnson is important to Chimento because the current supreme court Chief Justice Toal concurred in one dissenting opinion and wrote her own dissenting opinion in that case. In her own dissent, Chief Justice Toal asserted that video poker machines could not pass even a pure chance analysis. In the dissent by another justice supported by Chief Justice Toal, she agreed with the position that the court should apply a dominant factor analysis, and then conclude that video poker was a game of chance:

I would hold, where the dominant factor in a participant's success or failure in a particular scheme is beyond his control, the scheme is a lottery, even though the participant exercises some degree of skill or judgment. If a participant's skill does not govern the result of the game, the scheme contains the requisite chance necessary to constitute a lottery.
….

The third category of games ("Type III") includes games such as poker and black jack as well as one variety of keno. In these games, the player makes a variety of decisions at one or more points during play of the game. The decisions the player makes may affect the continued play and the ultimate results of the game in a variety of ways.

First, the player may make decisions as to how to continue to play. For instance, in a poker game the player will decide which cards to keep and which to discard. While this decision could be based on sheer caprice, it would normally be based on the player's view of the probability of receiving certain replacement cards that would constitute a winning hand. This decision may also be influenced by the player's analysis of the relative value of the given hands that could be received. In other words, a player faced with two or more possible "good" options may be willing to try for the less likely hand if the payout is high enough to justify the increased risk...

In short, the Type III games are the most complex and diverse .... Still, some features are common to all machines .... In particular, each game begins with the random selection of cards, numbers, or other icons. The player sees these and is given an opportunity to make one or more decisions. A second random selection is then made by the machine. The ultimate outcome is, therefore, influenced by, but is not entirely determined by the player's decisions. However. regardless of skill, knowledge, or experience, a player cannot alter the probabilities inherent in the play of any Type I, Type II, or Type III video machine games. Neither can the player modify the function of the random number generator, or the random delivery of cards, numbers, or icons.

….

Whether chance predominates over skill is not easily answered with regard to the Type III games because the parties define "skill" differently. The plaintiffs maintain since play is completed by a random act outside the control of a player or by a player's decision to stand on the result of a prior random act, and the odds are stacked against a player, chance predominates. In effect, the plaintiffs define "skill" as the ability to affect the odds of obtaining a given card and, ultimately, the outcome of the game.

On the other hand, the defendants define "skill" as a player's ability to maximize the numbers of credits or dollars won through knowledge of probabilities and consideration of the potential payoff. One of the defendants' experts presented a mathematical model which compared the results of a player using optimum game strategy with a player acting entirely randomly. Since the most skilled player would win back 96.5% of his credits and the most unskilled player would win back 31% of his credits, the expert concluded skill predominated over chance.

….

As noted in the defendants' expert's mathematical model, the probability of obtaining a particular hand does not increase, regardless of a player's level of skill. Although a skilled player (unlike an unskilled player) can improve his chances of winning and maximize those winnings, his ability to affect the outcome of a game, i.e., actually obtain the winning card, is determined by the random number generator. Similarly, if two players both exercise optimal strategy, chance would determine which player, if either, would obtain a given card. A player's skill, no matter how good or poor, does not control the random "deal" of the cards.

In my opinion, skill should be defined in terms of the ability to obtain the desired outcome - a certain card - rather than the ability of one player to play more judiciously than another. As noted by the certification order, a video poker player is unable to control the random selection of cards, in spite of his skill, knowledge, or experience. Since the player cannot improve the likelihood he will obtain a certain card, I conclude chance dominates over skill in the operation of the Type III video game machines.

This analytical approach to the skill vs. chance argument bodes poorly for poker legalization advocates in Chimento if the court chooses to follow the lead of the Johnson dissenters. Further, Chief Justice Toal is the only current member of the South Carolina supreme court who considered the Johnson decision. Consequently, it might be presumed she will be familiar with the skill vs. luck arguments, and may have more influence on the outcome of the Chimento case than usual. Of course, poker has some fundamental differences from video poker, and there is good evidence in the record for the court to consider regarding the relative role of skill in poker. Nonetheless, I think it’s safe to assume Chief Justice Toal is a likely vote against poker legalization.

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

[FN1] U.S. courts looking to British common law is not unusual, particularly in eastern states where the original Colonies established their legal systems by importing British common law. Common law in later states tends to diverge somewhat from the original British common law, most notably in western states where the common law reflects more of a frontier, libertarian flavor.

[FN2]. The Speedmaster court did note that the South Carolina supreme court would be confronting the issue of the proper test for determining whether a game is skillful or gambling in the Chimento case.

[FN3]. See my discussions of the Dent decision in Pennsylvania (poker is regulated in casinos), the Wong case from Ohio rejecting a claim for reimbursement of player funds, attempts to legalize intra-state poker in Iowa (poker is regulated in casinos), and the "Pokerhaus" lawsuit in Illinois (poker is regulated as charitable gambling).

[FN4]. Similarly, the Washington supreme court's anti-poker decision in Rousso was foreshadowed by that court's anti-online gambling decision a few weeks earlier in the Betcha.com case.

A Pirate's Bargain from TI (#WPBT)

2011-07-06T00:59:00.000-05:00

Recently, April (a/k/a @thisisnotapril) announced the official dates for the Winter Poker Blogger Tournament (#WPBT). Since I was able to endure both the presence of @realdawnsummers and having @drizztdj suck out from ahead with Kings in my rookie #WPBT appearance, I was excited to sign up for this year's shenanigans. Now, Aria is not only hosting the #WPBT tourney, but has also offered a great poker room rate with no minimum play requirements ($99/$139 weekday/weekend). I love Aria's rooms and poker rooms, so I have already made reservations. But, my internal cheapskate likes to at least check out the competition, so I was intrigued by this generous offer from Treasure Island ... errr, TI:

Wow! A full 40% discount and two buffets?!?! Sign me up!!

Oh wait. Not so fast, my friends. Apparently Phil Ruffin has me slotted in at least three tax brackets above my pay grade. Here's my official TI room rate for #WPBT weekend:

Yikes! Apparently TI has gone seriously upscale since I last stayed there in March for under $90/night. Guess I'll have to slum it at Aria .... *Sigh*

It's a tough life, but I manage somehow.

Armchair Jurors

2011-07-05T21:42:00.003-05:00

Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.

—Gandalf, in "The Fellowship of the Ring" by J.R.R. Tolkien

Much of the nation today was transfixed by the "not guilty" verdict in the Casey Anthony murder trial. Anthony was accused of murdering her two year-old daughter, Caylee, and disposing of her body in the woods. Some rather damning evidence was presented, including photos of Casey shopping and partying during the month when Casey was missing—an absence unreported to authorities, or even friends or family members. Casey was also caught in several significant lies to police (she was found guilty of four misdemeanor counts of making false statements for her more egregious lies). In the court of public opinion, a "guilty" verdict was inevitable, and the only major question was whether the jury would find Casey guilty of a capital offense, leading to a death penalty sentencing trial.

Personally, I was only dimly aware this trial was occurring, and then only because of the occasional Twitter post from someone following the trial. I didn't watch a minute of testimony. I did see the first 30 minutes or so of the defense closing argument because the significant other was running the remote over the weekend. Frankly, I wasn't particularly impressed by Jose Baez' performance, which seemed to hit good points, then bury them with extraneous asides. The reporting I saw online as the jury began deliberations suggested the prosecution had a strong case, but also had some holes to fill; in particular, the lack of evidence of cause and time of death seemed a major hurdle to a capital murder conviction. Still, I expected a "guilty" verdict for murder or manslaughter.

