Lying to your partner in game theory.
Over at the Hendon Mob a thread has started which includes allegations that Bush and Blair lied to the American and British public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities. "Chaos" has written an excellent reply, pointing out the weakness of these allegations, in particular explaining that military intelligence is not a precise science and that one has to consider the worst case scenario. As you will all know, I'm mostly happy with the way that things turned out and believe that the death toll of the war was small, relative to both the possible and likely death tolls to Iraqis and the Coalition if Saddam were left in place.

But that is not what I want to talk about today. Instead, for the purposes of this argument, I will assume that they did lie and ask whether it would be wrong for them to have done so.

As a poker player, I'm aware of the importance of deception in game theory. It's essential to conceal your true intentions in most games and in poker this deception factor applies to all the other players in the game. But there are some games in which one has a partner and the most famous of these is bridge. Here two pairs play against each other and communicate the values of their hands in both the bidding of the auction and the play of the cards. It's normal to communicate with ones partner to defeat the other team, but there are exceptional circumstances when it is wrong. I'm only an adequate bridge player, but I think this example will explain. It won't mean a lot to people who know nothing about it.

Suppose you have a 14-point hand and intend to open the bidding, but your right hand opponent opens 1 no trump, and you are left with no bid. The left opponent raises this to 3 no trumps. All pass.

In this situation you should know that you have all the points that your side can have. Your partner has nothing. In the subsequent play of the cards, it would be totally counter productive to defend against the contract in a way that signals your holding to your partner, as he will never win a trick and will never be able to play back the cards that you want. If you did, the information would be of no value to him, but it would be of great use to the other side. So far from wanting to communicate clearly to your partner, it's actually correct play to mislead him, because doing so also misleads the other side and can be the only way to defeat the opposition.

Similar thinking applied in the Second World War. During the Battle of Britain, Britons were told lies about the numbers of British casualties (understated) and German planes downed (overstated). The clear idea was to weaken German morale and improve British morale. Telling the truth served no purpose and could have been counter productive if early losses led to panic at home.

In the case of the war against Iraq, I do feel that Bush and Blair stressed the WMD angle above all other aspects, not because they wanted to mislead the US and UK public, but because they wanted to mislead the regimes of the middle east who have the most to lose from the plan to democratise the region. That doesn't just mean countries that were hostile to us, but also nations that are nominally our allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent, Kuwait. The obvious comparison with the highly successful post-war democratisation of Japan and Germany was never mentioned at all, because the US spent 7 years in Japan and still has troops in Germany. Imagine the hostility that using those examples would have caused!

If I were Bush or Blair, I would love to have made my intentions perfectly clear and would have said something like 'We are faced with grave threats from terrorist organisations and we are concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The only long term solution to the terrorist threat is to democratise the middle east and while this won't pacify the worst fanatics, it will stop them having broader support, because religious fanaticism won't be the only source of opposition to unpopular governments. In the long term this plan involves the removal of every leader in Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudia Arabia and Iran. Almost everyone who is in power now will need to be ousted in the next 15 years or so. We've done it already in Afghanistan and the next stop on our world tour is Iraq.'

But try saying that and getting your troops into the region to spearhead the attack! Impossible. The regimes of the region would close ranks and present us with a united front. We needed the support of surrounding countries in order to invade and would not have received it had we been so open.

I will never know whether Bush and Blair believed in the WMD threat. I have no reason to think that they didn't, but I do know that it's the angle that a sensible western politician would have pursued to gain acceptance of the wider plan to change the region. And if you really believe that the future of civilisation is at stake, it's the only path to follow.

Action Dave reveals his dark side.
If you have played much at all on the British poker circuit, you're likely to have met one of the game's most endearing characters: Action Dave. Dave is poker's Peter Pan. He once turned down a chance to marry a millionairess and start a family, because he wanted to be a kid more than he wanted to have one.

His life is one long quest for pleasure, combined with a zen-inspired philosophy of consideration for others that sets him apart from most hedonists. He always strives to see the best in other people. As he's one of the more likeable and genuine people around the circuit, it is with some regret that I have recently learned that he has a dark side.

I don't mean his living on the seat of his pants. Who else could fly to the other side of the world with no money at all, talk his way into sharing a flat with three lapdancers, win $25,000 on the internet and live on it for six months? I couldn't!

I don't mean his sexual adventures. The last time we had dinner, he related a night spent in a country house at the invitation of a rich playboy. When he got to the bit where he said 'And then the minibus with the girls turned up', I tipped a bottle of wine over the table. I don't know why. I should be used to it now. And anyway, that's not the his dark side.

No, what concerns me most is his recent revelation that he enjoys listening to the afternoon plays on Radio Four. Ye Gods! I have to draw the line somewhere. That upper class dross! Stop it now! I've always wondered who listened to that rubbish. It now appalls me to learn that it's someone I actually know.

