The Price Is Wrong at the Meadows

Yesterday I played a late afternoon holiday poker session at the Meadows ATM. Games were rather sparse when I arrived mid-afternoon, with a couple of tables from the noon tourney still running, along with two tables of $1/$2 NLHE. As additional tourney players busted, some rotated into cash games, allowing some of the regulars to launch a $1/$2 Pot Limit HOE cash game. [FN1]  Despite the siren song of the Gamboool game, I stayed at the NLHE game because there were a few fishy tourist types, and I was waiting for the arrival of a vacationing blogosphere-Twitterverse friend, Jason, a degen geneticist from New Jersey (say that three times fast). I managed a $300 profit before we got five-handed with small stacks in play, so I gave in to temptation and moved to the HOE game just as Jason arrived to also join the degeneracy.

The game played rather nitty, with lots of limped or one-raise pots getting six to nine players to the flop. Preflop 3-bets were as rare as WSOP players who get knocked out without a bad beat. Still, there were numerous hands in the Omaha and Omaha8 rounds with multi-way all-ins, often with marginal draws. I wish I could say I cleaned up in the game, but some #runbad and some #playbad left me down for the session. Still, it was entertaining, since most of the table were friendly and talkative. I spent the session sitting next to a nice young gal (and solid player) @chelmc23, who is a regular in many of the Omaha games at the Meadows. We have played together often, so we gossiped a bit. At one point after witnessing a weird runner-runner suckout in a big Omaha pot, this exchange occurred:

Me:  "Wow, that's brutal."

Chelmc23:  "I had a worse beat in the Friday Omaha game."

Me:  "The 6/12 high-low?" [Note: A group of older folks have had a long-running regular Omaha8 game every Friday morning at the Meadows, often getting two tables. They play it $6/$12 limit, with a half-kill to $10/$20 following scoop pots of $60 or more.]

Chelmc23:  "Yeah. But I don't want to bore you with a bad beat story."

Me:  "Why don't you save it for the Hold 'Em round?"

Chelmc23:  "Good idea."

So, new rule: Bad beat stories can be told to liven up the boring rounds of a mixed game. The rule should also apply to Triple Draw and Stud games—except for Razz, of course, where merely playing is a bad beat.

I did win one entertaining hand of note. In a Gamboool8 round, I had some trashy hand in the big blind, something like K-J-9-7. It limped around, so I got to see a flop of 9-9-9. Donkey Kong! I checked the flop, got a loose player to bet it, a nitty lady to call, then I raised to $30, and they both called. Turn was ... oh who cares. I led out for $40, loose guy thought then folded, but the lady called. River was another card of no consequence. I bet $50, the lady sighed, pushed out the call, and said "Show me your 9". Instead, I rolled over my hand to claim the nice pot.

Anyway, the point of this post was to discuss the problems dealers can encounter when tracking pot size for betting purposes. The concept of pot limit betting can be tough for poker players used to the rigid structure of limit games and the anything-goes approach to no-limit games. Instead of simply pulling in bets each round, dealers have to track the pot size as players routinely simply bet by saying "Pot!" and then looking to the dealer to state the bet size for them. Now, as long as the dealer knows the pot size, and players bet, call, and raise in pot-sized increments, keeping track of the pot is simple arithmetic. For example, on one flop, a player bet pot. The dealer stated "$63". One player called, then the next player raised pot. The dealer froze for a moment, then started saying, "$280 ... $280 ..." which was clearly too high. I was in the 10 Seat, and quietly told the dealer, "It's $252 plus his $63 call, so ... $315 total", which another player also echoed. This case was easy because the raiser first had to call the $63 bet, then match the total in the pot for a raise of $252 ($63 x 4—preflop pot amount, pot bet, call, and call by reraiser). A more effective technique for thinking about this kind of pure pot betting and pot raising is to take four times the original pot bet size, then add another pot bet for each caller between original bettor and the pot reraiser to arrive at the total bet size for the pot reraiser (here, 4 x $63, plus 1 x $63, or 5 x $63 = $315; had there been a second caller, then simply make it 4 x $63, plus 2 x $63, or 6 x $63 = $378). Since the original bet amount was under $70, I knew the raise couldn't possibly be another $280 or more like the dealer thought. [FN2]

