Some recent comments.
Topic: Politics
I've had a few comments that deserve fuller responses:

"89TJ" tells me that 'the shoot-to-kill victim looks considerably darker skinned in photographs that don't have his face washed out by strong sunlight.'

I would like to point you to the Daily Ablution. It shows us other photos not taken in sunlight:



AND



He also agrees with an unnamed respondent who tells me:

Blaming the victim? Oh my dear God. Let me just think about this for one miniute. America sends LOADS of money to Israel. Israel are allowed to own and produce nuclear weapons, and let us not forget the pivotal factor....they are the ones taking over the Palestinian land. Yet what do Palestinians have compared to this...not even a propper army!! They see their families killed and homes destroyed.

DY proves his usual extreme right-wing zionist views by comparing Israel the victim in the same context as a rape victim. It's extreme people like you that entices extremists. I only pray to God that the people like you do not destroy out great nation, Great Britain.

I am glad that this anonymous person has written this, because it reveals the level of ignorance and bias that surrounds this issue. I intend to write at length about how I have come to take Israel's side. But for now let me just say that you don't have to be right wing to be 'zionist'.

I am also sick of people saying that it's people like me who entice extremism. I suggest that you read Osama bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of War against the US. He mocks Clinton's withdrawal from Somalia (a peacekeeping mission that went wrong) and Reagan's withdrawal from Beirut in the 1980s. It's WEAKNESS that inspires al Qaeda, not strength.

Read their own words here! (cancel the Japanese text support).

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!

Not all fascists wear jackboots.
Topic: Politics
I thought I was pretty clear what I meant when I talked about Islamic fascism. But a few weeks ago I got this in the comments box from 'Politico'.

"Mostly the recent islamic fundamental terror can be descibed as closer to the extreme left terror cells of the 1970's. Mr Young proves his usual ignorance yet again in describing them as fascists - I wish they were, they would be far easier to confront.

Fascists are described as nationalistic, possibly racist. They are ordered and identifiable by uniform, by strict command structures with a talismanic leader to glorify. They are vocal, proud and open. They value displaying their power and glory. They thus emphasise strength through marches and demonstations, common identity, uniform and behavior. They don't hide. They go underground as a last resort, if at all. Very little of this applies to most muslim fundamentalists, and this is why Al-Qaeda, contrary to Young's proclamation over a year ago - are not defeated. Their fluid informal structures will be extremely difficult to destroy, especially by braindead american neo-cons. One muslim organisation that is definately fascistic is The Nation Of Islam. Unfortunately they are not the enemy, yet."

Politico describes the superficial manifestations of past fascism, but overlooks the more important ideological features. Wikipedia has this to say:

"The term fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that in various combinations:

- exalts the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
- stresses loyalty to a single leader.
- uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
- engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
- engages in syndicalist corporatism.
- implements totalitarian systems."

It is the supremacy of authority over the individual that is the core issue. Yesterday's fascists wore black shirts and jackboots. Today's don't. Politico is correct in saying that the Islamic fascists are employing tactics more like those of the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Baader-Meinhof gang than Hitler's Brownshirts, but the objective of submitting the will of the individual to the power of (religious) authority is the same.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown hits a new low.
Topic: Politics
On page 15 of yesterday's Evening Standard Yasmin Alibhai-Brown scrapes the bottom of the barrel with a piece titled 'With this shoot-to-kill policy I'm terrified for my son's life'.

It starts 'For all the Asian and Arab families I know, this blast-to-kill policy is more scary than the bombs.' That's a stunning statement when you think about it. The number of people killed by suicide bombers on 7th July was 53. The number of people killed by the police in a shoot-to-kill prevention of a suicide attack is 1.

She tries to present her pro-police credentials by telling us that she's had dinner with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair and that she abhors 'the demonisation of the Met by people who never have to take the risks or responsibilities taken by officers', but that is merely to soften us up for the one-two punch combination that follows:

1) 'But it isn't comforting for Muslims to know that the shoot-to-kill trick was learned from Israeli marksmen'.

