High On Poker

…And we have a winnah!

2009-11-13T22:00:04Z

A couple of hours after posting You Decide #71, I received a slew of emails informing me of comments. I must’ve missed a few, because it turns out that the second commentor got the answer correct, even though I said somewhere around comment #10 that no one hit it. My bad.

Without further adieu, congratulations to Poker Meister, who correctly answered that my opponent had KQ.

As you may recall, preflop, my opponent, UTG, raised 5x the BB (100) with his KQ and I called in position with J9s. He flopped an OESD on the JT3, two heart board, and bet 200, 30 less than the pot. I felt it was a continuation bet, and it turned out I was right. I called.

The turn was an 8, giving me a straight draw, and he bet 320, which now was slightly more than 1/2 the 630 pot. At the time, I was worried he may’ve been milking me with the small bet, but another part of me felt that it could’ve been a bet to control the hand (i.e., if he checks, then I will definitely bet and he loses control and has to fold; if he bets, I’m likely to just fold or call, so he gets to set his price to see the river). In hindsight, its clear that my opponent was trying to push me out or get a cheap river card, and I gave it to him. I called.

The river was a Queen, completely my Q-high straight. My opponent, having hit top pair on the river after stringing me along, pushes. This was a god aweful play by him, as he was only going to get called by a hand that beat him. It did, however, cause me a bit of concern that I let him get there on the river with AK. I was correct, in one sense, that I let him get there on the river. It just turned out that where he got wasn’t good enough, since I also hit my straight.

If I had to choose one mistake in the hand, it was really on the turn. I could’ve raised there and took down a nice pot, or conversely, been re-raised and know where I stood. Instead, I let my opponent control the hand and I didn’t do enough to extract information.

Congrats to Poker Meister for his accurate read. PM, hit me up with an email (highonpokr AT yahoo DOT com) or leave a comment with your email or your PokerStars screenname.

Thanks for playing!

Until next time, make mine poker!

You Decide #71 (and an $11 Contest)

2009-11-13T19:16:40Z

The new HighOnPoker.com comes with one of those nifty hand converter options. All I have to do is copy and paste the hand history into the blog and it’ll pop out a pretty display with a rundown of the action.

Of course, I have always found raw hand histories to be terribly boring, and even with the converter, I find it to be a bit bland, but at least I can use the program to make pretty little card pictures!

This hand is from a 6-max SNG last night. I decided to follow someone’s advice (can’t remember who, but it was a commentor) and try some volume. I basically played four 6-max SNGs at once, starting them one after another with some time in between so I wouldn’t face four HU situations at once. At it turned out, I only cashed in one, taking second place after a long HU battle that saw my opponent hit 3-outters to escape death on 3 occasions. The other three games resulted in losses due at least in part to bad play. Once again, I let distraction take over.

I had a particularly tough decision to make in this upcoming hand. I had my full starting stack of 1500 and we were in the first level, 10/20 blinds. CPT was UTG, with 1430. I was in the cutoff. CPT raised to 100 preflop and I flat called with J 9 in position. It was definitely a loose call, but I felt confident in my ability to play in position. His preflop raise 5x the BB made me believe that he probably had a weak pocket pair or unpaired high cards. As long as he didn’t have KJ or AJ, I was in decent shape against those hands, so I decided it was worth the call in position. Everyone else folded.

The flop was J 3 T, with a pot of 230. CPT continuation bet 200 and I took my time before calling. The 200 somewhat scared me. I thought to myself that if I hit a strong hand in his position, what would I do? The answer I came up with was to bet slightly less than pot to keep my story going that I was making a typical c-bet. Of course, I also considered the possibility that I was overthinking the hand and that his c-bet was actually the mindless c-bet it first appeared to be.

The turn was 8, with a 630 pot. Not my opponent changed tactics, betting 320, significantly less than pot. There were still two possibilities. He was milking me with a winning hand or he was trying to control the bet size. I wasn’t 100% confident in my top pair, mediocre kicker, but the 8 brought me a straight draw. I called once again, happy to not have to put in all my chips.

The river hit me, Q, giving me a Q-high straight. The pot was over 1200. My opponent pushed all-in for 920 and once again, I was stuck with a tough decision. I had painted myself into a corner. For some reason, AK came flooding into my head. AK! AK! HE HAS AK! It made sense, too. The preflop bet of 5x so he could take down the pot without having to flop a pair (but then again, it was 30 pot). The c-bet on the flop. The weaker c-bet on the turn. AK! I took my time and tried to determine if I did, in fact, need to fold and save my remaining 900 or so chips. And finally, I made a knee jerk decision and called.

