Royal madness
Topic: Misc.
Apologies if you came here to read about something other than the forthcoming marriage of Charles and Camilla, but this made me laugh. It's from the BBC's 'Have your say' page:

Never should Charles be allowed to re-marry - especially to a divorcee. This is a good reflection of our country today. He also should forfeit the right to be king, as the rules are rules. If the law is changed to accommodate this, then we will riot.

Tim Cross, Reading, Berks

Somehow I doubt this.

The threat from Saddam
Topic: Politics
A writer in the comments to an earlier piece, named 'R We Safer now in sunny kent?' tells me:

"this wasn't an imperitive war like ww2"..."there was a case for the war, but did this justify the cost?"

For a moment, I would like to set aside my conviction that the war was justified in terms of regime change and reform of the middle-east and instead focus purely on the threat that Saddam posed, which many people wrongly assume to be non-existent, merely because no stockpiles of nuclear weapons have been found.

I suggest that everyone has a look at the Iraq Survey Group's findings. They are a damming indictment of the philosophy of containment.

The section titled 'Regime Strategic Intent' explains:

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

In order to end sanctions, Saddam used the 'Oil for Food' programme not only for personal gain, but also to bribe foreign politicians to campaign for an end to sanctions. Once that was achieved he would then restart his WMD development. In other words, a system that was designed to contain Saddam was actually being used by Saddam to contain the free world. Those who argue that there was no threat from Iraq resemble the man who falls from the Eiffel Tower and as he passes the second floor on the way down observes 'So far so good!'.

Check out this page from Wikipedia for summary of the findings. Note the last one, which makes clear that Saddam convinced his own military commanders that Iraq did have WMD in order to prevent a coup. This explains why so much of the intelligence coming out from the country reported that WMD did exist.

Drug-related madness.
Topic: Politics
A study in Scotland has found that heroin users can lead normal lives. Glasgow Caledonian University's study of 126 users found many were holding down normal jobs and relationships and passing exams. On the surface this ought to be considered a good thing, but the discovery seems to have caused more anger than relief. Social workers and politicians have instead rushed out to stress that the report did not state that herion was safe.

It's distressing that this is the level of thinking. I certainly have no interest in drugs and I would strongly counsel anyone against taking them. But if it's possible for a heroin user to go to work and earn their keep, pay tax and maintain a semblance of normality then this has to raise the question of why we leave the drug to the black market where prices are high and impurities are added to the product. Where is the fresh thinking on this matter?

Drug laws are killing people. Most heroin addicts would not inject if the price were cheaper and thus would not catch infections from needle-sharing. They would also have more money in their pockets if the price were lower and if they chose to go into rehab in order to quit once and for all, would be more likely to have the money to pay for it themselves, instead of the state picking up the tab. They wouldn't turn to crime. Your insurance premiums would be lower. And we wouldn't be exporting money to criminal gangs.

This last point is more important than most people realise. Many third world countries are impossible to govern because of the power of drug gangs. The money they earn allows them to buy weapons and bribe law enforcement officials. This is notable in Mexico and Columbia to pick just two examples. The situation in Columbia is particularly tragic, since the US insisted that the country be sprayed with chemicals to prevent the cultivation of coca leaves. In a tragic illustration of the law of unintended consequences, the effect has been to aid the drug growers at the expense of everyone who is honest. The drug cartels have developed spray-resistant strains of the coca plant and the spraying now merely serves to kill weeds and other competing vegetation. The result is a bumper cocaine harvest. Meanwhile honest farmers who grow other crops are suffering when the spray reaches their crops, resulting in ruin.

Those of us on the right who believe that 'you can't beat the market' should insist that an end be put to this madness.

Historic day for the middle-east.
Topic: Politics
Iraq votes today, under circumstances that are far from ideal. Nevertheless, it looks like turnout will be not much different from the turnout in the UK's election in 2001 (59 per cent). I was hoping to make a forecast that Iraq's turnout will be higher than ours was, but I don't know enough about how it's calculated. Excluding the Sunni areas, it will be higher for sure.