An ad hominem attack.
In a post further down this page, I have pointed out what I believe to be a small measure of hypocrisy by Keith Hawkins in berating the existence of a black market for the trade of tournament tickets in Amsterdam, given that he bought a ticket from me once a few years ago. Keith has responded angrily on his site. I'm not surprised that he's mentioned it, but didn't forecast that the source of his anger would be the fact that I don't have a comments section on this site. That was a deliberate decision on my part from the outset, because I don't want anonymous abuse from people I may not even know. I briefly relented and tried to set one up once, but I couldn't get it to work and gave up on the idea. So I'll direct you back to his site at www.camelpoker.blogspot.com and let you check out how the thread has flowed in the comments section.

What is more interesting is the ad hominem attack on me by an "ex friend of David's" in that thread. I should like now to quote it in its entirety:

"David Young just lives in a world where he is always correct. A world where he can be a pseud. The number of times I have seen him proved wrong is more than the number of sunglasses Mr Arama owns. David sees himself as a commentator on life, but he has no life experience to look back on and relate to us.

The real worry for him is that at his age he really has nothing to look forward to. While he is not a bad player, he is still playing small stake games both live and on the web. He has burned his bridges with too many of the poker community to ever have a sponsorship deal and the real problem is that at his age he is unable to return to a job he would think himself worthy of. Imagine him turning up for an interview and explaining why he had not worked for 3 years.

His poker earnings just about keep his head above water but how is he going to woo a lady into having a relationship with him? Use his boyish good looks or sense of fun? I think not. His bitterness comes from knowing he will still be playing the ?100 table at the vic and making 30 bucks an hour on stars for the rest of his life, while gobbing off at the world and all those whose lives are more interesting than his.

P.S. Did you know David lives in a council flat?

As an account of some of the issues in my life, it's very accurate. I won't dissect the first paragraph much, since he doesn't supply examples of where I've been proved wrong, nor does the remark about seeing myself as a commentator of life make a lot of sense to me. In the internet age, when you can get your own blog for nothing, we can all be commentators of life and most of us have something we can tell others that is of value.

Instead I'm more fascinated by the length to which some anonymous "ex-friend" has gone to tell me about my problems, as though they had never occurred to me or to others. I'm also not sure why these problems have any bearing on whether anything I have to say is of interest or not. It's like the old dilemma of what to think if you learn that your favourite philosopher beat his wife. It certainly makes you think less of him as a person. But does it make what he said wrong? Luckily you don't have to worry about that with me, I'm not violent. But I have my challenges and frustrations like anyone else and I'm sure that one could make the same sort of remarks about others. We all have problems! Does he think I'm unique?

On the suggestion of a friend in the US, I once bought a book that I recommend to all called `The Ethics of Belief' by W.K.Clifford. It's a collection of essays written in the 1870s by a young philosopher. Sadly he died in his 30s. In the essay of the same name, Clifford writes:

"In what cases, then, let us ask in the first place, is the testimony of a man unworthy of belief? He may say that which is untrue either knowingly or unknowingly. In the first case he is lying, and his moral character is to blame; in the second case he is ignorant or mistaken, and it his only his judgement which is in fault. In order that we may have the right to accept his testimony as grounds for believing what he says, we must have reasonable grounds for trusting his veracity, that he is really trying to speak the truth so far as he knows it; his knowledge, that he has had opportunities of knowing the truth about this matter; and his judgement, that he has made proper use of those opportunities in coming to the conclusions which he affirms."

I find this a useful framework: veracity, knowledge and judgement. How do I stack up? Well, you'll have to make your own decision about these. The ex-friend doesn't attack my veracity. I take some small measure of relief in this. Nobody's called me a crook yet. He does attack my knowledge by saying that I have no life experience to look back on, but he doesn't supply any evidence to prove it. For the record, I'm 35, so I don't have as much life experience as some reading this, but I'm sure I've had more than others. However experience isn't the only source of knowledge. Some things don't have to be experienced to be understood. You don't have to have washed dishes to run a restaurant. I have had a decent, but not exceptional education. I have read a lot about the topics I write about. That is what you are getting if you read anything I've written.

Lastly then, there is the matter of judgement. How good am I at judging things? It will take time to answer that. I hope I'm still improving at it. I try to interpret things in ways that fit the facts and provide predictions, but I'm not always right. For instance, earlier this year I was telling people that I expected the Athens Olympics to be a mess, at least as bad as Atlanta 1996. I was wrong and I'm sure that I'll get some things wrong again in future. But I hope that I'll get a lot more right than wrong. It's not necessary to be perfectly accurate in order to express a view, otherwise nobody could write comment or opinion for the papers, unless they hedged themselves to the point where their remarks were too vague to be of use. Millions of people bought Jim Slater's book about investment, most of them aware that he ran a company called Slater Walker that went bust.