Later in the session, another weird pot-counting situation came up when a young lady dealer I had never seen before rotated into our game. There was a preflop raise to $10 with seven callers. I was out of the hand and not paying that close of attention. The dealer put out the flop, and the lady in Seat 1 put out a $15 bet that I couldn't see. Loose guy in Seat 5 raised pot, and the dealer said, "$115". Guy in Seat 8 then raised pot. Dealer said, "$300 more." Thinking that the $115 bet by Seat 5 was the first action on the round, I said to the dealer, "Shouldn't it be $345 more?" Dealer pointed to the Seat 1 bet of $15, and said, "It's $300". Seat 1 folded as I said, "Well, it can't be $300." Seat 5 called, and the dealer put out the turn card, then turned to me and quite tersely said, "It was $70 preflop, her $15, then his $115, so it's $300 more." I hadn't worked out the math by that moment, but I knew that $300 couldn't possibly be the correct raise amount (for one thing, with three players making bets ending in $5 before the pot raise, math says the raise amount had to end in a five, not a zero). But, I wasn't in the hand, the two remaining players had no trouble shipping the remaining $350 or so in Seat 8's stack (Seat 5 had him well-covered), so I simply shut the heck up. But I did take out my iPhone to write a note with the correct math to use as the basis for this post:

Let's start on the flop. A bet of $15, then a pot raise to $115 total means that the $15 bet plus a $15 call totals $30 on top of the pot. Since the raise was $100 more (for a total bet of $115), the preflop pot had to have been $70: $100-$15-$15=$70. The $70 original pot size checks with preflop action of seven players calling $10 each. So far so good.

Now, the next pot raiser must first call the $115 pending bet before his pot raise is calculated. So, $115 (pending bet by Seat 5) + $115 (call by Seat 8) + $15 (Seat 1 bet) + $70 (preflop bet) = $315 total pot which is theadditional raise amount for Seat 8.

So, the dealer was wrong as I knew, but I was also wrong as she knew. Math failure all around (though my error was based on not seeing the original $15 bet). Using The Price Is Right rules—closest to the correct amount without going over—I would normally give the dealer the win here. But, the dealer is being paid to keep track of the correct pot size. Being off $15 might not seem like a big deal, but in a multi-way pot where small amounts get magnified quickly, it can mean the difference between a player being able to call or reraise, or determine whether a player is able to get his stack in the middle on the turn. At a minimum, if a player questions the pot size in a pot limit game, a dealer should take a moment to confirm his or her math.

"The price is wrong, B#tch!"

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

[FN1] For my less experienced readers, HOE is a mixed game with alternating rounds of Hold 'Em, Omaha (high only), and Omaha Eight or Better (high/low split pot game with the low hand must be 8-high or lower to qualify).

[FN2] As I noted in a prior post on PLG in Vegas, some casinos elect to track the pot in $5 increments, with odd dollars rounded up to the next $5. Using only $5 increments, particularly postflop, makes the pot-tracking and pot-raising calculations much easier for dealers and players alike. There is some variation in how the $5 increment policy is implemented:

The Venetian PLG game has $1/$2 blinds, which are counted as $5 for pot-calculation purposes, with a $5 bring-in (if you call preflop, it's $5; first raise without a limp is to $15). The Aria PLG game has $1/$3 blinds, which are counted as $3 for preflop action, with post-flop action in $5 increments (first raise without a limp is to $12).

Marriage Equality & the Courage of Political Pandering

In a recent TV interview that seems to have flown under the national media radar, President Obama announced publicly that he supports the rights of gay and lesbian Americans to legally marry their same-sex partners. The President was immediately criticized by many in his own party for being a political coward who had not "evolved" far enough fast enough from support for civil unions to support for full marriage equality. The President also took political fire from Republicans who predictably claimed that the President was cravenly pandering to wealthy donors and liberal base voters by publicly admitting to his support for marriage equality. Frankly, both sets of critics are correct. But President Obama's statement on marriage equality fits quite comfortably in the context of gay rights issues in modern American politics.

