Dan Michalski at Pokerati reported this morning that Annie Duke will be testifying tomorrow on behalf of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) in a Congressional hearing on online gaming laws. A written version of her testimony is also available online, along with the written testimony of other witnesses who are scheduled to testify. Now, these kinds of hearings tend to be more political Kabuki than substantive discussion of the merits of a particular bill. It is highly doubtful that any particular witness will sway any votes. Also, the witness testimony is mostly window-dressing, with the real investigative spadework done by Congressional committee staffers, with assistance from lobbyists who provide relevant research and position papers. I suspect the PPA has already presented the committee with the latest version of its written talking points regarding poker as a game of skill, the widespread popularity of online poker, and the need for regulation of poker. Frankly, those written submissions will be vastly more useful to pro-poker forces in Congress than any witness' testimony.
Although the live committee testimony is rather minor in the grand scheme of things, I have to wonder—why Annie Duke? I know Duke has testified in prior Congressional hearings, though nothing in her prior testimony was particularly compelling or provided any insight beyond what could be submitted in a written statement. But even though live testimony is generally rather lowstakes, there is always an outside chance that someone on the committee will attempt to use live testimony as an opportunity to set up a soundbite for an election campaign, showing how tough he or she is on the evils of gambling. So, a witness must be selected with some care, to prevent easy attacks on the witness' credibility.
Unfortunately, Annie Duke carries a lot of negative baggage other potential pro-poker witnesses do not carry. Duke competed on Celebrity Apprentice, where she performed admirably, but was cast in a light that made her appear villainous compared to the beloved Joan Rivers (and who can forget Rivers disdainfully spitting out "Pokah players are trash, dahling! Trash!" at Duke, as well as Melissa Rivers' "Whore pit viper!" comment). Although Duke's public image post-Apprentice is somewhat distracting, of more concern is Duke's long and close association with Ultimate Bet, where the most public and largest-scale "superuser" cheating scandal occurred, and whose management has been at worst complicit in coverup attempts, and at best less than forthcoming with details as to the extent of the scandal and the identities of those involved (beyond Russ Hamilton). Finally, Duke is also the sister of Full Tilt Poker co-founder and co-owner, Howard Lederer. Full Tilt is reportedly under investigation by a federal grand jury for alleged violations of federal gaming and money transfer laws, and has been linked to other individuals arrested for money laundering and similar money transfer crimes.
Now, none of this baggage changes the validity of Duke's testimony, nor does it undermine the essence of the PPA's argument for legal, regulated online poker. Unfortunately, that baggage does present an opportunity for political posturing during Duke's testimony that would undercut Duke's ability to make the most compelling case for online poker legalization. Why give your opponents any opening to criticize your message by attacking your messenger? It's not like Duke is the only person who could provide this type of testimony—off the top of my head, individuals* like Greg Raymer, Linda Johnson, Dan Harrington, Bill Chen, David Williams, and Mike Sexton have the requisite combination of intellectual gravitas and respect within the poker community to be effective advocates for the PPA's positions, without the weighty baggage associated with Duke (or Howard Lederer, Chris "Jesus" Ferguson, Phil Hellmuth, or Mike Matusow, for that matter). The use of Duke as the PPA's spokesperson before Congress makes me wonder how much thought the PPA really puts into formulating its legislative lobbying strategy.
As a poker player, I certainly wish Annie Duke well, and I hope the hearings go off without a hitch. But, if the hearings turn into a verbal shootout to create some political drama for the voting audiences back home, then as Annie knows all too well, when things get nasty on camera, there's really no business like show business:
* ADDENDUM (22 June 2010): This morning, while researching something else, I stumbled across an old 2+2 thread on the subject of Annie Duke's testimony to Congress back in 2007. Apparently, there was some opposition to Duke's representation of the PPA even then, though it seemed based on her personality and some oblique references to a cheating scandal I had never heard of previously.