In fact it may not even be necessary to be right about more things than one is wrong about, in order to be worth respecting. Winston Churchill made a great many mistakes before he became Prime Minister in 1940, but he was right about Hitler when others were very wrong and that's what we remember him for. Abraham Lincoln's life before he became President included many failures, but he did the world a favour by starting the process to abolish slavery in the US. Getting the big things right is what matters.

I digress. The point is that the only value in this ex-friend's dissection of my life as far as it pertains to my online writings is the extent to which it provides any glimpse into my judgement. The gist is that I'm bitter about the challenges I face, and that this jaundices my views and is the motive for my attacks.

And that's where I think he's wrong. For all the obstacles in my way, I can't say I'm all that unhappy. Eight years ago, I was earning about ?30k in a job in the City and was very unhappy, even though I had safe money coming in, some structure to my life and was younger and slimmer.

So I hereby promise to you all, that if I achieve great fame, fortune and fair maiden, I'll still be the same pain-in-the neck that you love or hate.

Here endeth the lesson.

Farewell to the Vic's Moody Rule.
The Victoria has decided to scrap its "Moody" rule; the one that prevented players from betting if they made remarks about their hand during the course of play. I'm sure the timing has something to do with the approach of the televised #3,000 tournament. If so, it's not the first time that television has changed the way that poker is played.

The rule was a bete noire for the Victoria's critics and being something of a contrarian, I found myself defending it lately. I have a feeling that many people who complained about it on discussion fora like the Hendon Mob rarely visited the Vic and lost when they did so. Berating the rule was a way of justifying their aversion to the place.

However, the truth is that if the rule had never existed I would never have created it. I just hope that the change does not lead to lots of people making long speeches about their cards. This isn't because I think it will make them harder to play against. I'm sure that it will make it easier. But if the air is filled with the chatter of people talking about their cards then it takes away from some of the more interesting conversation that can take place. I really don't want to listen to people talking about their cards. It's boring! I would rather listen to conversation about the stock market, politics, religion etc. It would be a shame to miss out on moments like this from the #100 Hold'em last week:

Vicky Coren: "If I were a man, I would definitely be gay."

Me: "Are you just saying that you don't like women?"

Vicky Coren: "No. I like women. I just wouldn't want to have sex with one."

Neil Channing: "It's the nagging, isn't it?"

Looking for mugs.
In the latest edition of Card Player Europe, regular columnist Keith 'the camel' Hawkins bemoans the practice that has taken place in previous Amsterdam festivals of 'scalpers' buying up tickets and selling them at a profit to desperate punters just before events start. He informs readers that this year the Lido casino will be admitting alternates to any tournaments that sell out, meaning that players who are eliminated in the early rounds can be replaced by those who couldn't get in.

I support the casino doing this, but not for the reason that Keith gives. In the past, it's clear that demand has exceeded supply and the profit made by the scalpers represented profit that the casino could have made but didn't. Since I want poker operators to make money from poker, rather than roulette and blackjack, I don't mind them increasing their earnings this way. But I don't share Keith's disgust at scalping, because to me it cuts to the heart of what poker is really about: finding mugs. For some people, including myself, this means finding mug players. For some it means finding mug backers and for others it means finding mug sponsors!

I must confess that I have myself once sold a seat at Amsterdam for a profit. I had paid ?220 for it a few weeks in advance and was offered ?450 for it fifteen minutes before the event was due to start. I was happy to grab a profit and take the afternoon off that day. Imagine my delight at some mug buying my ticket!

And who was the mug who bought the ticket at this overblown price? If you guessed that it was Keith 'the camel' Hawkins, award yourself a gold star. Amazing, huh?

TV Times.
I had a new television aerial installed yesterday, as the reception on the old one was extremely poor. Nothing unusual in that you might think, except that the problem with the reception has been obvious for over 18 months and it's taken me this long to get around to doing something about it. The reason is partly that I don't watch very much television these days, but also that so much of what is on offer on the five terrestrial channels is so dire.

About a decade ago I recall that there was much talk about how an increase in the number of channels would somehow lead to less choice not more; the idea being that the new channels would only show American cop shows with car chases 24/7, to the detriment of the glorious BBC's grip on quality drama, current affairs, blah blah blah. Stephen Fry in particular stands out in my memory as being guilty of furthering this illusion. In an especially nauseating sketch on one of his shows, a man who was heard saying he wanted more televisual choice was seen asking for a choice of cutlery in a restaurant. Fry, playing the waiter, returned with a bag full of 1,000 identical plastic spoons announcing `Here's your choice!'

Forward ten years later and back in the real world, the results could barely be more different. When I visit friends who have Sky, I notice that they have the option to watch any of about half a dozen rolling news channels, a vast variety of documentaries about science, history and entertainment, as well as sports galore. And when I look at the five channels I have, I see nothing but programmes about property purchasing, antique auctions, celebrity chefs and elimination shows. The odd bit of quality still gets through, (Fry's QI show is great) but I'm sure that the slots are soon to be reallocated to more urgent subject matter, such as bathroom DIY and highlights of Ready Steady Cook.

