Why I want Bush to win.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw

I want an 'unreasonable' president. We face an ideological enemy and need an ideological strategy to combat it. Bush grasps this. Kerry doesn't. Soon after the atrocities of September 11th 2001, Bush revealed his intention to take the battle to the terrorists. It would involve far more than merely reacting to events. Instead he would aim at nothing less than the transformation of the Middle-East through regime change. He was right.

It is rare in war that your enemy tells you the path you should take in order to defeat it, but such was the hubris of Al Qaeda until recently, that it did exactly that with the 2003 publication of a book titled 'The Future of Iraq and the Arabian Peninsular after the Fall of Baghdad', written by Al Qaeda member Yussuf al-Ayyeri and published by The Centre for Islamic Research and Studies, a company established by bin Laden in 1995.

See this review: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4153

In the book, Al-Ayyeri explains Al Qaeda's theory of history as the battle of belief versus unbelief. Belief in Islam has, according to the book, been challenged by many opposing philosophies over the centuries and all except one have been defeated. These have been modernism, nationalism, socialism and Ba'athism. The removal of Ba'athism has created what he calls a "clean battlefield" for the final and greatest battle of them all, against "secularist democracy". Al Ayyeri describes it as "far more dangerous to Islam" than all its predecessors combined, because of democracy's "seductive capacities", which persuade people that they can be empowered to control their own destinies, leading them to draft their own laws and abandon Sharia, the strict Islamic law handed down in the Koran. The book says that democracy will, "make Muslims love this world, forget the next world, and abandon Jihad".

That is why they are so desperate to prevent elections, order and prosperity for ordinary Arab people. It is also why I want Bush to win. Only Bush's "forward strategy of freedom" will solve our long term terror problem. And we know this because our enemy has told us.

Al Qaeda's declining ambitions.
I've said for about three years that Osama bin Laden is dead, so on Friday it was somewhat of a surprise to hear that he had released a videotape mentioning presidential candidate John Kerry. I've since wondered whether a look-a-like was used to make the video and whether old voice recordings could have been used for the sound. But whatever the case, I'm sure that it comes from Al Qaeda and that's what matters most.

I find this latest message very interesting and believe it shows that Al Qaeda is being beaten into submission. That's not something that comes over from reports of the atrocities it commits in Iraq, but an examination of the tone and content of the tape bears this out. To demonstrate this, I will compare the recent message with previous ones both alleged to have come from him.

In bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against the United States,

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

he speaks of Arab youth being willing to sacrifice themselves to kill Americans: "Those youths know that the reward in fighting you, the USA, is double than the reward in fighting someone not from the People of the Book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, an enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same heaven with his righteous executioner."

and later says of his fanatics:

"Those youth are different from your soldiers. Your problem will be how to convince your troops to fight, while our problem will be how to restrain our youth to wait for their turn in fighting and in operations. These youths are commendable and praiseworthy."

The clear assumption was that Americans wouldn't fight back against Al Qaeda aggression. That was understandable, given the US withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975, the withdrawal from Beirut after the Marine Barracks bombing of 1982 and the withdrawal from Somalia after a small number of US soldiers were killed on a humanitarian mission and one dead American pilot was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

Of this, bin Laden comments:

"You had been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the heart of every Muslim and a remedy to the chests of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, Aden, and Mogadishu.

Over six years later, in November 2002, another letter appeared from bin Laden, addressed to the American people:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

In it he answers two questions:

Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2) What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

The answer to question 1 is the predictable list of grievances. But in answering question 2, he goes further in telling Americans how to live their lives. The list is long, so I shall only include highlights:

"The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam .. The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you .. We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest ..

You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich ..

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation."

And now it's 2004 and bin Laden appears just before the US election and his message is rather more muted than before. He says:

"Do not play with our security, and spontaneously you will secure yourself."

What?

That's it? "Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone"? What happened the youths who "have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you."

What happened to your threats of further harm if we didn't end gambling and homosexuality? Why the loss of confidence?

There are a few clues. As this new story reports:

'U.S. officials told NBC News that in parts of the tape not aired by Al-Jazeera, bin Laden acknowledges that the recent Afghan elections were not a success for him because "they came off with minimal violence." And he admits that "aggressive Pakistani operations" in South Waziristan, where he is believed to be hiding, have hurt his operations.'