To say the "not guilty" verdict shocked the public is an understatement. Even several hours after the verdict, the Twitter hashtag #caseyanthonyverdict was the top "trending topic", with scores of new posts every few seconds. Tweets were running at least 50-1 in opposition to the verdict. Many posters had some variation on the theme that the jurors were "stupid", "morons", or "idiots" (see here, here, here, here, and here for a sampling pulled from the stream when I arrived home from the office). Racial themes were common, with some posters claiming Anthony was acquitted largely because she was white, with other posters drawing parallels to the O.J. Simpson and Michael Vick cases. Plenty of posters were even more vicious:

jury = stupid redneck hillbillies

@briehopkins

These jurors should be removed from society

@shoriagirl

I want ALL of those 12 unconvinced jurors to hire Casey as a nanny for their children/grandchildren.

@amycapetta (ironically sporting a "NOH8" logo on her profile picture)

Maybe all the jurors threw one of their children's dead body's in the trunk of their cars? #caseyanthonyverdict

@GatTheBully

And in a rare thematic triptych Tweet:

Tomorrow CNN will announce that all the Jurors have Down Syndrome

@NeverUhFlaw

Tomorrow CNN will announce that the Jurors were ALL ON CRACK this morning

@NeverUhFlaw

Tomorrow CNN will announce that the Jurors are all SHEPARDS for the DEVIL

@NeverUhFlaw

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the jury's verdict, the jury deserves public respect, not ridicule. The jury was faced with an incredibly difficult job. Jurors were shut away from their homes, their communities, their families and friends for seven weeks of trial. Jurors were instructed to ignore the maelstrom of press coverage engulfing the trial. Jurors were asked to set aside all emotion and preconceptions while they sat in judgment on a woman accused of murdering her young daughter. Jurors had to sift through conflicting testimony and ambiguous evidence. Most importantly, the jurors were forced to consider whether a fellow citizen should possibly be put to death.

It's easy to sit in the comfort of one's home or office, read snippets of press coverage online or watch a segment of a tabloid "news" show, and say, "Hey, she's a baby killer!" But for the jurors, the decision wasn't some throwaway opinion on a Facebook poll. No, the jurors were faced with one of the weightiest of moral decisions, deciding whether another person should be sent to jail or even executed. The jurors, unlike their public critics, have to live with the consequences of their decision. Quickly, which is morally worse—letting a guilty murderer walk free, or executing (or imprisoning for life) a mother falsely accused of killing her daughter? What if it were your sister or friend sitting in the defendant's chair? How's that bloodlust feel now? [FN1].

Turning trials into public spectacles has a long history in America. In fact, the American press, pundits, and public were armchair quarterbacking every decision by every lawyer, witness, judge, and juror in high-profile cases long before there were even quarterbacks. Maybe Casey Anthony did kill her daughter and the jury made the "wrong" decision; in fact, let's agree that's probably the truth. Nonetheless, even if the jury was wrong, there is absolutely no indication the jurors didn't take their job seriously and do their best to render a verdict they felt was just based on the evidence and the law. [FN2]. Because their vote doesn't matter, armchair jurors find it easy to throw out an opinion on guilt or innocence without hearing all the evidence and arguments, seeing all of the witnesses, and being instructed on the applicable law. It is extremely offensive to see so many people publicly demean the jury's efforts with a dismissive, "How could they be so stupid!" when those critics don't have to face any real life moral consequences if their opinion turns out to have been wrong.

In any system of justice, someone has to serve as the arbiter of criminal guilt or innocence. For better or worse, in America, that role is generally for a jury of common citizens. The alternative—elected or appointed judges—is not inherently superior to the jury system, given that judges are hardly immune from prejudice and bias, and face their own unique set of social and political pressures. It's fair to question the jury's decision on the merits. To question the jury's integrity or intelligence is to question the very foundations of our legal system. Let's give the jurors some respect for doing an important but thankless task

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

[FN1] If you think it's rare for people to be falsely convicted in America, spend some time on the Innocence Project website, then let me know what you think.

[FN2] In my sixteen year legal career, I've tried over a dozen jury trials (all civil), including one that was selected to be presented while observed by the entire first-year law school class at Drake Law School as a practicum. I've also observed all or portions of numerous other trials, and interviewed jurors post-trial for their impressions of the case. It is my experience that jurors take their role seriously and do their best to render a fair decision.

The Iowa Poker Economy: Little Rounding Error on the Prairie

2011-06-26T22:34:00.001-05:00

Recently I took a look at the economics of the Prairie Meadows poker room in Des Moines, Iowa. Based on data reported to the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, my estimate was that rake, jackpot drop, and tips for dealers and servers likely took roughly $4 million a year out of the central Iowa poker economy. But what about all Iowa casinos?

Let's take a look at data for all gambling at all Iowa casinos for Fiscal Year 2010 (July 2009-June 2010). [FN1]. First, the one figure that leaps out of the data is that Iowans (and its visitors) love to gamble, to the tune of gambling losses of nearly $1.37 billion last year. Another striking figure is the sheer dominance of slot machine revenues, which accounts for 93% of all Iowa gaming revenue, and 91% of gaming revenue at casinos with poker. [FN2]. As someone who spends most of my casino time in the poker room, with occasional sessions of blackjack or craps, the fact that most other folks actually prefer to gamble in the rows and rows of slots really hadn't registered with me.

(Click on charts and tables for a larger view.)

Still, the table game revenues in Iowa, although dwarfed by the slots, are nonetheless nothing to sneeze at, coming in at nearly $117 million last year. Poker revenues (which are counted with the table game revenues) accounted for a mere $11.5 million last year, a sizable chunk of change that is nothing more than a minor rounding error on the casino balance sheet. And poker players wonder why they are treated as the red-headed stepkids of the gaming world.

Breaking down the table games brings some interesting insights. Hardly surprising is that blackjack is far and away the biggest earner among the table games, while poker actually holds it own, earning roughy half what is earned by the craps tables and assorted carnival games, and more than what is earned by either roulette or pai gow poker.

(Click on charts and tables for a larger view.)

Poker looks a lot less robust, however, when evaluated on a per table basis. Although blackjack also drops in the rankings on a per table basis, pai gow, roulette, and the carnival games more than double up the per table revenues of poker, while craps dominates the field with the highest per table earnings (nearly four times poker's per table earnings). Again, poker is the smallest fish in the already small table games pond.

The per table statistics are interesting to me, because a table game in the pits and a poker table should have roughly similar cost profiles. Each table requires a dealer, cards/dice, and an automatic shuffler (or wheel for roulette). Each table takes up roughly the same floor space, and can serve roughly the same number of players. One pit boss / floor person in the pits or the poker room can supervise roughly the same number of tables. The one exception is craps, which requires three dealers and a boxman per table, and a pit boss overseeing, at most, three to four tables. Still, pit games and poker should be roughly comparable on a per table cost basis. Thus, poker lagging in per table revenues certainly can't endear the game to casino management, who have to maximize casino revenues in every square foot of gaming floor space.