Let's begin in 1980, the first presidential election I can remember (I was in fourth grade). The 1980 election was probably the defining moment in American politics in my lifetime, when Ronald Reagan finally mastered the dark art of fusing socially conservative voters to the traditional Republican base of financial conservatives and foreign policy hawks. Reagan's views on gay issues "devolved" quickly from his opposition as a former governor to a California initiative to ban gays from teaching in public schools to a presidential campaign where he courted social conservative voters and donors with campaign statements condemning gays as engaged in an immoral "alternative lifestyle". Reagan's administration kowtowed to the newly influential religious right on the paramount gay issue of the decade—the AIDS crisis. Reagan never even acknowledged the existence of the AIDS epidemic publicly until near the end of his second term in 1987, while his administration shamefully delayed taking any public policy position because many of his top advisers viewed AIDS as a gay disease where the victims "are only getting what they justly deserve." Reagan's loathsome communications director, Pat Buchanan, even authored a New York Post op-ed piece in which he declared, "The poor homosexuals—they have declared war upon nature, and now nature is exacting an awful retribution."

Reagan's presidency also coincided with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. The Supreme Court—the ultimate protector of justice and equality—declared in rather harsh language that if states wanted to make being gay a criminal offense, well that was perfectly OK under the Constitution. This decision and the vestigial anti-sodomy laws it endorsed were used over the next two decades by many conservative states to justify refusing to permit gays to adopt children. After all, gays were criminals by law.

Pandering on gay rights issues reached its zenith in the 1990s when Congressional Republicans whipped their social conservative base into a frenzy on the twin issues of patriotic support for military service and strengthening families by working to ban gays from serving their country in the military or creating families by getting married. The equally loathsome "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) and "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) were enacted with ease, thanks to hordes of Congressional Democrats falling all over themselves in a mad rush to reassure voters that, although they liked gays more than the Republicans and welcomed their votes and donations, they certainly weren't going to, you know, actually vote to support any recognition of gays as deserving of equality. Of course, Senate Republicans had to put a pickle on the shit sandwich of DOMA by voting down a proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that would have given federal protection to gays against employment discrimination (a law that has yet to be passed even today).

The 1990s also saw the genesis of the Republican tactic of using ballot measures to enshrine anti-gay bigotry into various state constitutions. Colorado voters bought into Republican rhetoric that gays should not be given "special rights" and passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting any state or local law or ordinance granting gays protection from discrimination in any form (targeted at local ordinances barring discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment or housing). Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually invalidated the amendment in Romer v. Evans, but Republicans still use the "special rights" dog whistle to this day.

Moving into the current century (even if the Republican party would prefer not to do so), President George W. Bush campaigned on a "compassionate conservatism" platform. Apparently the "compassion" part was optional, as Bush (with the tacit support of the Gay Quisling) based his reelection strategy in 2004 in part by pandering to social conservatives in key swing states by instigating votes on state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, not to mention openly endorsing the idea of a federal constitutional amendment also banning gay marriage.

Which brings us to the era of President Obama. Obama campaigned on the promise of repealing DADT, which had broad bipartisan public support. Yet Republicans led by supposed-moderate John McCain fought tooth and nail to preserve DADT and deny gay Americans the right to openly serve their country. My cynical view is that the Republican resistance was less about military service than it was about marriage equality. After all, if the public ever saw a gay soldier or sailor return from active duty to the embrace or even marriage proposal of a same-sex partner, the social conservative case against marriage equality would suffer a serious public relations blow. Also, gays serving in the military would be particularly vulnerable to the whims of the patchwork of state laws governing marriage equality, and a gay military couple would make a compelling example of the indignities imposed by DOMA and state anti-gay marriage laws.

In other recent political pandering, after years of Republican calls for marriage equality issues to be decided by legislatures not courts, Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie—his eyes firmly on social conservative support for a presidential campaign in 2016—vetoed a marriage equality bill and moved the equality goalposts back even further, demanding a statewide vote on a marriage equality constitutional amendment. Republican legislators in Louisiana voted to maintain laws that prohibit gays from adopting children under any circumstances, while Republican legislators in Virginia passed a law making it significantly more difficult for gays to adopt. Republican legislators in Missouri and Tennessee proposed laws to prevent public school teachers from even discussing gays. North Carolina Republicans pushed through a state constitutional amendment barring gays from marrying, even though state law already prohibited gays from marrying, and the Republican Speaker of the House admitted that the amendment would likely be overturned in a few years. And the leading Republican candidates for President fell over each other in declaring their anti-gay bona fides, with presumptive nominee Mitt Romney "evolving" from declaring his strong support for gay rights in the 1990s to pandering to social conservatives with a strongly anti-gay platform in the current presidential race. And just to drive the anti-gay point home, Romney recently hired then fired an openly gay adviser to placate the religious right.

