Poker Judo at the Meadows

"We know you can fight fire with fire, but what is wrong with fighting it with water sometimes?"

—Bob Ciaffone at CardPlayer.com (hat tip to Poker Grump)

Judo is a martial art form based on the concept of using an opponent's aggression and momentum against him.  A classic example is where an attacker charges at an opponent and, rather than striking out at the attacker, the opponent steps aside and trips or throws the attacker to the ground, using the attacker's momentum to aid in the throw.

Judo can be loosely translated into English as "the way of gentleness".  Poker strategists have hammered home the exact opposite strategy—aggressive poker is winning poker.  In fact, the two profitable styles of poker—tight-aggressive (TAG) and loose-aggressive (LAG)—each directly state that aggression is a key component of the underlying strategy.  But, there can be such a thing as excessive aggression, even in poker.  Sometimes, a gentle approach is the most profitable.

Last night, I played a short session at the Meadows ATM.  After donking at 3/6 LHE for 30 minutes, I finally got a seat at one of the two 1/2 NLHE games; let's just say limit is not my best game.  In any event, I quickly discovered that there was a three-way cock-measuring battle going on at the NL game, with three aggro guys trying push people—mostly each other—around.  At least one of these guys raised nearly every hand, and most of these raises were called by at least one of the other aggros.  Check-raises, pushing with draws, floating to steal, position raises, these guys were doing it all, but doing it with pretty average stacks of $150-$250, as the rest of the table played nitty and took chunks of the aggro-stacks when they hit the rare monster hand.  These guys also made it pretty clear this was all about machismo, with lots of table chatter about why they made plays, why their plays were great, and why their opponents were idiots.  I found the whole situation amusing and potentially profitable.

In my experience, the macho LAG player might run over passive opponents, but his excessive aggression offers an opportunity for a trap play for his stack, or at least a large chunk of it.  Two big hands from my session illustrate this point.  In the first hand, I limp in middle position with 97s, a classic trapping hand.  Uber-aggro makes a standard button raise to $12, the other two aggros call, and I call to close the action.  The flop is K-9-3 rainbow.  Interestingly, it checks around.  The uber-aggro passing on a c-bet here likely means he hit the king and wants to get tricky.  The turn is a 7—Donkey Kong!  Checks to me, and I throw out a weak looking half pot bet.  I want it to look like I'm just taking a stab at the pot, in case one of the aggros wants to try to bluff me off the hand.  Sure enough, aggro on the button insta-raises to $60, folds to me, and I call, wanting to look weak and not scare off my prey.  River is a deuce.  I know aggro can't help but bet a king here, nor can he help trying to bluff if he has nada.  I normally value bet this river, but here, I check.  Uber-aggro obliges me by betting about half the pot, which is roughly a third of his remaining stack.  I raise all-in, uber-aggro calls, and proceeds to whine about how his top pair got run down (though he never showed his hand).

Aggro guy goes to the ATM, returns with $300.  He is clearly on tilt, and spews off a little over $100 in the first orbit, getting resistance to all of his plays.  In early position, I find pocket 9s and limp, looking to play for set value, or possibly a preflop squeeze play.  Aggro guy again raises in late position, gets called by the two fellow aggros and another player, so I call as well.  This is not a bad spot for a squeeze play, but even aggros get hands, my call closes the action, and the implied odds from a set are huge, so I opt for the conservative play.  The flop comes out K-K-4 with two spades.  Checks to me, and I decide this is not a bad board to bet at, so I fire out for $45 into the $60 pot.  Aggro insta-pushes for ~$200 total.  Folds back to me.