Table games have a few built-in advantages over poker. Most important, table games can be played on an individual basis, while poker games rarely start or continue running with fewer than five players. Also, poker can only offer the house a steady rake, while many table games offer sucker bets with a 5-10% (or better) house edge. Still, poker does bring in revenues that might otherwise escape the casino's greedy paws, and a million extra dollars of revenue can help pay the electric bill. [FN3] In many ways, poker resembles gasoline at a convenience store—a product with a low profit margin that hopefully entices players to come inside and purchase higher profit margin products like soda and groceries.

Looking at the four biggest Iowa poker rooms by revenues—the Horseshoe in Council Bluffs, Prairie Meadows in Des Moines, Riverside near Iowa City, and Diamond Jo in Worth County—these four rooms account for over 75% of Iowa's poker revenues. The Horseshoe pulls from the Omaha market, Prairie Meadows dominates Des Moines and central Iowa, Diamond Jo (Worth) draws heavily from Minnesota (where no-limit poker is prohibited), and Riverside is near Iowa City (home of the University of Iowa). Yet of these four rooms, only the Horseshoe and Prairie Meadows really show a significant revenue stream from poker on an overall basis, and on a per table basis, poker continues to be a bit player in the overall table games portfolio even for these four casinos with a large poker revenue base.

One final interesting set of data can be derived from looking at the overall and per table poker revenues for all Iowa casinos offering poker. The Big Four rooms obviously dominate on a total revenues basis. But, looking at poker revenues on a per table basis, some of the smaller rooms actually are quite competitive. Further, it is clear that Riverside lags significantly on a per table basis given its overall revenues. This is hardly surprising given that Riverside does not use automatic shufflers, forces its dealers to pool tips with other pit dealers, and generally fails to market its large poker room to the Iowa poker community.

(Click on charts and tables for a larger view.)

In an upcoming post, I'll look at the overall costs of the Iowa poker economy.

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

[FN1] Data for fiscal year 2011 will be available in roughly four to five weeks, and I plan to do a year-by-year look at the progression of the Iowa poker economy once that data is released.

[FN2] Gaming revenue excludes horse and dog racing revenues, which are not included in these reports.

[FN3] I find it highly unlikely that poker is a "loss leader" as some people claim. Casinos aren't in the business of losing money in any facet of their operations.

Rockin' the Cosmopolitan

2011-06-26T17:29:00.000-05:00

During our recent WSOP trip to Vegas, Santa and I stayed at the new Cosmopolitan hotel and casino, located between Bellagio and City Center. I had wandered through the casino during trips in March and April, and had been impressed with the casino design and ambiance. So, when I found a Vegas.com special deal for an average room rate ~$140/night (with most other sites charging over $350/night), I figured what the heck, might as well try it out. So, I ditched the rooms I had booked at TI (~$120/night with the "resort fee") and took a whirl with Cosmopolitan.

It was a great impulse buy. I've stayed at Bellagio, Venetian/Palazzo, Wynn/Encore, and Aria, which all compete for the same high-end customer base (I've stayed in a suite at Caesars Palace, but I keep them a notch below these other properties as Caesars' base rooms are not on the same luxury level as the elite properties). In my view, Cosmopolitan fits comfortably into the elite Vegas resort niche, and offers some unique twists that make it a fun hotel option.

My value package offered either of the base room options; I booked a Terrace Studio room, which was slightly larger and had a walkout terrace (the other option, a City Room, does not have a terrace). When I went to check in, a friendly young man approached me, led me to a check-in counter, and after looking up my reservation, immediately offered to upgrade us to a Terrace One Bedroom room at no charge (and without my even attempting the $20 trick). He also let me choose which side of the hotel we wanted for a view, and a lower or upper floor. I opted for the Bellagio side, and we would up in the east tower (closer to the Strip), on the 59th floor.

As you'll see from the photos below, the view from our terrace was impressive, overlooking the Bellagio fountains, and having great views of Bellagio, Paris, and the Strip running north toward Wynn. The room itself was decorated in a contemporary style, and was every bit as nice and comfortable as comparable rooms at the other elite Strip resorts. The terrace was surprisingly large (over 100 sq. ft.), and would provide a comfortable place for a morning or evening drink when temperatures are lower. The smaller footprint of the casino made for quick access to restaurants and shops, as well as making it a breeze to walk to poker rooms at Aria and Planet Hollywood (making it easy to overlook the resort's regrettable decision against opening a poker room).

What really sets the Cosmopolitan apart from the other elite Strip resorts is its atmosphere. The crowd in the hotel seems younger and less stuffy than at, say, Bellagio or Wynn. The Cosmopolitan's employees likewise seem friendlier and more approachable; every employee I encountered seemed genuinely interested in assisting me, and several made suggestions as to fun things to try at the resort. Just as a couple of examples, I requested fresh towels from housekeeping after a late afternoon shower, and a friendly lady delivered them in less than five minutes, while the two ladies at the Identity players card sign-up desk were absolutely hilarious.

We did check out the pool area so we could collect our bag of freebies offered as part of a summer promotion; our loot included a cloth pool bag, flip flops, straw fedora-esque hat (which will be featured in next year's Ironman of Poker), sunscreen, and waterproof playing cards. In a bad beat, my bag didn't have the cards, preventing the Cosmopolitan from getting a perfect score. But, I can almost overlook that slight given the beautiful pool area, complete with pool tables with craps table designs on their felts. The pool looks like the perfect place to relax and read a book during the day, and transforms into a party area in the evenings, often with live music, DJs, and even movies.

If you're looking for a fun yet luxurious hotel experience in a great Strip location, Cosmopolitan is hard to beat. If you're on a trip with a spouse or significant other who you want to impress, Cosmopolitan definitely delivers on the "wow" factor. As long as its room rates remain competitive with the other elite Vegas resorts, Cosmopolitan has earned itself a spot as one of my regular Vegas hotels.

View from our terrace looking north late afternoon.

(Click on pictures for larger view.)

Day and night views of Bellagio from our terrace.

Rio is visible on the left in the night picture.

Day and night views of Paris from our terrace.

The night picture of Paris is my favorite of the trip.

Bellagio fountain show from our terrace.

This might impress a spouse or significant other,

particularly if you throw in cocktails or champagne.

Great views from the elevated pool area.

Apparently they can't keep out the riffraff.

Yo Eleven! Corner pocket!

Crazy Vegas Poker Players

2011-06-25T22:01:00.002-05:00

Last weekend, I journeyed to Poker Mecca with good buddy Santa Claus. Santa was knocking an item off his before-40 bucket list: Play in the World Series of Poker. I was using Santa's plans as a cover for a spouse-free Vegas poker trip (fair's fair, since the sig other didn't invite me to the Vegas bachelorette party he attended in early June). As usual, we ran into a fun cast of characters.

Santa smuggled Templeton Rye for our brief

layover at the Denver airport. Classy!

Santa in action, at Aria (top) & Planet Hollywood (bottom).

Met two new friends, Jason (left) (a/k/a @jasonsimon) and

Matt (a/k/a @LOLfolding) at Aria. Matt's "buddy" @weizel

put a bounty on Matt as he played in a cash game with us

at Aria, if we felted him with "the Crabbler" (King-Trey).