Really? Well that might be because Israel has more experience of suicide bombers to pass on than Barbados and Finland. Who knows? She neglects to mention that some of the Israeli Defence Force is Arab. In fact, in the case of the prosecution of an Israeli marksman for killing a member of the International Solidarity Movement, it was a Bedouin Arab soldier who shot him, not a Jewish one.

But more annoying is the selectivity of mentioning Israel at all. When I heard Sir Ian on the radio talking about the shoot-to-kill policy, he stated that it was based on the experience of the Sri Lankan authorities in tackling the Tamil Tigers, who started killing civilians in suicide attacks long before the second intifada.

But that is just the sucker punch to set us up for the upper cut:

2) 'I have a son, a young man just married and at the start of his career as a barrister. He is tall, much darker than I am, with proud eyes and a temper. I am a wreck, worrying ceaselessly about what could happen to him in the present volatile climate'.

Note the mention of his dark complexion. It's clear that she feels his skin colour could get him killed. Now look at a picture of the man whom the police did shoot.



If he looks black or Asian then so do I.

Appeasement in Britain and Spain.
Topic: Politics
I bought the Evening Standard today to see what it had to say about the arrest of a would-be suicide bomber. In a column by Andrew Gilligan about the Finsbury Park mosque, he writes:

'For years, MI5 allowed radicals and al Qaeda leaders such as Khalid al Fawwaz and Abu Qatada to operate openly in London in the hope that Islamist terrorists would not then attack Britain. Documents seen by the Standard show that MI5 sought to recruit Qatada as an informer in the hope that he "would not bite the hand that fed him" and "keep terrorism off the streets of the UK".'

Oh dear. Do we never learn? Churchill got it right: 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.'

On the topic of appeasement I thought I should draw your attention to a news story that you might have missed. After the Madrid bombings, the Spanish public did what al Qaeda wanted and voted in a socialist government that promised to withdraw troops from Iraq. Not long afterwards, Spanish police closed in on the gang responsible for the bombing in a block of flats.

Rather than giving themselves in, they detonated a bomb as police entered their flat killing themselves and one policeman. As far as I'm concerned this was another terrorist atrocity; one that took place after the terrorists' demands had been met.

And the story doesn't stop there. After the burial of the policeman killed in the attacks, his tomb was raided by vandals and burned.

See here!

I cannot think of anything that better underlines the futility of appeasement or the level of contempt that fanatics have for free societies than the desecration of the grave of Francisco Javier Torronteras.

Are the Islamic terrorists strong or weak?
Topic: Politics
Two weeks after the first bombing attack on London comes another, this time much smaller. What is going on? Is this the start of a summer of terror or the death rattle of an ideology desperate to retain some credibility as it fails to make any concrete political gains?

The evidence seems to point in different directions. Recently while playing at the Vic, Paul Parker said to me: 'Lawrence said you wrote that Al Qaeda was finished six months ago'. This is partly true.

What I actually wrote was this. I stand by the point that Al Qaeda's ambitions seem to have shrunk. That is certainly indicated by the text of their messages to the west over the years. But my parting shot "Al Qaeda's own words reveal that we are poised to win against them if we hold firm" was obviously premature, as judged by the continuing violence in Iraq.

As far as the London attacks go, they are a puzzle. If they were meant to be revenge for Iraq, why did they come two years afterwards? I am having difficultly imagining an irate extremist saying to himself in March 2003 'This war is an imperialist crusade against my fellow muslims. I must do something about it ... in two years and four months from now'. I'm sure that the police have foiled some attacks in the interim, but that can't explain it all.

And then there is the scale of the attacks. Are we supposed to be impressed? Seven years after Bin Laden declares war on the US (and by extension on the UK since we have stood by the US) and more than two years after the Iraq war, all that can be mustered are four little twerps with only 10 lbs of explosive each. Without wishing to offend those who've been bereaved, I have to wonder at times 'Is this it? Is this what is supposed to make us abandon the people of Iraq to your theocratic madness, so that you can take the country's oil wealth and use it to fund future attacks on us?'