I'm not an expert in military affairs, but I'd wager that Al Qaeda knows that it's losing. It has failed to take back Afghanistan, where Anthony Loyd in the Times of September 13th reports:

`in Afghanistan, the insurgency is failing and failing badly .. it is the Taleban and their Al Qaeda comrades who find themselves isolated and pressured. In a country awash with weapons and populated by a skilled guerrilla force, the insurgents have failed to ignite resistance to the 18,000 American troops there'.

Al Qaeda supporters are now holed up in Fallujah, where the US Army is about to mount a concerted assault. Their future looks bleak unless they can cut off the army's supply lines and the way to do that is to change the Commander-in-Chief. Rashly they issue this latest broadcast, hoping that Americans will opt for the easy life and select Kerry. It's their only chance.

Al Qaeda's own words reveal that we are poised to win against them if we hold firm. Tomorrow, I will show what Al Qaeda has to say about the situation in Iraq and why their own words reveal the correctness of Bush's approach to the Middle East.

The Inarticulate Competent.
My recent piece about the New York Times has provoked some amusing responses. Andy Ward wrote to tell me that it smacked of paranoia. I should stress that while I did want to make the point that Bush is more intelligent than his critics make out, I don't really suppose that the NYT actually planned to leak this revelation as part of a smear. That was 'tongue-in-cheek'.

The reason that Bush is considered an idiot by so many is that he's a terrible speaker and he especially doesn't seem to speak well to large non-friendly crowds. While this doesn't inspire confidence, it doesn't per se mean that he's not an effective leader or decision maker. A president is a commander-in-chief not a debating champion. It is widely said that Kerry won the first debate. I didn't see it, but I heard that Bush repeated himself many times and looked rather worn, while Kerry spoke better and looked more assured. I suppose I should have seen that coming, given that Kerry is a Senator, which almost by definition means that he's more of a talker than a doer. Bush was a governor, where the virtually the opposite applies.

All of this reminds me of something I read many years ago in a review of a book about business. The author listed various types of people not to hire. One of these was 'the articulate incompetent'. I agree that such people exist. But if they do, then it's likely that there are others who are 'inarticulate competents', people whose understanding is superior to their ability to express it. I've met many poker players with a great intuitive understanding of the game who could not express how they arrived at their decisions, as well as educated professionals from business, academia and medicine who played appalling and justified losing plays with eloquent nonsense, which they sincerely believed. I know whom I would rather back in a game.

About the Gambling Bill.
There has been much humbug this week about the proposed Gambling Bill from people who really ought to know better. According to some, the arrival of bigger casinos will bring Britain crime, prostitution, addiction, divorce, the death of the first-born in Blackpool (if the Daily Mail is to be believed) and worst of all, American businessmen. I am not so concerned. It's rare that I find myself in agreement with Tony Blair on domestic matters, but this week he pointed out that casino gambling is only a small part of overall gambling activity in this country and went on to say 'It's very important that we modernise the regulation of gambling for today's world... [W]hether we like it or not, we have gambling in this country, but with a series of rules and restrictions which are completely out of date.... Ninety per cent of the gambling bill is about better regulation and protection for children, removing slot machines from about 6,000 premises where minors, children, might have access to them."

That's seems very reasonable to me.

However, there is one thing that I do think is outrageous about certain forms of gambling in this country and it's the artificially generated near-miss. When the reels spin on a slot machine and bring you two watermelons, don't start thinking that the probablity of getting the third one is determined by dividing the the number of spaces on the reel by the number of watermelons. It isn't. And when the lemon comes in, with a watermelon directly about it, don't think you've had a 'near-miss'. You haven't. The machine is programmed to give you the sensation that you nearly got there. I think that this is disgusting.

It's not just done on slot machines either. Last week, for the first time in well over a year, I bought a scratchcard at a newsagent. The game on this card was based on a noughts-and-crosses grid. You had to scratch nine squares and if you found three nines in a row, you would win #9,999. Wouldn't you just know it, but there were four nines in one corner of the grid on my card? Anyone who started scratching it from the bottom left (I didn't), would get the idea that he was drawing to the jackpot in three directions. This was not a near-miss either. The printers of these cards are permitted to generate a certain amount of near-misses above the number that would occur naturally in a genuinely random distribution. This does offend me. By all means, people should be allowed to gamble in this country, but let's have more transparency. The odds should be what they appear to be. Making people think they were 'close' to a jackpot to entice them to play longer should be banned.