Anyone want to guess what he had? The correct answer gets $11 transfered to their PokerStars account. Suits don’t matter.

And while you are at it, feel free to comment on the hand, from preflop play to the end. I don’t love how I played it, so I’m more than happy to receive constructive criticism.

One final disclaimer: I often post my bad hands, because I see no use in posting hands where I played perfectly. There is little to be learned from those hands, and lots to be learned from these questionable ones. I just ask that you be gentle, kind readers.

Until next time, make mine poker!

Our Broken Legal System

2009-11-12T16:23:22Z

*** WARNING: NO POKER CONTENT ***

I was at Court last morning at a conference. The conference went nowhere, since the defendants are refusing to give me certain records that I am legally entitled to receive. Since I was staring down an end date for discovery (the time in which the parties can seek information from each other before certifying the case ready for trial), I had no choice but to make a motion to the Court asking that they extend the time for discovery and order the defendants to give me my records. This, in turn, meant that at the conference, nothing could be done, since the motion was still pending.

The most frustrating aspect, though, was when I was idly chatting with the two defense attorneys. Neither were the primary attorneys on the case, so they are not fully aware of the facts and history of the litigation. Regardless, during some idle chit-chat, one of the attorneys complained about having to come to Court again. I replied, “If you’d just settle with me, this case would be resolved and you wouldn’t have to show up for anything.” The other defense counsel replied in an almost condescending tone, “Counselor, you know that you’ll get your money, but in the meanwhile, we have to make ours.”

What did that statement mean? It meant that even though I was obviously going to win my case, the defense counsels did not want to settle early because this would cause their law firms money. It’s goddamn criminal.

This is why insurance rates are so high, including medical malpractice insurance rates. The mismanagement of litigation to the benefit of defense counsel is disgusting. In fact, the whole legal system is largely disgusting due to con men legal practices, where the client is an afterthought and profits are the number one priority.

Let’s just use a simple example in personal injury. Polly the Plaintiff was hit by a car while crossing the street at a crosswalk, breaking both of her legs. It is obvious to all parties that Polly was not at fault, and that Dickhead the Defendant was. Polly sues Dickhead and Dickhead’s insurance company, Incompetent Insurance, hires the Loser & Loser law firm, usually at a low hourly rate since the insurance company has lots of cases and therefore firms like L&L are willing to take lesser rates for ensured volume. The case is assigned to Angie the Associate. She gets her bonuses and/or gets to keep her job depending on whether she bills a certain number of hours per year. It’s a slow year for Angie, due in large part to the economy or perhaps because Loser & Loser does such a poor job that they don’t have many clients or cases for her to bill. Even though everyone knows that Dickhead is going to pay Polly eventually, Angie works up the case like a madwoman, fighting minutiae, getting multiple adjournments (so she can bill for each appearance, even though they are created by her), and arguing BS points. She is merely seeking her hours so that she can earn her bonus and Loser & Loser can bill Incompetent Insurance. On Incompetent Insurance’s side, there is an Izzie the Insurance Adjuster, who is overworked and overwhelmed. She relies on Angie’s memos that suggest that the case is worth fighting. Or she simply doesn’t even think about the Polly v. Dickhead case because she has other cases to worry about that are near trial, when the pressure is really on.

The result? Angie continues to bill for useless work, and then eventually Incompetent Insurance settles anyway, after paying thousands of dollars in additional legal fees. If anyone in that process would just do the honest thing, analyze the case, and perform a risk-benefit analysis, the case could have settled months, if not years, earlier. But that is not our system.

That is what is occurring in my present case. The defendants are stalling so they can charge more money to their insurance carriers. The BS stall tactics are institutionalized and encouraged with the bonus system or pressure placed on attorneys at L&L. L&L, in turn, benefits from these dishonest practices. Incompetent Insurance is wasting money left and right on every case, and then, when their books show that they are losing money, they don’t complain about their own incompetence or the wasteful actions of the attorneys they hired and let run wild; they complain that there are too many frivolous lawsuits and huge verdicts. They then point to the McDonald’s case as an example, even though the $2 Million + verdict in that case was reduced to several hundred thousand (and incidentally, the $2 Million + figure represented one day of McDonald’s coffee sales and was intended to put pressure on McDonalds to stop serving scalding hot coffee since they had ignored other warnings and prior injuries).