Whew! That's a lot of political pandering on gay rights issues. President Obama's pandering fits right in ....

That being said, there is some merit to President Obama's critics on the left who note that Obama's "evolution" on marriage equality was a cynical and cowardly ploy calculated to ensure his election in 2008. Those critics are correct—President Obama is hardly leading the charge for marriage equality. Compared to many marriage equality proponents—Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, New Hampshire legislators, prominent Republican attorney Ted Olson, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, and former Iowa supreme court justices Marsha Ternus, Michael Streit, and David Baker, just to name a few—President Obama is downright cowardly in his evolution from supporting civil unions to his recent support for full marriage equality (qualified by pushing the issue off to the states).

Still, as a matter of pragmatism, it is rather politically unrealistic for gay rights proponents to expect politicians to openly endorse gay rights issues if doing so results in political suicide. After all, what good are politicians who support gay rights if their gay-favorable stances make them unelectable? In President Obama's case, it is arguable that a pro-marriage equality position in 2008 might have resulted in the election of John McCain. It seems obvious that gays are far better off with Obama as President than they would have been with McCain in the White House. In fact, President Obama has done far more to advance gay rights in three years—repealing DADT, rescinding the HIV travel ban, taking the position that DOMA is unconstitutional, publicly supporting marriage equality, nominating gays to positions as judges or significant administration posts—than all his predecessors have accomplished in over two centuries. Gays could use more cowards like President Obama fighting on their side.

In the long run, President Obama's public support for marriage equality both reflects and pushes the increasing public support for the right of gays to marry. But President Obama's support for marriage equality is not just merely a symbolic political position, it is a powerful statement of inclusion and equality for gays, serving as a beacon of hope to gays that they too can live the American dream of marriage, family, and a house with white picket fence (or tasteful shrubbery).

Just this spring, a teenage boy had the courage to come out as gay in his small rural high school in deeply conservative northwest Iowa. Kenneth Weishuhn, Jr. was by all accounts a happy and well-liked 14 year old. He created a Pinterest page— "When I get married. (: " —to share his plans for his wedding to the man of his dreams he had yet to meet. Yes, a 14 year year old gay Iowa boy was dreaming of his happily-ever-after wedding day. How much more traditional, more sappy, can any teen get?

A mere month after coming out, Kenneth committed suicide. Traumatized by the jeers and taunts of his classmates, Kenneth could no longer hide the emotional hurt behind his outward smile. Kenneth's death brought outrage, sympathy, and reflection. Hopefully Kenneth's death will be a catalyst for meaningful changes in attitudes towards gays in general and towards bullied teens in particular.

But no matter what happens, Kenneth will never meet the man of his dreams. He'll never fall in love. He'll never get to enjoy his perfect wedding day.

For the President of the United States to tell gay folks that their relationships are just as important as opposite-sex relationships, that gay people should be free to marry the person they love, is not just a merely symbolic political act, it is an important act of personal affirmation and support. President Obama's declaration of support for marriage equality, regardless of its political motivations, is a courageous and historical milestone in the struggle for gay rights. I don't give a flying pig how or why he arrived at this spot at this time; at the end of the day President Obama has chosen to stand with gay Americans in their quest for equality.

For the first President to show his support for gays as fully equal Americans, I can forgive a slow "evolution" of his views, and can overlook a reluctance to get too far ahead of public opinion. President Obama has made a historical choice on a major, controversial issue of his day, while in the midst of a heated campaign for reelection. Whether that announcement proves to be shrewd or foolhardy as a political decision remains to be seen, but it is undeniably courageous.

Hacked!