What is "Moderate Islam"?
A critic of my Iraq war views once told me in the Vic that a failing of Bush's post-9/11 strategy was that he had alienated "Moderate Islam". I don't recall what, if anything, I said in response, but I do remember wondering afterwards what the definition of moderate Islam is. Is there one? In theory, there shouldn't be much variation in Islamic thinking, because it's a revealed religion whose holy book is said to have been dictated by god to his last prophet on Earth. However, differences do exist in practice.

I often buy things from a shop across the road from my house. One of the men who works behind the counter is from Yemen and we get on rather well. Every time I go there, he says 'David, what's happening in the world today?' and invites me to launch into long discussions about current affairs. It will surprise you to know that I mostly decine to say much, but quite often when I do, we find things on which we can agree. Recently he asked me 'Why are these people kidnapping and killing in Iraq? It's completely senseless!'.

I replied 'It's not senseless to them. It's completely logical once you accept their belief that they are following what god wants them to do'.

He said 'But they aren't. I'm a muslim. I know it's wrong'.

I said 'They believe it's their obligation under "jihad".

He said 'No, no, no that's wrong. "Jihad" is a personal struggle, like when you want to stop smoking.'

'Well tell them that, not me!' I said.

Was this just a pointless discussion between two people separated by age, belief, race and upbringing? Possibly. But as a starting point for a definition of 'Moderate Islam', it works for me. I can have no quarrel with someone who sees "Jihad" as a personal affair. Those who think they are obliged to commence a holy war deserve a different fate.

The New York Times make a damaging attack on President Bush.
It's no secret that the New York Times is a left-leaning newspaper that wants Kerry to win in next week's election. During the 2000 election campaign, Bush was caught by a microphone in an unguarded moment pointing out an NYT reporter to Dick Cheney and describing him as a 'Major League Asshole'. So it doesn't surprise me that the paper seeks revenge this time around and deals out a dirty trick - straight from the bottom of the deck. Knowing that there is little time for him to react, they report incontrovertible evidence that Bush has a higher IQ than John Kerry.

Click here to see the full story. (May require registration).

Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.

This is damaging. Bush goes to great lengths to conceal his intelligence in public. He knows how damaging it can be electorally to be perceived as 'clever'. He's only ever lost one election in his life - a 1978 Congressional race in northern Texas. On that occasion, his opponent's campaign made this radio broadcast:

"In 1961, when Kent Hance graduated from Dimmitt High School in the 19th congressional district, his opponent George W. Bush was attending Andover Academy in Massachusetts. In 1965, when Kent Hance graduated from Texas Tech, his opponent was at Yale University. And while Kent Hance graduated from University of Texas Law School, his opponent -- get this, folks -- was attending Harvard."

Bush lost. He had been outdumbed. But he did at least learn the lesson and plays the simpleton at every opportunity. In subsequent elections this has always been the winning strategy. The moment you are perceived as being too smart in American politics, you are dead meat. Ronald Reagan was always portrayed as an ignoramus and won two presidential elections. Arnold Schwarzenegger was derided as a fool and comfortably won the Governorship of California. In the 2000 election, Bush outdumbed Gore and won (Gore does have a higher IQ than Bush, as proved by the same sources that place Bush over Kerry).

It's a testament to Bush's campaigning strengths that he's allowed Kerry to come over as the clever one. As the NYT article explains:

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said.

As a Bush fan, I just hope that the revelations have come out too late to harm him. I recall that a similar dirty trick was attempted just before the 2000 election, when it was reported that he'd had a drunk driving conviction. That didn't work because it was no secret that he'd been an alcoholic. You don't make great gains attacking your opponent's weaknesses. The key is attacking his strengths, as the Swift Boat Veterans have done so admirably by taking apart Kerry's Vietnam record. The NYT now wants to do the same thing. I must cross my fingers and hope it fails.

Focus.
Over at the Hendon Mob forum there's been a lot of talk about `focus' in poker. Naturally it is considered to be a `good thing'. I don't know why it is necessary to state this, as it's obviously true. However, I want to express a dissenting view. Firstly, all the focus in the world can't help you if you have a fundamentally unsound understanding of the game. Imagine a `focused' roulette player. He can concentrate as hard as he likes, but he's not going to win, because he's in a negative EV game.

Not only that, but I do believe that trying too hard to focus can be counter-productive. That might be personal to me, but I don't think it is. I remember that when I played chess for Midland Bank, I used to keep records of the games I played in the inter-bank league. As well as recording the actual moves, I noted the time on the clock at the point at which I played each move, thus allowing me to see how long I had taken over it. On reviewing my games, I would find almost without exception that the worst move I had played in every game was the one I had thought longest about.