Coming back to Iraq, who is winning? Looked from one perspective, the terrorists seem to have plenty of fight left in them. Incredibly there are still young men willing to blow themselves us for something that the majority of Iraqis don't want. There must have been an incredibly strong hatred of the Shiite muslims simmering all the time that they were repressed by Saddam's Sunni minority.

But does the escalation in violence suggest anything about the trend? Critics of the war suggest that it indicates the 'folly' of intervention in Iraq and the impossibility of nation-building. Supporters point out that the most violent years of the Second World War, especially on the Pacific Front, were the final years. The Japanese fought with increasing ferocity as they were slowly squeezed. While Al Qaeda are still making headlines and causing misery, they have not made any political gains at all since they won the 2004 Spanish election. Since then it's all gone against them. Bush and Blair were re-elected and elections took place smoothly in Afghanistan and Iraq. The writing of a constitution continues and Sunnis are gradually being drawn into the political processes.

Which interpretation applies here? What do you think?

Either way, I am more interested in a Victory Strategy rather than an Exit Strategy. In the interdependent world in which we now live, there is nowhere to exit from. If you leave your enemy undefeated on the other side of the world, he can follow you home once you leave. And he'll wait until he's regained his strength and you've dropped your guard before he attacks again.

Newsflash! You can play online at home.
Topic: Poker
This doesn't seem right. Ben 'Milkybar Kid' Grundy reports his results from a trip to Las Vegas as follows:

The final result of my Vegas challenge:

Cash Games = +$9212
Online = +$10355
Tournaments = -$11200
Overall = +$8367

Does anything strike you as odd about this? Well call me old fashioned, but I don't see how his online results have anything to do with the fact that he's in Las Vegas. He could have logged onto Betfair's poker site anywhere in the world, including his own bedroom at home where his expenses would have been nil. I probably wouldn't draw attention to this, except Keith 'the Camel' Hawkins was telling people that he broke even on his trip to the first weeks of the WSOP when in fact he lost in the live games there and won playing online in his hotel room. I just don't think that counts!

Don't get me wrong. I respect Keith as a player and a man and I have no reason to disrespect Ben Grundy, whom I only know from what he's written as I've not met him. I just don't understand this business of people flying off to Las Vegas and playing on their computers in their rooms. Apparently Jamie Posner did this and was barely seen out of his room for weeks.

On the bomb attacks in London.
Topic: Politics
I know what Churchill would have said. "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life". Although it is no consolation for the bereaved, the fact that we are the target of fascist extremists should be a source of pride to us. No extremists threaten Luxembourg, because Luxembourg doesn't threaten them. Your choice of enemies says a lot about your values.

Swift condemnation followed Thursday's news, but of more importance is the national mood in the weeks that follow. Opinion polls suggest that Britain's resolve is unwavering, but among the chattering classes are those who say that we should withdraw from Iraq. In doing so they often suggest that there is some moral equivalence in the attacks on London and the war we are fighting to create a more democratic Middle-East. They are wrong.

In case it needs spelling out, there is a huge difference and it is this: those innocent Iraqi civilians who were killed in the 2003 war were the unintended victims of a war to remove a regime that itself had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. The civilians who died on Thursday were the intended victims of an attack that was aimed at discouraging democratic reform in Iraq.

In 1991, when the first president George Bush hinted that he would help Iraqis if they rose up against Saddam Hussein, many thousands of them took him at his word and did just that. They got no backing and were slaughtered. It was perhaps the greatest betrayal of an oppressed people in my lifetime and it still sickens me now. It showed that the removal of Saddam was something for which Iraqis were prepared to fight and die.

Al Qaeda doesn't care about Iraqi civilians. It bombs them every day and it regards the Shiite people as infidels. If the Iraq war had toppled Saddam without a single loss of life, it would still hate us for introducing democratic institutions and holding an election. Freedom is what it fears most, because oppression and misrule breed a tolerance to extremism. It doesn't want Arab people to prosper and live in peace, because it knows that they will lose their appetite for jihad if they do. Al Qaeda wants us to leave the middle-eastern nations we support only because it wants to topple them itself and restore the Caliphate, even if the majority of Arab people don't want it. The people who struck Britain last week weren't fighting back against imperialists, they are imperialists.