The infamous "Belgian Chef" from IMOP-VI

returned to Planet Hollywood to donk off

another couple thousand dollars in maniac style.

This young lady joined my NLHE table at Planet Hollywood,

and promptly had every other guy at the table distracted.

Being gay is an important poker strategy!

The nice lady later jumped into the PLG game,

confirming my read that she is a solid player.

Her boyfriend (right, also a nice fellow) had

been playing NLHE, and after his game broke,

had come over to suggest "going back to the room".

Like any good poker player on a solid run,

she instead asked her boyfriend to join the game.

After he dropped three buy-ins, there was this fun exchange:

Dealer: "Are you coming back in?"

Guy: "No, I've dumped enough money into this game."

Me: "I'd disagree."

These two guys were part of a crew of six Canadians

all wearing identical "Cat Got Your Tongue?" t-shirts.

The one at my table was a good guy, and it sounded

like they were on their own Canadian IMOP.

International hilarity ensues!

Managed to sneak in a session of PLG at Venetian

with buddy and poker industry insider Katkin.

I hit nut vs. second nut against him twice to send

him home early, but it was still good to see him.

(I'm keeping his cash, thanks!)

Look who pulled himself off his sick bed to

give us a ride to the airport. Poker Grump!

(I think we got long-hauled.)

The legendary Pediatric Unabomber, missing

in action since IMOP-I, was spotted at Aria.

Am I a Cheapskate?

2011-06-13T12:02:00.000-05:00

In a recent post, I discussed a big pot I won where I flopped the nut straight and made nearly $950 in profit after surviving a five-way all-in. I mentioned that I tipped the dealer and the cocktail server $10 each. An anonymous commenter took me to task:

You win a $1250 pot, while fading half the deck, and you give the dealer ten bucks; the same as some chick that brought you a drink. Cheap dude, very cheap.

Now when it comes to tipping, one thing I know is that I tip far better than average for meals (dine-in, carryout, and delivery), taxis, bags/concierge, etc. So if someone wants to call me cheap, they obviously don't know me.

That being said, this comment does raise a couple of interesting points. First is the premise that a poker dealer tip should be proportional to the pot size. Now I tip at least $1 on every hand, even when just winning or even chopping the blinds. I usually tip $2-$5 on big pots or when I hit a monster hand or a big suckout. In this particular hand, I tipped more ($10) in part because it was a big pot, and in part because the dealer needed to sort out several side pots, which slowed the game and denied him tips from hands he would've dealt in the normal course of events.

That all being said, I simply can't agree that merely because my hand held up, or I hit a draw, or some other such outcome occurred that the dealer deserves a bigger tip. The dealer has no influence on the outcome of a hand (assuming no dealer errors). The dealer's duties are to deal the cards, run the action, and award the pot. The dealer has no influence on whether I happen to hit a big hand or win a monster pot. So if the dealer's actions don't influence whether I win or how much I win, why should my tip size vary significantly based on the size of the pot, or whether I hit or dodged a draw?

The other implicit criticism is that the cocktail server did not deserve the same tip as the dealer. However, I had ordered a drink prior to this hand occurring, and the server brought me my drink while the hand was being completed. Since my money was in the middle of the table, I couldn't tip the server (all I had in my wallet were $20s and $100s). I specifically asked the server to wait for the hand to play out so I could tip her. Given the multiple side pots and big action, the denouement of the hand took some time to play out. So, I tipped the server extra because she delayed serving other tables and presumably lost tips while waiting on me. Now perhaps my $10 tip was too generous, but that is hardly the basis for any criticism of my tip to the dealer, which should be evaluated on its own merits.

As I've discussed previously, I accept dealer tipping as a necessary part of the game. I believe most dealers work hard to make the game fun and profitable, and I have no qualms about tipping generously. I have tipped more than $10 on a hand on occasion, and I likely will again in the future. I simply don't agree with a contention that a $10 tip—10 times the standard tip—is "cheap" merely because I won an unusually big hand.

What do you think? Am I a cheapskate?

Economics of a Small Poker Room

2011-06-12T19:28:00.002-05:00

This spring, Iowa poker players have been abuzz about the larger than usual bad beat jackpots at the Prairie Meadows Racetrack, Casino, and Den of Iniquity. In mid-May, the main jackpot went off at a little north of $215,000. The reserve jackpot of roughly $95,000 was then rolled out, and has since grown to nearly $110,000. With shares of 50% to the losing hand, 25% to the winning hand, and the remaining 25% divided equally among the other players at the table, the bad beat jackpot is certainly a nice pay day for catching the wrong end of a cosmically rare lucky cooler hand.

After a little reflection on the bad beat jackpot (BBJ), it occurred to me that the nature of the BBJ structure and the timing of the recent jackpot win permit some intriguing insights into the economics in play at the Prairie Meadows poker room. In particular, the BBJ information provides a method for making a meaningful estimate of the number of raked cash game hands dealt, total cash game rake taken by the house, average rake per hand, and even dealer and cocktail server tips.

Looking first at the structure of the BBJ, the sizes of the the main and reserve BBJs in May suggested that the jackpot drop was distributed to the two BBJ funds in a 2:1 or 3:2 ratio. A poker room manager confirmed to me that the jackpot drop was distributed with 60% going to the primary BBJ and 40% to the backup BBJ. Even more important is that the room's other uses of jackpot promotion funds—$200 flat payments to straight flushes—are not funded with a dedicated reserve, but instead bonuses for straight flushes are deducted first from each day's jackpot drop, with the remaining funds then credited to the two BBJs. [FN1] Thus, unlike many poker rooms which use their jackpot drop to fund a variety of promotions, it is fairly easy to determine the actual total jackpot drop taken at Prairie Meadows.

To calculate the jackpot drop taken at Prairie Meadows, we first take the amount of the reserve BBJ, which we know was wholly funded since the last BBJ was won. Dividing the reserve BBJ ($95,000) by 40% gives the amount contributed to the main BBJ ($142,500 of the $215,000), for total BBJ funding of $237,500 since the last BBJ was won. Next, we need to add an estimated payout for straight flush bonuses from the jackpot drop. Talking with the poker room manager, roughly two to four straight flush bonuses are paid out each day. Assuming an average of 20 straight flush bonuses per week adds roughly $208,000 per year to the jackpot drop taken (20 x $200 x 52 weeks).

Next we need a way to convert the BBJ funds to an annual basis. This is where the timing of the recent BBJ win comes into play. The recent jackpot was won roughly six months after the last win in late December. So, to get an estimated annual jackpot drop, we can simply double the jackpot drop since the last BBJ win ($237,500 x 2 = $475,000) and add the annual straight flush payments ($208,000) for a total annual jackpot drop of $683,000. [FN2]

Now the interesting point to keep in mind is that the amount dropped for the jackpot fund is correlated to the amount dropped by the house in rake. The dollar dropped each hand for the jackpot fund is taken at the same time as the first dollar of rake (at $10 in the pot). So, if a hand is not raked, no jackpot dollar is dropped. Thus, the amount dropped for the jackpot fund is the minimum amount taken by the house for rake (the "base rake"). To estimate the total amount taken in rake, one must simply estimate the percentage of raked hands that also reach the second, third, and fourth dollars of rake (taken at the $20, $30, and $40 marks). This depends to a great degree on the game mixture in each room. A room spreading $2/$4 LHE will take less rake than a room with $3/$6 or $4/$8 as the smallest LHE game. Similarly, a room with $1/$2 NLHE will hit those rake marks less frequently than a room with $1/$3 or $2/$5 NLHE as its smallest game (though some rooms offer more graduated rake structures for their bigger games). Rooms that allow or require kills, half-kills, and/or straddles will also take more in rake.