Now, this is a pretty polarizing bet.  Aggro is representing a king, which would leave me drawing to two outs at best.  But, if he has a king, why push here?  If he flat calls, he may get more action from the aggro players behind, and one of them may even make a move.  Pushing feels like he wants the field to fold, though he may also be afraid of flush draws.  But, why not make it $100 straight, with $100 to push on the turn, if he wants to fold the draws?  If he has a king, how can he expect to get called by a weaker hand?  His play really felt a lot like a nut flush draw.  I finally called, and the board ran out 3-9 (both red)—Yahtzee!  Aggro guy asks, "Miss your flush?"  I just sat there and waited for him to show.  He again asked if I had missed the flush.  Although the 20 questions routine is a pet peeve of mine, given the strength of my hand, I said, "I hit the river, but I'm pretty sure I didn't need to."  I rolled my boat, and aggro came unglued.  He started muttering about "getting two outed again", but he didn't show his cards.  Aggro continued to fume about having his trip kings run down until he left to hit the ATM again.  I'm almost positive aggro had a flush draw, not that it really matters.  Aggro managed to tilt off another two min-buys before calling it a night.

So, two hands against an uber-aggro player, two feltings.  Just a routine double-ippon for a red-belt poker judo player!

ADDENDUM (20 JUNE 2010):  Somehow in the editing and posting process, I lost a reference to Poker Grump's excellent take on taking on table bullies.  His words of wisdom (and some from Mike Caro) are worth a read.

Friday Fun (v. 1.5)—Mad Lib Sausages

We begin this edition of Friday Fun with sad news—the death of the legendary Sausage King, Jimmy Dean.  As a kid, I knew Dean as the singer of the country-rap classic, "Big Bad John".  Only later did I associate Dean with his sausage empire.  But all sausage lovers out there owe a debt of gratitude to Dean and his high-quality processed meat conglomerations.

In other sausage related news, the Apple iPhone 4G is set for release.  How is that sausage related?  Well, those enterprising South Koreans have determined that in winter, when gloves prevent iPhone touchscreen use, a warm sausage can double as a stylus.  Scoff all you want, but just keep in mind Otto von Bismarck's famous observation:  "Laws are like sausages—it is best not to see them being made."

* * * * *

Raise your hand if you remember Mad Libs—the game where you provide different words to fit categories (e.g., name, proper noun, transitive verb), then use the words to fill in a story template.  Well, today I read a news story that seemed to come straight out of Mad Libs (word categories added in brackets so you can play along at home):

A German [nationality] student [name of a vocation] created a major traffic jam [name of a crisis] in Bavaria [name of a place] after making a rude gesture at a group of Hell's Angels motorcycle gang [name of a group] members, hurling [-ing verb] a puppy [noun] at them and then escaping [-ing verb] on a stolen [adjective] bulldozer [noun].

Of course, the money quote from the police was priceless:  "What motivated him to throw a puppy at the Hell's Angels is currently unclear."   You don't say ...

* * * * *

This week saw the conclusion of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the California gay marriage case.  Conservative Republican Ted Olson gave the closing argument in favor of finding same-sex marriage a Constitutionally protected right.  Olson was solicitor general for the George W. Bush administration; essentially, the post is the lead appellate lawyer for the United States, a position also held by legal luminaries like former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, and current Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.  For those who want to see a master legal advocate at his finest, Olson's closing argument is tough to beat.  One of his best lines was:

Marriage, the Supreme Court has said again and again, is a component of liberty, privacy, association, spirituality, and autonomy.  It is a right possessed by persons of different races, by persons in prison, and by individuals who are delinquent in paying child support.

It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence dispensed by the State of California, or any state, to favored classes of citizens which could be easily withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation.  In other words, it is a right belonging to Californians, to persons.  It is not a right belonging to the State of California.  (Trans., p. 2971).

Of course, Olson might well have just let rapper Eminem make his closing argument:

I think if two people love each other, then what the hell?  I think that everyone should have the chance to be equally miserable, if they want.

* * * * *

By what names are the following fictional characters better known?

• Roy Hinkley
• Norville Rogers
• Bernie Liederkrantz
• Edgar Mallory
• Barbara Millicent Roberts

Answers can be found at Mental Floss.

* * * * *

Thanks to Neatorama.com, I've become addicted to the offbeat humor of McSweeneys.net.  Good reads include Signs You Made a Poor Choice In Picking Up a Hitchhiker ("Conversation turns heated when topic shifts to Presidential legacy of Martin Van Buren"; "He compliments your clothes, then asks your measurements"), and a monologue by a typeface, I'm Comic Sans, Asshole ("I'm not just a font. I am a force of motherfucking nature and I will not rest until every uptight armchair typographer cock-hat like you is surrounded by my lovable, comic-book inspired, sans-serif badassery.").

