Congratulations to Frode and Asa.
Topic: Misc.
I went to a wedding in Norway at the weekend, along with Neil. The groom was Frode Gjesdal, whom many of you know. I first met him waiting outside the Riverboat casino in Glasgow in 2001. We've been in touch ever since.

I wish him and Asa all the happiness in the world.

The happy couple.
Topic: Misc.

Nordic Beauty, Neil, "Lars Vegas" and Oysten (phonetic spelling).
Topic: Misc.

Marvellous!
Topic: Poker
There's been a lot of crap written about Neil Channing this week, following the online publication of this interview with Derek Kelly. Neil has a great deal to tell the aspiring gambler and like anyone who tries to help others, he has received a heap of abuse in return. No good deed goes unpunished!

He has a better record in tournaments than a cursory examination of the PokerInEurope database would suggest. It doesn't show that he won two Saturday afternoon comps in the Vic in a row, or that he won a second-chance competition in Binion's and came third in another during the 2004 WSOP.

But that hardly matters, because his speciality is something the most accurate tournament database could never reveal - his ability to create a good gambling atmosphere. It's one of those skills of the game that is rarely ever written about. To watch him in a cash game is to see a master at work. Few people realise it, but the best poker games are the ones where your opponents don't think they're playing poker, but instead think they are gambling. Neil pushes them in that direction.

Want an example of his genius? Try this - imagine you're playing a cash game in the Vic against a really bad player you've never seen before. You want to know when he's coming back, but you can't be too blatant. What do you say? You might ask how long he's in town, (I often do), but it's a bit of a giveaway. So late in the night, Neil asks: 'Got a long drive home?' It's brilliant. The most harmless question imaginable gets the star to reveal where he's come from, how long he's staying and from there you can try and get him to reveal what night he'll be back so you don't miss him. I tried it once when he wasn't there and it worked a treat.

There are many issues in cash poker that never come up in tournaments, so those who think that $20 rebuy events and $30 freezeouts are the be all and end all of poker never realise how deep you have to think to get your opponents' money into your pocket. A lot of regular cash players never grasp it either. I've seen people with great ability and discipline make no attempt to get people to gamble more recklessly than they planned. They go their whole playing careers without ever realising that there is a dimension to the game that they have never explored. Neil doesn't just aim to figure out how his opponents think. He actually changes the way they think - making them play the way he wants them to.

Whatever his technical ability, I assure you that Neil's skills at getting people to gamble are second to none. And I enjoy being in his games just to see him work his magic.

The flat tax revolution.
Topic: Politics
There's been a revolution taking place in Central and Eastern Europe and until this month I knew nothing about it. It's the "flat tax" - a tax regime that removes higher bands and raises personal allowances. Proponents claim it raises revenues by increasing incentives to work and invest, while reducing the level of tax evasion.

Greece is rumoured to be the latest country to introduce such a regime. If it does, it will join Poland, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia and Estonia. The results for growth and revenue have been dramatic. Sadly our own government shows no sign of looking at the idea with an open mind. It has even gone as far as supressing documents that advance its advantages.

I wish my grandparents could have lived to see the day that Russia and Eastern Europe had higher growth rates than the UK and were pioneering low-tax approaches to stimulating economic growth. The one consolation is that there does now seem to be an issue on which the Conservatives could fight the next election.

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.

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!

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.

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/

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.