Online poker is rigged? The law is rigged, my friends. The system is built on a house of lies.

Until next time, make mine poker!

Feeding on Tuna

2009-11-11T21:36:16Z

Man, I am running out of “Tuna Titles”. If you’ve been following along a HoP, you are probably aware that I have been trouncing the tournaments at the local underground poker room, putting up four wins in a row (wins = cashes, although three out of four were chops where I took the top spot), followed by two losses. Overall, I am way over .500 at the Tuna tourneys, and tonight, I continued to add to my positive results.

I decided to play poker this afternoon when I realized wifey Kim had dinner plans. Tuesday is the $130 buyin (including fees and the $10 dealer toke/add-on), with a structure that is faster than my bread and butter Sunday $160 Tuna tournament.

Since I hadn’t planned to play until this afternoon, I was at a preparatory disadvantage. Usually, I’ll pack comfortable clothes, essentially my poker uniform: a t-shirt (usually my $uperman shirt or my High on Poker shirt), a hoodie, cargo pants, a cap and sunglasses, along with two Buddha statue card caps and my iPod. Fortunately, I stilll had my most important items, my sunglasses and iPod. The sunglasses keep me focused. Most people think they are to hide tells, but in reality, it’s to allow me to look around at players without letting them know I am watching them. But even moreso, it’s because when I wear my sunglasses, I play better. I think the darkness is a visual reminder to pay attention.

After work, I hopped in the subway and headed to 8th Avenue, allowing myself a one avenue walk to the poker room. On the way, I stopped at Boston Market for a quick bite, which I ate at the room while I waited for the game to start. I was early, as always, and eventually got into a conversation with Dre, one of the dealers. Dre is a skinny black kid. I say kid, but I have no idea how old he is. He comes off as relatively young, but he clearly has a mind for the game and he plays higher limits than I do. I was still wearing my suit and he asked about my outfit. He’s seen me often enough to know my M.O. As we chatted, I explained that a great part of it was image. I want to look like the degenerate. He said that I would be better off with the suit because it looks like I have money to burn. That’s a valid point, but the question is what are we trying to get from our opponents. The degenerate look says, “loser.” And that’s good, because I want my opponents to pay me off. The suit look says “success,” which is more likely to get people to fold. I want to optimize my big hands. It’s just how I play. So, I dress the part.

The second reason why I wear my poker outfit is that its comfortable. And really, that trumps all other reasons. (Bonus third reason: I don’t have to think about what I’m going to wear. I stole that move from Einstein.)

The tourney started on two mostly full tables. I had a pretty good lineup. The best player of the bunch was on my immediate right and I knew enough about the tendency of the other players to be happy with the group. In the first orbit, I was dealt JJ and when it checked to me in EP, I bet 200 with blinds of 25/50. I got a MP caller followed by a call by the BB, a chick who goes by the name of Dawn (but not IHO Dawn.)

The flop was J98. Dawn bet out 400 and I called. The turn was a blank. Dawn bet out 600 and I raised to 2600. That was a large raise, perhaps too large, because once she pushed all-in, I had to call, given the pot odds, even though I feared I was behind. She showed QT for the flopped straight. I then rivered a 9 for the full house. This 10-outter (three 9s, three 8s, three of the blank turn, and one Jack) put me in great position, so I sat back and let the magic happen.

I chipped up some more with good cards that I was able to maximize, and was probably around 22k (4.5k starting stack), when I played my worst hand of the tournament. Preflop, I raised with AJh and was called by an Israeli guy who wouldn’t stop yapping, akin to what I normally do, except more annoying. Or, um, actually just exactly what I normally do, but since I wasn’t the one doing it, it was more annoying to me. I played along with it mostly. He was playing crap cards and calling reraise pushes with crap like KJ, so I didn’t fear him much.

The flop was QQ2. I checked and he bet 1200, which was probably 2/3 pot. I called because I felt he was weak and I thought I was ahead. The turn was another low card. I checked and he bet 1200 again. If he bet higher, I’d've believed him and folded, but at that price, I was still thinking that it was worth a call. I felt my A or J would be good if they paired and I still wasn’t 100% sure that he had anything worth betting. The price was cheap enough to keep me in.

The river was another 2. I checked and he bet 1200. He only had maybe 2000 left behind. I flat called and he showed 33. He was good. I looked like a fool.

I followed that up a little while later with one of the best plays (and ballsiest plays) I have ever made.