Last night my brother sent me a text message telling me he had received a spam message from one of my email accounts. I logged in, and sure enough, in my "Sent" file was a mass email message sent to my entire address book, with a link to a website I chose not to risk visiting. I also had a handful of bounce back and spam filter rejection emails, further confirming the hack. I reset my password, changed my security questions, and updated my notification options for when someone tries to change any of my security settings. I then did the same for my other email accounts, my online bank and 401(k) sites, and my credit cards. Kind of a hassle, but an hour of prevention beats months of pain.

Of course, I immediately thought of the recent hacking of the TwoPlusTwo Forums, where I had an account and would post on rare occasions. It is certainly possible that the two hacking events are related, considering the TwoPlusTwo hackers apparently demonstrated they had decrypted email addresses and passwords for at least a few forum users. However, it seems much more likely that there was no connection between the two events, and I was the victim of either a random hack or my own haphazard, lackadaisical approach to internet security.

In any event, this hacking appears to have been a thankfully gentle reminder to me to be more diligent in regularly changing internet passwords. Please learn from my experience and make sure that periodically updating your internet passwords and security measures is on your "to do" list.

Checking for Value

Last month I was in Vegas for a work conference and stayed at the Encore just to check it off my list of Vegas hotels. The rooms were comfy and classy, and allowed me a few convenient sessions of poker in the Wynn poker room. The Wynn poker room was the unofficial host room of the first Ironman of Poker outing, and it has consistently been one of my favorite rooms in Vegas. Classy, reserved, filled with Euro-donks and high-end booze. A little slice of poker heaven.

During one session, I was seated at a $1/$3 NLHE game with the typical cast of Vegas characters—a couple of hoodie wearing "pros", a couple of drunks looking to kill some time, a couple of businessmen with more money than skill, a couple of LAGgy Euros ... and a solid TAG younger gal. In what will be a surprise to my readers, I actually played less than two hands per orbit for the first few hours as I got a read on the table and tried to zombify myself back from card death with the occasional semi-bluff. The two hoodie guys obviously knew each other, and from their chatter they made it clear they were vastly superior to the other players at the table, and most of the other players in the room. Frankly, they made it sound like they were slumming it while waiting for a seat in the $5/$10 or $10/$20 NLHE games. Hmmm, wonder why they didn't head down the Strip to Bellagio or Aria?

Anyway, late in the evening an interesting hand developed.  I had built my stack to just over $500, and the other players in this hand all had $300-$800. TAG Gal limps UTG, hoodie raises to $12, Euro calls, other hoodie calls. I'm OTB with QdTs and call. Yes, it is a marginal call, but I had position and an uber-tight image to my credit, and I had some reads on the other players. Plus, I was bored. TAG Gal called as well, and we see a flop of:

Jd9d8d

Holy suited flop, Batman! The other players quickly check to me, and I bet $50 into the $60 pot. I figured my nut straight was good here most of the time, and I wanted to give poor odds to a naked Ad or Kd chasing the flush draw. If raised, I would go with my read, but fold most of the time despite my outs against a baby flush—my Qd was really just a blocker and an emergency draw, not a real flush draw. TAG Gal thought, then called. All the remaining yahoos postured, then folded.

The turn was interesting, to say the least:

Jd9d8d  7d

TAG Gal checked quickly. Hmmm, that kind of sucked. If TAG Gal had called with Ad, Kd, or Td, I was now drawing either dead (if she held the Td for the straight flush) or to one out (Td again, but for a gutterball straight flush of my own). About the only legit hand she could hold that I beat here was a set, or possibly top two pair. But I discounted those hands a bit since she did not bet or raise the flop; her hand felt like a draw or combo draw, and the turn made most of those hands good. Of course, she was definitely good enough to be making a move with a weak hand, hoping to represent the flush, but I wasn't sure she would try that move on the flop with three other villains behind her. On balance, I saw no reason to bet, so I checked and planned to call a small river bet with my now nut-straight bluff catcher.

The river served the pickle on this sh*t sandwich of a hand:

Jd9d8d  7d  Js

Yowzer! So most two pair hands and all sets just improved to a full house or quads. TAG Gal thought, then checked yet again. Hmmm, what in hell could I beat? Her entire flop range of flush draws, two pairs, and sets all now beat me. About all I could beat were a pure bluff and a baby flush that I counterfeited on the turn. I thought about throwing out a big bet as a bluff, but decided most of the hands she held that could beat me would call, and the hands I could beat would fold, sort of the opposite of a Sklansky-approved play.

