This news just in!
Topic: Poker
I am not in the majority.

Are psychopaths good at poker?
Topic: Poker
There's an interesting piece in today's Times:

Wanted: psychopaths to play the stock market

'a study by a group of eminent American academics suggests that star performers on the stock market ... could best be described as "functioning psychopaths".

The US team found that people with certain brain injuries which suppress their emotions could make the best stock market traders. They took a selection of 41 people of normal IQ, 15 of whom had suffered lesions on the areas of the brain that affect emotions, and made them play a simple investment game.

Those with brain damage significantly outperformed those without, the researchers from Stanford Graduate School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Iowa found. The key was the fear that stopped those with "normal" brains from taking even the most sensible of risks.'

I wonder whether there is some relevance to poker here. If so, I suspect it is more relevant to tournament play than cash play, since aggression is more important.

Discuss.

Essential Reading
Topic: Misc.
I have added two more links to the Essential Reading section. Please check them out.

The first is 'Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States'. It's written by Ralph Peters, who also wrote the 'Stability, America's Enemy' piece that I mentioned last week. In 'Spotting the Losers', he says "National success is eccentric. But national failure is programmed and predictable. Spotting the future losers among the world's states becomes so easy it loses its entertainment value". He then identifies seven predictors of national failure:

1) Restrictions on the free flow of information.
2) The subjugation of women.
3) Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
4) The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
5) Domination by a restrictive religion.
6) A low valuation of education.
7) Low prestige assigned to work.

The second piece, 'Inequality and Risk' by Paul Graham, explains why policies aimed at reducing economic inequality punish risk-taking and retard economic development, all of which harms the poor. If you really want to make the poor better off, it's better to accept that doing it successfully will involve increasing inequality.

Graham explains that the vital issue is not reducing inequality, but reducing the corruping effect of wealth in private hands. He concludes by expressing the need for greater transparency to prevent corruption.

Essential Reading - Stability, America's Enemy
Topic: Misc.
A few months ago I added a new category to the links section on the left of this page. It's called 'Essential Reading' and I'm going to use it to feature articles and essays that have influenced me a great deal and which go a long way to explaining how I arrive at the positions I hold. I will add other links later and mention them on the main page when I do.

So far I've only linked one piece, titled 'Stability, America's Enemy'. It was written by a retired American colonel two days after the Sept 11 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. He argues that American foreign policy took a disastrous wrong course when it decided, decades ago, that it should aim at preserving 'stability' overseas. This has led to the widespread hatred of the US overseas and the radicalisation of oppressed people who hate the US because they see it as tainted by association with their own corrupt and brutal governments.

He explains:

"America's finest values are sacrificed to keep bad governments in place, dysfunctional borders intact, and oppressed human beings well-behaved. In one of the greatest acts of self-betrayal in history, the nation that long was the catalyst of global change and which remains the beneficiary of international upheaval has made stability its diplomatic god."

Please check it out.

Katrina and the blame game.
Topic: Politics
I've been asked by a few people to remark about the disaster in New Orleans. It's a fair request, given my remarks at the end of last year that democracies with free economies are best suited to coping with natural disasters. I still stand by that as far as earthquakes are concerned. And I note that flood warnings did exist and that sea defences did too, except that they were inadequate for the task faced. But something has clearly gone wrong in Louisiana. What lessons can be learned?

To respond to that, I'm going to turn to a Norwegian neo-con friend who writes under the name 'Vampus'. In a recent post titled 'Blame Bush first', she explains that ..., well I'm not sure exactly what she does say, since I can't speak Norwegian. But when I asked her to outline the argument, she wrote back to tell me this:

I wrote about Katrina and Bush on VamPus-blog (Blame Bush first), as the Norwegian media is blaming Bush for just about everything. According to the guidelines of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the local authorities can not expect federal help before after 72-96 hours after a disaster. Which means local authorities needs to plan and execute emergency help locally. - New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin has pointed at Washington and Bush, blaming them for the poor execution of help. Lets look at another example: the former Mayor of New York, Guiliani, was a national hero after the 9/11-attacs. He showed leadership by continous communication in media, by going to Ground Zero and by taking responsibilty. But what made him a great leader is that he had planned for all of this in advance. Nobody could know that two planes would crash into the world trade centre - but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that NY is a target - or that a bit city can suffer from a natural disaster, fire, communication break down, what have you. Guiliani had led the work of organizing the units (police, fire dep, goverment & emergency rooms) in case of crisis. When it actually happened, they were prepared. THAT made Guiliani a great leader.

What the fuck has Mr. Nagin done? He was, by the way, the candidate for Republicans but switched to Democrats when it turned out he had better chances of winning the election of Mayor with them in 2002. That alone sums up what an unprincipled creep that guy is. "Everyone" has known that New Orleans is prone to be hit by storms and hurricanes. New Orleans had plans, but Nagin disregarded their own plan although he was encouraged to do so. The plans say that evacuation should happen 72 hours before the hurricane is expected, and forced evacuation 48 hours before. Nagin waited until last minute.