I was in the BB, which was 400, I think, and held 84h. We were shorthanded, 6 players, as we played down to the final table. On the button, an old, fat, sloppy guy called. I wish I could be kinder, but that’s the perfect description of this guy. Old (late 50s at best, probably mid 60s), fat (250+ on a 5′7″ frame), and sloppy (disheveled appearance). He had already gone through two buy-ins, and I had watched him play really poorly throughout the evening. In fact, when he made his last rebuy, the blinds were so high that it was a complete sucker’s bet, and anyone willing to do that is clearly not in the right frame of mind to win.

So, preflop, the Sloppy Guy min raises to 800 from the button. He had done this earlier, and this time, I decided to call with my 84h because I had the chips and I was confident I could read this mess. I also knew he did not have a premium hand based on his raise, so I could potentially outflop him too.

The flop was A82 with two spades. That was actually a pretty good flop for me, especially when I saw the reaction of my Sloppy opponent. I have to emphasize that this isn’t some obvious tell; it’s just demeanor. I checked and he made a continuation bet of 1200. I remember thinking that this was another obvious sign, based on his previous betting patterns. He didn’t have the Ace; at best he had an underpair, at worst he had missed the flop entirely with maybe K-high or less. I called.

The turn was another Ace. Sloppy had about 3,000 behind, and I saw that he was getting ready to push them all-in. There was only one problem…I was first to act. And this is where I got ballsy. Knowing that mere moments before, my opponent was indicating a push, I decided to beat him to the punch, announcing, “All-in!” Remember, I had him mightily outchipped, and I had a feeling he was trying to push me out of the pot. Essentially, I was betting that he did not have an Ace. Even KK in that position would be scared, since I called a min bet pre-flop, called a c-bet post-flop, and pushed when the Ace on the flop was paired on the turn, clearly indicating that I had a baby Ace. If you want, you can add to the story the fact that I was pushing after there was every indication that my opponent would call, so clearly I had a strong hand.

My Sloppy opponent pulled back his chips, which were incidentally still behind his cards in-motion to going all-in when I beat him to the punch. He mulled it over for a bit and I made sure not to do anything to tip him off to my ruse. That meant that I couldn’t just lock up and go into tell-hiding mode, since that is a tell in and of itself. Instead, I just kept along with whatever conversation was going at the time. My opponent eventually folded and I showed for flair. Sometimes, it’s important for your opponents to know that you have their number…or that you are an all-in donkey. Either way, I liked the results.

By the time we were down to the final table, I was probably the chip leader, but blinds were going up quickly, and I lost a huge portion of my stack to the new chipleader, a player named Ali who had spent the first table at my immediate left. I thought I had a read on the guy, and when he pushed a turn, I figured him for a flush draw. Alas, he actually had turned trips after flopping third pair to my second pair. That put me in a tight spot, but thankfully, I still had enough chips to be competitive.

After every bust-out, the Isreali from my first table would say, “9-way chop?” or “8 way chop?” By the time he said, “5-way chop?” the stacks had evened out. I had about 22k, he had about 22k, there was one guy with a shorter stack of about 12k, and two guys with large stacks of about 30k and 40k. To my amazement, the 40k guy agreed, and once that fell into place, some quick math was done and we all agreed to chop it up 5-ways for $500 each, a $370 profit.

I was happy to chop, given the blinds (800/1600, about to go up to 1200/2400), but I really need to find a good opportunity to play one of these tournaments to the end. That isn’t my #1 goal. My #1 goal is to make money, and on that account, I succeeded. But next time I am in this situation where I feel I have enough of an advantage to take first place, I really want to play it out. This just wasn’t that time. I was getting a good price, we were about to devolve into a push-fest (hell, we were already there), and there were enough players left that hitting first or even second was hardly a given. Oh, and it was relatively early. I can’t complain about that.

As it turns out, I am now $6 away from my 2009 Goal, which is an exciting thing in and of itself. If i can earn $6 more profit by the end of the year, it’ll be my fourth success in five attempts, having failed last year to earn as much as I would’ve liked.

Next year’s goal will be an interesting one, especially if I really can find more time for higher buy-in live tournaments. But that’s a discussion for another post.

Oh, and if all goes well, you are reading this from my new site, HighOnPoker.com, utilizing the old feed. Go me!

Until next time make mine poker!

Test 2

2009-11-07T20:18:51Z

Sorry folks. Nothing to see here.