This has applications to poker. When some people start to go into deep thinking mode, what they are actually doing is fighting their initial instinct. That's because their instinct is telling them to do something that is emotionally unappealing: in many cases, folding a strong, but not outstanding hand. In this situation, they start reviewing the betting trying to find some circumstances that would justify calling. So often I see people dwell up for long periods and then make terrible calls.

You will rarely see me do that. I act pretty quickly and chatter away if the conversation is interesting. I positively don't want the game to go quiet, in case I hear the siren voices calling me onto the rocks. If this happens to you, consider talking more and acting quicker. If you are going to be any good at this game, you need to have decent first instincts and if you can't trust them to guide you most of the time, you should consider quitting.

Advice on hands.
Over at the Gutshot website, co-proprietor Barry 'the bully' Martin offers advice on hands to those who ask for it, in a section of the site called 'Beat the Bully' ("Got a Scenario for the Bully? Unsure whether your play was right in the comp last night? You got a question? Put it to the Bully!"). As of today, there are 17 entries in the archives and all of them relate to situations in tournaments or satellites. For sure, the come-on text I quote above does mention comps, but it doesn't limit itself to them. Does nobody have any curiosity about cash play?

I find this rather frustrating, as to me it exemplifies the 'poker=tournaments' mentality that plagues this country and has held back the game's growth for so long. It ought to surprise me that nobody has asked a question regarding a hand in a cash game, but alas it doesn't. I've checked all 17 questions to prove that they are all tournament related, but I knew that they would be before I even looked at the first one. Why? Well it's because in all the years that I've looked at the advice being requested on the Hendon Mob, I've rarely seen any questions about cash play and I've never seen anyone ask a question about one of the most defining tests of professional poker play: game selection.

The Victoria is now getting full at some point every night. That means a choice of seven games to those who have the right resources. I don't want to take the risks required in the #250 dealers most of the time, so for me there are six games: three #50 hold'em games and three games of either #100 omaha or #100 hold'em. Some nights it's two omaha games, other nights it's two hold'em games. It all depends on demand.

Faced with this choice, it's essential to be in the right game and that's where managing the lists is so important. To be a true pro, you should know who the wild players, who the rocks are and who the tricky players are. Not only that, but you should know their initials, so that you can spot how good a game is going to be by seeing who is on the list to play after someone leaves the game you are interested in. There is little point in being 7th on the list for what is now a great game if the 6 people on the list in front of you are all rocks or tricky. Equally, it can be worthwhile to be low on the list for what is a mediocre game now, if the people next on the list are complete maniacs.

To take matters a level further, it helps to know the movement patterns of your prey. Certain people never stay late, so you know that if you see them in a game at 10.30, it's likely that their seat will become available soon. Others only stay late if they are chasing, so if they are still there at midnight, it could mean that they are on tilt and much more value than would normally be the case.

So what I'm waiting for is a question like this on a forum somewhere:

Title: 'Question for the Mob (or Barry Martin, John Duthie, Harry Demetriou etc)

Question: 'I was in an adequate but not great #100 omaha game at 9.50 last night. I had VH on my right, who is a dead seat but always quits at either 10.30 or 11.00. A #100 hold'em game was just about to start and I saw many people I've not seen before waiting for it to start. That's usually a good sign, but often beginners don't sit down with a great deal of money and there was plenty on the table that I was on. Mr H. was totally smashed as usual and was third on the list for my game, but was also on the list for a #250 dealers if that started. There were three other names on the list for #250 dealers, however once his initials hit the whiteboard it was likely that others would follow, if they had the money for it. There didn't seem to be many people who played that size in the room, but a couple of possible takers were in the restaurant and if they dropped in to the card room on the way down and saw him, they would immediately want to play.

I thought that it would be a good idea to go into the hold'em in preference to the omaha game that I was in, because even though the beginners don't always have a lot of chips to start with, they do sometimes start pulling up hundreds and play loose until they have a large stack, rather as though it were a rebuy competition. But I didn't want to leave the omaha game if there was a possibility that Mr H. would take part.

What is to be done? If I go to the #100 game, I miss the chance to play Mr H. later, but if I stay he might never come to the game if the #250 dealers starts. Brian tapped me on the shoulder and asked me if I wanted to move to the new hold'em game. What should I have done?"