However, the discussion thread did mention two additional individuals who I think would make smart, articulate, and credible witnesses without unnecessary baggage: Barry Greenstein and Vanessa Rousso.
July 20, 2010
July 19, 2010
Friday Fun (v. 1.8)—
Monday Morning QB Edition
The last couple of weeks have been a little hectic, with some unexpected travel to Nebraska thrown in for good measure. So, the crAAKKer Friday Fun feature is getting a special Monday roll out. Enjoy!
* * * * *
For our weekly fixes of Neatorama.com and cured meat, two items worthy of the Tao of Bacon: a bacon air freshener, and a burger made entirely of ground bacon (no word if it comes in a version with bacon strips on top).
* * * * *
Do you hate playing poker with people who are perpetually slow to act? Well, that problem may be getting worse, if some scientists are correct. It seems that some physicists have postulated that time itself may be slowing down, and may ultimately cease to exist. That's right, there may come a point in time where time literally stops. Good luck calling the clock then ...
* * * * *
I'm not a big fan of repressive, fundamentalist theocracies, but Iran might just be onto a good form of government crackdown ... against mullets. That's right, it's Mullahs vs. Mullets in Iran, with an officially sanctioned list of approved haircuts. Mullets are among the "decadent Western cuts" that are banned, along with ponytails, spiked hair, and excessively gelled or styled hair. Obviously this will make it much more difficult to spot the fish at the major Vegas poker rooms, where the worst players generally sport one of these prohibited hairstyles.
* * * * *
What is wrong with people these days? When most of us see a venomous snake, we immediately get an evolutionarily hard-wired "flight" response to get the heck away from the thing before it kills us. Well, a 44-year old British man, David Jones, is attempting to set a world record by living in a very small room with forty (40!) venomous snakes for 120 days (the current record for "insanity—poisonous animals division" is 113 days). This yahoo is sharing an apartment with assorted nasty creatures, including puff adders, cobras, boomslangs, and mambas. Now, some of these snakes can kill a water buffalo in one bite, while others will merely inflict permanent and painful nerve and muscle damage. As Jones' own website notes:
He will not be able to leave the room for any reason unless the attempt has been terminated, making cabin fever a real possibility. David Jones must eat and sleep in the room while sharing his toilet and shower with the snakes.
In 2009, Natie Swart tried this death defying attempt but was bitten three times, twice by Puff Adders and once by a Snouted Cobra. The damage to his leg after the first bite is permanent and brings home the risk of the attempt.
Again, let me point out the blindingly obvious—these are venomous snakes that can kill you. There's a really good reason why cobras, mambas, and puff adders are not as popular in the pet department as dogs, cats, and goldfish (hint—look up "venomous" in a dictionary). This stunt is actually even more ill-conceived than Crocodile Hunter classics like "Island of Snakes" or "Africa's Deadliest Snakes", where Steve Irwin would intentionally track down and handle venomous snakes in the wild, for entertaiment purposes; at least he was getting paid handsomely for his stupidity!
(A similar stunt called "Venom in Vegas" occurred in January, with a man living with 50 deadly snakes on the Las Vegas Strip for ten days. At least he could go play poker and hit the strip clubs after it was over.)
Via Deadspin, a funny story of a straight guy playing gay ... softball, and loving it. (Notable absence of messy litigation).
* * * * *
Finally, via The Daily What, here is some sweet cow-tripping (seriously, wait for the line dance):
July 18, 2010
Stupid Poker Rules—The Forced Showdown
Although I've previously discussed some of the Horseshoe's quirky rules, one rule I failed to mention is possibly the rule I detest the most:
On called all-in bets, once all action is complete, all live hands must be tabled. If the all-in action occurs prior to the river, all live hands must be tabled before the remaining board cards are dealt.