Given that some Iraqis have been killed at polling stations, it puts our political apathy to shame. Violence will continue for some time, but if the turnout is respectable, the terrorists who want Iraq to be a theocratic dictatorship will know that they have lost.

Vicky Coren gets an ear full of cider.
Topic: Misc.
It's time I updated readers regarding the third annual Young-Quance chess challenge. Julian and I normally hold this in Amsterdam but this year neither of us went for the festival, so we agreed to play in a pub in London. Also in attendance were Neil Channing and Victoria Coren.

Dear reader, I am gutted to report that despite winning by clear majorities in the first two years, I lost 3-0 in 2004. I am sure that drinking before play rather than afterwards had something to do with it. I can't believe I've got worse at the game.

It was a good natured gathering. The highlight of the evening was watching a sidebet between Vicky and Neil. As the game was played in late December, the pub was playing various christmassy songs, one of which was the 'Fairytale of New York'. On hearing it, Neil said: 'I hate this version. Why can't they play the one with Shane McGowan. This is the cover version by the kid from the boy band'. On hearing this, Vicky said 'Don't be ridiculous. This is the original version with The Pogues and Kirsty MacColl'. Neil was insistent: 'No it's not. I have listened to the original about five times a day this week. This isn't it.'

'What?' said Vicky, 'You're saying someone else has recorded the song the same way with the same harmonies? Don't be ridiculous'. The argument got more heated until one of these sickos suggested a bet. I guess it was inevitable really. It was initially set for #100 at evens each, but Vicky felt like being generous and reduced it to #50. That done, she marched over to the bar and demanded to see the disc that was being played. The barman brought it over a short while later and she was astonished to see that the song was recorded by:

Ronan Keating and Maire Brennan

She spluttered 'But what is the point of recording a cover that is exactly the same?' Too late. She had done her money. Neil was very nice though and told her to put it in the pub's charity collection tin. She returned and announced 'Well there's a charity for the blind that's #50 better off'. Never one to miss the bright side, Neil replied 'Oh that's good. I know you were gutted about that Blunkett thing'.

And the moral of the story. Don't be on facts! Certainly not against Lord Channing.

Thanks to Fred Titmus
Topic: Politics
No this is not a post about cricket. I want to express my gratitude to 'Fred Titmus' for responding to one of the most misinformed posts I've ever seen about politics. I refer to the one on the HM site that says:

"ha ha ha Poor old DY can't reply here, cos of his deal with gutshot. Any way he attacks me on his blog, he trys to bring the budhists into the argument.?? But he doesn't address the point of the programme-the fact that neo-cons will always look for a bogeyman (soviet union or muslim fundamentalists) to maintain their grip on power. Luckily old ronnie reagan didn't buy their bull****...otherwise we wouldn't have had detente.
Can you imagine the cretinous bush dealing with Gorby and the cold war thaw in the 80's?"

I'm glad this person (who effectively admits to being 'DY delusions') wrote this, because it shows how breathtakingly ill-informed he is. Firstly there is the small matter of the fact that I'm not prevented from writing on the site at all. I choose not to because I have found it less and less rewarding for some time now and it was consuming too much of my mental energy when I used to post. There is a growing trend of sheer nastiness, lately directed at Ulliott, Vicky Coren and Roland, that makes it less pleasant to read. Where did all these sad vicious people spring from?

As far as bringing buddhists into the argument, I did that because if I can show that Islamic extremists are active in parts of the world that are not Christian, then it utterly undermines the argument that they need 'Bush conservatives' to flourish. I also showed that they were active long before the 'neo-cons' came to power. So the basic tenet of his argument falls to pieces.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when he writes: "neo-cons will always look for a bogeyman (soviet union or muslim fundamentalists) to maintain their grip on power". Is he honestly saying that there isn't or wasn't a threat to freedom from either of these groups? Does he know about Hungary 1956, Prague 1968 or the many terrorist outrages at the hand of islamic terrorists?

To suggest that Reagan followed a policy of detente beggars belief. We are talking about a man who joked about bombing Russia on radio! Reagan didn't bring down the Soviet empire through talks alone. He did it by accelerating an arms race that the weaker Soviet economy couldn't match without destroying living standards.