That's the sort of dilemma that any Vic regular will recognise. Yet I never see it discussed on any forum.

Here's another situation I had last week. I was in a great #100 hold'em game at 1.00am and was asked whether I wanted to stay another hour. I had gone to bed at 2.30am the previous day, so I was probably only likely to stay for one more hour, two at the absolute maximum. However, the man who had just moved to my immediate left had a stinking cold - sneezing and spluttering every two minutes. Should that affect my decision?

In the end I decided that it should and quit the game. It wasn't worth risking a cold that knocked me out of action for a week in exchange for only one or two more hours of play in a good game. At times it amuses me to think that poker players pay money per hour to sit at a table with their heads adjacent to others in a way that would be regarded as a health and safety hazard in any office! Why do we tolerate people with colds playing live in the age of online poker. Tell them to go home!

And while we're at it, don't get me started on people who don't wash their hands when they go to the toilets. I can't count the number of times I've said to people 'But we're using the same cards and chips you know'.

If you think I'm being fussy, wait until you meet David Ulliott, an absolute hygiene fanatic. He once asked the floor manager at the Amsterdam casino to tell everyone who visited the bathroom during the break to wash their hands and got a round of applause for it! It's pathetic that grown-ups have to be told this. David refuses to take paper towels from the toilet attendents in the bathrooms at casinos. He doesn't want someone else's hands touching the paper he dries his with. Now there's some valuable free hand advice from one of the UK's leading card players!

Reversing Andy Ward's question
Over at the Pokersoft Diary, Andy Ward asks us who said the following:

"Why of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

I don't know for sure. I won't cheat and look it up, so I'll give you my best guess, which is that it is by Josef Goebbels. I look forward to being told the correct answer in due course.

I wouldn't mention it on this site, were it not for the fact that he describes this quote as being 'apposite'. I take this to mean that he sees some parallels in the US-led war in Iraq and of course totally disagree. What's obvious in this day and age is how difficult it is to persuade some people to wake up out of their slumber and accept that there is a war going on! A disturbingly large number of people prefer to believe that the war is some scheme cooked up by Bush and Cheney to make profits for Halliburton, despite the sight of embassies falling down in Africa in 1998 (about 300 killed, mostly Africans) and about 3000 killed in New York and Washington, D.C. in 2001.

I could widen this by including the killing of about 200 in Bali in 2002, in which Islamic fundamentalists killed Australian and British surfers and backpackers with not a Zionist Israeli or registered Republican American in sight. But what's the point? The seductive appeal of the 'blame Bush' view is that it gives you a cheap way out. Simply vote Bush out and the problem is solved. Brilliant!

So I want to ask Andy this question: 'What do you make of someone who goes around telling the public that they aren't being attacked when they very obviously are?'

He's welcome to tell me that he doesn't see Iraq as being the main threat to the US and the UK. But I want to know first whether he actually accepts that someone is attacking us.

Lying to your partner in game theory.
Over at the Hendon Mob a thread has started which includes allegations that Bush and Blair lied to the American and British public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities. "Chaos" has written an excellent reply, pointing out the weakness of these allegations, in particular explaining that military intelligence is not a precise science and that one has to consider the worst case scenario. As you will all know, I'm mostly happy with the way that things turned out and believe that the death toll of the war was small, relative to both the possible and likely death tolls to Iraqis and the Coalition if Saddam were left in place.

But that is not what I want to talk about today. Instead, for the purposes of this argument, I will assume that they did lie and ask whether it would be wrong for them to have done so.

As a poker player, I'm aware of the importance of deception in game theory. It's essential to conceal your true intentions in most games and in poker this deception factor applies to all the other players in the game. But there are some games in which one has a partner and the most famous of these is bridge. Here two pairs play against each other and communicate the values of their hands in both the bidding of the auction and the play of the cards. It's normal to communicate with ones partner to defeat the other team, but there are exceptional circumstances when it is wrong. I'm only an adequate bridge player, but I think this example will explain. It won't mean a lot to people who know nothing about it.

Suppose you have a 14-point hand and intend to open the bidding, but your right hand opponent opens 1 no trump, and you are left with no bid. The left opponent raises this to 3 no trumps. All pass.