Turning back to Prairie Meadows, the estimated annual jackpot drop of $683,000 translates into a base rake for the house of $683,00. Taking into account that the jackpot drop calculation might be subject to some variation based on season, economic conditions, the effect of promotions, and the live horse-racing season, the jackpot drop and base rake might vary up to 20%, giving us a range of jackpot drop and base rake of roughly $550,000 to $825,000, though the actual number is most likely much closer to the original estimate, probably around $650,000. Converting the base rake to an estimated total rake merely requires estimating the frequency of each raked hand also being raked at the second, third, and fourth dollar levels. A room with mostly small stakes limit games and "social" style no-limit games will generate a less aggressive rake profile than a room with predominately action-oriented no-limit games. The following table for a room with base rake similar to Prairie Meadows illustrates the range of total rake that might be taken depending on the nature of the room's game mix and action level [FN3]:

Table 1—The "additional rake distribution" columns reflect the

percentage of raked hands which reach each additional dollar of rake

($1 in rake taken at $20 / $30 / $40 in the pot). Figures are on

an estimated annual basis. (Click on table for larger view.)

The left hand column for total rake is probably a closer fit for a poker room with mostly $2/$4 LHE and some $1/$2 NLHE, while the right column for total rake is a better fit for a room with mostly action-oriented $1/$2 or $2/$5 NLHE and some $3/$6 or higher LHE. Prairie Meadows generally spreads mostly $1/$2 NLHE and $3/$6 LHE (with a full kill), along with fairly regular $2/$5 NLHE and a weekly $6/$12 Omaha8 game. Using a base rake of ~$650,000 per year, and the more aggressive rake assumptions, the estimated total annual rake for Prairie Meadows is roughly $2.25 million.

Looking at the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission official financial reports, Prairie Meadows reported total poker rake of $2.3 million in 2010. Assuming $75,000-$100,000 of the reported rake is from poker tournament entry fees [FN4], the estimate of $2.25 million in cash game rake, as well as the underlying assumptions regarding the size of the annual jackpot drop and the aggressive rake structure are validated as being reasonably accurate.

As an interesting side note, the Caesars Entertainment family of casinos has imposed a $5 maximum rake at most of their poker rooms (and a $5.50 maximum rake at their Horseshoe Casino in Council Bluffs, Iowa). The amount generated by this extra rake can be estimated by adding the amounts in the following table to the rake calculated previously for a $4 maximum rake (the table below shows the percentage of hands that reach the maximum rake threshold of $50):

Table 2—Effect of a $5 maximum rake, related to percentage

of raked hands that reach the maximum rake ($50+ in pot). Figures

are on an estimated annual basis. (Click on table for larger view.)

Based on the table above, if Prairie Meadows increased its maximum rake to $5, it could generate an additional $250,000 to $300,000 in annual revenue. Although there would be some resistance from players to any rake increase, Prairie Meadows really has little direct competition due to geographical constraints. The closest competitive poker rooms in terms of size and action are in Council Bluffs (across the river from Omaha) and Kansas City, each two or more hours drive from the Des Moines area (not to mention these rooms already have at least a $5 maximum rake). Some players might go to rooms at Meskwaki or Riverside (near Iowa City), but these rooms generally have less action and less satisfactory room set-ups in addition to being an extra one to two hour drive for most players. In any event, it's easy to see why Caesars increased its maximum rake.

Now, why bother deriving the jackpot and rake drops indirectly if the rake drop can be determined simply by looking at financial reports? First, as noted previously, we can verify the general validity of our assumptions about the rake structure, which will help derive financial data for all Iowa casinos (the subject of an upcoming post). Second, knowing the jackpot drop can help us draw some other interesting conclusions about the economics of the poker room, specifically the amounts spent by poker players on tips to dealers and cocktail servers.

Our analysis of dealer tips begins with the observation that the jackpot drop is essentially a proxy for the number of hands that are raked. Each dollar in the jackpot drop represents one hand that was large enough to generate rake (i.e, had at least $10 in the pot). Generally speaking, if a pot is large enough to be raked, a dealer is usually tipped at least $1. Some players will tip on smaller pots, while some players are stingier with tips. In a room like Prairie Meadows with a high number of regular players and mostly long-term dealers, tips tend to run above the $1 per hand benchmark, with a fair number of players tipping more than $1 on larger pots. A matrix of raked hands dealt ("tipped hands") and average tip size gives us a reasonable range of total dealer tips per year:

Table 3—Range of total amounts paid for dealer tips. Figures are

on an estimated annual basis. (Click on table for larger view.)

Using a range of 550,000 to 650,000 tipped hands per year, and assuming $1.25 to $1.50 per tip, a reasonable estimate of total dealer tips would be roughly $800,000 per year. Assuming 20-25 dealers on the regular rotation, this works out to $32,000-$40,000 per dealer per year, which seems a reasonable income (some regular dealers with more seniority, prime shifts, and better people skills likely pull down well above this amount, while the part-time dealers earn substantially less).

Turning to cocktail server tips, the connection between raked pots and server tips is not as closely correlated as was the case with dealer tips. However, servers generally come by each table two to three times each hour, and typically bring three to five drinks each trip. Most players tip $1 per drink, so a server should earn $6-$15 per table per hour. So, if we assume that the typical table gets in approximately 25 raked hands (30 total hands) per hour, then we can estimate the reasonable range of cocktail server tips:

Table 4—Range of total amounts paid for cocktail server tips. Figures

are on an estimated annual basis. (Click on table for larger view.)

Using the range of 600,000 to 650,000 raked hands, and assuming $10-$15 per table per hour (Prairie Meadows players and servers being regulars, tips run on the generous side), an estimate of $300,000 in server tips per year seems reasonable.

Taking each of these economic factors into account, the total financial costs of poker at Prairie Meadows can be calculated:

Rake: $2,300,000

Jackpot Drop: $650,000

Dealer Tips: $800,000

Server Tips: $300,000

Total: $4,050,000

This figure is only an estimate, but the rake figure is definite (based on financial records), and the jackpot drop is likely not overestimated by more than $50,000 or so. Even if the dealer and server tips are overestimated by as much as 25% ($275,000 too high), the most conservative estimate for the total costs of poker at Prairie Meadows is still $3.7 million. Of course, the dealer and server tips may be underestimated as well.

Prairie Meadows is just one of 16 casinos in Iowa that offer poker, albeit being the second-largest room in terms of both casino and poker revenues (after the Horseshoe). Prairie Meadows is a typical small-to-mid-sized (11 table) poker room with a mostly local / regional player base. Non-local players find their way to the poker room because Des Moines is the state capital and state's largest city, which helps attract a certain number of business and convention travelers. Also, Drake University is located in Des Moines while Iowa State University is in Ames, an easy 30 minute drive north of the casino. Des Moines is located in the center of the state, at the intersection of I-80 and I-35, generating additional players from long-distance travelers, primarily truck drivers (it certainly doesn't hurt that the casino is located right off an I-80 exit near the east I-80/I-35 mixmaster, an exit shared with the Adventureland amusement park). Certainly, the room certainly has a different player base and business model than similarly sized rooms in Las Vegas.

