Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« August 2005 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Misc.
Poker
Politics
Religion
Television
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Friday, 12 August 2005
Mistaking vice for virtue.
Topic: Poker
Over at Andy Ward's Blog, our hero takes on those who make a virtue of making final tables.

He's reminded me of Craig Grant, whom I haven't seen for a few weeks. Craig has told me countless times that whenever he's knocked out of a tournament he always goes out with the best hand.

I believe him!

In fact I'm convinced it's the reason he's never won anything. Check out his stats. Lots of money finishes. No wins.

Playing tournaments day after day, week after week must be a hard life when on any given night 35 per cent of the prize pool is out of reach for you. I'm sure it's enough to drive a man to do something crazy.

_ DY at 2:00 PM BST
Updated: Friday, 12 August 2005 2:02 PM BST
Post Comment | Permalink
Odds and Ends.
Topic: Misc.
Humbug about sex, part one.

This story baffles me. The popular computer game "Grand Theft Auto, San Andreas" was banned from shops in Australia and re-rated to 'adults only' in the US after it was discovered that it was possible to see graphic sex scenes by downloading a special patch from the internet.

This might seem understandable were it not for the fact that the game permits players to kill civilians, steal property and take drugs for amusement. I watched a friend of mine play an earlier version of the game (Vice City) and in the first minute he sliced a defenceless female character to death with a samurai sword for no reason whatsoever, before robbing a drug store and driving off in a stolen car. All part of the fun.

Yet it's only when players learn how to make their characters give pleasure to others instead of killing, robbing or mutilating them that it causes offence!

Humbug about sex, part two.

I bought Private Eye today and was amused to see that page five made fun of the number of female columnists writing about nannies. I called Vicky Coren about it, as she had noticed the same thing.

One of the pieces derided in the Eye was from a woman who said that nannies, like children and pets, needed to be set clear limits. She went on to complain about a lesbian nanny she hired who downloaded pornography onto her computer. This, the writer noted, was a clear cry for help and a sign that the nanny needed boundaries set for her.

"No", said Vicky. "She was looking for pictures of minge".

Quite right. It reminds me of the drivel people talk when they say that teenagers who have sex are suffering from low self-esteem. Utter bollocks. They have discovered that their genitals have nerve endings. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best.

What is the point of W.H.Smith?

Growing up in the 1980s, I recall going to W.H.Smith's on a Saturday morning and seeing the place absolutely packed with customers. It was the Times Square of High Wycombe. If you stayed there long enough, you'd see everyone.

Recent visits to one in Fulham have left me stunned at how dead it is. It doesn't have anything like the stock of books that the local Borders has. It is competing with Rymans (about 100 yards down the same road) in the all-important market for plastic folders and hole-punchers and its music section is pitiful compared to what is available in Virgin and HMV.

All of this is so sad. Not because I'm a shareholder, but because as a teenager in a packed branch I could read substantial portions of the books and magazines I liked for free without being noticed. Now I would stand out a mile. Bah!

Wednesday, 10 August 2005
An interesting question about the London bombings.
Topic: Politics
Just over a week ago a thought occured to me. I intended to mention it here but didn't get around to it and was therefore frustrated when I found that somebody had put it on the net before I did. Specifically, as Arthur Chrenkoff asks:

We are told that London bombings are a result of Tony Blair's decision to participate in the illegal invasion of Iraq. We are told that the continuing occupation of Iraq, and the carnage and humiliation inflicted upon Iraqi people by the United States, Great Britain and other occupying powers have radicalized some British Muslims to such extent as to push them into becoming suicide bombers on the buses and subways of their adopted country (in some cases their country of birth).

There are 250,000 Iraqis living in Great Britain - that's quarter of a million people, one of the biggest communities in Iraqi diaspora, and just under one sixth of the total British Muslim population of some 1.6 million.

So why, among the original 7/7 bombers, the next lot of recently captured bombers, and all the other people arrested in connection with the attacks, aren't there any British Iraqis?


That's a damn fine question. If it's all about Iraq, where are the British-Iraqi suicide bombers? Could the bombers not find ONE representative of the country on whose behalf they were supposedly retaliating to take part? Maybe the frustrated British muslims who do feel aggrieved about the Iraq war should talk to the Iraqi exiles here to find out why the latter are more sanguine about it. Who knows? They might learn something.

Tuesday, 9 August 2005
Just to make a change.
Topic: Religion
You've probably read a lot of pieces about Islamic extremists supporting the bomb attacks in London, so just to make a change I'm going to link to some support from the attacks that come from a Christian preacher.

It is of course from Fred Phelps, whom I have mentioned before. He's really surpassed himself with this expression of support for the bombing and the wish that more had died.

News you might have missed.
Topic: Politics
Here's a story you might not have seen. The former foreign minister and deputy prime minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz, has stated that Iraq did not take remarks by April Glaspie in 1990 to be a green light to invade Kuwait. Apparently he has said this before several times in the past, long before he was captured.

I never knew that. See here:

http://xrlq.com/2005/08/07/aziz-and-aziz-agree/

_ DY at 4:40 PM BST
Updated: Tuesday, 9 August 2005 6:46 PM BST
Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink
Friday, 5 August 2005
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).

_ DY at 7:08 PM BST
Updated: Saturday, 6 August 2005 1:11 PM BST
Post Comment | View Comments (14) | Permalink
Tuesday, 2 August 2005
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!

_ DY at 3:37 PM BST
Updated: Tuesday, 2 August 2005 4:09 PM BST
Post Comment | View Comments (3) | Permalink
Monday, 1 August 2005
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.

_ DY at 4:49 AM BST
Updated: Monday, 1 August 2005 4:58 AM BST
Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink
Thursday, 28 July 2005
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.

_ DY at 1:13 AM BST
Updated: Friday, 29 July 2005 5:34 PM BST
Post Comment | View Comments (10) | Permalink
Wednesday, 27 July 2005
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.

_ DY at 6:55 PM BST
Updated: Wednesday, 27 July 2005 6:58 PM BST
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 21 July 2005
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.

Friday, 15 July 2005
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.

_ DY at 4:43 PM BST
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 11 July 2005
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.

_ DY at 4:41 PM BST
Updated: Monday, 11 July 2005 5:04 PM BST
Post Comment | View Comments (8) | Permalink
Wednesday, 6 July 2005
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

_ DY at 11:24 PM BST
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 5 July 2005
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.

_ DY at 8:03 PM BST
Updated: Tuesday, 5 July 2005 8:10 PM BST
Post Comment | View Comments (7) | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older