In this situation you should know that you have all the points that your side can have. Your partner has nothing. In the subsequent play of the cards, it would be totally counter productive to defend against the contract in a way that signals your holding to your partner, as he will never win a trick and will never be able to play back the cards that you want. If you did, the information would be of no value to him, but it would be of great use to the other side. So far from wanting to communicate clearly to your partner, it's actually correct play to mislead him, because doing so also misleads the other side and can be the only way to defeat the opposition.

Similar thinking applied in the Second World War. During the Battle of Britain, Britons were told lies about the numbers of British casualties (understated) and German planes downed (overstated). The clear idea was to weaken German morale and improve British morale. Telling the truth served no purpose and could have been counter productive if early losses led to panic at home.

In the case of the war against Iraq, I do feel that Bush and Blair stressed the WMD angle above all other aspects, not because they wanted to mislead the US and UK public, but because they wanted to mislead the regimes of the middle east who have the most to lose from the plan to democratise the region. That doesn't just mean countries that were hostile to us, but also nations that are nominally our allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent, Kuwait. The obvious comparison with the highly successful post-war democratisation of Japan and Germany was never mentioned at all, because the US spent 7 years in Japan and still has troops in Germany. Imagine the hostility that using those examples would have caused!

If I were Bush or Blair, I would love to have made my intentions perfectly clear and would have said something like 'We are faced with grave threats from terrorist organisations and we are concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The only long term solution to the terrorist threat is to democratise the middle east and while this won't pacify the worst fanatics, it will stop them having broader support, because religious fanaticism won't be the only source of opposition to unpopular governments. In the long term this plan involves the removal of every leader in Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudia Arabia and Iran. Almost everyone who is in power now will need to be ousted in the next 15 years or so. We've done it already in Afghanistan and the next stop on our world tour is Iraq.'

But try saying that and getting your troops into the region to spearhead the attack! Impossible. The regimes of the region would close ranks and present us with a united front. We needed the support of surrounding countries in order to invade and would not have received it had we been so open.

I will never know whether Bush and Blair believed in the WMD threat. I have no reason to think that they didn't, but I do know that it's the angle that a sensible western politician would have pursued to gain acceptance of the wider plan to change the region. And if you really believe that the future of civilisation is at stake, it's the only path to follow.

Action Dave reveals his dark side.
If you have played much at all on the British poker circuit, you're likely to have met one of the game's most endearing characters: Action Dave. Dave is poker's Peter Pan. He once turned down a chance to marry a millionairess and start a family, because he wanted to be a kid more than he wanted to have one.

His life is one long quest for pleasure, combined with a zen-inspired philosophy of consideration for others that sets him apart from most hedonists. He always strives to see the best in other people. As he's one of the more likeable and genuine people around the circuit, it is with some regret that I have recently learned that he has a dark side.

I don't mean his living on the seat of his pants. Who else could fly to the other side of the world with no money at all, talk his way into sharing a flat with three lapdancers, win $25,000 on the internet and live on it for six months? I couldn't!

I don't mean his sexual adventures. The last time we had dinner, he related a night spent in a country house at the invitation of a rich playboy. When he got to the bit where he said 'And then the minibus with the girls turned up', I tipped a bottle of wine over the table. I don't know why. I should be used to it now. And anyway, that's not the his dark side.

No, what concerns me most is his recent revelation that he enjoys listening to the afternoon plays on Radio Four. Ye Gods! I have to draw the line somewhere. That upper class dross! Stop it now! I've always wondered who listened to that rubbish. It now appalls me to learn that it's someone I actually know.

An ad hominem attack.
In a post further down this page, I have pointed out what I believe to be a small measure of hypocrisy by Keith Hawkins in berating the existence of a black market for the trade of tournament tickets in Amsterdam, given that he bought a ticket from me once a few years ago. Keith has responded angrily on his site. I'm not surprised that he's mentioned it, but didn't forecast that the source of his anger would be the fact that I don't have a comments section on this site. That was a deliberate decision on my part from the outset, because I don't want anonymous abuse from people I may not even know. I briefly relented and tried to set one up once, but I couldn't get it to work and gave up on the idea. So I'll direct you back to his site at www.camelpoker.blogspot.com and let you check out how the thread has flowed in the comments section.

What is more interesting is the ad hominem attack on me by an "ex friend of David's" in that thread. I should like now to quote it in its entirety:

"David Young just lives in a world where he is always correct. A world where he can be a pseud. The number of times I have seen him proved wrong is more than the number of sunglasses Mr Arama owns. David sees himself as a commentator on life, but he has no life experience to look back on and relate to us.