Kerry's blown it. And so have I.
A few weeks ago, on August 17th to be precise, I decided to write on the Gutshot forum about the US presidential election. I wanted to contact a man who had written an article in a glossy magazine in which he stated that the election was 'too close to call'. At the time Betfair was offering prices in the region of 10/11 on Bush. Unfortunately I couldn't afford to tie up capital for several weeks and didn't make the bet, even though I was certain that it represented tremendous value. Here is what I wrote:

I see in your article about election betting on page 62 of the latest edition of 'Inside Edge' that you consider the US election race 'too close to call' and mention odds from Cantor of 10/11 Republicans and 11/10 Democrats.

I don't think it's as close as that, though as someone who strongly hopes that Bush wins, it's closer than I would like it to be. I freely admit that I'm not an expert on the electoral college system but I do know that it's the same system that was used in 2000 when Bush won. Most polls taken now seem to report that it's neck and neck. If this is the case, then Bush should win it for one simple reason - all of the negative news and comment that one can make about him is already out in the open. People have had four years to get to know him and he's been the target of a volley of abuse. One minute he's an inarticulate simpleton, the next he's a sinister genius who tricked Democrats like Kerry into voting for the war on the basis of lies. It's all been said a million times.

And it's true that there are many Americans who would like to vote him out. But you can't just vote someone out, you have to summon the energy to vote someone else in and it's here that Kerry has the problem. He's gotten by so far by being all things to all people and trying to find a safe position on every issue. His best weeks, polls-wise, were when he went on holiday and didn't get reported on in the media. That's over now. He's had his convention, accepted the position as candidate and will increasinlgy be asked tricky questions that he can't evade forever. In his convention appearance, he talked about his Vietnam service and made almost no mention of what he did on his return from the war or what he's done in the Senate for the three decades since. The benefit of mentioning Vietnam (which he said was unimportant when backing Bill Clinton in 1992) is to contrast him with Bush, who didn't leave America in those years.

The only problem with that is that everyone knows that Bush was a total failure during that period. He was an alcoholic. I know. I've downloaded the interview with him at a wedding party in 1992 when he's totally smashed and descibes the wedded couple and the other guests as 'boring people, don't like to drink, don't like to smoke'. This is all known. It can't do any more damage. Meanwhile, Kerry, who is claiming to be a hero in his youth, is going to have some real explaining to do, as many of his former soldiers lambast him as unfit to serve. One shocking illustration is the picture of his group of 20 that he used in his own glorification. Of the other 19 people in the picture, two are dead, four are silent, two support him and a full 11 (!!!) state unequivocally that he's unfit for service. A doctor who treated his injuries at the time says straight out that he lied to get the first of his purple hearts!

Furthermore, he's already having to backtrack on a claim that he went on a covert action into Cambodia on Xmas Eve 1968. He's told the story many times over the years, but now it seems to be complete nonsense. What does this say about his integrity and how did he think that he could get away with lying about it? This story isn't going to go away and indeed it shouldn't if Kerry wants to make his record there the centrepiece of his appeal. Then there is his voting record which is mostly far to the left of most Americans but dives to the right for the sake of expediency when the occasion arises.

Soon there will be the televised debates. In 2000, I expected these to aid Gore and was stunned when they didn't. This time around, they will show Kerry as aloof and waffling. I've seen him talk on US TV and believe me, he's so boring it beggars belief. Bush is funny and warm on TV. Add to that Bush's advantage of being the incumbent, having his convention last and appealing to rural white males in the southern states where Kerry has absolutely no chance and I think it's nearer to a 4-7 chance that he wins.

Whatever you do, don't pay any attention to what the US media's political pundits say. The US newspapers are in the main, miles to the left of the US public and widely mistrusted. Remember the confusion of the New Yorker's film critic Pauline Kael, who after George McGovern's 1972 crushing defeat at the hands of Richard Nixon, lamented, 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' The most one sided election of all US history and she didn't know anyone who backed the winning side! Keep that in mind when watching any station other than Fox.

DY

Well of course I stand by every word of that still. Since the middle of August when the heat was turned on Kerry's Vietnam service, he's barely given an interview. Sadly the price on Bush has collapsed to 1.5 (i.e. 1-2). It's very frustrating.

Loose ends.
I have a couple of loose ends to tie up today:

Left handed mouse use.

In a post titled 'Sinister', I related how my right hand was in pain due to mouse use. My solution was to switch my mouse settings to left handed and give the right hand a break. This I did for three weeks and the pain went away. I've since switched back to right hand use, as I'm naturally right side dominant. It's easy to switch your settings over and I highly recommend that anyone experiencing pain in one hand does this. Don't ignore it.

The new A40 poker club, known as 'The Western'.