So thanks again to 'Fred' for telling it like it is:

"It was precisely because Reagan rejected detente with what he called the "evil empire" that the process of disintegration of the Soviet Union occured when it did. Reagan emphatically rejected the Nixon/Kissinger detente policy."

Amen to that!

Oh dear, here we go again.
Topic: Politics
A writer on the Hendon Mob (anon of course) using the alias 'DY delusions' praises a BBC production titled 'The Power of Nightmares' thusly:

"The BBC are repeating this great programme over the next 3 nights. A fantastic examination of the crazy neo-con philosophy of DY. And how fundamentalist islam and bush conservatism actually flourish together, feeding off fears of the people."

How many times do I have to explain this? Let's take a trip to the real world:

1993 First Attack on the World Trade Centre
1996 Attack on the Khobar Towers.
1998 Twin Embassy bombings.

Guess who was president during all of this? If you say Bush, get a new history book. It was Clinton. And what about the Bali bomb that killed so many Australians in 2002? Were they all neo-cons? Is my critic aware that there are dozens of terrorist conflagrations involving militant Muslims around the world: Thailand, Philippines, Russia (re Chechnya), India (re Kashmir), Indonesia (Bali bomb).

Let's have a look at South East Asia. A terrorist network called 'Jemaah Islamiah' is thought to be responsible for many terrorist outrages in Indonesia and the Philippines.

The BBC tells me: "Forged in the late 1980s and early 1990s by a handful of Indonesian Islamic extremists, the network now stretches across Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Smaller cells might also exist in Cambodia, Vietnam, and even Australia."

That's funny. Not a lot of Bush Conservatives there for them to 'flourish together' with. The Beeb goes on to explain:

"JI's principal goals are the establishment of Islamic governments across the region followed by the formation of a unified, South East Asian Islamic state. This state would stretch from southern Thailand, through the Malay Peninsula (including Singapore), across the Indonesian archipelago and into the southern Philippines."

So that's Buddhism finished then. How interesting. I thought it was Christian conservatives and Zionist Jews who were supposed to be inflaming Islamic extremists. What have the Buddhists ever done to them? I would love to hear from 'DY delusions', as I'm dying to know what the Buddhists have done wrong. My guess is nothing. But no doubt some kind documentary maker will appear to explain how it's all the victims fault, as usual.

Reasons to love the internet, continued.
Topic: Television
In my latest piece for Gutshot I mentioned the Six Million Dollar Man, which for the benefit of any reader under 30, was an action hero TV adventure series in the mid-seventies. If you were a child, as I was, it was pure delight.

I always had a faint recollection from that time that at one point the hero met someone called 'The Seven Million Dollar Man' in one episode. But as he was never mentioned again, I began to wonder whether I had imagined the whole thing. I've just looked for it on Google and found that lo and behold, there was such a character who appeared in one episode only. Years of self-doubt have just been erased. Oh joy!

Separately, sorry for the long break. I was planning to research the history of Indonesia but the topic bores me now. I will return to it if I can summon the energy.

Some intelligent criticism at last!
It's refreshing to have some intelligent feedback for a change, rather than the moronic rantings of the last few days. In the comments section to my last piece, Jamie takes the trouble to do some homework and find facts that either undermine or appear to undermine my argument. Can we have more responses like this, please? For those who are too lazy to click on the comments section, here is what he says:

==========================================================================================================

David, Indonesia (the worst affected country), with an abundance of natural resources, a plethora of US energy companies working overtime to extract said resources, a democratically elected government and the backing of Bush for its role in the war on terror, is presumably your idea of neo-con heaven. Moreover, Bush is so enamoured of the country that he even intervened to prevent Exxon-Mobil being sued for alleged complicity in the abuse of human rights by the Indonesia military in the Aceh region - the area devastated by the tsunami. Incidentally, in the past decade alone, Exxon-Mobil (number one contributor to Bush campaign funds) has extracted some $40 billion from its operations in Aceh. I'd imagine that would more than cover the expense of an early warning system.