* * * * *

Finally, our animal video of the week is this Kung Fu Bear:

D-Bag O' the Day (v. 1.12)—Free the Dutch Mini-Dress Models!

Apparently, FIFA (or the D-Bags running FIFA) hates attractive women in short skirts.  At least, that's the conclusion I reached, upon hearing that South Africa has arrested two women for taking part in (and possibly organizing) an "ambush marketing campaign" where 30 attractive young women in orange mini-dresses (orange being the Dutch national team color) attended the World Cup match between the Netherlands and Denmark, and were promoting a Dutch beer company.  I suppose it's possible FIFA was merely trying to protect the multi-million dollar investment by its official beer sponsor, Budweiser, but that is a terribly cynical view. 

You be the judge.  Do these women look like hardened criminals?

Of course, I suppose a certain segment of my readers might be able to imagine these fine actresses starring in a romantic comedy based in a Dutch women's prison ...

Russ Hamilton—Doublewide Poster Boy for Online Poker Legalization

A new chapter in the continuing saga of the UltimateBet (UB) "superuser" scandal was unveiled today, as Wicked Chops Poker released Part 1 of a report on its investigation into the background of how the scandal occurred, and who was involved.  Part 1 is mostly background material, but it does a nice job connecting a lot of dots between the various players involved in the formation of UB, and tracing the development of the superuser cheating tool, a software program—referred to internally as "God mode"—that allowed the user to see all players' hole cards in a given hand.  Essentially, it sounds like former WSOP Main Event Champion Russ Hamilton, an investor and principal in UB from its earliest days, persuaded the UB CEO (who was also the primary technology developer) to develop the cheating tool so that Hamilton could catch a player he claimed was cheating him.  Of course, Hamilton, who was also one of the big players on UB, instead used the tool to cheat legitimate UB players out of millions of dollars.  According to UB's current owners, over $22.7 million has been refunded to UB players, and UB has recovered some $15 million of those funds back from the prior UB owners.  It will be interesting to see the remainder of the Wicked Chops report, as more information is released about Hamilton's confederates who assisted him in cheating players, whether by directly utilizing a superuser account, or by creating phony player accounts and moving money to help Hamilton avoid detection.

In any event, Hamilton is the perfect poster boy for online poker abolitionists, who claim that online poker sites are corrupt companies who cheat their players, along with other unsavory conduct (including money laundering).  But, in an ironic twist, Hamilton is also the perfect poster boy for online poker advocates.

Because online poker is essentially illegal in the United States (despite claims to the contrary), or at least is widely regarded as illegal by state and federal authorities, online poker sites invariably have located their businesses in foreign jurisdictions like Antigua, Costa Rica, Gibraltar, and the Isle of Man.  This foreign residency, along with the illegality of online poker in the United States, raises significant legal problems for U.S. residents.  As discussed in a previous post, a federal appeals court has ruled that U.S. residents claiming damages from alleged cheating on an online poker site cannot sue in the U.S., but must pursue their claim in the country where the online poker site is based.  Similarly, those foreign-based companies are difficult targets for U.S. criminal investigations and prosecutions.  Finally, the countries hosting and regulating the online poker companies often have a vested interest in protecting these lucrative companies (which are paying regulatory fees and taxes) from harmful investigations and claims for damages.

This brings us back to Hamilton and the UB super-user scandal.  UB happens to be regulated by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission (KGC), part of an independent tribal authority in Quebec, Canada.  Now, the KGC investigated the UB scandal, and ultimately released a report confirming Hamilton as the ringleader, identifying other account names involved in the scandal, and issuing fines and penalties against UB.  The KGC, however, stated that it was solely a regulatory agency, and had no authority to press criminal charges or order civil remedies (i.e., it could not order refunds to the victims of the cheating).  UB itself expressed concerns that its hands were tied in providing a satisfactory resolution to the scandal:

The KGC did release the name of Russ Hamilton as the main person responsible for the cheating scandal. Our investigation pointed to him being the person who cheated and benefited from the cheating. Our investigation did show that other individuals helped facilitate the cheating (i.e. there were people that help move money, create accounts, etc) and we have suspicions that other individuals might have been aware of the software or even aware that the scam was happening. Unfortunately, all of our evidence only involves data and we would take on serious legal liabilities if we just released a bunch of names.