The guvernor of Louisiana declared the state a disaster area on Friday August 26, 2 days before Katrina hit New Orleans, but didn't order an evacuation until Sunday AFTER Bush had strongly encouraged her to do so. Since the local authoraties were so apathic the federal government wanted to take control over the situation September 2 - but this was refused by Guvernor Blanco (I don't need to say which party SHE represents, right?).

Anyway - the Dome was not filled with necessary supplies for the refugees (again, local responsibility), they didn't use local transportation to get the poor out of the area (local responsibility), local authoraties has done little to crack down on crime - so these idiots that people are trying to help, shoots at the rescue team. Now, there is a reason why these people are poor - they are too friggin stupid to understand their own good.

Oh, my God. I'm turning into a SuperBitch with no feelings for humanity. Oh, well. Whatever..

Bush is an idiot in many ways - I mean, what kind of guy walks into a disaster area with a grin in his face with bodies literarily floating next to him. He is not a great communicator (like our hero of all times, Reagan), but give me a break. He has already given $80 billion to the rescue work, urged in the national guard, urged the city to get it's people out etc. What you can blame him for, is reducing federal funds for the rebuilding of the levees - but even engineers say that even if they'd had all the money in the world, they wouldn't have it ready in time.

So people say that this isn't a time to argue about who's fault it is, while they are pointing at Bush, because some voices are saying that the local government failed. Well, you know - Blame Bush First - who cares about facts anyway...

Erm.. a bit long, yes. But I get angry just writing about it...

The things I'm not sure about.
Topic: Politics
I've spent such a lot of time banging on about the things I believe that it may come as some surprise to learn that there are many vital issues on which I can't make up my mind. So it's time for a change! I'm going to outline the issues and why I'm stuck and I would be grateful if you could tell me where you stand. Perhaps you can sway me to your point of view.

1) Gun control.

I always used to be glad that guns are banned in the UK, in stark contrast to the right to bear arms in the US. However, we seem to be losing the battle to contain them and I wonder whether we may reach the stage where gun control merely prevents honest law-abiding citizens from defending themselves from an armed criminal class. I was shocked to learn a few years ago that our burglary rates are far higher than those of the US and I wonder whether there is a link. The fear of being shot must rank as a major deterrent for American burglars. But America has more killing. And while stolen property can be replaced, dead people stay dead.

So the question is whether we could reach the point where guns should be made available to all. And if so, how will we know that we've reached this point?

2) Should Turkey be admitted to the EU?

I can see both sides to this one. The upside is that a successful Turkish admission could help modernise Turkey and thereby endorse the secularisation of the Middle East. The downside is that the reverse could happen and that a muslim nation with a large population would have a retarding influence on human rights in Europe.

3) Fathers for Justice.

I am strongly opposed to the methods that Fathers for Justice adopt in getting publicity. I cannot understand why the authorities haven't shot any of them when they scale sensitive public buildings, like the Buckingham Palace incident.

But are they decent people made angry by separation from their children or are they total fruitcakes?

4) The Vietnam War.

Was the war right? Was it moral? I used to think that it was totally wrong, because I believe that socialism should be seen to fail and that intervention merely gives its apologists excuses. I saw the war as an American attempt to prevent Vietnamese people from discovering for themselves that collectivisation doesn't work and was therefore sure that it merely prolongued their suffering.

But given that the North did invade the South, surely it was right to help the latter defend itself?

5) Chechnya.

Should the Russians be allowed to use whatever force they like to quell uprisings in Chechnya? The situation isn't directly connected with the 'War on Terror' in the way that some (including Bush I should say) tend to portray it.

I used to hate the Chechens, not because of their demands for independence, but because I wanted to travel to Russia after the Soviet Union was wound up, but was deterred by the stories of violent crime, much of which was blamed on Chechen criminals.

However I recently learned from this article that "the Russian Constitution recognizes the right of federation members to secede" and if that's the case, it's hard to see what right Russia has to prevent succession. The world is full of countries with utterly unnatural borders that are relics of past empires (eg Indonesia) or brutal invasions (China/Tibet) and one of the key issues of the 21st Century is going to be how they are peacefully unravelled. Perhaps Chechnya would be a good place to start.

On the other hand, the tactics of the terrorists who attacked the school in Beslan a year ago are so repugnant that it could cause chaos to apparently endorse their actions.

Thoughts?

Unenlightened.
Topic: Poker
It's fascinating to see how some people read what they want to read in a posting. 'Enlightened' has written to me about the piece I wrote about Neil Channing and tells me

"I find it remarkable that you think that so many players are not aware of this [here he refers to the human dimension of the game], and that their inaction lies in ignorance not choice. Some people's stomach, including mine, would turn at the thought of befriending someone just to coerce money out of them. Most self-respecting poker players will gladly take the money of fish, loosey gooseys, but will stop well short of coercion, or engaging upon a seek and destroy policy on all known fish.