And don't get me started on the 1 million+ killed during the 1965 CIA-backed coup which brought General Suharto to power. Nor on the 1975 US-backed invasion of East Timor which resulted into 200,000 civilians being killed. In case you think this is just another anti-US rant, it's worth pointing out that fellow democracy, the UK, was the biggest arms provider to dictator Suharto and another, Australia, his biggest ally.

I know, I know, the Bush administration should not be held responsible for the sins of previous administrations. But, in May 1997, a year before Suharto was driven out of office, everyone's favourite neo-con Paul Wolfowitz (who served as the US ambassador to Indonesia) told Congress of "the significant progress" Indonesia has made under the "strong and remarkable leadership of President Suharto".

Another of your quotes:

"I should like to stress that the reason that I'm a neo-con free-marketeer is not because I'm heartless, but precisely because I'm not."

You may not be, but the architect of neo-conservatism is happy to endorse a man responsible for not one, but two genocides. Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your slavish devotion to these cunts.

Other than that, happy new year.

Jamie

==========================================================================================================

I'm going to take my time before responding to this. I would just like to say now that CIA activity of the 60s and 70s is the very opposite of what I understand by the term 'neo-con'. Furthermore, it's possible that the CIA was in the past responsible for fueling America's drugs problems, though I will withhold judgement on that until I have researched it further.

Reality Check.
Topic: Politics
A writer on the Hendon Mob forum (anonymous of course) says: "For the height of tastelessness, go to DY's blog. There he argues that neo-con inspired democracies are sooo much better at handling natural disasters."

Well, well. Whatever could give me that idea? Let's have a look at the real world:

1994 - Los Angeles Earthquake - Magnitude 6.7, Death toll: 51

2003 - Bam Earthquake (Iran) - Magnitude 6.6, Death toll: 43,000

Iran, a nation with about six decades worth of known oil reserves, is now spending BILLIONS on a nuclear power programme. Might not a casual observer wonder whether this money would be better spent on improving the quality of the nation's buildings to make them better capable of withstanding the next earthquake? It hardly seems uncaring to say this. Quite the reverse. I actually care enough to want to see something done before the next quake, rather than afterwards. I hope the regime there collapses as soon as possible and if this can be made to happen with a push from the West, that's fine by me.

Update

Another pompous and anonymous moron has pounced on me on the HM forum for this view. To show you how stupid this person is, I shall quote him in full:

"Unlike the Camel, DY is not man enough to apologise for inappropriate comments on this tragedy in south East Asia. Indeed he continues to maintain that the death toll is so high because these countries aren't American enough.

Unfortunately they were not as prepared as the Californians because there hasn't been an earthquake there for 500 years. Also they commit the crime of not being rich. Using this tragedy to pontificate on silly neo-con arguments is tacky and a little sick."

How do I start to pick apart the loose thinking here? Well for a start, the reason I'm not apologising is because I've done nothing to apologise for. I have stated what I believe to be the best way to prevent future deaths. I've also provided some reasoning and some facts to back that up. The line 'he continues to maintain that the death toll is so high because these countries aren't American enough' is especially odious. I have no desire to make the whole world into a replica of the US, but there is no shame in wishing that it had the same or better protection from natural disasters.

For another example, Japan is a wealthy democracy that from 1981 introduced tougher standards for earthquake protection. It could afford to. As a consequence, the country was able to restrict its losses to about 5,000 when a very powerful earthquake struck in the Kobe/Osaka area where the population density is extremely high.

His phrase 'Also they commit the crime of not being rich.' is particularly silly. Does he actually think that the majority of people in poor countries choose to be poor? They are that way usually because their leaders either steal the national resources for themselves or impede trade for ideological or selfish reasons. He fairly points out that the Indian Ocean region had not seen such an earthquake for centuries but this hardly undermines my point about Iran, does it? His parting shot 'Using this tragedy to pontificate on silly neo-con arguments is tacky and a little sick.' is most odd, as it seems to suggest that politics and saving lives are somehow unrelated. I hold the foreign policy views that I do precisely because I believe that they will save lives in the long term. It is entirely consistent that I should wish for Asians to be governed by those who best provide them with security and prosperity. I have no personal gain to make from this, other than knowing that others are living as comfortably and securely as possible.