In any event, it is indisputable that poker players pay roughly $4 million per year in actual costs for the privilege and convenience of playing poker at Prairie Meadows, money which is completely removed from the poker community. Obviously a certain percentage of the Prairie Meadows players are winners. So, the Prairie Meadows poker community as a whole has to generate non-poker income sufficient to cover the $4 million in overhead costs, as well as pay the winning players their profits. This money can only come from one source—players' outside income, whether from wages, business or investment revenue, savings, government assistance, or other sources. With Iowa having a population of only 3.04 million, median household income of $48,000, and median individual income of $31,400 (women) to $42,600 (men), generating $4 million to cover the poker overhead at Prairie Meadows is no mean feat. It certainly gives one pause to reflect on the long-term sustainability of poker, at least in the live casino setting on the current scale.

Stay tuned! Later this week crAAKKer takes a broader look at the economics of the live poker scene in the state of Iowa as a whole.

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

[FN1] In the rare instance that the straight flush payouts exceed the daily jackpot drop, the amount needed to cover the excess straight flush payouts is deducted from the reserve BBJ fund. The poker room manager indicated this situation has occurred "at most three or four times".

[FN2] This annual estimate might be a little on the high side given that the Prairie Meadows poker room generally sees somewhat higher action during winter months (monthly poker room rake ranges from $165,000 to $220,000 according to Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission reports). Also, the BBJ mania likely generated somewhat higher than normal numbers of players, though much of this extra business probably generated lower than normal rake rates as many of the extra players sat in $3/$6 LHE games and folded hands with little or no BBJ potential, while checking down or light-betting hands with BBJ potential.

[FN3] The spreadsheet from which all the tables were derived can be viewed on Google Docs.

[FN4] Prairie Meadows has three weekly tournaments with buy-ins of $60 or less, each of which has 30-100 entries. Assuming 150-200 entries per week at $10 each, the poker room will earn a total of ~$75,000-$100,000 per year from poker tournaments. Although many poker rooms offer more tournaments with higher entry fees, clearly poker rooms rely on cash games to generate the bulk of their revenues.

A Big Hand for a Big Guy

2011-06-05T17:16:00.000-05:00

"I'm not in the thinking business."

—Sam Rhine (James Berwick) in "A Big Hand for the Little Lady"

Sometimes, poker can be a grind. Premium starting hands few and far between, bad flops galore, and scads of missed draws. On those days, it can take every ounce of skill just to eke out a small win. In fact, the ubiquitous use of "grind" (and its cousins, "grinding" and "grinder") in the poker vernacular reflects the perceived need to manufacture profits out of small edges, thin value bets, and situational steals. In many ways, the modern aggressive grinding strategy is simply the logical fruition of Doyle Brunson's Super/System strategy of contesting even small pots on the theory that winning many small pots gave him an edge when big pots were contested.

Although grinding might be the most profitable—or at least most consistent—strategy at higher stakes games, I've found that low stakes no limit hold 'em games are profitable because of the big pots. In a typical $1/$2, $1/$3, or even $2/$5 game, the blinds are so insignificant that jousting over a limped pot offers poor risk-reward odds. Instead, the real money to be made is in the big hands that develop over the course of a session. Win a majority of the big hands—sets versus two pair, boats versus flushes, trips versus overpair, etc.—and you will usually walk away a big winner. Lose a majority of those big hands, and you'll likely wind up a loser regardless of how many small pots you drag.

Recently, I played a session at Riverside. I got up early by flopping a set of Queens, but busted and rebought when my Kings were cracked three times in two orbits. One cracking occurred when my button preflop 3-bet to $57 was called by QQ and QJs; naturally the case Queen flopped, and I paid off the extra $150 after both players pushed in front of me. I rallied and made a buy-in profit when my Queens twice held up after preflop all-ins, and after flopping trips against a player married to his Aces. Although I did steal one nice pot with a preflop squeeze play, the remainder of my session was mostly spent either folding or limping into pots against specific players, looking for opportunities to generate a big pot in an advantageous spot.

Last weekend, I played an afternoon session at Prairie Meadows Racetrack, Casino, & ATM. Typical for an afternoon game, the table was filled with nits and rocks, most nursing stacks under $200. There were a couple of deeper stacks, so I bought in for the maximum of $300. Also typical for this kind of game, players limping in almost invariably called any preflop raise, even a raise to $17-$22.

I settled in for a grinding session, praying an action player or two would show up early for the generally looser, wilder evening games. There was no need to wait. Barely five hands into my session, I was dealt JdTh in MP. I limped in after another limper. The player to my left raised to $12, and was called by two LP players, the BB, and the limper before me. So, I called and closed the action.

The flop came down: KdQd9s. Yahtzee! I barely had time to contemplate the best way to play my monster hand when all hell broke loose! The BB pushed for roughly $100 and the player after him pushed for roughly $150. I thought a bit, then made the only real play, pushing all-in myself for nearly $300. Imagine my surprise when the preflop raiser also pushed for over $300, and an LP player also pushed for almost $200. Holy action flop, Batman!

I fully expected to see a range of hands like KQ, 99, AdXd, and maybe even another JT. I definitely didn't want to see AdTd, the one monster draw that could counterfeit my straight. Instead, I saw: BB with Ad3d, MP with K9o, preflop raiser with KTo, and LP with Td9d. Although I was fading the world—any King, Nine, or diamond beat me, along some runner-runner combos, while a Jack would chop—my opponents were drawing somewhat thinner than usual as they held some of each other's outs (and I also had the Jd). After the dealer, Chase, sorted out the man pot and four side pots (and skillfully so, I might add), he put out the turn and river—3h and 7s. Blank, blank. And just like that, Chase was pushing me a monsterpotten that took a few hands to stack:

One hand, one monster pot. Including $10 tips to the dealer and

cocktail server, total pot was $1,252, with a net of roughly $950.

Although I played another five hours, that one hand was essentially my profit for the session. I did have several other big hands, including flopping four sets (once cracking both Aces and Kings with a set of 7s), but those pots were offset by my Kings and Queens being cracked twice each, and losing a trips versus trips battle when my opponent paired his kicker on the river. Still, walking out with a three buy-in profit was a rather satisfying conclusion to what had initially looked like a grinding session with little chance for a big score.

So why is small stakes no limit hold 'em such a big pot game while bigger stakes versions seem to be more conducive to grinding? I think the main reason is that small stakes players are more prone to making the true big money errors—calling preflop raises with dominated hands, playing raised pots out of position, being unable to lay down overpairs and top pair hands, and chasing non-nut draws. Big errors, big pots. Small stakes players are simply much more likely to stack off light than are players at bigger stakes games.

Gawd bless 'em!

My First Big Bluff

2011-05-24T22:30:00.001-05:00

The recent closure of the Sahara had me reminiscing about my first trip to Vegas in 2006. At that time, I had been playing poker in Iowa casinos for a couple of years, though the standard game had only recently evolved from limit to no-limit hold 'em. The game played a lot differently then, as well, with lots of soft players who could be run over by my uber-maniac style. Ah yes, the good ol' days!