New HighOnPoker.com Test Post

2009-11-07T18:45:39Z

Good Saturday, everyone. This here is a test post to see if the new HighOnPoker.com is up and running. Is all went according to plan, this is going to the RSS feed readers without any changes on their part. Because we (I) here at HighOnPoker pass the savings to you, our (my) readers. Yeah. So that’s what this is. A test. If you are reading this, congratulations, you passed. If you are not reading this, then you fail. Shame on you.

Until next time, make mine poker!

Hammer Play

2009-11-06T22:30:00Z

Hey guys. I got a random email from Ultimate Bet and noticed that they have special tables with a standing prop bet that will earn you a couple of bucks if you win a hand with the hammer (72o). Most amazingly, this was part of the email/website:

That’s right, folks. They used a silhouette of a hammer in the design. Now, for a bit of history, the Hammer isn’t some 1800s nickname for 72o. It was dubbed the Hammer by fellow poker blogger Grubby several years ago. It was picked up by the poker blogging community, I am sure in large part to the hammer promotions Grubby ran at the time, and has spread thanks to the interconnectivity of poker blogs.

What’s most interesting is that most people probably don’t know the nickname, “hammer” for 72o. And, in fact, there is no reference to the word “hammer” on UB’s page for their 7Deuce promotion.

So, my only guess is that whoever designed the hammer logo must’ve heard the term that originated from Grubby and incorporated it into the graphic design even though the promotion does not use the official hammer moniker. Either way, mad props to Grubby and the hammer.

Until next time, make mine poker!

Biography and Luck

2009-11-08T15:31:26Z

While we are on the subject of poker books, I’d like to take a moment to talk about one of my favorite sub-genres: poker biographies. I’ve read a handful in my day, and really, only a handful, but they are probably some of my favorite poker books to read. Usually, you get a good story, interesting characters, a touch of poker history, and a smattering of strategy. Frankly, I think I just really love the insight into the world of a professional poker player.

Amonsg my favorites are the biographies of Stu Ungar, Amarillo Slim, Mike Matusow, and, surprisingly, Chris Moneymaker. For anyone truly interested in poker as it exists today, I highly recommend the Moneymaker book.

I was reading a piece by Change100 at PokerNews and it reminded me of one aspect of the Moneymaker book that has stuck with me to this day. Change100’s article goes through the different possible 2009 WSOP Champions with a very astute analysis of the what each win could mean for poker. When discussing Ivey, she recalled a hand on the final table bubble of the 2003 WSOP:

If there ever was a single card that changed the game of poker, it came on the final table bubble of the 2003 Main Event. Holding , Chris Moneymaker flopped trip queens and led out for 70,000. Phil Ivey called with pocket nines and hit his gin card on the turn with the , making him a well-disguised full house. Moneymaker did his bidding for him, firing out 200,000. Ivey moved all-in and Moneymaker called. Although Ivey was better than a 4-to-1 favorite to win the pot, Moneymaker rivered an ace for a higher full house, winning the hand and sending Ivey to the rail in 10th place.

This hand has been played so many times on TV, it’s hard not to remember it. Regardless, what always amazed me about Moneymaker’s book was his analysis of the hand.

Moneymaker’s win was widely regarded as a fluke in most poker circles. He hasn’t had much success since the win, so most people write him off as a guy who got lucky to win the WSOP.

Clearly, Moneymaker’s book was meant, in part, to address this belief. Whether or not he successfully defeats his own luckbox image is another story, but he does make some great points about his “luck”.

People looked at his AQ v. 99 hand with Ivey and said, “Moneymaker is so lucky to have hit the 4-outter on the river.” But that isn’t the full story, as explained by Moneymaker. And Moneymaker is right.

The hand started as a basic cointoss. But once the flop was dealt, Moneymaker took a commanding lead with trips against two pair. Ivey then needed to hit a 2 outter to take the lead on the turn. He hit his two outter, shifting the odds well in his favor and giving Moneymaker a meager 4 outs. Moneymaker then hit his four outs.

Some people think that makes Moneymaker a luckbox, and in a way, it does; just not in the way that they think. The story is not about how many outs Moneymaker rivered, but about the luck throughout the hand. Moneymaker was somewhat lucky to flop good, but no one can argue that he played incorrectly when he played AQ preflop with a solid stack. On the turn, Ivey was the one who got lucky; in fact, he got very lucky. Moneymaker may’ve finished off the hand with his own luck, but that’s the thing about luck: it gets spread around.