The real worry for him is that at his age he really has nothing to look forward to. While he is not a bad player, he is still playing small stake games both live and on the web. He has burned his bridges with too many of the poker community to ever have a sponsorship deal and the real problem is that at his age he is unable to return to a job he would think himself worthy of. Imagine him turning up for an interview and explaining why he had not worked for 3 years.

His poker earnings just about keep his head above water but how is he going to woo a lady into having a relationship with him? Use his boyish good looks or sense of fun? I think not. His bitterness comes from knowing he will still be playing the ?100 table at the vic and making 30 bucks an hour on stars for the rest of his life, while gobbing off at the world and all those whose lives are more interesting than his.

P.S. Did you know David lives in a council flat?

As an account of some of the issues in my life, it's very accurate. I won't dissect the first paragraph much, since he doesn't supply examples of where I've been proved wrong, nor does the remark about seeing myself as a commentator of life make a lot of sense to me. In the internet age, when you can get your own blog for nothing, we can all be commentators of life and most of us have something we can tell others that is of value.

Instead I'm more fascinated by the length to which some anonymous "ex-friend" has gone to tell me about my problems, as though they had never occurred to me or to others. I'm also not sure why these problems have any bearing on whether anything I have to say is of interest or not. It's like the old dilemma of what to think if you learn that your favourite philosopher beat his wife. It certainly makes you think less of him as a person. But does it make what he said wrong? Luckily you don't have to worry about that with me, I'm not violent. But I have my challenges and frustrations like anyone else and I'm sure that one could make the same sort of remarks about others. We all have problems! Does he think I'm unique?

On the suggestion of a friend in the US, I once bought a book that I recommend to all called `The Ethics of Belief' by W.K.Clifford. It's a collection of essays written in the 1870s by a young philosopher. Sadly he died in his 30s. In the essay of the same name, Clifford writes:

"In what cases, then, let us ask in the first place, is the testimony of a man unworthy of belief? He may say that which is untrue either knowingly or unknowingly. In the first case he is lying, and his moral character is to blame; in the second case he is ignorant or mistaken, and it his only his judgement which is in fault. In order that we may have the right to accept his testimony as grounds for believing what he says, we must have reasonable grounds for trusting his veracity, that he is really trying to speak the truth so far as he knows it; his knowledge, that he has had opportunities of knowing the truth about this matter; and his judgement, that he has made proper use of those opportunities in coming to the conclusions which he affirms."

I find this a useful framework: veracity, knowledge and judgement. How do I stack up? Well, you'll have to make your own decision about these. The ex-friend doesn't attack my veracity. I take some small measure of relief in this. Nobody's called me a crook yet. He does attack my knowledge by saying that I have no life experience to look back on, but he doesn't supply any evidence to prove it. For the record, I'm 35, so I don't have as much life experience as some reading this, but I'm sure I've had more than others. However experience isn't the only source of knowledge. Some things don't have to be experienced to be understood. You don't have to have washed dishes to run a restaurant. I have had a decent, but not exceptional education. I have read a lot about the topics I write about. That is what you are getting if you read anything I've written.

Lastly then, there is the matter of judgement. How good am I at judging things? It will take time to answer that. I hope I'm still improving at it. I try to interpret things in ways that fit the facts and provide predictions, but I'm not always right. For instance, earlier this year I was telling people that I expected the Athens Olympics to be a mess, at least as bad as Atlanta 1996. I was wrong and I'm sure that I'll get some things wrong again in future. But I hope that I'll get a lot more right than wrong. It's not necessary to be perfectly accurate in order to express a view, otherwise nobody could write comment or opinion for the papers, unless they hedged themselves to the point where their remarks were too vague to be of use. Millions of people bought Jim Slater's book about investment, most of them aware that he ran a company called Slater Walker that went bust.

In fact it may not even be necessary to be right about more things than one is wrong about, in order to be worth respecting. Winston Churchill made a great many mistakes before he became Prime Minister in 1940, but he was right about Hitler when others were very wrong and that's what we remember him for. Abraham Lincoln's life before he became President included many failures, but he did the world a favour by starting the process to abolish slavery in the US. Getting the big things right is what matters.

I digress. The point is that the only value in this ex-friend's dissection of my life as far as it pertains to my online writings is the extent to which it provides any glimpse into my judgement. The gist is that I'm bitter about the challenges I face, and that this jaundices my views and is the motive for my attacks.