In a piece titled 'My vision of poker is different', I mentioned that I would report back when I had visited the club. I can claim to have seen it, but can't say that I met any of the management. On a drive back from High Wycombe to London one morning, I decided to drop in and see whether anyone was about at 10am. I parked underneath the club and walked through the entrance. There was nobody at reception, so after shouting 'hello' a few times I walked upstairs and looked for anyone who could show me around. I met a kitchen worker who didn't seem to think that anyone was about. I told him that I was a player who knew most of the people behind the club and was visiting out of interest. He didn't try to get rid of me, so I continued walking around to check the place out.

The gaming action is on two floors. When walking onto the first floor, one enters a sort of ante room. On the right are two doors underneath a sign marked 'Kalooki'. Peeking through the windows I could see a room full of five-sided tables; about twenty I would guess. On the left hand side was a poker room. I went through and saw five kidney-shaped dealer tables lined up next to the windows on the A40 side of the room. There was a cashier on the left and eight large round self-deal tables. There was a whiteboard on the wall, like the one at the Victoria. I saw lists for pot-limit games, but no columns for limit poker.

Going upstairs, I again entered an ante room. This time the room on the right hand side contained two full sized snooker tables. The room on the left was another poker room. There were five dealer tables, also on the A40 side of the room. The room seemed smaller than the one downstairs, so I walked to the end and found a door under a sign marked 'salon prive'. Inside were two large poker tables. The chairs were a bit smarter than the ones in the rest of the club and there was a drinks cabinet containing spirits.

I might be mistaken, but I don't recall seeing a bar anywhere, nor a dedicated area for eating food. I suppose that they plan to bring food to the poker tables so that games don't break when people are hungry. I should stress that the place is very nicely appointed. There are leather sofas to recline on while waiting around. There is more space for players - in sharp contrast to the Victoria's poker room, which feels decidedly cramped. It's ideal in many ways, except that it doesn't seem to have any action going yet and it's not handy for people who don't drive.

Three years on.
It's three years since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C. You may see many pieces covering the anniversary in the newspapers this weekend, but for my money, the best coverage you'll find comes from Mark Steyn. Check out his Spectator piece here:

Click here.

It requires registration (annoying but free).

To get an example of just how well this man sees things that others simply cannot grasp, I quote this brief extract from the article:

"these days who's really `superior'? An old-fashioned European army -- Belgium's, say -- is incapable of projecting itself to Saudi Arabia; but a terrorist group in Saudi Arabia, through routine innovations like email, cell phones and automated bank machines, can easily project itself to Belgium. What did 9/11 cost its perpetrators? Flight lessons would be below $5,000 depending on how impatient the hijackers were (as Zac Moussaoui told his instructors, he didn't need to learn how to land); boxcutters cost a couple of bucks; add in a few rental cars and motels, and that's it. For around $150,000, 19 not especially talented terrorists killed more than 3,000 people and caused immediate economic damage of $27 billion, with the final tab yet to be calculated.

That's what I call asymmetrical."

Bullseye! Please read the whole thing.

Back to live poker.
I had a bad day online on Monday and decided to go to the Victoria for a game of hold'em. For some reason I hadn't been to the Victoria for nine weeks. I think it's because I know that it's possible to have big losses there and I don't like that while I still don't have a big bankroll. Nevertheless it was a pleasure to be back, as I won close to #500 on the night and have won every day since. The decision not to play online has left me with far more free time during the day and I've done lots of little tasks that needed doing around the house, which I never seemed to get done while the computer was on.

I've also enjoyed the human side of live play a lot this week. Last night for example, I saw Michael Greco (previously 'Beppe' in Eastenders) sitting next to Craig Grant. They were deep in conversation. It was one of those moments when I wished I had a camera on my person. It would have made a great caption competition. We can all imagine Craig saying 'So I auditioned for the part and it would have been mine but then Leslie Grantham got it at the last minute'.

My table was fun too. Especially when one of the dealers told Vicky Coren that she was getting grey hair. Someone else told her that he'd noticed it on TV and she got totally paranoid, rushing up to Hugo to show him her roots. This sort of levity seems to be more common in hold'em games. During the years when the Vic was all omaha, I don't recall it ever being this much fun. Right now the place is absolutely buzzing. There were five hold'em games last night. I remember when they couldn't get one!

Who would have thought that there was such a demand for hold'em? Oh I know, I did! I said for ages that there was a large player base that knew hold'em from seeing it played in tournaments, yet couldn't get into playing poker for money, because the cash games were all omaha based. Sadly the stupid dealer's choice nonsense still goes on in most provincial clubs. This is tragic, as the message from the Victoria could hardly be more obvious - offer properly sized hold'em cash games and people will be beating a path to your door.

Decision making.
My closest friend, Dominic Bourke, has started his own blog recently. It concerns betting on horse racing, a subject about which I know close to nothing. If you have any interest in how he evaluates his bets check out his site at www.anyutadva.blogspot.com. I am sure that you will learn a lot, even if you have punted on horses for years.

