The winner's remorse.
Topic: Poker
Whenever professional gamblers get bored they can amuse themselves by taking the Gamblers Anonymous '20 questions' quiz. Answering yes to seven or more of the questions is supposed to indicate that you are a sick gambler. But good luck getting to number 20 without falling over laughing. The quiz is so badly written that mirth is the only appropriate response.

Miros is just one of many to pick it to pieces.

The chief problem of the test for me is that it's possible to generate 'false positives'. Like number 17: "Did gambling cause you to have difficulty in sleeping?" The clear insinuation is that you struggle to sleep after a nightmare loss or that your accumulating losses are giving you insomnia. But I for one sleep quite well after a loss. It's winning that keeps me awake. I lie in bed visualising me standing in the queue at the bank waiting to pay the cheque in. I think of any bills that need paying and wonder whether I should book a holiday or buy some more computer games etc. More money = more choice = more to think about.

But it's question 4, "Have you ever felt remorse after gambling?" that irritates me the most. Again it assumes you only get remorse when you lose, but winners get remorse too. I feel remorse today, as I reflect on last night when I won 600 pounds. Everyone is telling me I should have won a grand. Here's what happened -

Game = 100 hold'em, blinds of 3 and 3.

I was on the button with QQ. "Max" raised under the gun to 12 and two muppets called in between. I re-raised another 30 and they all called.

The flop was QJJ with two diamonds. Max bet 175 and muppet A raised all-in to 265. Muppet B called all-in for about 180.

I reraised all-in for another 345, which Max could cover. He thought for a very long time. Then he said 'I'm probably folding the best hand here' and folded. I won the pot after the last two cards were turned over. When I showed the full house, Max told me I'd played badly and I would have got him for the rest if I had flat called. He said he had AJ.

My reason for the raise wasn't any particular fear of an overcard coming on the turn. I just thought that I was MUCH more likely to get the 'I don't believe it' call there and then if I raised. Max is very experienced and has known me for ten years. He surely knows that I would only flat call in this spot with QQ? I am stunned that he thinks I would call on this flop without being able to beat a hand containing a Jack. I mean come on. It's obvious that I can see that either he or Muppet A has a jack, isn't it?

Perhaps not. I just figured that calling would expose my hand more obviously than raising with it. The way I figured it, I represented something like KK or AA against a man whom I was sure had a Jack. I am still stunned that he claims he would follow through betting against me on the turn if I only call. To me it's as good as turning your cards up. I preferred to act like someone who had KK or AA and who was blindly putting his opponent on AQ. I figured that this was more likely to get me paid than flat-calling a bet and a raise, which to me looks like a total giveaway.

Was my thinking too advanced? Before anyone else says 'But what are you raising for? You don't need to protect your hand.', I should explain that I like to play strong hands strongly. I find that so many people are programmed to think that "strong=weak" and "weak=strong" that against them not being deceptive can be the most deceptive strategy of all!