We are in a war for civilisation against an ideological enemy in which we are employing an ideological strategy. Going into Iraq and introducing democratic values is a sound move in the context. It follows from the principle of opening up a second front when in possession of superior military and economic resources.

There can be no appeasement of Islamic fundamentalism. Its demands are non-negotiable. It must be utterly defeated. Those who seek peace must realise that it is a necessary, but not sufficient condition of victory. After all, Auschwitz has peace. Islamic fascists threaten the freedom of people all around the world, not just in the Middle-East and the West, but also in Asia and the Pacific Rim. Our duty is not to end the fight, but to win it.

Tom Chappelow replies!
Topic: Misc.
I forgot to mention that I got a reply from Tom Chappelow (or an imposter with a lot of free time on his hands) following this post from last month:

Haven't these people heard of Dry Ice?

For the lazy among you, I shall paste in his reply here:

Me being that same Tom Chappelow, I feel I should pass comment. (Somebody I know passed this page on to me.) Now, there have been two child abuse accusations made against Mr Jackson, the first of which he essentially "paid off". That behaviour is extremely suspect. If he was innocent, why pay the family to stay quiet?

For the next, there were a LARGE number of people who backed up the claim that Jackson had inappropriate relations with the boy, and other boys. If somebody is repeatedly accused, with many witnesses, of a crime, does that mean they're automatically guilty? No. But it does, in my opinion, mean there must be *some* substance to the accusations.

By the way, the jury said that Jackson wasn't guilty... enough. They believed that he had inappropriate relations with boys, but that the prosecution hadn't adequately proved IN THIS CASE that Jackson had inappropriate relations with the boy. They have to judge the case as to whether they're convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the specific charges. The verdict 'not guilty' does not mean 'entirely innocent', which is why I said that I didn't believe the charges were "entirely fictional".

Hope this helps you understand my opinion.

I'm still not satisfied with this. While the jury may have only said that he wasn't guilty in this case, it's worth keeping in mind the fact that the prosecution selected their best case to put on trial. The fact that Jackson did pay a previous accuser to remain silent doesn't actually prove guilt, though I agree it was a mistake. He may have decided that there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice. I could equally argue that if the family were convinced of his guilt, why did they accept money instead of pursuing justice for their child? What message does that send out?

Also there seems to be some ambivalence in:

If somebody is repeatedly accused, with many witnesses, of a crime, does that mean they're automatically guilty? No. But it does, in my opinion, mean there must be *some* substance to the accusations.

TC appears to accept that there can be some substance to an accusation, even when someone is innocent. So it could be in this instance.

DY

A two year lucky streak?
Topic: Poker
My thanks to 'Guvnor Jimmy' on the Gutshot forum for linking to an anti-gambling site that claims it's impossible to win at online poker:

Gambling facts and fiction.

It's written by someone who used to have a gambling problem. Yet while I'm delighted that he's conquered it, I am irked that he insists that it's impossible to win at online poker when I and many others I know are doing precisely that. I decided to write to him and let him know my feelings, as below:

Subj: You're kidding, right?
Date: 05/07/2005 04:54:59 GMT Standard Time

To: Quitgamblingbook@aol.com

You don't know me, but I've been directed to read this as it was posted on a Poker website forum. I can't believe some of the garbage you've written here:

http://www.hwforums.com/2082/messages/125.html#postfp

Put simply, you are wrong. It IS possible to win at online poker. I know because I've done it for over two years. I know plenty of winners. In fact I barely know anyone who loses at it. There are so many terrible players in cyberspace that anyone with a decent IQ should be able to make a living at it. Whether it's an enjoyable living is another matter entirely. You have to sit for hours and hours at home in front of a PC several days a week. It can get boring. But it sure beats working in an office for people you don't like doing stuff that doesn't interest you.