His most recent post however concerns the BBC television programme 'Crisis Command'. I recommend reading his review of Sunday's show because it illustrates the profound lack of understanding that many people have when faced with situations in which all the outcomes are bad, but some are less bad than others. Many people simply cannot grasp that an outcome in which a small number of people die is a good result, if the only alternative is an outcome in which many more people die. Consequently when forced to take action that will involve the certain death of a few people, they will often refuse to do so, thereby risking the deaths of a great many more.

Check out this must-read article:

Click here!

My vision of poker is different.
A new poker club has opened in West London and I'm not sure what to make of it. I have always longed to see poker blossom like this and the new club, which I haven't yet visited, seems to fit my vision of the ideal card room in several ways.

The most important thing is that it's not a casino and thus won't treat poker as the poor cousin of other games. The fact that the game is treated like this in the casino industry has held it back for ages. Casino card rooms are run with the objective of keeping costs down rather than increasing profits. That's why you don't see dealers offered in the cash games in Brighton or earlier starts in Walsall. They are also prone to close on the whim of a new manager. It's extremely frustrating.

The next most important thing is that the club is on the outskirts of London, away from high city-centre rents meaning plenty of parking space and a greater chance of profitability, provided that people turn up to play. So far, so good.

The problem though is that I can't see what the club is going to offer. The Victoria is still busy with its pot-limit cash games and thrice-a-year festivals. The Gutshot club is busy with its small competitions and cash games in central London. What will make people go to somewhere so far out west in preference to their present haunts? Is there really enough demand for a third club? As things stand I don't think so, which is why I think that it should go for broke and aim to appeal to a totally new customer base. I mean one that isn't already accustomed to playing poker at a UK casino or at Gutshot.

Ever since I first went to the Concord Card Club in Vienna, I have wanted only one thing for London - a clone of the same operation. It's unusual in Europe but any American would instantly recognise the Concord as being similar to one of the Californian card clubs, like the Bicycle, Hustler and Commerce, to name but a few of them. These clubs operate 24 hours per day and cater to thousands. They are like football pitches.

Why are they so big? It's partly because there are more people interested in poker in the US, but it's also because the American card rooms have limit poker, a version of the game that is far more beginner friendly. Limit poker prevents newcomers from going broke on their first hand and allows them to get more play for their money. A good player will just as surely beat a bad one at limit in the long term as in the pot-limit game, but the bad player is much more likely to come back to the limit game. It's the difference between making a living shearing a sheep and slaughtering one. Too many British players want to be the butcher rather than the shearer. It's one reason our card rooms are smaller.

But how could the new club get that sort of business going? I don't know. I'm reminded of the so-called `Irishman's answer' : "I wouldn't start from here". The current starting position is that the existing player base of the UK is mostly uninterested or hostile to limit. Some admit to enjoying it on their holidays to the US, but many won't play it even then and instead scour Vegas and LA looking for pot limit or no limit games. It's partly because they don't enjoy limit hold'em. That's their business, but it shouldn't put them off the limit betting format, as there is a great deal of fun to be hand playing seven-card stud, omaha hi-lo and seven-card stud hi-lo as limit games.

The growing popularity of no-limit hold'em caused by television coverage and internet take-up is another barrier. The world is now full of 18-year old boys wanting to play no-limit because it's a `man's game', whatever that is supposed to mean. Setting yourself all-in on or before the flop, so that you can't be bluffed out on the river by a scare card is considered manly now. I've thought about explaining that `real men leave themselves with decisions to make on the last card' as a counter-argument but to date haven't summoned up the energy to make the point.

But I digress. I hope they have a business plan to draw in newcomers who don't have preconceptions of how poker should be played and who are receptive to the idea of limit poker. But I fear that this aim, while understood by the club's owners, won't get the priority attention that it deserves and will be put off indefinitely. Instead I can see the temptation for them to go for the quick `land grab' to be had by announcing a tournament schedule with guaranteed prize pools, which would quickly fill the club with the same people who turn up to the ?20 and ?30 comps already held in UK casinos. Such people may turn up in numbers when guarantees are offered and could provide a quick source of income, but won't be a long term source of serious profit. They have little intention of playing the game for much longer after being knocked out. There is also the problem that tournaments cause immense short term pressure on parking space. For a 7.30pm tournament, you can be sure that half the field intends to arrive at 7.25pm. Although the club has a lot of space for cars, its entrance from the A40 is rather sudden and not that wide; not somewhere I would want to have lots of cars all trying to cram in at the last minute.

Will the club go in the direction I propose? I doubt it. I seem to be totally out of step with what everyone else wants, or at least with the views of those who form popular opinion. For example, take this from Jesse May earlier this year: "The game of poker today is large field tournament poker". Got that? Those of you who play online sit'n'goes for six hours a day and the thousands of you who play cash games online or in the bricks-and-mortar clubs aren't playing poker really! You don't count. Hell, you don't even exist as far as the media is concerned.