In other words, a player can't keep his hand face down, wait for the river, and muck a non-winning hand sight unseen. Essentially, this is the same rule as used in most poker tournaments*, but it is also applied to cash games. I can understand the rationale for the rule in the tournament context—exposing both hands helps prevent collusion and chip dumping (at least blatant versions). But, I cannot fathom a rational reason for enforcing the rule in a cash game setting, where chip dumping is irrelevant, and collusion is rare (at least at low stakes games) and likely not to involve all-ins with any frequency.
This rule has a negative impact on cash game play. Wild bluffs and bad calls are much less common, as players are less willing to push with air, or call with a weak pair or longshot draw, if they face the potential embarrassment of being forced to table their hand. Also, the rule forces players to divulge the range of hands with which they will push all-in or call an all-in in various situations. Knowing that a player will push or call an all-in with top pair, a naked flush draw, etc. is valuable information that players should have to earn, rather than have handed to them by rule.
Now, it's true that the rules in most poker rooms allow players to demand to see any live hand involved in a showdown, though the practice is generally infrequent by custom or house rule. So, the Horseshoe showdown rule merely requires what is already optional. But the Horseshoe version of the rule eliminates an important and established poker custom—the mucked unknown hand—without any compelling rational basis. It is a stupid rule in an otherwise nice poker room, and it deserves to be put out to pasture.
-----------------------------------------------------------
* Tournament Directors Ass'n (TDA) Rule 9:
On called all-in bets, once all action is complete, all live hands must be tabled. If the all-in action occurs prior to the river, all live hands must be tabled before the remaining board cards are dealt.
In other words, a player can't keep his hand face down, wait for the river, and muck a non-winning hand sight unseen. Essentially, this is the same rule as used in most poker tournaments*, but it is also applied to cash games. I can understand the rationale for the rule in the tournament context—exposing both hands helps prevent collusion and chip dumping (at least blatant versions). But, I cannot fathom a rational reason for enforcing the rule in a cash game setting, where chip dumping is irrelevant, and collusion is rare (at least at low stakes games) and likely not to involve all-ins with any frequency.
This rule has a negative impact on cash game play. Wild bluffs and bad calls are much less common, as players are less willing to push with air, or call with a weak pair or longshot draw, if they face the potential embarrassment of being forced to table their hand. Also, the rule forces players to divulge the range of hands with which they will push all-in or call an all-in in various situations. Knowing that a player will push or call an all-in with top pair, a naked flush draw, etc. is valuable information that players should have to earn, rather than have handed to them by rule.
Now, it's true that the rules in most poker rooms allow players to demand to see any live hand involved in a showdown, though the practice is generally infrequent by custom or house rule. So, the Horseshoe showdown rule merely requires what is already optional. But the Horseshoe version of the rule eliminates an important and established poker custom—the mucked unknown hand—without any compelling rational basis. It is a stupid rule in an otherwise nice poker room, and it deserves to be put out to pasture.
-----------------------------------------------------------
* Tournament Directors Ass'n (TDA) Rule 9:
9. Face Up
All cards will be turned face up once a player is all-in and all betting action is complete.
The Banality of Checks Mix
During my last two poker sessions, I have run across three examples of an annoying type of player, a sub-species of the internet d-bag who is seemingly incapable of betting with all red chips. These aren't odd ducks like Paul Magriel "double quack-quack"-ing as a mental tic. They aren't pulling a Lance Funston, famed for playing the buffoon with great success at the 2005 U.S. Poker Championship, "seeing your three purple, and raising two orange, two purple, and two green":
Nope, these are kids who deliberate and put out a precise bet—$21, $42, $67—each and every time they bet or raise. Often, the red and white chips (blue chips in Vegas) are intermingled, making it tougher to quickly determine the bet size.