But it's possible nevertheless. I've won at Paradise, Pokerstars, Party and Victor Chandler (same as Golden Palace, but aimed at British users). All offer soft games and easy money. I could teach a monkey to win at hi-lo 7-card stud comps at Pokerstars. If they weren't so small, I would play them all week. Alas they are only $20 buy in, so the profit potential is smaller than I can make elsewhere. Basically if you read about the first dozen pages of Ray Zee's Hi-Lo book, you know more than about 80 per cent of the opponents. I may be understating it when I say 80 per cent, actually. Can you believe that people actually raise with split tens in multi-way pots? What are they hoping for? I would fold KINGS!

But I digress. By all means tell people that it's hard to win. It is hard to make a living at anything without doing your homework. But you are lying when you say it's not possible. And telling lies is no way to help anyone.

David Young


I got a reply within hours:

Subj: Re: You're kidding, right?
Date: 05/07/2005 06:33:42 GMT Standard Time
From: Quitgamblingbook@aol.com

David - The article is absolutely true. Whether or not you choose to believe it is up to you.

I know and it sounds as though you probably know that there is not any mathematical formula, pro or con, as to beating the game of online poker. As you know the best hand doesn't always win. We both know that money can be won in private cash games - the best players do win money - that is not debatable. But a house cut (rake) will eventually grind out everybody. That is not conjecture - that is a fact based on observation and here's why...Since there is not any mathematical formula "proving" that money can be made against a house cut, the only way to "prove it" would be to properly document the winnings. Documentation would be in the form of credit card statements say for a year showing deposits and transfers to online poker websites and itemized copies of IRS 1040 tax returns to back this up the numbers on these deposits and transfers. A CPA could even do an audit of these numbers for better documentation yet. A letter could be posted from the CPA stating the numbers are correct. If someone is going to publicly state in some poker forum that they are winning say $100,000 a year playing online poker and so have already exposed themselves to IRS scrutiny, then back it up with the scans of tax documents and proper CPA auditing. I have never seen any proper documentation like this so until then anything ANYONE says about making money at online poker is only a rumor.

I have never heard of a gambler from playing any gambling industry run game either online or at a brick & mortar casino, who lives in a house in Palm Springs or the Riviera. The only people living there who are involved in gambling are the gambling business owners. Party Poker just had a public offering with the company's estimated net worth being Five Billion Dollars - this represents money that was fleeced and continues to be fleeced from gamblers. I am an ex-gambler so I fully know the way gamblers think - you think that you are eating all the "fish" who play online poker - I've got some news for you...you are also the fish as is every gambler playing online poker - you just haven't been eaten yet.

I'm not going to wonder whether or not you are really winning money or not. I'll even take your word for it just for argument sake. With millions of online poker gamblers, the odds are that some will enjoy a winning streak, possibly for a good while, simply because of random numbers. So you're ahead...you've been lucky. My advice would be to quit while you are ahead because sooner or later those random numbers will catch up to you and you'll experience a losing streak beyond your wildest imagination. You'll sit there thinking that it's just bad luck or you're just not playing as well as you used to - the answer is simply that the random numbers will have caught up to you. Your losing money will have nothing to do with bad luck and everything to do with the house cut which grinds out everybody.

So again...the choice is yours what to believe. But I have never rooted against a gambler in my life and I never will. My fight is with the gambling industry, not with gamblers. With that in mind - best regards!

Stephen Katz


I was about to fire off another reply when it occured to me to throw this open to anyone who wants to help me. Any ideas?

Katz seriously thinks that I have been on a 'lucky streak' for over two years. Doesn't that seem a little bit unlikely? Incredibly all the people I know who put effort into understanding poker and learning from their experiences have had the same streak. Remarkable isn't it?

I'm not sure that he really believes what he's saying. I think it's more likely that he's forced himself into this position, in order to prevent himself slipping back into gambling. That's fine for him, but lying to others isn't the ideal solution to the problem. It's one of the difficulties that we face in the so-called 'War on Drugs'. Telling young people that drugs will harm them is not effective when they see drug users who appear not to be harmed. If you oversell your case, you lose your credibility.