I'll let you know what I think when I finally visit the place.

Big Brother Five and the future of Britain.
I didn't comment on Big Brother this year and didn't have a bet on it either. After last year's decision to send Cameron to South Africa, a move that helped propel him to victory, I didn't want to expose myself to the whims of the production team. But although I made no bets, I did watch a little of it from the middle onwards.

The show itself is still amazingly boring, but I thought that it illustrated a point worth making about the future of Britain. Imagine that in 20 years time, the producers decide to make a version of the show featuring the children of those who were in it this year. Who could participate?

Well Nadia won't be sending any kids to the Big Brother household; it's biologically impossible. Marco, the effeminate homosexual is not likely to be a father. Nor is Dan, the gay man who only sleeps with straight men. Kitten was firmly lesbian when we last saw her.

So who does it leave then? Victor maybe, if he can find a woman who can understand a word he says and is prepared to tolerate his aggression and self-importance. Perhaps Vanessa, Emma, Shell, Michelle and Becki. Some of them claimed to be bisexual and none are mothers. They could still have families but by historic standards, several of them are actually leaving it late.

Perhaps Jason could be a Dad, but he's already thirty and still seems far too preoccupied with his own body to have much interest in anyone else's. Stuart has a serious chance with the ladies, so that could produce a kid or two.

Did I leave anyone out? Ah yes, there's Ahmed, the asylum seeker made good (funny how people who come to this country can spot opportunity while so many of us who were born here see only obstacles). I felt quite sorry for him, stuck in the house with the other vacuous morons. It must have come as a serious shock to him that none of them could even start to have a serious conversation with him. That's what made him so unpopular.

He's already got six children. Of course he's 44 and has had more time than the others, but it's six more than half of them will ever have. So when the producers of this "2024 Children of BB5 Special" have to go casting for contestants, they have got six mini-Ahmeds to start with. Will they be like the children of the others? Not likely. If he teaches them to place their faith in the Koran, they will most likely be slightly disapproving of homosexual behaviour, opposed to the idea of changing sex and traditional in their expectations of the roles of men and women.

I know it's a crude demonstation, but I think it serves as an interesting microcosm of Britain's future. The indigenous British are not breeding to replacement level. It's happening all across Europe too. France is now close to 10 per cent Muslim , it could be over 50 per cent Muslim in as little as 50 years. In Amsterdam now, the most common name for baby boys is Mohammed. In the Netherlands overall, by 2020 the majority of children turning 18 will be of Muslim birth.

I can't help worrying slightly about this. I am an atheist. I don't want any religion, certainly not one that hasn't undergone any sort of Enlightenment, intruding on my life. I want gay people to have the freedom to life their lives the way they see fit, even though it's not for me. I want gambling to be legal and available to all over 18. I want abortion to be legal.

And I see all of this being endangered by a growing section of society who will reject my values.

_ DY at 3:12 AM BST

Updated: Friday, 13 August 2004 3:30 AM BST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

What Sklansky says about tournament bankroll requirements.
In my last post I mentioned an essay by David Sklansky titled 'Is your wallet fat enough for tournaments?' and said that it should be required reading for anyone wishing to play them seriously. Since most people won't ever get around to reading this article, I shall present its key findings to you, but I still stress that it's worth getting his book 'Fighting Fuzzy Thinking in Poker, Gaming and Life'.

In an effort to discover the sort of bankroll required by a professional tournament player, Sklansky did a computer simulation of a skilled player who plays in 200-runner competitions which pay, for sake of argument, 16 places. The rake on each tournament is 3.5 per cent ($1,000 entry +$35 registration fee). This player's skill is such that he is good enough to get into each paid position exactly twice as often as the rest of the opponents.

On average, over the course of 100 competitions, this player would earn $200,000 on an investment of $103,500 (by having two wins, two second prizes, two third prizes and so on). It can be seen that this players expected return per tournament is $965.

The simulation then had 1,000 such skilled players play 1,000 tournaments each (i.e. one million tournaments played in total). How did they get on?

The good news is that all made money, but the variations in their performance will astonish you. While the expected win was $965,000, one player had won only $110,000. Fifty won under $500,000. One player did not go into profit until he had played 684 tournaments!!! Fifty needed 175 events to show a profit.

The rest of the essay talks about how to employ this information to calculate a bankroll requirement and I don't want to say any more, lest I be accused of plagiarism. The essential point is that there is a vast variation in the success of players of exactly equal ability over hundreds of tournaments. It is hardly appealing as a way of life once you know this.

Many players have a flutter of success when they first start and then spend years slowing losing their bankroll back. After a while you notice that so-and-so, who was the 'new kid on the block' last year, hasn't been seen for a few months and is rumoured to have gone back to working. The reality is that he was nowhere near as good as he thought he was. If you are to have a chance of beating the tournament scene, you should have a huge tank of money, a skill level far higher than the one used in the simulation and nerves of steel. It might help if you can keep your expenses down to less than $40 a day and play in tournaments where the registration fee is 3.5 per cent or thereabouts, if you can find one.