In any event, my vacation was mostly focused on hanging with college buds who weren't into poker, so I had only two days / one night left to myself at the end of the trip to devote to poker. I had booked a West Wing room at MGM, a mere minute's walk to the MGM poker room. At that point, the MGM room was easily the biggest and most impressive poker room I had ever played in. The marble ring around the tables was the most decadent thing I had ever seen in a poker room, and the crazy vibe from the Centrifuge bar nearby (with its bartenders and servers dancing on tables and the bar) was just too wild for my innocent Midwestern mind to comprehend. I had brought along $1,000 for gambling, so I should've stuck to $1/$2 NLHE. But the action was slow, limited by the max buy-in of $200. So, young arrogant me decided to jump into the $2/$5 NLHE game. Predictably, my stack suffered the wild fluctuations inherent in the LAG style (and the Stupid Style), and I quickly found myself putting my entire roll into play via rebuys and top offs.

Now, back in those days, there were plenty of soft spots at the $2/$5 level, and I managed to build my stack to nearly $2,000. But with several stacks twice that size in the game, I was always at risk of busting out. I played through the night, with a strange new sensation of tense anxiety clawing at my gut the entire time. Yup, for the first time in my poker career, I was actually scared money. As good poker players know, scared money might as well be dead money. But hubris wouldn't let me leave the game, whispering that there was tons of easy money to be made. Apparently God watches over drunks and poker newbies, and somehow I managed to dodge any big confrontations. Surprisingly soon, morning was rolling around, and I was thinking about cashing out to head to the room for a nap and shower before heading to the airport. Then, the hand happened.

I wish I could remember the details of the hand better, but all I can recall now is that I called a small raise on the button with a middle suited connector. I flopped a monster draw, which normally I would've played aggressively. But I was scared money, and with $2,500 behind at that point, I was looking to play cautiously. I called near-pot-sized bets on the flop and turn, figuring if I hit one of my draws, one of the two characters in the hand would pay me off for decent value on the river with an overpair. On the river, I missed my draws, but hit top pair no kicker on a raggedy board. Preflop raiser checked, so sensing weakness, I pushed all-in, getting the second yahoo to fold.

My remaining opponent was a young kid, one of those short, scrappy guys who liked to do a little good-natured trash-talking. He and his buddy at the table were fraternity brothers celebrating their recent graduations, and the three of us had grown friendly while playing together for nearly 20 hours, as other players cycled through the game. There was a sense of rapport between us, and we'd exchange knowing glances at yahoos and donkeys, while informally soft-playing each other, overbetting with big hands and checking it down with marginal hands.

My river shove on this hand was a major overbet of the pot, and was consistent with our practice of betting our big hands when playing each other. My opponent tanked. Then, he asked me, "Can you beat a set?" That fist of anxiety was clubbing me even harder in my gut. I was going to go home broke from my first Vegas trip.

My opponent rolled over a flopped top set. I threw up a little in my mouth. I casually said, "Wow, I didn't know you were that strong!" This was probably the first honest thing I had said in over twelve hours. My opponent said, "Why bet so much? Did you hit the straight?" I looked at the board. Yes, the river had made an open-ended straight draw get there. I said, "Do you think I'm crazy enough to call you with a draw?" and laughed. My opponent laughed, too. "Yeah, you love your draws!" Yes, yes I did.

I had one last card to play, literally. I casually rolled over my non-paired card, which was one of the cards needed to make the obvious straight. I leaned back, took a swig of my Captain & Coke, and said, "You'll have to call to see the other card." My opponent tanked, but finally said, "I have to believe you. You haven't lied to me all night." As he mucked, he asked to see my other card. I obliged as I raked the monster pot. My opponent came unglued. "How could you do that to me? After we've played together all night, you do that to me? That's bullshit!" Suddenly, his baseball cap went flying across the poker room, landing near the Centrifuge bar.

His buddy laughed.

Hilarity ensued.

I racked up and cashed out with a very fortunate profit.

And so began my love affair with poker in Sin City.

(Image source).

Poker Peeping Toms—Angle Shooters or Felons?

2011-05-24T01:36:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, I was reading Iowa gaming statutes and regulations for an upcoming post (yes, it's a task as thrilling as it sounds). I noticed two interesting provisions related to banned gaming-related activities:

4. A person commits a class "D" felony and, in addition, shall be barred for life from excursion gambling boats and gambling structures under the jurisdiction of the commission, if the person does any of the following:
....
h. Places a bet after acquiring knowledge, not available to all players, of the outcome of the gambling game which is the subject of the bet or to aid the person in acquiring the knowledge for the purpose of placing a bet contingent on that outcome.
....
j. Knowingly entices or induces a person to go to any place where a gambling game is being conducted or operated in violation of the provisions of this chapter with the intent that the other person plays or participates in that gambling game.

—Iowa Code sec. 99F.15

Let's look at subsection h first. The obvious intent of this subsection is to prevent players from betting on games where the fix is in, or where a player has an unfair advantage in predicting the outcome of the game. But let's think about poker. Imagine a card is flashed during the deal but not replaced, or you see the bottom cut card or a flop card that other players do not see, or you see the cards another player is holding. Under a strict reading of subsection h, this knowledge gives you an unfair advantage over other players in the hand, and if you bet based on that knowledge, you are arguably committing a felony. Now, I'm not aware of any casino poker rooms enforcing this rule this strictly, but one has to wonder if or when an angle shot might become a felony.

Now let's look at subsection j. Despite the availability of casino poker rooms, there are still plenty of home poker games being spread in Iowa. I've been invited to quite a number of them, and it's possible I've invited people to play in games I may have hosted. Home games are illegal under Iowa law if any player puts more than $50 at risk. So, if someone merely invites me to a home game where the buy-in is over $50, are they committing a felony?

I don't have any quick answers to these questions. I just found these statutes to be interesting examples of the rather broad and elaborate statutory mechanisms which some states have enacted to prohibit non-licensed gambling. What do you think?

(Image source).

D-Bag O' the Day (v.2.1)—'Til Tantrums Do Us Part

2011-05-23T23:50:00.002-05:00

It's been a few months since our last D-Bag O' the Day, not because there's been any real shortage of D-Bags, but more because none of them seemed all that worthy of my attention. Sure, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (a Republican, natch) decided that gay couples didn't deserve even the limited right to visit or make health care decisions for their partners in the hospital. Minnesota legislators (again, Republicans) were hard at work addressing the state's infrastructure and economic issues by passing a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. The Tennessee legislature and governor were working overtime to make sure schoolkids weren't exposed to the gay menace, and to strip away anti-discrimination protection from gays. The latter effort came with a shameful big assist from the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce whose members were shocked—shocked!—to discover Republicans were passing the law to target gays, who the Chamber members swear they really, really love. Still, given the impressive Republican achievements in bigotry and demagoguery the past couple of decades, this is all garden variety douchiness. To get my attention, you have to elevate your game.

Today, the anti-gay D-Bag gauntlet was thrown down from a rather unexpected source—a liberal gay man writing in the New York Times. Now liberals, gays, and Times writers are frequent contributors to the realm of political hyperbole and hypocrisy, but they generally have a good record on gay issues. Rich Benjamin—a gay man and blowhard of whom I have 'til now enjoyed the pleasure of blissful ignorance—makes a childish argument that, as long as it isn't legal for gays to get married, he will hold his breath until he turns blue while boycotting the weddings of his straight friends.