Now this quirk is rather harmless, but it does make me a bit grumpy. Once a pot gets above $15-$20, there is no good reason not to round bets to a $5 increment. Betting with a mix of red and white chips unnecessarily slows the game down as the dealer has to make change, and usually players have to ask and be told the size of the bet because of the mix of chips. I could understand making the bet precise to within a $1 increment if it materially affected the game. But do these players seriously think that a player will call or fold because a bet is $42 instead of $40 or $45? If so, they clearly haven't played much live $1/$2 NLHE. Come to think of it, maybe it is an internet player quirk, where players are habituated to more precisely sizing bets to the penny. Stupid interwebs.
There is one—and only one—perfectly valid reason to bet with mixed chips postflop—to make a bet palindromic (e.g., $151, or $232). Palindromic bets are extremely strong wagers which greatly increase your odds of winning a hand. A "perfect palindromic wager" is one which exhausts your entire supply of white chips, and is a nearly unbeatable play. But otherwise, mixed chip bets are an incredibly stupid and pointless maneuver that should be shunned. Please, stop the checks mix madness.
Nope, these are kids who deliberate and put out a precise bet—$21, $42, $67—each and every time they bet or raise. Often, the red and white chips (blue chips in Vegas) are intermingled, making it tougher to quickly determine the bet size.
Now this quirk is rather harmless, but it does make me a bit grumpy. Once a pot gets above $15-$20, there is no good reason not to round bets to a $5 increment. Betting with a mix of red and white chips unnecessarily slows the game down as the dealer has to make change, and usually players have to ask and be told the size of the bet because of the mix of chips. I could understand making the bet precise to within a $1 increment if it materially affected the game. But do these players seriously think that a player will call or fold because a bet is $42 instead of $40 or $45? If so, they clearly haven't played much live $1/$2 NLHE. Come to think of it, maybe it is an internet player quirk, where players are habituated to more precisely sizing bets to the penny. Stupid interwebs.
There is one—and only one—perfectly valid reason to bet with mixed chips postflop—to make a bet palindromic (e.g., $151, or $232). Palindromic bets are extremely strong wagers which greatly increase your odds of winning a hand. A "perfect palindromic wager" is one which exhausts your entire supply of white chips, and is a nearly unbeatable play. But otherwise, mixed chip bets are an incredibly stupid and pointless maneuver that should be shunned. Please, stop the checks mix madness.
July 17, 2010
They're Always After Me Lucky Charms!
They're always after me Lucky Charms!
Every year during WSOP coverage, ESPN seems to have side coverage of card protectors, lucky charms*, and other superstitions. Classic examples are Doyle Brunson's Casper the Friendly Ghost, Jerry Yang's family pictures, Sammy Farha's unlit cigarette, and Johnny Chan's orange, but occasionally the superstitions include more elaborate rituals:
[WSOP bracelet winner Travis] Johnson insists he is not superstitious, yet he wore the same clothes over three consecutive days. He also admitted that he walked through the exact same door every single time he entered the tournament room.
Now, I'm a fairly rational guy, more into science than mysticism. Generally, I have to agree with those who take a dim view of poker superstitions. But science sometimes gives us surprising, even counterintuitive, insights. In a series of psychological experiments, scientists determined that maybe, just maybe, there is some value to lucky charms after all:
Volunteers who had their lucky charm did better at a memory game on the computer, and other tests showed that this difference was because they felt more confident. They also set higher goals for themselves. Just wishing someone good luck—with "I press the thumbs for you," the German version of crossing your fingers—improved volunteers' success at a task that required manual dexterity.
—Keri Chiodo, Association for Psychological Science
To be clear, this study is not scientific evidence that lucky charms or other superstitions have any inherent ability to change the course of fate—Doyle's Casper card capper doesn't change how the cards fall for the person holding it. But, confidence is a major psychological component for a successful player, so if a card capper or other superstition makes a player feel luckier, then perhaps that player will actually play better, in essence making his own luck. So, while skeptics like me likely will get negligible benefit from using a lucky charm, superstitious folks may in fact gain a significant advantage by following their "lucky" routine.
------------------------------------------------------------
* Patty O'Brien has the ultimate take on lucky charms:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)