The truth about gambling is that there are certain markets (poker is one) where it is possible to win, but it requires dedication, talent, self-discipline and long hours to make it pay. In other words it's just like most things in life. And that's a useful lesson for everyone to learn.

Sunday night.
Topic: Poker
Sunday night didn't go exactly as planned. It started well enough. Dominic, Allan and I ate at Reuben's on Baker Street, but when we went down the road to the Barracuda with a view to having a few drinks, I was asked for ID (I had none). This rather surprised me, as I have been a member since the early 90s and didn't have a problem getting in when I took a girl there for a drink in late 2001. But obviously something has changed, as they wouldn't accept me in, despite admitting that they have my picture on file.

Thus inevitably we retired to the Victoria. I put my name on the #100 hold'em list and chatted with Allan until my name was called. It was to be the start of a roller-coaster night. Quite simply, Sunday's game was the best I've ever played. I encountered the craziest player I've ever come across in my life. It got off to a bad start when my AA was cracked by QQ in the must-move game. Then when I got into the main game, this happened. I was dealt 44 and called in late position. Dominic raised on the button and three others called. I called. The flop brought A-Q-4 with two spades. It was checked to Dominic (I thought he would follow through on this flop) and he bet #75. Two others in the middle called and I raised all-in for a further #220. Dominic and one in-between player folded. The other called me without too much deliberation. The last two cards were two spades, non-pairing. My opponent turned over KK with the K of spades. I was stunned that he'd called with so little. As I got up from the table to get more money (I was now down #600) he matter of factly said 'Well, I had to call, didn't I?'

He didn't mean this as a rub-down and I knew he was serious. He didn't see anything wrong with calling #300 with KK even though there was an ace on the flop and the bettor was betting into three or four opponents. He had kings and that was as far as the analysis went. It often amuses me that people who don't go to the Victoria think that it's full of rocks. Some nights it is, but often there are visiting stars who drop in with very large sums of money and no idea how to play. They are rich and they don't care.

What was more amazing than the above was the reaction of one of the regular players - a man who is there almost every day. After I returned to the table with another grand, he told me: 'David, if you had just called the #75 on the flop and then bet all-in when the spade came, he would have passed'. I'm not making this up.

I would love to claim that I didn't say anything sarcastic, but that would be lying. I just said 'Sure, 'cause you've just watched him call on the flop with absolutely nothing. He sure to pass if he's got the nut-flush draw as well'. Still in a daze, I lost #400 on virtually the next hand when I had AQ, flopped an ace and walked into a set. I could have cut my loss to half that if my head had been a bit clearer. Shortly afterwards, I managed to get about #400 back when I hit set-over-set and started to feel better about life.

Did I mention that there was a crazy player in the game? Well he appeared at about 3.30am. I can honestly say that the last 90 minutes of action were like nothing I have ever seen. This man's strategy, put simply, was that he would never raise preflop, but he would always re-raise. The first time I realised this was in this hand: Holding AKo I raise under the gun to #12. He re-raises to #25. A third party ('the South-African') calls. The man who called me with the KK before, now reraised another #93. A fourth player went all-in for about #53. I folded and the other two called. The flop was Q-5-3 with two spades. The crazy player bet and the other two called, with the South-African all-in. The turn was a small club and the two players left both checked. The last card was another spade and the crazy player now bet. The preflop-reraiser called with his KK. The South African now showed 89 of spades. But that wasn't enough. For the winning hand, held by the man who reraised me to #25 and who called #93 preflop out of position against an obvious premium pair, step forward 10-2 of spades. He got the lot.

This went on hand after hand, with him winning huge pots having stuck his money in on the flop with next to nothing and then getting lucky. On one notable occasion, he check raised into three people with K9 on a flop of Q-10-4 with no flush draw (he had clubs, the flop had diamonds). He was called by all three, the last of whom was very short-stacked could only cover a small proportion of the raise. All the money went in and the last two cards were both small non-diamonds. He lost the main pot to a ten, but won a #450 side pot against the other two, both of whom had J-9; one of them had J-9 of diamonds! Luckily I managed not to do any damage while this went on, though I did get caught for a bit in this hand: holding 78s, our hero has flat called and I'm looking forward to seeing a flop cheap when someone raises about #10, fearing the worst I called it, only to find that the crazy then re-raised #57 more. I was quite prepared to fold, except that almost the entire table called before it got back to me. I was getting about six to one or more so I had to call. The flop was 5 4 .....3.