If my anonymous and cowardly critics can't understand that, then that's their problem not mine. I don't intend to go back to writing on the Hendon Mob forum, so if people want to pursue this with me they can comment in the box below.

Welcome to 2005!
Topic: Misc.
Happy New Year to all readers! I had hoped to start the year with a review of my forecasts from last year to see how many were right or wrong, but I thought I should first point out, in case anyone is unaware, that I now have a modest writing deal with Gutshot. I will be writing articles twice a week for the main page, as well as contributing to the forum several times a day. I'm advised by Derek that one of my articles per week can be about anything I like and doesn't have to be about poker, but so far I've mostly stuck to poker. That won't always be possible - which is bad news for some people!

With one exception, it's gone well so far. Most people who meet me at the club say they've enjoyed the stuff I write, before asking me 'Who's this xxxx Baby Jane? Yes, alas there is always one person who can't be satisfied and forum readers have had to endure the rantings of a bitter individual who's not happy about it. My critic has correctly pointed out that one portion of my first piece made use of a quote that I've twice included before in paid-for articles. I was aware that I'd used it in a Pokerpages article several years ago, but completely forgot that I used it again in May this year! I guess old age is creeping up on me when my long-term memory is better than my short-term one! My critic has tried to launch some sort of comic creation onto the marketplace, but has found no buyers. Trapped in a comedy cul-de-sac he splutters on but I've made up my mind to say no more in reply. I can respond to a complaint, but not to a grievance.

I would also like to make clear that my decision to stop writing on the Hendon Mob's website came three weeks before this deal and at no point have Gutshot asked me not to write there. I just felt one day that I was devoting too much of my time to supplying free content for others and getting only abuse in return. This had to stop and I now have the comfort of being paid a small sum for my efforts. I notice that someone (probably the same bitter individual) has started insulting me on the HM forum, claiming that I'm ripping Gutshot members off. This same person then makes some sort of crude homosexual reference to the first person who rebuffs the accusation. Is it really any wonder that I feel I've outgrown this?

Unintelligent Design.
Topic: Religion
In recent years Christian fundamentalists have attempted to advance a proof of the existence of God using the so-called 'Argument from Design', also known as 'Intelligent Design'. The idea is that the creation of the universe exhibits proof of a creator and could not have happened by random chance or evolution. The logic is faulty and is essentially a trick whereby the proponent allows himself to assume the very thing that he's trying to prove. The Skeptic's dictionary covers it quite well:

Click here!

I couldn't help thinking of this when I heard about the disaster in the Indian Ocean, which has killed at least 60,000 people and may well in the final analysis prove to have killed 100,000. In order to hold to the view that the world was created by an intelligent and omnipotent creator, you essentially have to say to yourself 'Yes, there are floods, hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunami, but isn't that a beautiful sunset?'

Meanwhile, if any good is to come out of this disaster, I hope that it's the realisation that the best way to save lives in future disasters is to encourage representative government and economic growth in the developing world. Only when governments exist to respond to the needs of their people and their economies generate the wealth to invest in flood warning systems and sea defences will there be the starting point for a 'cure'. This is the polar opposite of what most 'peace activists' and 'environmentalists' aim to achieve. Given their way, the developing world will remain ruled by dictatorships too indifferent or too poor to reduce the harm in such natural catastrophes. The difference in the death rate caused by earthquakes when they occur in California (dozens) and Iran (tens of thousands) should illustrate the point. Right-wing thinkers are often portrayed as callous and uncaring. I should like to stress that the reason that I'm a neo-con free-marketeer is not because I'm heartless, but precisely because I'm not.

Another country votes for the right.
Topic: Politics
Another election, another victory for a right wing party. Romania has voted in Traian Basescu, the former Mayor of Bucharest, as its new President. Unlike in the US, there can be no argument made that he did this by appealing to social conservatism. Basescu took the risky step of defending the rights of homosexuals.