This is not a hand about a lucky river. It’s a hand about a fortunate setup. That’s a key difference. In the first scenario, Moneymaker is a donk who called an all-in from behind. In the second, Ivey got coolered by getting “lucky” on the turn when he was way behind and then having Moneymaker retake the lead with a monster hand on the river. In scenario one, Moneymaker is a loser (not in a literal sense); in scenario two, it’s Ivey.

Of course, I never meant to go into such detail. But I do recommend Moneymaker’s book, if nothing else because it gives a novel view of the events that really brought upon the poker boom.

And while you are at it, if you enjoy self-destruction, check out Ungar’s biography and Matusow’s biography. If you like to get a feel for the old school gamblers’ lifestyle, check out Amarillo Slims. All are great reads.

Until next time, make mine poker!

Omaha’s Book Club

2009-11-06T14:32:00Z

I love the 8-game SNGs. Last night, I took my last buy-in at PokerStars to a 6-person, 8-game, turbo SNG. I took 2nd, which was good enough to double my meager bankroll and give me enough to waste on another game shortly.

I’ve been thinking a lot about Omaha lately. When I first learned the game, I took to it like wildfire. My love of poker is really a love of games, and Omaha was another fun new game to learn. I felt I had a better intuitive grasp on the game than most because of the way my brain thinks (gamesmanship, mostly), but I’ve come to learn that as I acclimated myself to the game before moving on to others, a large portion of the online poker world (and bloggers) kept learning and probably know way more about the game than I ever did.

This was a humbling realization, but it spurred my next thought. I need to learn Omaha better. And what better way to learn Omaha (besides playing it) than to read up on the game. That’s where hopefully you come in…

Can anyone recommend a good Omaha book? I’d like to cover all variations, including limit, pot limit, high only and 8 or better.

It’s been a long time since I read a poker book. The last one was Gus Hansen’s Every Hand Revealed, which I read about a year ago (highly recommended, by the way). So, I guess it is time, and if I act now, I’ll hopefully ingest the book well in advance of my December to Remember poker tour.

And while I’m at it, if anyone else has a non-Omaha poker book they’d recommend, feel free to share. It’d help, though, if you gave a brief description of why the book is worthwhile. I like all sorts of poker books, including the biographies and narratives.

Until next time, make mine poker!

Another Blow to AC

2009-11-05T19:58:00Z

It’s more good news for my fellow degenerates, but more bad news to Atlantic City. For a long while, AC had a monopoly on legalized gambling in the North East. It was the home of the first casino built on US soil outside of Vegas (the now pathetic Resorts AC) and spent many years as the only legal gambling spot in the NE (and possibly the entire Eastern seaboard) until the Injuns finally realized that they could trade back our beads for casino megaplexes. I don’t know the full history of all of the casinos in the North East, but we know from recent history that the taboo against gambling is dissolving, with PA first allowing slots and more recently giving the green light to table games which may include real poker. And it looks like Ohio is now in on the fun. (nod to Iggy’s recent post for alerting me to Ohio’s recent change of heart).

Ohioans recently voted in a referendum to legalize casinos in the city’s four largest cities, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo. This was a departure from past sentiment, as four prior referendums in Ohio have failed over the last 19 years.

Of course, this does not bode well for my second home, Atlantic City. AC didn’t have any direct flights regularly scheduled from Ohio, but apparently they did have some regular charter flights bringing in the gamblers. Whatever the case, as gambling becomes more and more prevalent and legal in the surrounding states, the appeal of AC as a gambling haven continues to diminish.

I can’t be too unhappy, though. For one, I can probably fly pretty cheaply to Ohio, not that I’ve checked. Aside from that, the expansion of legalized gambling will hopefully continue, much in the same way as we will continue to see strides in legalized marijuana and gay marriage. Ironically, of the three, gay marriage is having the hardest time, which just goes to show what America is really made out of.

Of course, this isn’t really a move toward personal freedoms or libertarian values as much as it is an exploitation of the morons running this society (I mean the voters as much as the government). The big push was based on claims of new jobs and more revenue to be taxed by the government. All you have to do is look at struggling AC or Detroit to see that the benefits are not exactly what they seem.

But in the end, more casinos means more gamblers means less taboo. So you and I will eventually be able to talk freely about our unhealthy amount of sports bets or poker games in the not too distant future without the look of scorn from John Q. Public.

I love the deterioration of Puritanical principles.

Until next time, make mine poker!