If you can't see the difference between trying to pit your wits against someone for yes financial reward, as opposed to using every legal means at your disposal to give someone without wits a good fist f*cking - and see this quality as enviable - then you are truly deserving of pity."

Whoa! Hold your horses there, buddy. You're reading far too much into this. The essence of what I was explaining was Neil's ability to create a gambling atmosphere. I promise you that it's the gambling games that people enjoy, not the rock-fests. Although I gave an example of Neil getting information out of someone in a less than direct manner, the most important thing I was saying about him was that he was able to get people to gamble. Believe it or not, it's what a lot of people want to do anyway! It's why a lot of them come to the game.

But once they sit in the chair, they become fearful of how others perceive their play and can play more conservatively. Neil does everything to make people feel right in gambling. And nearly everyone appreciates it - winners and losers alike.

The contrast between him and some other Vic players is chasmic. I've had countless arguments with players like Mike Mozouros, Alan Abraham and Victor Hyam to name but a few, because they seem to expect their opponents to play in silence. Given that some or all of these players are long-term winners, it's incredible when you think about it. They expect their victims to lose their money to them in total silence. They have no idea how much they are poisoning the gambling atmosphere. Every time I hear them utter the words 'No talking while there's a pot on!', I want to scream. I mean, do they want to win money or not? Every time they utter this nonsense, it's like money is falling out of their pockets. They are making it less likely that the casual players return.

As professional players, we are in the entertainment industry. A card room is not an exam hall. I'm normally a critic of those who attack the Vic as being full of miserable old gits, but at times it's true. Neil is the opposite. He makes it fun to be at the table. And fun is what most non-pros come for.

GSOP, end of day two.
Topic: Poker
We played down to the last eighteen today. Still in and enjoying it. It's great to play a slow clock structure. I have dreamed of playing a competition with 90 minute rounds for years, but this is the first time I've played one. I feel much more at home in this than I ever have in rebuy crapshoots. If you want to know why there's never been a British-born WSOP championship event winner, despite the large number of people who've tried over the years, consider that it might be related to the paucity of slow-clock competitions on this side of the Atlantic.

Wish me luck!

The stacks are:

TABLE HARRINGTON:

SEAT 1: PEDRO PEREIRA 73,900
SEAT 2: GAVIN CRAWLEY 45,500
SEAT 3: DAVID YOUNG 34,200
SEAT 4: DHRUV DOSHI 30,000
SEAT 5: RICHARD GRYKO 96,000
SEAT 6: JACK GLASS 59,500
SEAT 7: AMIR DAOUD 61,900
SEAT 8: MOSHE ASH 42,800
SEAT 9: DOMINIC KAY 101,400

TABLE SEED:

SEAT 1: JEFF BARRON 18,600
SEAT 2: GARY HULL 44,500
SEAT 3: DEAN SANDERS 38,900
SEAT 4: OWEN GARD 53,600
SEAT 5: DEMIS HASSABIS 47,200
SEAT 6: PETER FARRELL 33,700
SEAT 7: ALFONSO SANCHEZ 70,200
SEAT 8: TONY THEO 62,600
SEAT 9: TONY DOBSON 57,200

Stan James? More like Sid James!
Topic: Poker
Stan James has made a market on the 'Gutshot Series of Poker'. The book was put together by Paul Spillane (Neil C's former flatmate) with assistance from Allan Engel. When I first saw the prices I was a little insulted to see that I had been made a 66 to one shot and mentioned this to Neil. I think I said something like 'Tell your mate Paul to go to Hell'.

Neil passed this on to Paul and the latter duly re-appraised the situation and stuck me out to 80 to one! A few days later I had drifted to 100 to one outsider (after the removal of the guaranteed non-runners Steve Bennett and Craig Grant). Time for a bet! I contacted Stan James to open an account over the phone and tried to get #30 on. No good! I got knocked back to #10. What a bunch of tossers! If you're going to insult me, at least lay me to lose three grand. Now I understand why Neil likes to call them Sid James. They're having a laugh!

Note - just finished day one and I've doubled up to 21,000 chips. Ninety-seven ran and there are about 55 left. All going to plan so far. I hope some of you got on at 100 to one. Wish me luck.

Alex Goldie's birthday celebration.
Topic: Misc.
After Norway, next stop Battersea, to celebrate the continued existence of Alex 'the gent' Goldie - a living national treasure if ever there were one. I enclose a few pictures taken on the day. Apologies to those I missed: Neil, Jude, Ellis and others.

Alex and DY
Topic: Misc.

Titmus and Dom
Topic: Misc.

Lord and Lady Miros
Topic: Misc.

Gryko and Oakley
Topic: Misc.

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.