It's been a good year for right-wing parties world-wide, with the notable exception of Spain, where the electorate got on its knees and begged al-Qaeda for forgiveness and elected the party most likely to appease Islamic fascists. The result of course is that ETA is now back on track blasting away, having seen the power of bombs to control the Spanish voter.

But aside from the Paella Eating Surrender Monkeys, the rest of the world is moving the other way: In March, Greece booted out its socialists after 10 years. Australia has returned John Howard to power for a historic fourth term. In El Salvador, the right wing party got returned for a fourth consecutive term also. The US re-elected Bush as president. The new election in Ukraine on 26th Decemeber is likely to bring victory to the more right-wing pro-western party.

Alas I don't think that the Tories can pull it off here if the UK's next general election is in the next six months, as is likely. Despite the clear ascendance of right-wing parties in the rest of the world, the Tories seem terrified of going back to anthing resembling Thatcherism and prefer to cause less offence occupying some middle ground, even though there are no votes in it. A clear stand on cutting taxes and resisting ID cards would give them a chance, but they don't do it. What will it take to awaken them out of the slumber?

Miss World 2004.
Topic: Misc.
Congratualations to Miss Peru on winning Miss World. I didn't have a bet on this market, despite being encouraged to do so by Vicky Coren, as I don't understand the idea behind beauty contests. Everyone's idea of beauty is so different! Luckily, these days it's not just about looks, not when the girls have such a wealth of experience and advice from which we can benefit. To see what I mean, check out the directory of contestants and click on the nation of your choice. I should warn you of some irregularities though.

Firstly, there is no excuse for Miss Turkey. None whatsoever.

Macedonia couldn't be bothered to host a selection contest and instead sent in the android from Blade Runner. This just won't do.

Other countries tried harder:

Miss Netherlands says she comes from a `fairy-like place ... with many dykes', clearly pandering to the gay vote.

Interested in Scottish dancing? Of course you are, so do the obvious and check out Miss Chile.

Miss Nigeria helps to generate funds for charity. Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if I got a few emails from her associates in the coming weeks.

I've never fancied Thai women, and neither it seems does anyone in Thailand either, as they've selected someone with no asian features whatsoever.

Some of the contestants clearly feel that readers might struggle with the jargon they use in their profiles and thus provide hyperlinks for further elaboration. Check out Miss Israel if you don't know what 'ice' is, visit Miss Honduras to learn about 'books' and see Miss Turks and Caicos to discover what 'travel' means.

If all of this leaves you bewildered, don't worry. The girls have plenty of advice to offer, like this from Miss Costa Rica: 'The faith in action, is love; the love in actions, is service', something I find it very hard to disagree with.

On looks alone I would have given the title to Miss Albania. She's by far the best looking. I suppose the judges weren't impressed with her committment to 'Friendship without Boarders'. Sorry Agnese darling, but if you're going to be friends with people, you have to let them stay over at your house at some point!

Finally I leave you with the words of Miss China: 'The desirable come from being nothing desired: Far-reaching is out of a still heart'.

Words to live by.

Tells.
Topic: Poker
I have always thought that the interpretation of 'tells' was one of the most overrated aspects of live poker play. Hollywood loves to make out that a scratch of the ear or a lick of the lips makes the difference between the hero making a ten-thousand dollar call or not. In Rounders, the hero learns to beat Teddy KGB by noticing that the difference between a bet for value and a bluff can be seen in the way he breaks a cookie - listening to it break means one thing, watching it break means the other.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we know it's not really like this. There are countless people making a living by playing online where it's impossible to see the opponent! What would the Hollywood studios make out of that? I thought of all this last night because of a hand that happened while playing in a small competition in Luton (#20 Pot limit Hold'em). As you probably know, I don't see tournaments as the main focus of my poker play, but from time to time I persuade myself to have a go at them and last night Allan 'the hat' Engel talked me into taking a shot at one.