Bah!! Mithani went all in for #25 and I called for the middle-pin, even though I thought there was a serious chance that it would be reraised on my left. Remarkably it wasn't, as the crazy just called. The button called. The turn was a 7. I checked. The crazy bet #200 and the button raised #230 more all-in. The crazy called. It's obvious that the button holds a six. But if I gave you a year, I'm not sure you'd figure out the other hand. So I'll just tell you that it was AQ and let you figure it out for yourself, as I can't.

I could have played this game all-night quite happily, but alas time was running out. With less than five minutes to go, I got my shot. In the big blind, I found Q8 of clubs. There was no raise and the flop was K-5-J, with the king and five of clubs. I was checked around to a player at the back who bet #15. I hated this, as I knew what would follow, but I was playing very deep and therefore called. Obviously, it got reraised another #65 on my left and the South African called, along with the original bettor. I called. The turn was the J of clubs. Initially I was elated, until I realised that it had paired the board. Nevertheless, I was prepared to treat it as winning. I checked and the crazy bet #200. The South African called all-in for about #120. The other player folded and I re-raised all-in for another #750. After a long delay, the man on my left folded and the South-African asked me whether I had a house. I showed him my second-nut flush and he slumped. He had 63 of clubs.

I have to say I really hate his play in this hand. Unlike me, he has no excuse for seeing the flop with suited filth. He had been losing to the crazy all night and his judgement had gone out the window. When I counted out my money, I saw that I had gone #60 in front on the day, making me a #10 per hour winner! Always nice to make a profit, but I suspect that Pete Birks might have a few words to say about my standard deviation.

10 years ago today!
Topic: Poker
It's the tenth anniversary of the first day I ever played poker in a public card room. On 26th June 1995, I played a #20 pot-limit rebuy comp at the Barracuda and finished second. I had no idea what I was doing. On the way home I laughed about it in the taxi. "It's supposed to be a game of skill" I told the cab driver, before realising I had just committed myself to a more generous tip.

I wish I could remember more about that night. I do recall that when I got heads up with Ray Martin, he leant forward and offered to split the money with me. I assumed that the prize money was set in stone and had no idea that this was allowed, so I got closer and said 'I think they can hear you'. I didn't want him to get into trouble!

Mark Patrick was there (now with Corals) and he started talking about the game using words I'd never heard before, like 'offsuit'. Mick Curran was giving me advice. Ray told me not to play cash games as "they'll murder you". It was another three weeks before I played again, but in the meantime I had read Big Deal by Tony Holden and read a few of the books in its bibliography. Knowing how badly most people play Blackjack in this country (standing on soft 15, splitting sevens against a nine etc), I reasoned that probably the same applied to poker and that I should therefore know the 'basic strategy'.

People might find this hard to believe, but there were very few young people coming into poker back then. I was quite unusual. A few weeks after that first night, I turned up to the Victoria to play its Wednesday night #25 comp and scanned my eyes around the room. I saw a young man dressed very like me (we had both come straight from work and wore pinstriped suits and striped shirts). I recall mentally saying to myself 'please don't draw his table, please don't draw his table'. I was gutted to draw a seat two spaces away from him. I was afraid that placed together we would be the subject of much ridicule because of our youth (26 & 25!) and occupation. We stood out like sore thumbs. To defuse the tension, I said to him:

'What bank do you work for?'. He replied: 'Barclays'.

And that was how I came to meet Dominic Bourke. Read what Negreanu has to say about him:

Card Player article

Tonight we'll be going back to the Barracuda for a drink, along with Allan 'Fred Titmus' Engel. It's a nice casino, but I haven't set foot in it for years. It broke my heart when it closed its card room in 1996.

Two leading contenders for poker forum post of the year.
Topic: Poker
I know it's only half-way through 2005, but if there are to be awards for the best post on a poker forum this year then they are going to have a hard job beating these -

1) From Corinna Silk on Gutshot:

"Jamie. Don't try to call my mobile 'cos I've accidentally flushed it down the loo. Sorry for sharing this with everyone but I couldn't figure out how to send a personal message. Not my day"


The mind truly boggles.


2) From 'Ironside' in response to the question "Party Gaming - Would YOU buy these shares?":

it depends on the price of the shares and the amount of the company they are selling

if they are pricing the company at #1 million of course i would buy shares

if they were pricing it at #100 billion then of course i wouldnt

as i dont know the actual price or havent seen there books i cant really say if i would or not


For sheer pointlessness, this one is hard to beat.

Can a Guardian reader please explain?
Topic: Politics
When I was a teenager, I could never understand Bananarama. Three girls dressed as punks sang syrupy songs with simple, repetitive lyrics that appeared to be aimed at kids in their early teens. I was convinced that I was missing something. They were written about as though they were a serious band and the punk look hinted at something more menacing. Yet as hard as I tried, I could never figure out anything remotely subversive in their songs. I sat through their videos thinking 'I know this just looks like meaningless shit, but there's something clever or ironic about it. Isn't there?' Twenty years later I still can't get it.

I have a similar problem with the Guardian's Steve Bell. I heard about his cartoons from someone whose intellect I respected. But when I came across them for myself, all I could see was a load of childish and frequently illogical crap. But it's in the Guardian, so it must be high satire.

So can someone explain the wit and wisdom of this please?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1512668,00.html

Anyone?

The Evening Standard used to have a one frame cartoon strip about a large dog named Marmaduke, whose only notable feature was that he never did anything remotely funny or interesting. The Standard must have known it was rubbish, because they ran it in the property classified section instead of on the funnies page with all the other cartoons. After many years, he was put down and flat-hunters were finally put out of their misery.

I have never once seen a Bell strip that offered a single intelligent insight or made me laugh. Is there a vet in the house?

What's wrong with the UN.
Topic: Politics
I've been meaning for some time to write about why I hate the concept of international law and I said when I started this blog that I would elaborate on the failings of the UN. Today someone has done the latter for me quite brilliantly. Rarely has anyone ever expressed so crisply what I feel. I refer to the letter to the Wall Street Journal Opinion section from Erskine Fincher of Crawfordville, Florida. It comes in response to an article about the need for reform of the UN. Every line is pure gold dust. The comments in italics underneath are mine.

What are the U.N.'s better ambitions?

It has none. It supports the fiction that the government of a dictatorship can rightly claim sovereignty over the people it oppresses; it provides the dictators of the world with a forum and status that they would not otherwise have; it serves as a funnel for pouring the dollars of US taxpayers down a giant toilet; and it acts as a restraint on the self-defense of free countries against tyrannical governments.

These are not corruptions that are susceptible to reforms such as Rep. Hyde envisions. They are built into the very concept of the UN as a body in which dictatorships and free countries talk about their differences, in which good searches for some way to compromise with evil. There is nothing to talk about. We know what the differences are, and we have no business compromising on them. We also know that the best way to resolve them is to maintain moral clarity and never seek anyone's permission to defend ourselves. For that reason, it is long past time that we remove ourselves from the moral and diplomatic morass of the U.N.

Erskine Fincher of Crawfordville, Florida

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

It's long overdue that people in Britain started to express this too. For far too long we have treated the UN as though it were the political equivalent of the Starship Enterprise, with well meaning people from all around the work pulling together to solve humanity's problems. The reality is that it's an institution based on yesterday's fear: war between nations. Yet by acknowledging that dictatorships have sovereignty over the people they oppress, it preserves brutal repression within nations. If you lived in the 20th Century, you were twice as likely to be murdered by your own government as killed in a war between nations.

Sovereignty should only be respected when it has been earned. We live in an age when disfunctional states export their problems to others: via terrorism or the refugees. It's a lesson that we in Britain should have learned after the Falklands War. A democratic Argentina would never have attacked us.

DY