How utterly absurd to celebrate an institution that I am banned from in most of the country. It puzzles me, truth be told, that wedding invitations deluge me. Does a vegan frequent summer pig roasts? Do devout evangelicals crash couple-swapping parties? Do undocumented immigrants march in Minuteman rallies?

Benjamin's superficial analogies are particularly inapt. Gays aren't morally or politically opposed to straight marriage, they merely seek to be treated equally within that sacred institution. Why would Benjamin advocate the bizarre boycotting of straight marriages? Benjamin insists his reasons aren't political:

[My friend Zach] resents me for blowing off his special day, for putting political beliefs ahead of our friendship and for punishing him for others’ deeds. But screaming zealots aren’t the only obstacles to equal marriage rights; the passivity of good people like Zach who tacitly fortify the inequality of this institution are also to blame.

They’re proof of a double standard: Even well-meaning heterosexuals often describe their own nuptials in deeply personal terms, above and beyond politics, but tend to dismiss same-sex marriage as a political cause, and gay people’s desire to marry as political maneuvering.

What many straight people consistently forget is that same-sex couples aren’t demanding marriage to make a political statement or to accrue “special rights.” When I ask my gay friends why they wish to marry, they don’t mention tax benefits. They seek marriage for the same personal reasons that straight people do: to share life’s triumphs and trials with their beloved, to start a family, to have the ability to protect that family, and to celebrate their loving commitment with a wedding.

Benjamin misses the point on two fronts. First, my straight friends don't seem to regard marriage equality as primarily a "gay issue" or a "political issue". Certainly there is a political element to the issue, but the significant progress that has been made in advancing the cause of marriage equality is because straight folks have stopped thinking of the issue as a gay rights issue, and instead have reflected on the fundamental unfairness of depriving gay people the right to be in committed, loving relationships. Benjamin fails to give our straight supporters credit for understanding that the issue of marriage equality is fundamentally a moral, not a political, question.

Second, and more to the point, it is Benjamin himself who abuses his friendships by injecting politics into a meaningful personal celebration of love and commitment. It is Benjamin who is making a political statement at the expense of sharing in the joy his friends experience. I do not have kids, but I still get great pleasure from sharing in the births, baptisms, graduations, and weddings of my friends' children. Just because I and other gay folks may not be able to marry the person we love in most states isn't a valid reason to churlishly hold ourselves aloof from the weddings of our straight friends.

Benjamin ultimately betrays his truly childish motivation—if he can't play, then he's taking his ball and running home to pout:

In recent years, many straight people have admirably pledged not to get married until gay people have the right to do so nationwide. I can’t ask friends like Zach to cancel their weddings, but I expect them to at least understand why I won’t attend. Straight friends and family need to accept their wedding invitations as collateral damage to exclusionary marriage laws. They should feel the consequences of this discrimination as sharply as we do.

Looking back over the past decade, it's nothing short of astonishing what strides gay people have made in achieving equality: merely being gay is no longer criminal, gays are mere months away from finally being able to serve their country openly and with honor, and the idea of gay marriage has gone from being an alien concept to being legal in five states (with civil unions in several others). The future looks even brighter. Despite the occasional spasms of anti-gay rhetoric from the Republican social conservative machine, a majority of Americans now support marriage equality, and the head of the odious Focus on the Family group has admitted that, with overwhelming support from younger Americans, marriage equality is all but inevitable. The only real question is whether a lengthy state-by-state operation will be required to bring about equality, or whether the U.S. Supreme Court will deliver a speedier coup de grâce to anti-gay discrimination.

This remarkable progress toward gay equality has occurred because of the thoughtful support of our straight friends. In fact, without the support of straight folks, there would be no gay rights progress. When we ultimately achieve marriage equality, it will because of our many straight allies who rallied to our cause, even if only by rethinking their view of the essence of the bonds of marriage. Boycotting the weddings of straight friends is a childish temper tantrum. Instead, Benjamin should rejoice in the marriages of his friends, gay or straight, knowing they wish him the right to join in that joyous bond.

(Image source).

Good Riddance, Sahara

2011-05-17T00:17:00.002-05:00

During IMOP-VI in March, our intrepid crew heard some disturbing news—the venerable "old school" Sahara casino was closing its doors. Now the Sahara has long played a minor supporting role in my Vegas experience. During my first Vegas trip—only 2006, though it feels like it was two decades ago—I stayed two nights at a friend's timeshare at the Hilton (when it still had a poker room), and two nights at the MGM Grand in a then-new and swanky West Wing room (conveniently a minute's walk from the poker room). On that trip, I pretty much walked through every casino from MGM to the Wynn, and Sahara to Stratosphere (cutting out the wasteland between Wynn and Sahara was an easy call). The first meal I ate in Vegas was at some seedy cafe in Sahara, where we chewed third-rate steak and egg specials while playing cheap keno. Let's just say I was thrilled with my move out of the junkie-hooker-thug war zone of the Sahara-Stratosphere corridor to the relatively posh casinos on the main portion of the Strip. To put things in historical perspective, the Wynn was barely a year old, and the Venetian poker room was big, fancy, and mostly empty, still trying to find its niche after less than two months of operations. Strange how time flies.

During our IMOP outings, the Sahara late night tournament was a standard group outing for our crew. This tournament had a hideous structure, used chips whose denominations were worn off from use, and attracted every nit over the age of 50 within a 20 mile radius. The room would serve a six-foot (or more) long sub sandwich during a break, but I always passed, assuming the sandwich tasted as sketchy as it looked. Other than one cash game session where several regulars—how bad must your life suck to make the Sahara your home poker base?—donated over a grand to me as I waited for the other Ironmen to bust out, the Sahara poker room offered nothing of value or interest to me.

The rest of the Sahara was equally pointless. In a town where new, modern, and glitzy rules the day, the Sahara was a dirty, smelly, smoky dump filled with ancient slot junkies riding their rascals and sucking on oxygen tanks. While some "dive" casinos on the Strip revel in a certain "everyman slumming it up party" atmosphere—think Imperial Palace, O'Shea's, Bill's Gamblin' Hall, Casino Royale—the Sahara never seemed to embrace a sense of irony and refused to imbue a sense of fun into its squalor. Even the Sahara's restaurants found ways to pass along the corporate message of despair; on one IMOP pre-tournament dinner at "Paco's", our waiter morosely informed us that the Mexican restaurant was out of tortillas.

The only redeeming trait of the Sahara was how its repulsive character gave birth to the best nickname of all time. One of our IMOP crew happens to be a big shot attorney from Milwaukee who enjoys the finer things in life. After IMOP-II, this gentleman begged our crew to ditch the Sahara tournament with the first of many of his famed emails that all began, "I have only two requests ..." The first request was invariably a plea to ditch the Sahara as an official IMOP poker tournament venue. Of course, this whining only made the Sahara a required stop in future IMOP outings, and also led to us nicknaming this gent "Sahara". One of my favorite moments of IMOP history was when I walked into the Venetian poker room on IMOP-III, spotted our resident elitist, yelled out, "Yo, Sahara!" and actually had him turn around and shake his head like a good puppy.

Ah yes, good times, Sahara.