We started with 48 runners, with 9 prizes to be paid. When I got down to the last 10 players this hand took place. I was below average chips and had a loose player with a large stack on my right. I had 66 and was in the small blind. The players to the left of the blinds folded and the button flat called. I know that a lot of people would automatically raise in my position; it might even be correct play. However I have an aversion to doing things that others do automatically and only flat called. The big blind checked. The flop brought 10 4 3 with two spades. As there was only one overcard and it wasn't a picture or an ace, I decided to bet. While I was probably winning and didn't want to grant a free card, there is a drawback to this bet in that you don't really know where you are if you get called, though you can be reasonably sure you're behind if you get raised. The big blind passed and the button called. The player on the button would, I was pretty sure, have raised if he had a 10. He had done similar raises with top pair before. The turn card was a 4 and I checked. He checked also. The last card was a red 8 and I checked again. He now bet enough to set me all in. Ugh!

My initial instinct was that he had been on a flush draw and had missed. I had seen him bet with nothing on the river before to try and steal the pot and on that occasion was called by Danny Sampson with ace-high (a great call). However that previous pot was different in that there had been a raise preflop and no bet on the flop. This time I was concerned that he'd made a loose call on the flop with a 4 and had trap-checked on the turn to try and draw me in on the river. Additionally, he could have called me with two spades including the 8 and decided to make a (pointless) bet on the end. What was to be done? I sat back and decided that this was not an automatic fold and was worth thinking about for 15 seconds.

On sitting back I saw that he was staring at me. His head was tilted at 90 degrees and his eyes didn't leave my face. This is a textbook indication of a bluff. It's as though the strength of the staring is intended to compensate for the weakness of the cards. I felt myself being drawn towards calling. It's not a nice position to be in on the bubble (when there are X+1 players remaining and only X prizes) however. Who wants to go out calling with no cards to come when they can only beat a bluff? So I decided on one last look at him to see whether his chest was pounding. It was. I folded.

That might seem counter-intuitive. One might think that a pounding chest was an indication of nerves and thus of a bluff and indeed six months ago this would have persuaded me to call, but since then I have figured that it's cost me money. The pounding chest does indicate nerves, but more often than not, the nerves stem from two things; either a fear of NOT being called, or a fear of being outdrawn on a big hand that they know they are committed to playing for all their chips (e.g. AA preflop). So I took this as a cue to fold.

A few minutes later, he said to me: 'Do you want to know what I had?'. I said yes and he told me that he had had Ace-Five of spades (in other words, the last bet had been a bluff, as I had originally suspected). Then he said 'I'm good at staring people out'. Ho-hum, back to the drawing-board! He could of course have been lying to me, but I don't think that he was.

Five minutes later, this player on the right got involved with another big stack. He raised in late position with KK and got called by someone in the blinds. The flop brought 5 6 9 and it was checked to the player with the kings, who bet. The guy in the blinds check-raised. Our hero thought for a long while and called. The turn was a low card and the player first to act bet all-in and the player with the kings thought again and then called. He showed the kings and the other player showed 77. The player with the 77 gasped and said 'I put you on two overcards'. He got no help on the river and was effectively out, as he didn't have enough chips to cover the small blind on the next hand and was promptly eliminated.

I didn't think that the call with the kings was easy and if I had had the same chip stack I might not have called the check-raise on the flop. The player who made the check-raise looked totally assured that he was ahead, not a trace of doubt in his mind. This raises a vital point about body language and 'tells'. It's no use knowing that a player's body language indicates strength or weakness unless you know what they believe strong and weak to be. The player with the 77 never let it enter his mind that he was behind, even though he should have. In a similar way, a loose cannon like Jac Arama will confidently semi-bluff with the nut flush draw without thinking of it as being a bluff. In his mind he's got a valid bet and that's that. You have to get inside your opponent's belief system before the analysis of anything else he does means anything.

Despite missing the chance to make a great call, I nevertheless got to third in the competition. On the final table I was helped by having three players on my left whose body language made it clear when they had worthless cards preflop. This meant that when considering a pre-flop steal raise, I could see that I was only raising into 2 players instead of 5. It's a huge edge. Of all the tells I know, preflop disinterest is probably the most reliable. In the late stages of a tournament, this information is worth money in the bank.