And that's where I think he's wrong. For all the obstacles in my way, I can't say I'm all that unhappy. Eight years ago, I was earning about ?30k in a job in the City and was very unhappy, even though I had safe money coming in, some structure to my life and was younger and slimmer.

So I hereby promise to you all, that if I achieve great fame, fortune and fair maiden, I'll still be the same pain-in-the neck that you love or hate.

Here endeth the lesson.

Farewell to the Vic's Moody Rule.
The Victoria has decided to scrap its "Moody" rule; the one that prevented players from betting if they made remarks about their hand during the course of play. I'm sure the timing has something to do with the approach of the televised #3,000 tournament. If so, it's not the first time that television has changed the way that poker is played.

The rule was a bete noire for the Victoria's critics and being something of a contrarian, I found myself defending it lately. I have a feeling that many people who complained about it on discussion fora like the Hendon Mob rarely visited the Vic and lost when they did so. Berating the rule was a way of justifying their aversion to the place.

However, the truth is that if the rule had never existed I would never have created it. I just hope that the change does not lead to lots of people making long speeches about their cards. This isn't because I think it will make them harder to play against. I'm sure that it will make it easier. But if the air is filled with the chatter of people talking about their cards then it takes away from some of the more interesting conversation that can take place. I really don't want to listen to people talking about their cards. It's boring! I would rather listen to conversation about the stock market, politics, religion etc. It would be a shame to miss out on moments like this from the #100 Hold'em last week:

Vicky Coren: "If I were a man, I would definitely be gay."

Me: "Are you just saying that you don't like women?"

Vicky Coren: "No. I like women. I just wouldn't want to have sex with one."

Neil Channing: "It's the nagging, isn't it?"

Looking for mugs.
In the latest edition of Card Player Europe, regular columnist Keith 'the camel' Hawkins bemoans the practice that has taken place in previous Amsterdam festivals of 'scalpers' buying up tickets and selling them at a profit to desperate punters just before events start. He informs readers that this year the Lido casino will be admitting alternates to any tournaments that sell out, meaning that players who are eliminated in the early rounds can be replaced by those who couldn't get in.

I support the casino doing this, but not for the reason that Keith gives. In the past, it's clear that demand has exceeded supply and the profit made by the scalpers represented profit that the casino could have made but didn't. Since I want poker operators to make money from poker, rather than roulette and blackjack, I don't mind them increasing their earnings this way. But I don't share Keith's disgust at scalping, because to me it cuts to the heart of what poker is really about: finding mugs. For some people, including myself, this means finding mug players. For some it means finding mug backers and for others it means finding mug sponsors!

I must confess that I have myself once sold a seat at Amsterdam for a profit. I had paid ?220 for it a few weeks in advance and was offered ?450 for it fifteen minutes before the event was due to start. I was happy to grab a profit and take the afternoon off that day. Imagine my delight at some mug buying my ticket!

And who was the mug who bought the ticket at this overblown price? If you guessed that it was Keith 'the camel' Hawkins, award yourself a gold star. Amazing, huh?

TV Times.
I had a new television aerial installed yesterday, as the reception on the old one was extremely poor. Nothing unusual in that you might think, except that the problem with the reception has been obvious for over 18 months and it's taken me this long to get around to doing something about it. The reason is partly that I don't watch very much television these days, but also that so much of what is on offer on the five terrestrial channels is so dire.

About a decade ago I recall that there was much talk about how an increase in the number of channels would somehow lead to less choice not more; the idea being that the new channels would only show American cop shows with car chases 24/7, to the detriment of the glorious BBC's grip on quality drama, current affairs, blah blah blah. Stephen Fry in particular stands out in my memory as being guilty of furthering this illusion. In an especially nauseating sketch on one of his shows, a man who was heard saying he wanted more televisual choice was seen asking for a choice of cutlery in a restaurant. Fry, playing the waiter, returned with a bag full of 1,000 identical plastic spoons announcing `Here's your choice!'

Forward ten years later and back in the real world, the results could barely be more different. When I visit friends who have Sky, I notice that they have the option to watch any of about half a dozen rolling news channels, a vast variety of documentaries about science, history and entertainment, as well as sports galore. And when I look at the five channels I have, I see nothing but programmes about property purchasing, antique auctions, celebrity chefs and elimination shows. The odd bit of quality still gets through, (Fry's QI show is great) but I'm sure that the slots are soon to be reallocated to more urgent subject matter, such as bathroom DIY and highlights of Ready Steady Cook.