We have attempted to have this brought into a court. However, it is very complicated for us, mainly because of jurisdictional issues regarding online gambling.

—UltimateBet COO Paul Leggett (5/28/2010 follow-up comment to his 5/27/2010 official UB blog post)

This comment echoed similar prior hand-wringing by UB and Leggett:

The Limits of the Investigation

Throughout the investigation we questioned as many people as possible trying to determine things like: who built the software, who benefited financially from the cheating, who else might have known about the cheating, etc. Unfortunately, every door we knocked on gave us very little additional information that we could use.

This limited the Tokiwro [sic] and KGC investigations because the only evidence available was data. Tokwiro is a provider of online gaming services and the KGC is a regulatory body for the gaming industry–neither are police forces and do not have the ability to interrogate or interview individuals in the same way as a typical law enforcement agency would.

—UltimateBet COO Paul Leggett (9/15/2009 official UB blog post)

These comments underscore the importance of legal process, both civil and criminal, in regulating honest businesses.  Legal process in the criminal context includes the ability to compel witness testimony before grand juries, and to subpoena records.  Legal process in a civil lawsuit (e.g., a suit for damages by players who were cheated) can include discovery of company documents and data, as well as depositions of key witnesses associated with the company.  Companies based outside the United States and whose legal status in the United States ranges from murky to illegal, have no compelling reason to comply with criminal investigations or civil lawsuits in the United States, and the courts in the United States may be powerless to impose criminal or civil liability on foreign-based companies.  Think how differently, and how much more quickly, the UB scandal (and other online poker scandals) would have played out if the FBI's forensic accountants were on the case.  Or, if a federal or state prosecutor convened a grand jury to investigate charges of fraud.  Or, if a group of cheated players discovered they were cheated and sued for damages, and had their own experts pore through UB's records.

Unfortunately, because UB was regulated by the KGC, and because UB has a murky legal status in the United States, it seems likely Russ Hamilton will simply get away with fraud.  Most likely, Hamilton will never face prosecution in any jurisdiction for what by any reasonable measure was criminal conduct.  To rub salt in the wound, Hamilton will likely keep all of his ill-gotten gains, being immune from any lawsuit for damages as a practical matter because of jurisdictional issues.

Russ Hamilton is clearly a liar and a cheater, and only avoided becoming a criminal by a fortuitous legal technicality.  Hamilton is the poster boy for the need to regulate online poker in the United States.  Online poker sites must be required to be legally accountable in the United States if they want to do business in the United States.  The easiest way to accomplish legal accountability is a federal law providing comprehensive jurisdictional and regulatory requirements for online poker sites doing business in the United States.  Some of the regulatory duties could be passed along to states with a strong regulatory environment in place for gaming; Nevada is a natural and obvious fit.  But until some kind of legalization and regulation of online poker occurs, online poker players remain at risk for becoming victims of online poker fraud, with no legal recourse.

Why Poker Litigation FAILS

Vinny Gambini:  I object to this witness being called at this time. We've been given no prior notice he would testify. No discovery of any tests he's conducted or reports he's prepared. And as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of all witness who will testify, particularly those who will give scientific evidence, so that we can properly prepare for cross-examination, as well as give the defense an opportunity to have his reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.

Judge Chamberlain Haller:  Mr. Gambini?

Vinny Gambini:  Yes, sir?

Judge Chamberlain Haller:  That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.

Vinny Gambini:  Thank you, sir.

Judge Chamberlain Haller:  Overruled.