Good luck.

The Camel bites back!
Keith 'the camel' Hawkins has written about me in the latest entry on his blog. It follows the previous post that I made on this site, as well as comments I left on his. I take issue with some of what he says, as I shall outline below, but before I do, I would like to stress that I really like him, even though I don't completely understand him. Keith is one of poker's nicest players and I wish him well in all he does. So much so that I wish he would improve his health, so that we who like and love him can be more sure of enjoying his company for decades to come. When I wrote what I did below, I thought I was helping him to identify his strengths (online heads-up matches) and deterring him from wasting his time and money on big-ticket tournaments, where though equally strong, he faces a far higher level of opposition, as he so often reminds us.

With that in mind, I quote his latest piece about me with comments from me in italics:

The problem with David Young
I like David. He is an old fashioned British eccentric. But, I cannot deny he has pissed me off. Firstly he questions my sanity with my decision to give up heads up matches on Pokerstars and then he continues to criticise me in his blog. He asks "I'm baffled. Is he after money or recognition?".

I think that this is a fair question to put to anyone who doesn't have the security of a fixed salary. It's easy to be distracted by trophies, ranking points and the glamour of the travelling pro's lifestyle.

The problem with David, and anyone who has read his posts on the Hendon Mob forum will agree, is that he seem unable to see things from anyone elses point of view. I guess it is a problem alot of privately educated people suffer from.

I have not been privately educated since 1982, when I was 13. For my secondary education, I went to the Royal Grammar School in High Wycombe. It's a state school. I will cover the point about seeing others points of view in another post later this week.

He decides what his view on a subject is going to be on a subject and then stands by it through thick and thin. I don't think I've ever seen David admit he's wrong, let alone be swayed by an argument.

On this very website I wrote an apology to Guy Bowles. It was only a couple of months ago. I don't intend to rehash the whole story but the essence is that I totally misunderstood something he said. Further down this page you can also see where I have quoted an email about Nicaragua from Ruari Patterson. In this instance he felt that I had not given a full or fair account of the history of the Sandanista revolution. In fact, I had not intended to, but he pointed out that I had left an one-sided impression and so I quoted him in full on the subject to provide balance.

David is a cash game player.

I do play tournaments too, but not at Keith's level for sure. Then again, not many people play tournaments at his level. I play a reasonable tournament game and would probably be a winner at them if I were to play more. However, they are a very unreliable way to make money, a point that is well made in an excellent essay titled 'Is your wallet fat enough for tournaments?'. I cannot stress enough how important it is for any aspiring tournament player to read this essay. It appears on page 136 of 'Fight Fuzzy Thinking in Poker, Gaming and Life' by David Sklansky.

In order to be a good cash game player you have to be ruthless, you need to want to take the last penny of your opponent. If you have an ounce of sympathy it can come back to haunt you by the recipient of your sympathy taking all your money.

This is complete nonsense. The risk of leaving your oppponent with chips with which he can later hurt you is a tournament concept and not one that applies in cash play. In tournaments it's a total disaster if you leave someone with chips that they later use to beat you. In cash play, your opponents can always replenish their stacks anyway and if not they are replaced by new players with more money. I don't understand what Keith is saying here at all. It looks like an ad-hoc rationalisation shoehorned in to support a pre-existing belief that cash-players are somehow more cruel than tournament players by some sort of Darwinian selection.

Playing cash games for a living is very much like having a job. You need to put the hours in in order to overcome short term variations.

And so must you in tournament play. I'm quite sure of this.

I gave up work for alot of reasons, but one of them was to break out of the routine. Playing cash games (and heads up matches) for a living is the ultimate in routines. I am also convinced playing cash games all the time affects your personality, you can become hard, aggressive maybe even greedy. (Obviously this is a sweeping generalisation and there are many exceptions to this).

I play poker primarily for pleasure and I get little satisfaction from cash games or heads up matches. Obviously I want to make a living out of the pastime and that is the aim. But, I would prefer to make my living doing something I enjoy.

There is nothing wrong with any of this. In fact laziness is my primary motivation in playing poker for a living. I hate the idea of working for other people. I've done it before and I'm in no hurry to do it again.

David, please don't judge me by your standards. I don't want to make a fortune from poker. If I did, I certainly wouldn't be persuing the path I am. I am happy with my decision and if that means you question my sanity, so be it.

Keith, I respect your desire to spend your time only doing things that you enjoy. For me, that's the best definition of success! But some elaboration on your previous post was required. Otherwise people might wonder why you submit requests to be staked in large WPT tournaments, when most us would rather back you in heads up $1,000 SNGs on Pokerstars on the basis of your own words! Good luck in all you do, David.