So I checked behind. TAG Gal sighed, grinned, and rolled over Td9h for the straight flush. I laughed and rolled over my hand as well, just to let the table know I hadn't been bluffing the flop. Hoodie & Hoodie, Inc. immediately start jabbering like Monty Python's three-headed knight:

Hoodies:  "You didn't bet the river? You have to value bet that river!"

Me:  "I figured I was beat."

Hoodies:  "She checked the turn and the river! You have to bet for value!"

Me:  "I checked for value."

Hoodies:  "Checked for value? Huh?"

Me:  [pointing to my stack]  "I still have all these chips."

Hoodies:  "But she checked! It's stupid to check behind on the river."

I just smiled and let them continue to lecture me on proper poker strategy until they both busted out and left in search of a "better game". Probably green-chip War at Bellagio.

In all seriousness, I guess I can see some tournament or higher stakes games with a lot of meta-game factors in play where betting the river might be a decent play. But in low stakes games, in my experience players usually have what they represent, particularly with coordinated boards in a multi-way pot.

But what do you think? Obviously in this case TAG Gal was check-raising any river bet, but is her range wide enough to make a river bet a decent play to consider? Was I a total donkey on this hand? Inquiring minds want to know!

Where Is Chimento?

"You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles."

~Miracle Max (Billy Crystal), in The Princess Bride

Remember Chimento v. Town of Mount Pleasant, the case where the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked to decide whether home poker games are legal under that state's broad anti-gambling statute? Oral argument was held back in October 2010, and I have been monitoring the court's new decisions each week since then, waiting to see how the court would rule. Although the South Carolina Court of Appeals handed down a gambling decision last summer that referenced Chimento, the Chimento decision itself has yet to be released some 19 months and counting since the appeal was argued and submitted to the court.

Although I am not an expert in South Carolina appellate practice, I do quite a bit of appellate work, and also monitor appellate decisions in a number of states. Most appellate decisions are issued within six months of submission to the court (the submission date simply means the date the court votes on the appeal, usually the date of oral argument if argument is granted by the court). Browsing through the South Carolina Supreme Court's past few months of decisions reflects the Court follows the same general trend; a wait of more than a year and a half is certainly well outside the norm.

So what should we make of this lengthy delay by the Court? Sometimes changes in court personnel will delay an appellate decision, but here all five justices have been on the Court since before the case was argued. A delay can also indicate a controversial decision that has created a split on the Court, with the two opposing factions attempting to craft an opinion that will sway the decisive moderate vote. Similarly, a delay can indicate a unified decision as to the outcome, but disagreement and negotiation over the scope of the decision. For example, the Court may agree that the anti-gambling statute is valid, but be debating over whether to issue a strong decision on that point, or to carve out a limiting principle for certain situations. Conversely, the Court could be prepared to rule that the anti-gambling statute does not apply to home poker games, but is still discussing whether poker is covered by the statute in more general circumstances. Or, the delay could indicate the Court is planning to issue a detailed, analytical decision which requires extensive research and writing by the Court's staff.

Of course, the explanation for the delay might simply be that the Chimento decision is a lower priority than other appeals. Often cases with significant political impact will receive expedited consideration, as will cases involving certain types of criminal and family law issues. I can think of three appeals I've handled where I waited more than 18 months for a decision. In each case, the Iowa Supreme Court issued lengthy, detailed, but ultimately straightforward and unanimous opinions.

Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court which releases all of its opinions for a given Term before its summer recess in June (usually reserving its most controversial decisions for the last week of each Term), state appellate courts generally have no mandatory or even traditional deadlines by which an opinion in a case must be released. So, although appellate court tea leaf reading makes for an entertaining diversion, ultimately I don't think the length of time that has elapsed since the oral argument provides any useful insight into the direction of the Court's ultimate decision. To mix a couple of clichés, only time will tell how the Court will rule in Chimento, but good things don't always come to those who wait.

Anxious about how the South Carolina Supreme Court will rule in Chimento?
Allow me to suggest a watch panther.