—My Cousin Vinny

Last week, yet another court ruled that poker is a game of chance, rather than a game of skill, and thus is subject to laws regulating gambling.  The only twist was that this court ruling came not from a state court, or even a United States court. Nope, this time it was those evil Swiss yodelers and chocolatiers whose supreme court rejected the "poker is a game of skill" argument. The result is that poker tournaments must now abide by casino regulations, which include a 50% tax on profits, and requirements to identify players and prevent money laundering. Interestingly, the litigation leading to this decision appears to have been instigated by Swiss casinos who could not compete against unregulated and untaxed private poker rooms.  Funny how a European ruling predicated on commerce reaches the same result as American court rulings predicated on morality.

In any event, the International Federation of Poker (IFP) immediately began frothing at the mouth, waxing righteously indignant about yet another court being so stupid they couldn't see the obvious—that poker is clearly a game of skill, rather than a game of chance.  Predictably, the IFP whipped out its pride and joy—the "Mind Sport" certification—like it is some magical talisman to ward off the vampires and zombies who want to regulate poker:

This is yet another example of misguided poker thinking by courts and judges who simply do not understand the game—i.e., that poker is a 'mind-sport' of strategic skill far more than luck. …

We at IFP will continue this battle on behalf of the poker community. I urge you all to rally to our support.

Do not allow our skilful 'mind-sport' to be hijacked and repressed by ignorant legislators. We must persuade governments and courts throughout the world to separate it off from mere gambling.”

—Anthony Holden, President of the International Federation of Poker (IFP)

Take a look around the IFP website.  What, exactly, has the IFP done to advance the cause of poker legalization? They host some academic studies about poker that were already available elsewhere, but otherwise, the IFP's website seems mostly like a generic poker news website, with player profiles, tournament news, and other information unrelated to the poker legalization battle. The only "accomplishment" the IFP can take credit for is the "Mind Sport" "certification", which has all the significance and impact of a vanity license plate: 

License plate concept ripped off from Pokerati.com.

Although I've blogged quite a bit about the intersection of the law and poker, and even discussed the "poker is a game of skill" argument a few times (most notably HERE and HERE), the reaction within the poker community to the recent rulings by the Pennsylvania and Swiss courts confused me. Commentary in the poker community essentially mirrors the IFP position, and can be summarized as:  "How can these judges be so stupid?  Poker is obviously a game of skill!"  This attitude has baffled me a bit, but after the Swiss court decision, it occurred to me that the IFP and the poker community simply don't understand the legal system.

Here's how the poker community believes the legal system works:

A)  The legislature passes a law defining "gambling" so that "games of chance" are illegal, while "games of skill" are legal.

B)  Poker players sue and provide the court evidence that poker is a game of skill.

C)  Court rules that poker is not gambling, and is legal.

The legal process as envisioned by the poker community appears based on the assumption that the legal system operates in an analytical vacuum, partitioned off from consideration of historical and social context. This assumption is false. Legal analysis does not occur on a tabula rasa.

To try to illustrate how the poker community misunderstands the legal system, let's consider a counterfactual history of poker. Let's assume poker did not develop in the 1700s/1800s. Instead, let's assume that the only gambling card game in existence was blackjack. Then, in 2008, a group of college buddies were snowed in without internet access over Christmas break. They loved Magic: The Gathering (a card-based strategy game), so they decided to create their own card strategy game. After fiddling around with a standard card deck, they invented a game—PoKah—where various card combinations had different "power levels", and players could risk points (represented by different colored plastic chips) based on the cards in their hands. The object of PoKah was to score points by taking chips from other players, either by having the strongest cards, or making other players lay down their cards. Initially, PoKah was played without any money changing hands. However, after taking their game online (through PoKah.com and a killer iPhone PoKah app), the game's creators realized they could monetize PoKah by getting players to pay for more points/chips. Soon, playing PoKah was all the rage, and PoKah's creators were rich and famous. Most importantly, PoKah had no association at all with gambling or the gaming industry.

Unfortunately, occasional news stories broke about PoKah players who were obsessed with the game, playing for hours and spending all of their money buying more points/chips to keep playing. Based on these anecdotes, and pandering to their moralistic voting bases, several state attorneys general filed criminal charges against the PoKah.com founders for running an illegal gambling website. The game creators contested the charges, claiming that PoKah was no different than Magic: The Gathering in its card format, and no different in its online version than other interactive fee-based games like World of Warcraft or FarmVille. The PoKah Players Alliance got involved in the trial, providing the court with several academic studies demonstrating that PoKah players utilize mental skills, such as logic, mathematics, and game theory. Based on the overwhelming evidence, the courts invariably ruled that PoKah was not "gambling". Soon after, the first World Series of PoKah was organized in San Diego, inspiring a blockbuster movie, Dodecahedroners, which followed two fictional characters (played by Megan Fox and Ryan Gosling) as they battle for love and money over the PoKah tables.

So, what is the difference between our PoKah counterfactual and the current poker litigation? The key difference is in the varying historical and social context for PoKah and poker. Poker has two centuries worth of baggage, being associated with gambling, cheats, crooks, and other shady folks. State laws against gambling have always either explicitly included poker, or more commonly have implicitly been understood to include poker. Poker in popular culture similarly has been portrayed for decades as gambling. Poker is generally associated in the public mind with casinos or illicit gambling venues (e.g., Old West saloons, modern day underground clubs, and home games). Online poker sites are in the news for cheating their players, and being associated with money launderers. The UIGEA is widely viewed as being directed at online poker sites, and was enacted as part of an anti-terrorism bill, purportedly to help crack down on terrorists funding their operations and disguising their financing arrangements (i.e., money laundering).

Many in the poker community look at the legal system and expect the courts to ignore the entrenched historical and social context of poker and gambling laws. But laws cannot be interpreted in a contextual vacuum. The game of poker has been regarded by society as "gambling" for decades. Courts will rightly be very reluctant to rule in a way that contradicts long-established societal views of poker and gambling, absent some compelling reason, even if the court would have decided the poker-gambling issue differently if analyzing the issue as a matter of first impression.*  By contrast, a court confronted with the new game of PoKah would analyze that game in the context of its modern creation, and likely find that it was different in key aspects from games historically regulated as gambling. Deciding where a new game like PoKah fits into society's views of gambling as a matter of first impression gives a court substantially greater latitude to analyze the game based on its intrinsic properties.

The poker community needs to recognize that asking the courts to rule that poker is not gambling is essentially asking the courts to overturn a long-established social and legal understanding that poker is gambling. In essence, the "poker is not gambling" litigation is asking the courts to second-guess the initial determination that poker is gambling decades after the fact, rather than making an initial determination of poker's place as a new game in an established gambling regulatory environment. Unfortunately for the poker community, courts are generally unwilling to issue rulings contravening social conventions and established legal understandings; except when confronted with issues of discrimination or constitutional principles, neither of which is implicated in the poker-gambling debate. The poker-gambling debate is one where courts will ratify the established socio-legal view of poker as gambling, and leave it to the elected legislatures or Congress to determine whether and when to alter the legal status of poker.

So, if the poker litigation strategy is doomed to failure, does it have any redeeming value? One could argue that litigation has allowed poker legalization advocates an opportunity to air their arguments that poker is a game of skill. But, those same arguments could be made in the context of lobbying state legislatures and Congress to carve out regulatory exceptions for poker without the significant disadvantages of the litigation strategy. By tilting at the litigation windmill, poker advocates have instead worsened the position of poker.  There are now binding appellate court decisions in several states explicitly finding that poker is gambling. These rulings reinforce in the public mind—with the imprimatur of judicial decisions—that poker is gambling, while also removing any arguable ambiguity as to the legality of poker (and online poker) for players in those states.

In short, the "poker is a game of skill" litigation strategy, while certainly well-intentioned, is ill-conceived, counterproductive, and ultimately doomed to failure. Poker legalization advocates would be better off focusing their efforts on lobbying for legislative action legalizing and regulating poker.

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

* A excellent example of this principle in action was the late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who opposed the Court's original Miranda decision imposing the requirement that police advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights, but later voted to uphold those warnings, writing an opinion finding that the warnings were an established part of the law: "Whether or not we would agree with Miranda’s reasoning and its resulting rule, were we addressing the issue in the first instance, the principles of stare decisis weigh heavily against overruling it now. ... Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture."