So, most successful online poker players play multiple tables at the same time. This maximizes the number of hands they play, thus maximizing their profits. It's normal for a player to play 10, 14, or even 24 tables at once. (I fluctuate between 16 and 20 myself.) The online poker rooms have excellent software for so called multi-tablers where the tables will come to the forefront (there's surely a technical term for this, but it escapes me) one at a time, but even the best of us will occasionally misclick (the fold, call, and raise buttons are close together) in the flurry of negotiating our 20 or so tables. This is aggravating, of course, because you can accidentally fold AA or raise with rags. I'm pretty good about not misclicking, but I have definitely folded a few big hands due to the dreaded misclick and I once made a raise to $42 or something preflop with complete garbage (and lost the hand, of course). Goodbye, nice dinner!
Anyways, the following hand demonstrates how an opponent's serendipitous misclick can pay off big for you. There's little strategy involved here, so just sit back and enjoy the ride.
To set the scene, I'm at a table with 6 other "regulars"--guys who play tons of hands and likely make a living from online poker--and 1 fish. This is less than ideal, but sometimes when games are slow you have to make due. At the least, it's better than quitting and doing hw, haha. Even though there's only one guy here who's undeniably worse than I am--all of us Regulars are pretty much the same in terms of talent--it's still a good spot for me because I have position on the one fish. I act immediately after him on almost every hand, so I can wait for him to enter a hand, then reraise to isolate the fish from the sharks who, like me, smell blood and are circling. Moreover, this guy was the best type of fish--he was aggressive and would put lots of money in with marginal hands.
Oh, I obviously multiplied the actual dollar amounts by a factor to keep camouflaged how little/much I actually play for. Plus, with all this money out there, it ramps up the drama! The scale is the same, though, and that's all that matters.
Seat 1: Regular1 ($20,000 in chips)
Seat 2: Fish ($21,760 in chips)
Seat 3: Billy ($20,546.70 in chips)
Seat 4: Regular2 ($20,550 in chips)
Seat 6: Regular3 ($27592 in chips)
Seat 7: Regular4 ($27,591 in chips)
Seat 8: Regular5 ($29,470 in chips)
Seat 9: Regular6 ($23297 in chips)
Regular5: posts small blind $100
Regular6: posts big blind $200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Billy [Ah As]
Regular1: folds
Fish: raises $800 to $1000
What a dream scenario: Fish has a hand he likes and we have the best hand in the game. Let's raise small to get everyone else out of the hand so I can go one-on-one with Fish.
Billy: raises $1000 to $2000
Regular2: folds
Regular3: raises $1000 to $3000
Okay, this play makes no sense. It's a minraise (raising the absolute minimum allowed) by a competent player. The minraise here would never be performed by someone competent, so this guy is either (1) way drunk or (2) the victim of a misclick. Either way, we're ecstatic.
Regular4: folds
Regular5: folds
Regular6: folds
Fish: calls $2000
Sweet, Fish is sticking around. I was a bit concerned that my raise and Regular3's reraise would scare him away, but since the raises (both of 'em) were small, he's gonna stick around. If he put $2k in, he'll probably put more in, so let's re-raise to get Regular3 out of the way and to get Fish to put in more money preflop. The more money he puts in to see a flop, the more committed he is to putting the rest in if he catches a piece of the flop. We don't wanna raise too big, though, lest we scare him away.
Billy: raises $7400 to $10400
Regular3: folds
Regular3 said, "fn misklick"
Misclick confirmed. Thanks for the extra $3k, Regular3.
Fish: calls $7400
Beautiful. Fish has about half of his stack invested--he's gonna have a hard time folding.
*** FLOP *** [Td Ks 9s]
Fish: bets $11,360 and is all-in
Yup, here he goes. This isn't a great board for AA, but there is no way we ever fold to such a reckless, loose player with so much money already invested.
Billy: calls $10,147 and is all-in
Uncalled bet ($1213) returned to Fish (Since Fish has us covered, he gets a slight refund on his bet.)
*** TURN *** [Td Ks 9s] [Qs]
*** RIVER *** [Td Ks 9s Qs] [6d]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Fish: shows [9h 8h] (a pair of Nines)
Billy: shows [Ah As] (a pair of Aces)
Billy collected $44,293 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $44,296 | Rake $3
Board [Td Ks 9s Qs 6d]
Seat 2: Fish showed [9h 8h] and lost with a pair of Nines
Seat 3: Billy showed [Ah As] and won ($44,293) with a pair of Aces
Now, just how clutch was that misclick? Well, in addition to the $3k of dead money, it gave us a chance to put in another preflop raise. If Regular3 had folded, like he intended, Fish would have just called our bet and he'd have most of his stack left. On that flop, he'd be more cautious with so little money in the pot and so much money still in his stack. He'd probably check the flop (instead of shoving all in) and maybe call a flop bet from us; however, he'd probably fold after the turn, given our showing of strength throughout the hand and his relatively scant holdings (unless his hand improved, in which case we'd be losing). So, we'd miss out on about $15k in value by having him fold. That misclick made us $18k richer (Fish's $15k + Regular3's $3k).
Friday, September 25, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
So, what exactly is Conflicts of Law?
Good question. Conflict of laws "encompasses several related areas of law: choice of law, constitutional limitations on choice of law, jurisdiction of courts, [and] recognition of sister-state judgments..." Brilmayer xxvii.
We're gonna be focused on choice of law, cuz it's the hardest (for me, at least), but to explain some of the others briefly (again, "explain" means "tell y'all what I think it means," not "tell y'all what it means"):
*Jurisdiction of courts: Does a federal court have jurisdiction over a state claim? Does a TX court have jurisdiction over an IL resident? Does a TX court have jurisdiction over a British corporation? (etc.) This obviously is not a definition but rather a listing of examples, but that's cuz a definition is beyond the scope of this blog.
*Recognition of sister-state judgments: Does an IL court have to give "full faith and credit" to a decision that a TX court reached? (Basically, yes.)
Okay, so what is choice of law? Maybe a (not so) hypothetical situation will help elucidate it:
Mr. Carroll is a citizen of Alabama. He works as a brakeman on a railroad. The RR he works for is an Alabama corporation that runs a train from TN through AL into MS. Carroll works on the part of the line between Birmingham, AL, and Meridian, MS. On the train somewhere in MS, a link between two traincars breaks, and Carroll gets hurt. What happened? One of the RR's employees failed to inspect the train links while the train was still in Alabama. (This employee was "negligent," which is typically a cause for action.) Neither AL state law nor MS state law, however, allows Carroll to recover money from his employer (the RR) for negligence on the part of an employee. So, Carroll is out of luck, right? Well, wouldn't you know it, there's a statute in Alabama called the Employer's Liability Act of Alabama, which might allow Carroll to recover some money. MS, however, lacks such a statute.
So, I think you can see where we're going with this. If the court decides to apply MS law, Carroll loses. If the court decides to apply AL law, Carroll has at least a chance of winning. (At this point you may be asking, "well, which court is hearing this case--an AL state court or a MS state court?" Surprisingly, I'm pretty sure that the answer to this question is immaterial for our purposes...counter-intuitive, no?)
Okay, this fact pattern actually did happen once upon a time. I took the facts from an 1892 case. The judge in this case applied a "traditional" approach to this issue of choice of law that is now outdated in a majority of states. But still, the prof wanted us to read this case and he knows more about teaching Conflicts than I do, so I'm gonna post it.
Before I get into the holdings of the case, try to decide which law you'd apply (and why). I know that thinking critically sucks when the answer is just around the corner, but, uh, do it anyways.
.
.
.
The judge held that MS law applies. He held that there can be no recovery in one State (AL) for injuries to the person sustained in another State (MS) unless the infliction of the injuries is actionable (that is, if you have grounds to sue on) under the law of the State in which they were received (MS). So, if MS had this Employer's Liability Act, a MS court could award damages to Carroll. Hell, an Alabama court--applying MS law--could award damages to Carroll. (Yes, State 1 can and often does apply State 2's law.) But, our court cannot award damages because it must apply MS law and MS has no law that would allow Carroll to recover damages.
Why does the judge care so much about where the injury occurs? After all, the negligence took place in Alabama. If our boy Carroll had gotten hurt in MS "normally" (i.e., in a manner not caused by negligence), he'd have no right to sue cuz he'd have no action (i.e., no law to sue on). Sure, the injury in MS is a necessary prerequisite of the lawsuit, but so is the negligence in AL!
Here's my best understanding of what the judge was thinking: "Look, a negligent action without an injury isn't Negligence. If I drive my Corvette negligently and almost hit your car parked on the street (you're sitting in your house and are unaware of what happened), you can't sue me because you haven't suffered any damages.* Failing to inspect the train became actionable when Carroll suffered an injury."
The court treats as dispositive (being a deciding factor--comes from the fact that if a court decides this issue, it can dispose of the lawsuit) this question: "Where did the last event necessary to make someone (allegedly) liable for a tort occur?" This is nice because it makes our job easier...you figure out where the last even occurred, look at that state's laws, and apply those laws. The end. But, is that fair?
Later, we'll be talking about choices of law with respect to intentional torts. (Negligence is not an intentional tort.) Btw, a tort is "a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained, usu. in the form of damages." (Black's law dictionary.) Should the fact that I meant to hurt you affect our choice of law? Stay tuned!
*I say "parked car" to avoid murky questions of emotional distress, etc. that might arise if I narrowly avoid hitting you while we're both driving. Also: yes, they did have Corvettes in 1892.
We're gonna be focused on choice of law, cuz it's the hardest (for me, at least), but to explain some of the others briefly (again, "explain" means "tell y'all what I think it means," not "tell y'all what it means"):
*Jurisdiction of courts: Does a federal court have jurisdiction over a state claim? Does a TX court have jurisdiction over an IL resident? Does a TX court have jurisdiction over a British corporation? (etc.) This obviously is not a definition but rather a listing of examples, but that's cuz a definition is beyond the scope of this blog.
*Recognition of sister-state judgments: Does an IL court have to give "full faith and credit" to a decision that a TX court reached? (Basically, yes.)
Okay, so what is choice of law? Maybe a (not so) hypothetical situation will help elucidate it:
Mr. Carroll is a citizen of Alabama. He works as a brakeman on a railroad. The RR he works for is an Alabama corporation that runs a train from TN through AL into MS. Carroll works on the part of the line between Birmingham, AL, and Meridian, MS. On the train somewhere in MS, a link between two traincars breaks, and Carroll gets hurt. What happened? One of the RR's employees failed to inspect the train links while the train was still in Alabama. (This employee was "negligent," which is typically a cause for action.) Neither AL state law nor MS state law, however, allows Carroll to recover money from his employer (the RR) for negligence on the part of an employee. So, Carroll is out of luck, right? Well, wouldn't you know it, there's a statute in Alabama called the Employer's Liability Act of Alabama, which might allow Carroll to recover some money. MS, however, lacks such a statute.
So, I think you can see where we're going with this. If the court decides to apply MS law, Carroll loses. If the court decides to apply AL law, Carroll has at least a chance of winning. (At this point you may be asking, "well, which court is hearing this case--an AL state court or a MS state court?" Surprisingly, I'm pretty sure that the answer to this question is immaterial for our purposes...counter-intuitive, no?)
Okay, this fact pattern actually did happen once upon a time. I took the facts from an 1892 case. The judge in this case applied a "traditional" approach to this issue of choice of law that is now outdated in a majority of states. But still, the prof wanted us to read this case and he knows more about teaching Conflicts than I do, so I'm gonna post it.
Before I get into the holdings of the case, try to decide which law you'd apply (and why). I know that thinking critically sucks when the answer is just around the corner, but, uh, do it anyways.
.
.
.
The judge held that MS law applies. He held that there can be no recovery in one State (AL) for injuries to the person sustained in another State (MS) unless the infliction of the injuries is actionable (that is, if you have grounds to sue on) under the law of the State in which they were received (MS). So, if MS had this Employer's Liability Act, a MS court could award damages to Carroll. Hell, an Alabama court--applying MS law--could award damages to Carroll. (Yes, State 1 can and often does apply State 2's law.) But, our court cannot award damages because it must apply MS law and MS has no law that would allow Carroll to recover damages.
Why does the judge care so much about where the injury occurs? After all, the negligence took place in Alabama. If our boy Carroll had gotten hurt in MS "normally" (i.e., in a manner not caused by negligence), he'd have no right to sue cuz he'd have no action (i.e., no law to sue on). Sure, the injury in MS is a necessary prerequisite of the lawsuit, but so is the negligence in AL!
Here's my best understanding of what the judge was thinking: "Look, a negligent action without an injury isn't Negligence. If I drive my Corvette negligently and almost hit your car parked on the street (you're sitting in your house and are unaware of what happened), you can't sue me because you haven't suffered any damages.* Failing to inspect the train became actionable when Carroll suffered an injury."
The court treats as dispositive (being a deciding factor--comes from the fact that if a court decides this issue, it can dispose of the lawsuit) this question: "Where did the last event necessary to make someone (allegedly) liable for a tort occur?" This is nice because it makes our job easier...you figure out where the last even occurred, look at that state's laws, and apply those laws. The end. But, is that fair?
Later, we'll be talking about choices of law with respect to intentional torts. (Negligence is not an intentional tort.) Btw, a tort is "a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained, usu. in the form of damages." (Black's law dictionary.) Should the fact that I meant to hurt you affect our choice of law? Stay tuned!
*I say "parked car" to avoid murky questions of emotional distress, etc. that might arise if I narrowly avoid hitting you while we're both driving. Also: yes, they did have Corvettes in 1892.
Conflicts of Law
So, I was riding the elevator up to the library with some 3L's a few nights ago. One of 'em espied my Conflicts of Law casebook, turned to me, and said, "so, you're gonna be a Chancellor, huh?" (A Chancellor is someone who has one of the top 16 GPAs in his class of 400 or so.) If I had my wits about me, I woulda said something like, "I think I'm already mathematically eliminated from contention." (Instead, I kinda just laughed and issued a generic denial.)
The point of this anecdote, however, is not to give myself a virtual do-over. Rather, it's to impress upon y'all the reputation that Conflicts has among the law school. It's reputed to be the most challenging course--my peers cringe when I mention that I'm taking it--and, what's worse, only the best and brightest take it, generally. (Is that because the best and brightest like to challenge themselves academically? Well, maybe, but it's also an essential course for someone looking to land a judicial clerkship after graduation. I'll let you decide for yourself whether your typical law student is extrinsically or intrinsically motivated.)
Now, before we go any further, let me stress that I am neither the best nor the brightest. I'm not looking for a clerkship, either. I took the course because (1) I didn't believe the hype, (2) the material seemed interesting, and (3) I like the professor (had him for Civil Procedure).
Okay, so why bring this up? Cuz we just got into the meat of the course and I'm gonna use this blog as a means for studying. I figure that if I can translate the lectures and cases into something that you (an intelligent reader, no doubt, but one who likely has little training in the law) can comprehend, I'll learn the material more thoroughly and flesh out my own misunderstandings, etc, along the way.
Please note that I cannot warrant that my understanding of the material is accurate. This is a relatively unvarnished look at a 2L's attempt to grasp some very confusing concepts, that's all.
The point of this anecdote, however, is not to give myself a virtual do-over. Rather, it's to impress upon y'all the reputation that Conflicts has among the law school. It's reputed to be the most challenging course--my peers cringe when I mention that I'm taking it--and, what's worse, only the best and brightest take it, generally. (Is that because the best and brightest like to challenge themselves academically? Well, maybe, but it's also an essential course for someone looking to land a judicial clerkship after graduation. I'll let you decide for yourself whether your typical law student is extrinsically or intrinsically motivated.)
Now, before we go any further, let me stress that I am neither the best nor the brightest. I'm not looking for a clerkship, either. I took the course because (1) I didn't believe the hype, (2) the material seemed interesting, and (3) I like the professor (had him for Civil Procedure).
Okay, so why bring this up? Cuz we just got into the meat of the course and I'm gonna use this blog as a means for studying. I figure that if I can translate the lectures and cases into something that you (an intelligent reader, no doubt, but one who likely has little training in the law) can comprehend, I'll learn the material more thoroughly and flesh out my own misunderstandings, etc, along the way.
Please note that I cannot warrant that my understanding of the material is accurate. This is a relatively unvarnished look at a 2L's attempt to grasp some very confusing concepts, that's all.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Things I Learned Today
I like this topic, so I'm gonna stick with it until it has run its course.
*I learned that "riparian" means "of, on, or relating to the banks of a natural course of water." In a similar vein, I also learned that "effluent" means "something that flows out or forth, especially (among other things) a stream that flows out of a body of water. [Note: all definitions are coming from thefreedictionary.com.]
Context: Reading for Environmental Law, of course.
*I learned that Sheryl Crow sold her catalogue for $10 million. Not bad. I should probably say something like "All she wants to do is have some fun, amirite?!?!" but I'm above that.
Context: Listening to the radio in my CD-playerless car.
*I learned that tundra is a biome (an area, essentially) whereas permafrost is the actual soil that stays below 32 degrees year-round. At least, that's my understanding as of now--I could have that mixed up.
Context: Ironically, this has nothing to do with Environ Law. I was watching Cash Cab and this question arose (my best approximation): "What soil or surface covering 70% of Alaska is known for staying at or below 32 degrees year-round?" I guessed tundra, it was permafrost (which sounds obvious when you read the question with the word perma-frost in your head).
*I learned that "[i]t is not always easy to decide what is heads and tails on a given coin. Numismatics (the scientific study of money) defines the obverse and reverse of a coin rather than heads and tails." (from random.org) and here I've been saying "heads" and "tails" like a sucker!
Context: $10k flips to get unstuck after a bad session, obviously.
*Finally, I learned that Tracy (no one we knew, of course) should probably never use facebook again.
Context: 2p2
*I learned that "riparian" means "of, on, or relating to the banks of a natural course of water." In a similar vein, I also learned that "effluent" means "something that flows out or forth, especially (among other things) a stream that flows out of a body of water. [Note: all definitions are coming from thefreedictionary.com.]
Context: Reading for Environmental Law, of course.
*I learned that Sheryl Crow sold her catalogue for $10 million. Not bad. I should probably say something like "All she wants to do is have some fun, amirite?!?!" but I'm above that.
Context: Listening to the radio in my CD-playerless car.
*I learned that tundra is a biome (an area, essentially) whereas permafrost is the actual soil that stays below 32 degrees year-round. At least, that's my understanding as of now--I could have that mixed up.
Context: Ironically, this has nothing to do with Environ Law. I was watching Cash Cab and this question arose (my best approximation): "What soil or surface covering 70% of Alaska is known for staying at or below 32 degrees year-round?" I guessed tundra, it was permafrost (which sounds obvious when you read the question with the word perma-frost in your head).
*I learned that "[i]t is not always easy to decide what is heads and tails on a given coin. Numismatics (the scientific study of money) defines the obverse and reverse of a coin rather than heads and tails." (from random.org) and here I've been saying "heads" and "tails" like a sucker!
Context: $10k flips to get unstuck after a bad session, obviously.
*Finally, I learned that Tracy (no one we knew, of course) should probably never use facebook again.
Context: 2p2
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
(Some of the) Things I've Learned Today
School has resumed and my cup now runneth over with knowledge. Today, I learned the following things:
*I learned that "anthropogenic" means "caused by humans." (Used when discussing pollutants and other bad things that man has produced.) I discovered this while doing my reading for Environmental Law.
*In a related matter, I learned that Environmental Law is going to be a boring course.
*I learned that back in the day, motorists driving into a state different from their domicile were once required to pull over near the border and execute a consent to be sued. Why? Well, this is most easily explained with an example, so let's say you're driving from IL into WI. (Let's assume that there's something worth seeing in Wisconsin...a stretch, I know.) Let's also say that you crash into a Wisconsinite in his home state. This Wisconsinite wants to sue you--a dirty FIB--for negligence. Let's also say that we're all living in 1880. Finally, Wisconsinite wants to sue you in a Wisconsin state court. Well, the Supreme Court said in Pennoyer v. Neff (1878) that a state court has "personal jurisdiction" over you only if you are within the State. So, if you are back in Illinois, Wisconsinite cannot bring the suit in a Wisconsin court.
In short, Pennoyer premised personal jurisdiction on presence. So, if you were stupid enough to go back to Wisconsin, you could get served in Wisconsin and then all of a sudden you hafta appear in front of a Wisconsin state court. Oops! Anyways, Pennoyer mighta made sense when it was written, but with the advent of automobiles and whatnot, the test (of presence) made less sense. So, for a short time, motorists had to sign those consent forms (waiving their objections on the grounds of personal jurisdiction, essentially). Later, courts came up with the legal fiction that motorists, by driving across state lines, impliedly consented to being served via a State official. Finally, we just trashed Pennoyer (more or less) and came up with a different standard.
Confused? Yeah, same here. That's not all, either: there's also "subject-matter jurisdiction" issues. For example: can a federal court hear a breach of contract claim? (Breaches of contract are purely state matters.) Can a state court hear a case concerning federal legislation? There's also some sick, sick stuff about determining whether a state court should apply its own state law or a different state's law, but I have no idea how that stuff works, haha. Stay tuned, I guess.
*I learned that "Doin' Time" is a loose cover of a Gershwin song (covered here by Janis Joplin...I probably should have known this by now, but I guess I cut that day of 'Sublime Songs 101'.
*Back to vocabulary quickly, I learned that "factitious" means "lacking authenticity; a sham". I only throw that in here cuz the definition is kinda counterintuitive (maybe it's not if you're an etymology major).
*I finally learned what "Cap and Trade" means...it's not confusing at all, but I never bothered to look it up. Thanks, Environ Law!
*I learned that China pollutes more than we do, but that we have more pollution per capita. On the other hand, in terms of pollution per unit of GDP, the U.S. is just chilling in the middle of the pack. U-S-A! (Btw, guess where I learned that?)
*I learned that both sides of the political aisle are framing the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES) as a "jobs bill." (Obama's words, but echoed by a Republican congressman.)
*I learned that Denis Clemente could probably beat me in HORSE (basketball, not poker, haha).
*I learned that "anthropogenic" means "caused by humans." (Used when discussing pollutants and other bad things that man has produced.) I discovered this while doing my reading for Environmental Law.
*In a related matter, I learned that Environmental Law is going to be a boring course.
*I learned that back in the day, motorists driving into a state different from their domicile were once required to pull over near the border and execute a consent to be sued. Why? Well, this is most easily explained with an example, so let's say you're driving from IL into WI. (Let's assume that there's something worth seeing in Wisconsin...a stretch, I know.) Let's also say that you crash into a Wisconsinite in his home state. This Wisconsinite wants to sue you--a dirty FIB--for negligence. Let's also say that we're all living in 1880. Finally, Wisconsinite wants to sue you in a Wisconsin state court. Well, the Supreme Court said in Pennoyer v. Neff (1878) that a state court has "personal jurisdiction" over you only if you are within the State. So, if you are back in Illinois, Wisconsinite cannot bring the suit in a Wisconsin court.
In short, Pennoyer premised personal jurisdiction on presence. So, if you were stupid enough to go back to Wisconsin, you could get served in Wisconsin and then all of a sudden you hafta appear in front of a Wisconsin state court. Oops! Anyways, Pennoyer mighta made sense when it was written, but with the advent of automobiles and whatnot, the test (of presence) made less sense. So, for a short time, motorists had to sign those consent forms (waiving their objections on the grounds of personal jurisdiction, essentially). Later, courts came up with the legal fiction that motorists, by driving across state lines, impliedly consented to being served via a State official. Finally, we just trashed Pennoyer (more or less) and came up with a different standard.
Confused? Yeah, same here. That's not all, either: there's also "subject-matter jurisdiction" issues. For example: can a federal court hear a breach of contract claim? (Breaches of contract are purely state matters.) Can a state court hear a case concerning federal legislation? There's also some sick, sick stuff about determining whether a state court should apply its own state law or a different state's law, but I have no idea how that stuff works, haha. Stay tuned, I guess.
*I learned that "Doin' Time" is a loose cover of a Gershwin song (covered here by Janis Joplin...I probably should have known this by now, but I guess I cut that day of 'Sublime Songs 101'.
*Back to vocabulary quickly, I learned that "factitious" means "lacking authenticity; a sham". I only throw that in here cuz the definition is kinda counterintuitive (maybe it's not if you're an etymology major).
*I finally learned what "Cap and Trade" means...it's not confusing at all, but I never bothered to look it up. Thanks, Environ Law!
*I learned that China pollutes more than we do, but that we have more pollution per capita. On the other hand, in terms of pollution per unit of GDP, the U.S. is just chilling in the middle of the pack. U-S-A! (Btw, guess where I learned that?)
*I learned that both sides of the political aisle are framing the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES) as a "jobs bill." (Obama's words, but echoed by a Republican congressman.)
*I learned that Denis Clemente could probably beat me in HORSE (basketball, not poker, haha).
Monday, August 3, 2009
3 AM and I Kant Sleep
People have an unhappy habit of conflating legality with morality. I recently admonished my cousin for trash-talking his brother (these are young kids--his insult and my subsequent scolding were both innocuous). His reply? "The Constitution gives us all a right to free speech." (Yes, this kid is too precocious for his own good.) This is a simplistic example of a straw-man argument that you'll hear throughout your life. Don't fall for it. Yes, we should theoretically have a legal system that embodies our morality, but that's not the case. (For one, whose morality should we embody?) There are numerous examples of actions which are largely accepted as immoral that (rightly so) remain legal: lying* and committing adultery come to mind. I'm having a tougher time thinking of affirmatively moral actions that are illegal...that's probably a good thing that few if any examples exist. Admittedly, there are a healthy number of amoral actions that are illegal: antitrust laws, speeding laws, maybe even statutory rape laws. ("Statutory rape" as defined in a penal code is arguably way too broad to be classified as wholly immoral. I hate to qualify that statement but it's 3 AM and I could be thinking nebulously.)
*You don't have to be Kant to realize that there are some situations in which lying is immoral. No, I didn't reference Kant in order to tie the post back to the title. I swear.
*You don't have to be Kant to realize that there are some situations in which lying is immoral. No, I didn't reference Kant in order to tie the post back to the title. I swear.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Poker, Math, and Theory (continued)
Okay, a quick update on the previous post: I consulted with my braintrust, two respected and feared poker players with healthy experience at the stakes I play. Here are there thoughts and my reactions:
(1) Jaconda felt I unfairly discounted the chance that Carl would flat-call my 4bet. She's right in that I should have given that possibility more weight; however, I think it's a weird play to flat a 4bet for a total of 25% of your stack. Also, we have to remember that Carl is out of position (OOP). Position is extremely important in poker and even more so in no-limit games like the one we're playing. Players out of position like to negate their disadvantage by getting the money in preflop if possible. Putting the money AIPF (all-in preflop) means that the player OOP won't be forced to make difficult decisions without the advantage of seeing how his opponent has acted.
Additionally, what is he gonna flat with here? I can see flatting AA and KK maybe but Carl has to think that we have a big hand and are gonna be c-betting virtually every flop (if only cuz we have such a strong image and the pot is so big). Would he flat AK? No way...he doesn't wanna play a flop with two big cards. What about TT, etc? Again, no way...he's not gonna wanna do this because he's gonna have such a hard time with a large number of flops. Unless Carl is setting up an elaborate and bizarre bluff, I can't imagine him flatting here. Even if he has QQ+, he's gonna wanna get it AIPF cuz my hand range loses so much strength after a flop and Carl wants to maximize value.
(2) Both Jaconda and Eltrain think that we should be folding to a 5bet shove. This disagreement comes from the fact that they're giving Carl credit for a much stronger range than I am. This is something that cannot be resolved, unfortunately, because only Carl knows what he would 5bet shove here. Assuming arguendo that his range is much stronger than I think (and that Carl is either gonna fold or shove to our 4bet), Jaconda and Eltrain are correct in that it doesn't matter what our cards are because we're folding to his shove. Ideally, we'd like to have an ace in our hand, only because that makes it less likely that Carl has an ace, which means that he's more likely to fold. Complicated, I know, but that's (online) poker.
By the way: I folded preflop, fwiw. No me gusta variance, haha.
(1) Jaconda felt I unfairly discounted the chance that Carl would flat-call my 4bet. She's right in that I should have given that possibility more weight; however, I think it's a weird play to flat a 4bet for a total of 25% of your stack. Also, we have to remember that Carl is out of position (OOP). Position is extremely important in poker and even more so in no-limit games like the one we're playing. Players out of position like to negate their disadvantage by getting the money in preflop if possible. Putting the money AIPF (all-in preflop) means that the player OOP won't be forced to make difficult decisions without the advantage of seeing how his opponent has acted.
Additionally, what is he gonna flat with here? I can see flatting AA and KK maybe but Carl has to think that we have a big hand and are gonna be c-betting virtually every flop (if only cuz we have such a strong image and the pot is so big). Would he flat AK? No way...he doesn't wanna play a flop with two big cards. What about TT, etc? Again, no way...he's not gonna wanna do this because he's gonna have such a hard time with a large number of flops. Unless Carl is setting up an elaborate and bizarre bluff, I can't imagine him flatting here. Even if he has QQ+, he's gonna wanna get it AIPF cuz my hand range loses so much strength after a flop and Carl wants to maximize value.
(2) Both Jaconda and Eltrain think that we should be folding to a 5bet shove. This disagreement comes from the fact that they're giving Carl credit for a much stronger range than I am. This is something that cannot be resolved, unfortunately, because only Carl knows what he would 5bet shove here. Assuming arguendo that his range is much stronger than I think (and that Carl is either gonna fold or shove to our 4bet), Jaconda and Eltrain are correct in that it doesn't matter what our cards are because we're folding to his shove. Ideally, we'd like to have an ace in our hand, only because that makes it less likely that Carl has an ace, which means that he's more likely to fold. Complicated, I know, but that's (online) poker.
By the way: I folded preflop, fwiw. No me gusta variance, haha.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Poker, Math, and Theory
This hand happened tonight, and I had no idea what to do. (This is rare for me, because I've played many, many hands...arguably too many, haha.) It turned into a pretty helpful mathematical exercise: hopefully the thought process is correct.
PokerStars Game #30473142887: Hold'em No Limit ($2/$4) - 2009/07/14 22:25:35 ET
Table 'Kalliope III' 9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 3: Billy ($400 in chips)
Seat 5: Carl ($400 in chips)
Seat 6: Dan ($400 in chips)
Dan: posts small blind $2
Billy: posts big blind $4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Billy [8s 8c]
Carl: raises $8 to $12
Dan raises $30 to $42
Billy calls, raises, or folds??!?
Okay, let’s take this from the top. Our goal, as it always should be in poker, is to play optimally. This means that we try to make the correct mathematical decision every time we have a choice of action (bet, fold, raise, check). En otras palabras, we wanna play like this guy: 
In this case, of course, we only have three options. Let's go through them one by one:
Call: This one makes no sense for us. Past experience with Dan (we've played 2771 hands against each other) tells me that he's a very aggressive player. (For those who know what these numbers mean, he's 17.5/15.1 with an astounding 8.5 3bet% over the 2771 hand sample, which includes a lot of shorthanded play.) Since he's so aggressive, he has a relatively wide range here. (Range means "the various hands he can have.") He's almost certainly not going to have 72o (seven-deuce offsuit), but he could have something like T9s (ten-nine suited). If we call his bet, we're going to have a very hard time playing a flop against him because we have little idea of what hand he has. What if the flop is Q75? T93? AA2? What do we do? I have no idea. He's aggressive, so we know he's gonna bet out on the flop, which will force us to make a very hard decision. Hard decisions are bad--it's like lighting money on fire. We're only gonna be playing optimally when we flop an 8 (because we're never ever ever folding when we flop a set), but that happens about 12% of the time...not nearly enough to justify a call.
Raise: Fortune favors the bold, right? Certainly, raising has its advantages. We have an image of being tight, aggressive, and a solid player. Thus, a re-re-raise (a/k/a 4bet) from us here is scary as hell. It screams strength. If we scream strength, we have tremendous Fold Equity (FE). Fold Equity is an essential concept that many new players do not sufficiently grasp. If, for example, Dan folds to our 4bet any time he doesn't have AA, we should 4bet him at every opportunity because we're gonna win almost every pot. Yeah, there'll be that 1 time where he does in fact have AA and we lose a buy-in, but that'll happen so infrequently that the numerous small pots we rake in will more than make up for the one big loss. In other words, in that hypo the 4bet has a positive expected value. That's good for us: every time we make a +EV play, it's like we're printing money.
So, in deciding whether to raise, it's helpful to know how often Dan will fold to our raise. We can't know that, unfortunately, but we can guess. (Remember, since he himself raised, we can assume that his range is stronger than just any two random cards; as a result, he'll fold less often than if he just held random cards.) Of course, his fold percentage depends on the amount of our raise. If we raise to $72 (making the minimum raise), he'll fold maybe 20% of the time. Likewise, if we raise to $400 (going all-in), he'll fold maybe 80% of the time. So, why not just go all-in? Because we're risking a helluva lot of money to win what's currently in the pot. Theoretically, there's some magic number that gives us the most FE for the money we risk (the best bang for our buck, if you will), but that's incalculable without getting into Dan's head. Let's say that our magic number is around $120. (That's a pretty standard raise, so I feel good with saying that $120 is our best choice when deciding what amount to raise to.)
At this point, we need two pieces of information: what percentage of the time Dan folds to our 4bet to $120, and what is the range of hands he can have if he 5bets (re-re-re-raises) us. The range we can approximate: he probably will 5bet with AQ, AK, 77+ (77, 88, 99...). Now, time for some math:
We raise to $120. There's now $174 in the pot (12 + 42 + 120). Let's assume that Carl folds. Action swings back to Dan: he has to put in $78 to call ($120 - $42). He's either gonna fold or go all-in. (Trust me.) Let's see what happens if he goes all in:
Using pokerstove.com software, we have 39.5% equity against the range we've given him. That means that, on average, we're gonna win 39.5 * $812, or $321. That sounds great, except we started with $400.* So, we lose $79 over the long run.
Now, what if he folds? Well, easy: we win $58 (12 + 42 + the 4 we put in as big blind).
So, we have two possible results: winning $58 or losing $79. To determine whether a raise is a +EV play, we need to know the relative proportions that these two results will occur. (Again, if he folds 99% of the time, we're gonna win $58 ninety-nine times and lose $79 one time. That's +EV.) We can't know this exactly, but we can determine what the minimum FE we need to make the raise a +EV play. That's just seventh-grade algebra:
-79(1-x) + 58x = 0.
137x = 79
x = 57.7%
So, if he folds more than 57.7% of the time to our 4bet, we're making money in the long run. It's reasonable to expect him to fold at least 60% of the time, so raising is a +EV play.
Fold: Folding is not +EV in this case, for obvious reasons.
So, in conclusion, we should raise. In reaching this conclusion, we assumed a few things: that Dan folds to a 4bet >57.7% of the time, that Carl folds 100% of the time, that Dan will either fold or go all-in when confronted with our raise, and that we have 39.5% equity against Dan's 5bet range.
Now, here comes the interesting part. It should be clear that the more equity we have against Dan's 5bet range, the lower our FE can be to keep our raise +EV. For an obvious example, let's say we have AA. Then, our equity is about 83%. We win money (in the long run) if we get it all in, and we win money (in both the long and short runs) if he folds. Sweet. With AA, the best starting hand in poker, it's obvious that raising is +EV (the pertinent preflop question when we have AA is which action is most +EV, fwiw). With 72o, we have terrible equity, so we need some extremely high FE number to make the raise profitable. 88 fits in the middle.
But, let's mess around with our hand a bit. What if we have QJs? What if we have 22? What if we have A3o? Again, it's obvious that as long as we keep our equity above approximately 39%, raising is profitable.
QJs: 36.14% equity.
22: 31.62% equity.
A3o: 27.43% equity.
Yikes, not so hot for any of 'em. QJs is the most palatable, so let's do that calculation:
(.3614 * 812) -400 = -107
-107(1-x) + 58x = 0
165x = 107
x = 65%
So, we now need him to fold 65% of the time...hmm, that's right on the border. Good to know, though.
(btw: AQo: 37.41%; JTs: 36.39%)
Moral of the story: If anyone ever tells you that poker is a game of luck, just smile and nod. Then, challenge him to play you heads-up. Or, better yet, refer him to me and I'll play him heads-up.
_________________
*Technically, we started with $396 after we were forced to put in the big blind, but let's keep this simple.
Monday, July 13, 2009
11 Best Led Zep Songs
Operational Definition: these are the top 11 Led Zeppelin songs, in order. I have done my best to consider only the quality of the music (not the historical significance, popular opinion, cute backstory, etc.) for each song.
Also, this ranking is far different from the task of "make the ultimate Led Zeppelin album." En otras palabras, es posible que these songs do not go well together as a playlist.
My qualifications: On the "plus" side, I have every studio album, the BBC Sessions, How the West Was Won (DVD and CD's), and the important tracks from Coda. On the "minus" side, I
was born years after September 25, 1980; I have never heard Zep while high; and I don't have very many bootlegs.
11. Kashmir: Damn, this must be a helluva list if Kashmir can't crack the top 10. Hopefully my credibility hasn't gone out the window.
10. When the Levee Breaks: See, I look at Kashmir as PG's version of When the Levee Breaks. When I compare the two, I like Levee more. Close your eyes and I bet you can hear the opening drums. Then, the harmonica. The lyrics aren't too special, but this song is just so heavy and tight that it belongs on this list.
9. Night Flight: I'm a bit of a sucker for the happy Zeppelin songs, I have to admit. Also, when Plant sings, "Oh mama, well I think it's time I'm leavin'", I just smile and smile.
8. Fool in the Rain: Underrated because it's on one of their worst albums.
7 (tie). Going to California: Joni!
7 (tie). Ramble On
6. Bring It On Home: You're probably scratching your head at this one. I freely admit that I love this song more than the fabled Reasonable Person. Plant's vocals on the first verse don't cut it for me, but I love the harmonica and the curious crescendo. Also, the How The West Was Won version is tight.
5. Bron-Y-Aur Stomp: Jeez, more acoustic stuff? Yeah, sorry. You're lucky I didn't throw in "That's the Way."
4. Black Dog: I dare you to find a better opening to an album than the first 20 or so seconds of Black Dog.
3. Over The Hills and Far Away: Beautiful opening guitar riff, simple and solid lyrics, strong vocals. "I live for my dreams and a pocket full of gold." Is "gold" supposed to mean "money" or "marijuana"? We report, you decide!
2. Since I've Been Loving You: The guitar solo, the crescendo, Plant's vocals. "Do you remember mama when I knocked upon your door? I said you had the nerve to tell me you didn't want me no more. I open my front door, hear my back door slam...you know I must have one of them new-fangled backdoor men." Also, what good is a Zep list without acknowledging Zep's roots in blues?
1. Hey Hey What Can I Do (Street Corner Girl): I love how this song combines an upbeat melody (if that's the word) with somewhat depressing lyrics. (Cf. "Heavy Things" by Phish.) Also, I have a special affinity for songs that tell a bit of a story, as this one does. Plus, who among us hasn't dated a prostitute?
"Hey, why not..."
Also, this ranking is far different from the task of "make the ultimate Led Zeppelin album." En otras palabras, es posible que these songs do not go well together as a playlist.
My qualifications: On the "plus" side, I have every studio album, the BBC Sessions, How the West Was Won (DVD and CD's), and the important tracks from Coda. On the "minus" side, I
was born years after September 25, 1980; I have never heard Zep while high; and I don't have very many bootlegs.
11. Kashmir: Damn, this must be a helluva list if Kashmir can't crack the top 10. Hopefully my credibility hasn't gone out the window.
10. When the Levee Breaks: See, I look at Kashmir as PG's version of When the Levee Breaks. When I compare the two, I like Levee more. Close your eyes and I bet you can hear the opening drums. Then, the harmonica. The lyrics aren't too special, but this song is just so heavy and tight that it belongs on this list.
9. Night Flight: I'm a bit of a sucker for the happy Zeppelin songs, I have to admit. Also, when Plant sings, "Oh mama, well I think it's time I'm leavin'", I just smile and smile.
8. Fool in the Rain: Underrated because it's on one of their worst albums.
7 (tie). Going to California: Joni!
7 (tie). Ramble On
6. Bring It On Home: You're probably scratching your head at this one. I freely admit that I love this song more than the fabled Reasonable Person. Plant's vocals on the first verse don't cut it for me, but I love the harmonica and the curious crescendo. Also, the How The West Was Won version is tight.
5. Bron-Y-Aur Stomp: Jeez, more acoustic stuff? Yeah, sorry. You're lucky I didn't throw in "That's the Way."
4. Black Dog: I dare you to find a better opening to an album than the first 20 or so seconds of Black Dog.
3. Over The Hills and Far Away: Beautiful opening guitar riff, simple and solid lyrics, strong vocals. "I live for my dreams and a pocket full of gold." Is "gold" supposed to mean "money" or "marijuana"? We report, you decide!
2. Since I've Been Loving You: The guitar solo, the crescendo, Plant's vocals. "Do you remember mama when I knocked upon your door? I said you had the nerve to tell me you didn't want me no more. I open my front door, hear my back door slam...you know I must have one of them new-fangled backdoor men." Also, what good is a Zep list without acknowledging Zep's roots in blues?
1. Hey Hey What Can I Do (Street Corner Girl): I love how this song combines an upbeat melody (if that's the word) with somewhat depressing lyrics. (Cf. "Heavy Things" by Phish.) Also, I have a special affinity for songs that tell a bit of a story, as this one does. Plus, who among us hasn't dated a prostitute?
"Hey, why not..."
- "Achilles' Last Stand?" Admittedly, it's epic and one of the group's favorites. I just don't dig it that much. It starts so heavy that it has nowhere to go.
- "All My Love?" Incomprehensible lyrics, for one. Also, it's too pretty.
- "Ten Years Gone?" Eh, I guess I'm in too good a mood, haha.
- "Carouselambra?" Seriously?
- "Stairway to Heaven?" Because I like those other songs more.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Affirmative Action
Wooooo, Spring Break! Time to book my flight to Vegas...I'm gonna be gambling all day, partying all night, and this'll be the craziest week of my life!
Oh, wait: I'm a 1L. That means that I'll be spending large portions of my spring break outlining for my courses instead of heading to the beach. Working over the holidays? Come On!
On the plus side, I finally get the opportunity to work on something that I've neglected over the last few months: I get to start thinking critically about the material I've been digesting. (I figure) this type of thought is essential both for acquiring a comprehensive understanding of the various areas of law and for determining whether this is actually the profession to which I want to dedicate myself. Still, this isn't a very pleasant academic exercise for me, because I'm not as intellectual as many of y'all. So, as a veritable compromise, I'm gonna start with a more palatable topic of discussion: affirmative action. (Trust me, AA is about 50x more interesting than debating the merits of, say, diversity jurisdiction.) My professor posed to our class a few questions to ponder in between games of beer pong, so I'll use them as this post's springboard.
First, a premise: we are only talking about state-sponsored AA. In other words, don't count on that laissez-faire trump card to bail you out on this one, haha.
1. Is there justification for AA if it harms innocent individuals?
Okay, we discussed this one in class. First, there was debate over whether AA does in fact "harm" an Innocent. (In the interests of efficiency and clarity, I'm going to turn "innocent" into a proper noun to denote "an innocent individual." Forgive my laziness, mkay?) Let's just assume arguendo that AA does inherently harm Innocents.* Most had no problem saying that the fact that AA harms Innocents does not by itself suffice to defeat the policy. In supporting this claim, they pointed to** examples such as a general tax that supports welfare, or a law that bans 14 year olds from driving. While those examples won't be completely analogous, they each demonstrate an instance in which an Innocent is sacrificed. In the words of one of my fellow 1L's, "good luck finding a law that won't harm any innocents."
Well, I originally nodded my head in assent when he made that pithy assertion, but now I'm not so sure. Admittedly, laws discriminate all the time. The drinking age discriminates against those under 21, e.g. Surely, that potential 20 year old drinker is an Innocent, and yet he suffers. But, what about Criminal Law? How does a "thou shall not rape" law harm an Innocent?
That said, even I must concede that laws must be permitted to harm an individual (that is, take away some of an individual's liberties) for the sake of the people. For example, our 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion are constrained. You can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theatre.*** If your religion requires you to sacrifice human virgins, guess what: you can't do that.
So, to this point all we've said is that a law that does harm Innocents should not be prima facie unconstitutional. Now, let's decide whether AA specifically should be legitimate. (I'm attempting to avoid the word "constitutional" because this is a normative discussion that's doing its best to steer clear of actual law.)
See, my initial reaction is this: AA benefits one race at the expense of another race. (To keep this simple, let's just assume that there are only 2 races in America.) AA in any form is a type of discrimination (we'll call it "benign discrimination"). Public discrimination should be illegal. Therefore, public AA should be illegal. Obviously, the logic here is valid, but is it sound? Our first premise is true: both sides agree that AA is a type of discrimination in that it uses race alone to privilege one group over another. So, let's move on to the second premise.
"Public discrimination should be illegal." True? Well, maybe not. This all depends on your opinion of the proper function of a government. If the government should merely protect its citizens equally and apply the laws equally to all citizens, then this premise is true. But, if you prefer a more "activist" government (sorry for the potentially loaded language), you'll say something like this:
"In light of the sorry history of discrimination and its devastating impact on the lives of Negroes, bringing the Negro into the mainsteram of American life should be a state interest of the highest order." (Justice Marshall dissenting in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).)
...and y'know, it's tough to argue with that. I mean, think about it like this: if a black could prove that he personally had been harmed as a result of state-sponsored discrimination (Jim Crow, perhaps), wouldn't the government have a duty to make amends? Wouldn't the most effective means of amends be something like a "boost" in his college application rather than something like a lump sum of money? (Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day...)
Okay, now does that black person even need to prove that discrimination has personally touched his life? In the words of Marshall, "the racism of our society has been so pervasive that [no Negro], regardless of wealth or position, has managed to escape its impact." Neither proof nor a demonstration of "personal" harm should be necessary.
But, is it fair that this boost comes at the expense of a white student? One may claim that the hurt is so diffused that it's barely noticeable, but I disagree. A tax on everyone in order to pay for the rebuilding efforts in NOLA: that's something that's spread out sufficiently. Everyone pays $5, and the country has $10 million to use. (No, I don't like the tax, that's irrelevant for this purpose.) With AA, you only hurt those 5 white students who lose out to the 5 black students, but you hurt those 5 whites a lot. Looking on a "micro" level, this seems too unfair to justify AA. On a "macro" level, maybe you can justify the program. I'm still unsure about this.
So, hypothetically we allow AA, at least until general racial discrimination in America has vanished. But, is that a workable test? How will we know when general racial discrimination has vanished? Will we just "know it when we see it?" In theory, we'll one day become a fully integrated and equal society. At that point, we would have absolutely no justifications for AA, so to continue an AA program once we crossed that threshold would be wrong. When will we know when to stop?
Then again, how pressing of a concern is that, honestly. So in 100 years, we'll reach a point where blacks will be benefitting unfairly from an AA program until enough whites figure it out and the program gets repealed. This is a pretty minor problem in the grand scheme of things.
Returning back to Marshall's (first cited) quote, we seem to have reached the point where we agree that integrating blacks is a "state interest." That doesn't make it inherently legal, however. (Now I'm shifting the debate from "should we have AA?" to "is it legal to have AA?") For example, it's a legitimate state interest to stop murders, but that doesn't mean that the government can take your gun from you. Depending on the type of right that the governmental action is burdening, the Supreme Court will analyze the case in one of multiple ways.
Here comes a lesson in constitutional law, which, it turns out, is significantly harder than my undergrad prof made it out to be, haha.
The 14th Amendment reads in part that "[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis added, of course.)
That last part of the quoted material is known as the "equal protection clause," and it's a major source of controversy. It's also a major tool used by minorities to obtain legal protection. A few things to note: the Amendment says "no state"; it makes no reference to private parties or to the United States federal government. That said, the Supreme Court held in 1954 in Bolling v. Sharpe that the 14th Amendment does apply, at least loosely, to the federal government.****
Also, don't read this Amendment too literally. You can still classify people...laws do that all the time. In general, the classification need only have a "rational basis" in order to pass constitutional muster. This is a pretty low hurdle to clear.
So, we had a lot of jurisprudence on all parts of the 14th Amendment, and I won't bore you with the details. Then, in 1938, a case called Carolene comes along. No one besides Kate Wagner remembers any of the facts, but everyone knows about its famous "Footnote 4", in which (the law clerk for) Justice Stone suggests in a footnote that maybe there are certain "suspect classifications" (such as "discrete and insular" minorities) that the Court should examine especially closely. His reasoning? These minorities will rarely, if ever, have a political majority, so it's more likely that they will be hurt disproportionately by any laws. As opposed to the "rational basis test" employed for other classifications, the Court proceeded to use "strict scrutiny" when considering laws that classified on the basis of race.
What does "strict scrutiny" mean? Well, the law may still survive, but it's gonna be damn near impossible. In order for the law to survive strict scrutiny, it must address a "compelling state interest" and its means must be narrowly tailored and sufficiently relate to the purpose.
Let me give you some examples: a state law that sets the driving age at 16 is not based on a suspect classification. Therefore, it just needs to clear the "rational basis" hurdle, which it'll do easily. On the other hand, a law that prohibits interracial marriage will be struck down because this governmental interest isn't sufficiently compelling. A law that prohibits dissent in the interest of winning a war is a bit trickier: the governmental interest is sufficiently compelling, but the means are not sufficiently related to the purpose. (In case you're wondering, the Court gives us little guidance as to what it considers "sufficiently compelling.")
The Court has no problem applying Strict Scrutiny to cases in which minorities are targeted. When the majority is targeted (as in the case of AA), the Court recently held that yes, Strict Scrutiny does apply here as well. Take my word for it or read City of Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989). (I can't be sure whether this is the last word, though, cuz we haven't yet read the recent AA cases, but a cursory glance suggests that SS still stands.)
So, now we have a pretty straightforward formula to employ. I've already maintained that the state interest in integration is compelling. Whether the means are narrowly tailored and sufficiently related depends on the individual cases, but I'd suggest that AA is indeed sufficiently related to the goal of integration.
CliffsNotes of where I come out: Within reason, governments have the right to harm individuals for the betterment of the group. I'm still not sure whether AA itself achieves enough positives to outweigh the negatives of hurting those 5 innocent white students. I do think that AA will generally be constitutional, but it'll depend on the specific setup of the program.
Thanks for reading. Now, respond.
*One girl suggested that, since Innocents have had preferential treatment beforehand, they're not harmed per se. I couldn't follow her reasoning, though. Pulling someone down doesn't hurt that person simply because he previously had been boosted up? Wat?
**To be completely honest, there will be many times in this post where I'll claim that my classmates "said" something when in reality they didn't. In other words, to facilitate the discussion, I'll be putting words in my peers' mouths (in their defense, you'd be reticent too if you were put on the spot in the last class before spring break. Well, unless you're Ryan, haha).
***When you inevitably quote this part of the memorable Oliver Wendell Holmes opinion some time in your life, do me a favor and make sure not to omit the word "falsely." You don't want to leave yourself open to an attack from a particularly picky onlooker.
****How did the Court come to this conclusion that seems to contradict a plain reading of the Constitution? It used something called "reverse incorporation." A brief, mostly correct explanation: the Bill of Rights didn't originally apply to the States. They only applied to the federal government. (Read the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...") But, once the 14th Amendment passed, the Justices slowly began to use the Due Process Clause of that Amendment to apply some (but not all) of the original 10 amendments to the State governments. That process is known as "incorporation." Reverse incorporation, then, is applying to the federal government something that previously applied exclusively to the States (like, say, the 14th Amendment). The Court used the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment to achieve this result.
Oh, wait: I'm a 1L. That means that I'll be spending large portions of my spring break outlining for my courses instead of heading to the beach. Working over the holidays? Come On!
On the plus side, I finally get the opportunity to work on something that I've neglected over the last few months: I get to start thinking critically about the material I've been digesting. (I figure) this type of thought is essential both for acquiring a comprehensive understanding of the various areas of law and for determining whether this is actually the profession to which I want to dedicate myself. Still, this isn't a very pleasant academic exercise for me, because I'm not as intellectual as many of y'all. So, as a veritable compromise, I'm gonna start with a more palatable topic of discussion: affirmative action. (Trust me, AA is about 50x more interesting than debating the merits of, say, diversity jurisdiction.) My professor posed to our class a few questions to ponder in between games of beer pong, so I'll use them as this post's springboard.
First, a premise: we are only talking about state-sponsored AA. In other words, don't count on that laissez-faire trump card to bail you out on this one, haha.
1. Is there justification for AA if it harms innocent individuals?
Okay, we discussed this one in class. First, there was debate over whether AA does in fact "harm" an Innocent. (In the interests of efficiency and clarity, I'm going to turn "innocent" into a proper noun to denote "an innocent individual." Forgive my laziness, mkay?) Let's just assume arguendo that AA does inherently harm Innocents.* Most had no problem saying that the fact that AA harms Innocents does not by itself suffice to defeat the policy. In supporting this claim, they pointed to** examples such as a general tax that supports welfare, or a law that bans 14 year olds from driving. While those examples won't be completely analogous, they each demonstrate an instance in which an Innocent is sacrificed. In the words of one of my fellow 1L's, "good luck finding a law that won't harm any innocents."
Well, I originally nodded my head in assent when he made that pithy assertion, but now I'm not so sure. Admittedly, laws discriminate all the time. The drinking age discriminates against those under 21, e.g. Surely, that potential 20 year old drinker is an Innocent, and yet he suffers. But, what about Criminal Law? How does a "thou shall not rape" law harm an Innocent?
That said, even I must concede that laws must be permitted to harm an individual (that is, take away some of an individual's liberties) for the sake of the people. For example, our 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion are constrained. You can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theatre.*** If your religion requires you to sacrifice human virgins, guess what: you can't do that.
So, to this point all we've said is that a law that does harm Innocents should not be prima facie unconstitutional. Now, let's decide whether AA specifically should be legitimate. (I'm attempting to avoid the word "constitutional" because this is a normative discussion that's doing its best to steer clear of actual law.)
See, my initial reaction is this: AA benefits one race at the expense of another race. (To keep this simple, let's just assume that there are only 2 races in America.) AA in any form is a type of discrimination (we'll call it "benign discrimination"). Public discrimination should be illegal. Therefore, public AA should be illegal. Obviously, the logic here is valid, but is it sound? Our first premise is true: both sides agree that AA is a type of discrimination in that it uses race alone to privilege one group over another. So, let's move on to the second premise.
"Public discrimination should be illegal." True? Well, maybe not. This all depends on your opinion of the proper function of a government. If the government should merely protect its citizens equally and apply the laws equally to all citizens, then this premise is true. But, if you prefer a more "activist" government (sorry for the potentially loaded language), you'll say something like this:
"In light of the sorry history of discrimination and its devastating impact on the lives of Negroes, bringing the Negro into the mainsteram of American life should be a state interest of the highest order." (Justice Marshall dissenting in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).)
...and y'know, it's tough to argue with that. I mean, think about it like this: if a black could prove that he personally had been harmed as a result of state-sponsored discrimination (Jim Crow, perhaps), wouldn't the government have a duty to make amends? Wouldn't the most effective means of amends be something like a "boost" in his college application rather than something like a lump sum of money? (Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day...)
Okay, now does that black person even need to prove that discrimination has personally touched his life? In the words of Marshall, "the racism of our society has been so pervasive that [no Negro], regardless of wealth or position, has managed to escape its impact." Neither proof nor a demonstration of "personal" harm should be necessary.
But, is it fair that this boost comes at the expense of a white student? One may claim that the hurt is so diffused that it's barely noticeable, but I disagree. A tax on everyone in order to pay for the rebuilding efforts in NOLA: that's something that's spread out sufficiently. Everyone pays $5, and the country has $10 million to use. (No, I don't like the tax, that's irrelevant for this purpose.) With AA, you only hurt those 5 white students who lose out to the 5 black students, but you hurt those 5 whites a lot. Looking on a "micro" level, this seems too unfair to justify AA. On a "macro" level, maybe you can justify the program. I'm still unsure about this.
So, hypothetically we allow AA, at least until general racial discrimination in America has vanished. But, is that a workable test? How will we know when general racial discrimination has vanished? Will we just "know it when we see it?" In theory, we'll one day become a fully integrated and equal society. At that point, we would have absolutely no justifications for AA, so to continue an AA program once we crossed that threshold would be wrong. When will we know when to stop?
Then again, how pressing of a concern is that, honestly. So in 100 years, we'll reach a point where blacks will be benefitting unfairly from an AA program until enough whites figure it out and the program gets repealed. This is a pretty minor problem in the grand scheme of things.
Returning back to Marshall's (first cited) quote, we seem to have reached the point where we agree that integrating blacks is a "state interest." That doesn't make it inherently legal, however. (Now I'm shifting the debate from "should we have AA?" to "is it legal to have AA?") For example, it's a legitimate state interest to stop murders, but that doesn't mean that the government can take your gun from you. Depending on the type of right that the governmental action is burdening, the Supreme Court will analyze the case in one of multiple ways.
Here comes a lesson in constitutional law, which, it turns out, is significantly harder than my undergrad prof made it out to be, haha.
The 14th Amendment reads in part that "[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis added, of course.)
That last part of the quoted material is known as the "equal protection clause," and it's a major source of controversy. It's also a major tool used by minorities to obtain legal protection. A few things to note: the Amendment says "no state"; it makes no reference to private parties or to the United States federal government. That said, the Supreme Court held in 1954 in Bolling v. Sharpe that the 14th Amendment does apply, at least loosely, to the federal government.****
Also, don't read this Amendment too literally. You can still classify people...laws do that all the time. In general, the classification need only have a "rational basis" in order to pass constitutional muster. This is a pretty low hurdle to clear.
So, we had a lot of jurisprudence on all parts of the 14th Amendment, and I won't bore you with the details. Then, in 1938, a case called Carolene comes along. No one besides Kate Wagner remembers any of the facts, but everyone knows about its famous "Footnote 4", in which (the law clerk for) Justice Stone suggests in a footnote that maybe there are certain "suspect classifications" (such as "discrete and insular" minorities) that the Court should examine especially closely. His reasoning? These minorities will rarely, if ever, have a political majority, so it's more likely that they will be hurt disproportionately by any laws. As opposed to the "rational basis test" employed for other classifications, the Court proceeded to use "strict scrutiny" when considering laws that classified on the basis of race.
What does "strict scrutiny" mean? Well, the law may still survive, but it's gonna be damn near impossible. In order for the law to survive strict scrutiny, it must address a "compelling state interest" and its means must be narrowly tailored and sufficiently relate to the purpose.
Let me give you some examples: a state law that sets the driving age at 16 is not based on a suspect classification. Therefore, it just needs to clear the "rational basis" hurdle, which it'll do easily. On the other hand, a law that prohibits interracial marriage will be struck down because this governmental interest isn't sufficiently compelling. A law that prohibits dissent in the interest of winning a war is a bit trickier: the governmental interest is sufficiently compelling, but the means are not sufficiently related to the purpose. (In case you're wondering, the Court gives us little guidance as to what it considers "sufficiently compelling.")
The Court has no problem applying Strict Scrutiny to cases in which minorities are targeted. When the majority is targeted (as in the case of AA), the Court recently held that yes, Strict Scrutiny does apply here as well. Take my word for it or read City of Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989). (I can't be sure whether this is the last word, though, cuz we haven't yet read the recent AA cases, but a cursory glance suggests that SS still stands.)
So, now we have a pretty straightforward formula to employ. I've already maintained that the state interest in integration is compelling. Whether the means are narrowly tailored and sufficiently related depends on the individual cases, but I'd suggest that AA is indeed sufficiently related to the goal of integration.
CliffsNotes of where I come out: Within reason, governments have the right to harm individuals for the betterment of the group. I'm still not sure whether AA itself achieves enough positives to outweigh the negatives of hurting those 5 innocent white students. I do think that AA will generally be constitutional, but it'll depend on the specific setup of the program.
Thanks for reading. Now, respond.
*One girl suggested that, since Innocents have had preferential treatment beforehand, they're not harmed per se. I couldn't follow her reasoning, though. Pulling someone down doesn't hurt that person simply because he previously had been boosted up? Wat?
**To be completely honest, there will be many times in this post where I'll claim that my classmates "said" something when in reality they didn't. In other words, to facilitate the discussion, I'll be putting words in my peers' mouths (in their defense, you'd be reticent too if you were put on the spot in the last class before spring break. Well, unless you're Ryan, haha).
***When you inevitably quote this part of the memorable Oliver Wendell Holmes opinion some time in your life, do me a favor and make sure not to omit the word "falsely." You don't want to leave yourself open to an attack from a particularly picky onlooker.
****How did the Court come to this conclusion that seems to contradict a plain reading of the Constitution? It used something called "reverse incorporation." A brief, mostly correct explanation: the Bill of Rights didn't originally apply to the States. They only applied to the federal government. (Read the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...") But, once the 14th Amendment passed, the Justices slowly began to use the Due Process Clause of that Amendment to apply some (but not all) of the original 10 amendments to the State governments. That process is known as "incorporation." Reverse incorporation, then, is applying to the federal government something that previously applied exclusively to the States (like, say, the 14th Amendment). The Court used the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment to achieve this result.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Sports Talk
Maybe you've heard that some athletes (baseball players, sprinters, etc.) have taken performance-enhancing drugs in their pursuit of perfection. I dunno, it's not a big story or anything, but it was in the news a bit over the last few years. Anyways, after most revelations (Rafael Palmeiro, for instance), I've tended to raise an eyebrow but also shrug my shoulders. I mean, we all knew that this underground cheating occurred...who cares if a semi-famous ex-Cub best known for his killer mustache got an edge? Yeah, it's disappointing and deplorable, but I'm not gonna lose sleep over it.
That said, there are some players who could just break my heart if it were ever revealed that they were users. You know what I'm talking about: as cynical as we spectators may be--especially with the recent revelations about Tim Donaghy and Spygate--there will always be athletes whom you idolize, not just for their accomplishments but also for their respect for the game. To that end, I came up with a roster of ten players who would devastate me if it were ever shown or proven that they had doped. When formulating this list, I did my best to consider a wide range of sports, even though steroid allegations dominate only a few games. I also limited this to athletes of my generation.
Also Receiving Votes: Roger Federer, Josh Hamilton, Michael Phelps, Andre Agassi, Tony Gwynn
10. Lance Armstrong: An easy pick whom most persons would have higher (or should I say, "lower"?) on their lists. If I cared at all about cycling, I'd probably feel the same way. You know his story by now, so let's move on.
9. Barry Sanders: He's pure talent...it'd be a shame if it were ever shown otherwise.
8. Cal Ripken, Jr: Okay, you caught me, I kinda had him at #8 by default. Still, he definitely deserves the Top 10; although the significance of his record remains debated, he played in over 2,000 consecutive games. What's more, he played well (400+ HR's, 3000+ hits). If he had illegal help in outlasting the Iron Horse, it would be a tragic blow for baseball purists.
7. Roger Clemens: Oh, wait.
6. Greg Maddux: Ahh, that's better. Mad Dog is easily the most cerebral pitcher I've ever seen play. (Don't believe me? Read this article. Actually, read it regardless.) He didn't need 100 mph fastballs to get out of a jam; he just out-thought you. It's virtually impossible that Maddux ever doped, if only because he had no need to, but he had so much respect for the history of baseball that it'd be tragic (and inconceivable) if he were to tarnish it.
5. Walter "Sweetness" Payton: Possibly the most beloved Chicago athlete ever (yes, that includes a certain #23), Sweetness had the workhorse mentality that led to ferocious off-season training. In fact, a hill in my hometown bears his name because Sweetness ran up the 92 foot elevation as often as 20 times per day (citation). Plus, he had more toughness than entire teams: for instance, he deliberately refused to run out-of-bounds, even in practice. Chicago takes so much pride in #34 that a steroid accusation would cause riots.
4. Tiger Woods: You want tough as nails? Give me Tiger Woods. Give me the 2008 U.S. Open, playing on a torn ACL AND a fractured leg. He's a hero to (professional and amateur) athletes everywhere. When you consider the fact that he has served as an unimpeachable role model for young golfers around the world, you realize how badly a steroid charge would damage his sport.
3. Michael Jeffrey Jordan: Self-explanatory.
2. Michael Johnson: 43.18. 19.32. Any questions?
1. Junior: No sport suffers from steroid allegations as much as baseball. In its fight to remain relevant with a new generation, baseball can't offer the pure athleticism showcased in the NBA or the ever-present drama of the NFL. Baseball relies on its place in history as a way to remain relevant. No other sport can compare the legends of your grandfather's era to today's superstars in quite the way that baseball can. We cared so much about McGwire and Sosa in 1998 because they were chasing records that had survived for decades (I pluralize "records" because we care as much about Ruth's 60 as Maris' 61). Each generation of baseball has its own quirks (a "dead ball", for instance, or a higher pitching mound), but fans can generally compare and contrast Babe Ruth with Mickey Mantle, Henry Aaron, and Albert Pujols. But, if the "Steroid Era" captures the brightest lights of our generation, those stars will be incomparable to their predecessors. Baseball will lose much of its history, and, by extension, will lose much of its allure.
Okay, so that's why I put a baseball player at the top of the list. Why The Kid? Gosh, he's just so pure. That sweet swing, that backwards hat, that speed and defense. Kids in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Boston all had Mariners jerseys, back before they even knew where to find Seattle on a map. He's the player you'd pretend to be when you were at-bat in Little League. Anyone else remember seeing the highlights of that up-the-wall catch in Yankee Stadium? What about the back-to-back home runs with his dad? Griffey's got 600 home runs and 10 gold gloves, and he played the game with the respect and honor it deserves. We all grew up idolizing Griffey; in some ways, he's our last player left. Bonds, McGwire, Sosa--they've all been tainted forever. If we lost The Kid, too...
That said, there are some players who could just break my heart if it were ever revealed that they were users. You know what I'm talking about: as cynical as we spectators may be--especially with the recent revelations about Tim Donaghy and Spygate--there will always be athletes whom you idolize, not just for their accomplishments but also for their respect for the game. To that end, I came up with a roster of ten players who would devastate me if it were ever shown or proven that they had doped. When formulating this list, I did my best to consider a wide range of sports, even though steroid allegations dominate only a few games. I also limited this to athletes of my generation.
Also Receiving Votes: Roger Federer, Josh Hamilton, Michael Phelps, Andre Agassi, Tony Gwynn
10. Lance Armstrong: An easy pick whom most persons would have higher (or should I say, "lower"?) on their lists. If I cared at all about cycling, I'd probably feel the same way. You know his story by now, so let's move on.
9. Barry Sanders: He's pure talent...it'd be a shame if it were ever shown otherwise.
8. Cal Ripken, Jr: Okay, you caught me, I kinda had him at #8 by default. Still, he definitely deserves the Top 10; although the significance of his record remains debated, he played in over 2,000 consecutive games. What's more, he played well (400+ HR's, 3000+ hits). If he had illegal help in outlasting the Iron Horse, it would be a tragic blow for baseball purists.
7. Roger Clemens: Oh, wait.
6. Greg Maddux: Ahh, that's better. Mad Dog is easily the most cerebral pitcher I've ever seen play. (Don't believe me? Read this article. Actually, read it regardless.) He didn't need 100 mph fastballs to get out of a jam; he just out-thought you. It's virtually impossible that Maddux ever doped, if only because he had no need to, but he had so much respect for the history of baseball that it'd be tragic (and inconceivable) if he were to tarnish it.
5. Walter "Sweetness" Payton: Possibly the most beloved Chicago athlete ever (yes, that includes a certain #23), Sweetness had the workhorse mentality that led to ferocious off-season training. In fact, a hill in my hometown bears his name because Sweetness ran up the 92 foot elevation as often as 20 times per day (citation). Plus, he had more toughness than entire teams: for instance, he deliberately refused to run out-of-bounds, even in practice. Chicago takes so much pride in #34 that a steroid accusation would cause riots.
4. Tiger Woods: You want tough as nails? Give me Tiger Woods. Give me the 2008 U.S. Open, playing on a torn ACL AND a fractured leg. He's a hero to (professional and amateur) athletes everywhere. When you consider the fact that he has served as an unimpeachable role model for young golfers around the world, you realize how badly a steroid charge would damage his sport.
3. Michael Jeffrey Jordan: Self-explanatory.
2. Michael Johnson: 43.18. 19.32. Any questions?
1. Junior: No sport suffers from steroid allegations as much as baseball. In its fight to remain relevant with a new generation, baseball can't offer the pure athleticism showcased in the NBA or the ever-present drama of the NFL. Baseball relies on its place in history as a way to remain relevant. No other sport can compare the legends of your grandfather's era to today's superstars in quite the way that baseball can. We cared so much about McGwire and Sosa in 1998 because they were chasing records that had survived for decades (I pluralize "records" because we care as much about Ruth's 60 as Maris' 61). Each generation of baseball has its own quirks (a "dead ball", for instance, or a higher pitching mound), but fans can generally compare and contrast Babe Ruth with Mickey Mantle, Henry Aaron, and Albert Pujols. But, if the "Steroid Era" captures the brightest lights of our generation, those stars will be incomparable to their predecessors. Baseball will lose much of its history, and, by extension, will lose much of its allure.
Okay, so that's why I put a baseball player at the top of the list. Why The Kid? Gosh, he's just so pure. That sweet swing, that backwards hat, that speed and defense. Kids in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Boston all had Mariners jerseys, back before they even knew where to find Seattle on a map. He's the player you'd pretend to be when you were at-bat in Little League. Anyone else remember seeing the highlights of that up-the-wall catch in Yankee Stadium? What about the back-to-back home runs with his dad? Griffey's got 600 home runs and 10 gold gloves, and he played the game with the respect and honor it deserves. We all grew up idolizing Griffey; in some ways, he's our last player left. Bonds, McGwire, Sosa--they've all been tainted forever. If we lost The Kid, too...
Monday, February 2, 2009
Good or Better?
"Deep inside every human being is the yearning to be self-motivated rather than controlled by rewards, authority, or some other aspect of the external environment." (From Supermotivation by Dean R. Spitzer)
Growing up, we spent a lot of time trying to get good. Why'd you practice the piano? Why'd you spend those hours juggling a soccer ball? To get good, of course. Maybe you wanted to get as good as Beethoven or Ronaldinho (though, from what I hear, Beethoven couldn't play soccer to save his life), but you likely weren't motivated by a desire to best anyone. You wanted to improve, to make it to a point where you could impress your friends, and that required attaining a certain level of skill. These days, though, it seems to make little difference whether you're good or bad at various skills and challenges: it only matters whether you're better or worse.
Law school exemplifies this new development. With every major course on a mandatory curve, you could conceivably earn the highest grades without much absolute knowledge of the topic...so long as your ignorance paled in comparison to your peers'. This sentiment manifest itself in the oft-repeated joke--if you can call it that--heard reverberating through the venerable halls of UT Law: "Think of the law school as a bear, and think of your classmates as fellow campers. To survive, you don't need to outrun the bear; you just need to outrun enough of your classmates."
The relative merits of the curve system have been debated at length, and I have no interest in reinvigorating this discussion. (Nor should you take my example as either an endorsement or a criticism of the sytem.) Rather, what aggravates me, to a point, is the universality of this theme of "betterment." Want a job? Be better than the other candidates. Want a date? Be better than the other suitors. Want to win in sports, poker, or backgammon? Be better than your opponent. Whatever happened to the pursuit of an absolute, rather than a relative, mastery of a skill or subject? Did this pursuit ever genuinely exist in the first place?
A few acknowledgements before I proceed:
Yes, I realize that you can avoid getting caught up in the various competitions simply by becoming perfect (Francisco D'Anconia, anyone?). If you achieve total mastery, you will succeed or win without ever needing glance at your competitiors. That is so unrealistic a scenario that I feel comfortable dismissing it.
Yes, I realize that you can reframe my piano and soccer examples so that the player is not attempting to achieve a certain level of skill but rather is trying to become better than his former self. At the risk of dismissing this quibble too flippantly, you're rarely competing with only yourself for that summer job.
Yes, I referenced Ronaldinho just so I could put a link to that Joga Bonito commercial. Speaking of which, who's that old man with the unintelligible accent? Well, before he did TV ads, he did this (oh, and this).
Back when I spent more time playing poker, I had virtually no competitive streak. I derived little to no joy from winning a game of Horse or racquetball. For better or worse, poker had stripped me of this type of satisfaction. It makes sense, obviously: the correct plays in a game of poker are rewarded so infrequently and sporadically (due to the luck involved) that a player with the immediate goal of "winning" will almost certainly go broke. Of course, it's not as though I could no longer get anything out of a sport or game. Rather, I took delight in performing as perfectly as possible. In poker, this just means making the mathematically correct move at every opportunity. In a game like racquetball, it might mean making proper decisions regarding where and when to hit the ball. For example, if in a normal game of racquetball I made the proper decision 80% of the time, I'd be happy if I made the proper decision >80% of the time. My contentment varied directly and proportionally to the percentage of correct decisions.** What had no influence on my happiness, of course, was the outcome of the game. This makes sense: if you were to play Michael Jordan in basketball, you'd lose every game. You simply would have no way of beating him. If you derive happiness only from victories, you have no control whatsoever over your happiness. Your efforts, your decision-making, etc, are wholly squandered as a result.
This mindset kept me pretty loose and carefree throughout college, but it did have some weird side effects. I'd find myself watching a Bears game and they'd miss a last-second FG to win and I'd just think, "eh, Gould hits that 80% of the time, so in the long run they won this game." It wasn't a rationalization, either; I just had no concern for the outcome. In poker terms, I was the opposite of "results-oriented." While it occasionally led to bizarre scenarios, I relished this mindset because it had the effect of making an emotion (happiness) slightly more rational. Happiness could almost be quantified. Moreover, I alone controlled my success/failure (and, consequently, my happiness). Admittedly, the basketball court is only a small portion of my life, and thus a small portion of my happiness, but it was a start.
Law school changed this in me, unfortunately. With so much emphasis on grades and internships, I regressed to my competitive state of mind. This change manifest itself in sports, as well: in September, I just wanted to play well in racquetball. By November, I wanted to win.
These days, I find it more and more difficult to enjoy my successes (and not just because they occur less and less frequently, haha). I don't feel as though I've earned them. For example, let's pretend that I got a 4.0 this semester. (Those of you who've heard my story about my Contracts grade know that this counterfactual is, indeed, counterfactual and not a veiled brag.) From where should my satsfaction come? The 'A' I receive only reflects that I did better than the majority.* It says nothing about my absolute understanding of the material. It certainly can't measure how hard I worked, or how inherently intelligent I am with respect to Criminal or Contract Law. Plus, in certain classes, the difference between an A and a B+ will only be a few points. This makes sense, because if you put a group of similarly-equipped students in a room and instruct them identically, they will absorb approximately the same amount of material. Receiving a 4.0 across the board makes it less likely that any one grade is a fluke, but even if I'm undeniably the "best" in my section, what does that mean? I still may have no grasp of much of the major concepts; hell, our Contracts professor made it very clear that were there no curve, most of us would not pass her class. Maybe I just write the best under pressure. Maybe I can comprehend the introductory ideas but will struggle in upper-level courses. Grades, those omniscient, objective evaluators, don't do much of a job of evaluating me.
I certainly don't condemn the law school for its curve. Furthermore, I realize that competition deserves a prominent spot in our society. When we apply for jobs, for instance, we all have that baseline required acumen. Without ranking each candidate against the others, it'd be impossible to determine who should be hired. Better to compete than to leave such an important decision in the hands of an arbitrary decision-maker. Maybe that's a peaceful compromise: make absolute mastery a priority, and resort to relative mastery only as a tiebreaker. (I don't purport to have any answers...I'm just thinking aloud.)
*I want to make it unequivocally clear that I have tons of respect for the intelligence and academic discipline that most of my classmates possess. While I personally don't get much satisfaction out of "bettering" anyone, it'd be a tremendous compliment to succeed relative to the extremely capable men and women who take my classes.
**At first blush, it may seem easy to make a correct decision nearly 100% of the time. In a game of spades, for instance, unless you've lost your self-discipline you play the card that you think has the best chance of achieving your objective. So, you've made a bona fide attempt to make the correct decision nearly 100% of the time. Good faith, however, isn't good enough. Ex: I lead a diamond because I feel that it's my best chance to win. My opponent trumps and wins the trick. I made a good faith attempt, so what's the problem? Well, if I reasonably should've known that my opponent had no diamonds left (if we had previously played 3 diamond tricks in which the diamonds held, and if I had 1 diamond in my hand), I'm at fault for that error. The analogy holds, albeit tentatively, when applied to sports.
Growing up, we spent a lot of time trying to get good. Why'd you practice the piano? Why'd you spend those hours juggling a soccer ball? To get good, of course. Maybe you wanted to get as good as Beethoven or Ronaldinho (though, from what I hear, Beethoven couldn't play soccer to save his life), but you likely weren't motivated by a desire to best anyone. You wanted to improve, to make it to a point where you could impress your friends, and that required attaining a certain level of skill. These days, though, it seems to make little difference whether you're good or bad at various skills and challenges: it only matters whether you're better or worse.
Law school exemplifies this new development. With every major course on a mandatory curve, you could conceivably earn the highest grades without much absolute knowledge of the topic...so long as your ignorance paled in comparison to your peers'. This sentiment manifest itself in the oft-repeated joke--if you can call it that--heard reverberating through the venerable halls of UT Law: "Think of the law school as a bear, and think of your classmates as fellow campers. To survive, you don't need to outrun the bear; you just need to outrun enough of your classmates."
The relative merits of the curve system have been debated at length, and I have no interest in reinvigorating this discussion. (Nor should you take my example as either an endorsement or a criticism of the sytem.) Rather, what aggravates me, to a point, is the universality of this theme of "betterment." Want a job? Be better than the other candidates. Want a date? Be better than the other suitors. Want to win in sports, poker, or backgammon? Be better than your opponent. Whatever happened to the pursuit of an absolute, rather than a relative, mastery of a skill or subject? Did this pursuit ever genuinely exist in the first place?
A few acknowledgements before I proceed:
Yes, I realize that you can avoid getting caught up in the various competitions simply by becoming perfect (Francisco D'Anconia, anyone?). If you achieve total mastery, you will succeed or win without ever needing glance at your competitiors. That is so unrealistic a scenario that I feel comfortable dismissing it.
Yes, I realize that you can reframe my piano and soccer examples so that the player is not attempting to achieve a certain level of skill but rather is trying to become better than his former self. At the risk of dismissing this quibble too flippantly, you're rarely competing with only yourself for that summer job.
Yes, I referenced Ronaldinho just so I could put a link to that Joga Bonito commercial. Speaking of which, who's that old man with the unintelligible accent? Well, before he did TV ads, he did this (oh, and this).
Back when I spent more time playing poker, I had virtually no competitive streak. I derived little to no joy from winning a game of Horse or racquetball. For better or worse, poker had stripped me of this type of satisfaction. It makes sense, obviously: the correct plays in a game of poker are rewarded so infrequently and sporadically (due to the luck involved) that a player with the immediate goal of "winning" will almost certainly go broke. Of course, it's not as though I could no longer get anything out of a sport or game. Rather, I took delight in performing as perfectly as possible. In poker, this just means making the mathematically correct move at every opportunity. In a game like racquetball, it might mean making proper decisions regarding where and when to hit the ball. For example, if in a normal game of racquetball I made the proper decision 80% of the time, I'd be happy if I made the proper decision >80% of the time. My contentment varied directly and proportionally to the percentage of correct decisions.** What had no influence on my happiness, of course, was the outcome of the game. This makes sense: if you were to play Michael Jordan in basketball, you'd lose every game. You simply would have no way of beating him. If you derive happiness only from victories, you have no control whatsoever over your happiness. Your efforts, your decision-making, etc, are wholly squandered as a result.
This mindset kept me pretty loose and carefree throughout college, but it did have some weird side effects. I'd find myself watching a Bears game and they'd miss a last-second FG to win and I'd just think, "eh, Gould hits that 80% of the time, so in the long run they won this game." It wasn't a rationalization, either; I just had no concern for the outcome. In poker terms, I was the opposite of "results-oriented." While it occasionally led to bizarre scenarios, I relished this mindset because it had the effect of making an emotion (happiness) slightly more rational. Happiness could almost be quantified. Moreover, I alone controlled my success/failure (and, consequently, my happiness). Admittedly, the basketball court is only a small portion of my life, and thus a small portion of my happiness, but it was a start.
Law school changed this in me, unfortunately. With so much emphasis on grades and internships, I regressed to my competitive state of mind. This change manifest itself in sports, as well: in September, I just wanted to play well in racquetball. By November, I wanted to win.
These days, I find it more and more difficult to enjoy my successes (and not just because they occur less and less frequently, haha). I don't feel as though I've earned them. For example, let's pretend that I got a 4.0 this semester. (Those of you who've heard my story about my Contracts grade know that this counterfactual is, indeed, counterfactual and not a veiled brag.) From where should my satsfaction come? The 'A' I receive only reflects that I did better than the majority.* It says nothing about my absolute understanding of the material. It certainly can't measure how hard I worked, or how inherently intelligent I am with respect to Criminal or Contract Law. Plus, in certain classes, the difference between an A and a B+ will only be a few points. This makes sense, because if you put a group of similarly-equipped students in a room and instruct them identically, they will absorb approximately the same amount of material. Receiving a 4.0 across the board makes it less likely that any one grade is a fluke, but even if I'm undeniably the "best" in my section, what does that mean? I still may have no grasp of much of the major concepts; hell, our Contracts professor made it very clear that were there no curve, most of us would not pass her class. Maybe I just write the best under pressure. Maybe I can comprehend the introductory ideas but will struggle in upper-level courses. Grades, those omniscient, objective evaluators, don't do much of a job of evaluating me.
I certainly don't condemn the law school for its curve. Furthermore, I realize that competition deserves a prominent spot in our society. When we apply for jobs, for instance, we all have that baseline required acumen. Without ranking each candidate against the others, it'd be impossible to determine who should be hired. Better to compete than to leave such an important decision in the hands of an arbitrary decision-maker. Maybe that's a peaceful compromise: make absolute mastery a priority, and resort to relative mastery only as a tiebreaker. (I don't purport to have any answers...I'm just thinking aloud.)
*I want to make it unequivocally clear that I have tons of respect for the intelligence and academic discipline that most of my classmates possess. While I personally don't get much satisfaction out of "bettering" anyone, it'd be a tremendous compliment to succeed relative to the extremely capable men and women who take my classes.
**At first blush, it may seem easy to make a correct decision nearly 100% of the time. In a game of spades, for instance, unless you've lost your self-discipline you play the card that you think has the best chance of achieving your objective. So, you've made a bona fide attempt to make the correct decision nearly 100% of the time. Good faith, however, isn't good enough. Ex: I lead a diamond because I feel that it's my best chance to win. My opponent trumps and wins the trick. I made a good faith attempt, so what's the problem? Well, if I reasonably should've known that my opponent had no diamonds left (if we had previously played 3 diamond tricks in which the diamonds held, and if I had 1 diamond in my hand), I'm at fault for that error. The analogy holds, albeit tentatively, when applied to sports.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Dancing Between (Acid) Raindrops
I returned to Austin on Sunday. While it's great to be back in a climate that considers 50 degrees unseasonably cool, I've been pretty bored since touching down. So, what's the cure for boredom? Socializing, meeting new people, etc. What's my "cure" for boredom? Playing online poker, of course! I've been downswinging* recently, so I felt extra pressure to right the ship this week, before I hafta start borrowing money from Russian mobsters. Late into my afternoon session, this hand comes up. (I changed the names of the players mostly for the sake of simplicity.) I could just throw the hand history up here without any explanation, but that wouldn't do it justice. Instead, I'll insert remarks throughout the hand history to explain my equity, thought process, etc.
Regarding this hand: the thought process is typical, the gameplay is typical, and the outcome is typical. The only thing remarkable is the way in which the outcome occurred.
First, though: why "acid" raindrops? Cuz of this song...check it out.
POKERSTARS GAME #23840203616: HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($1/$2) - 2009/01/12 16:48:07 CT [2009/01/12 17:48:07 ET]
Table 'Menkib IX' 9-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: Aaron ($260.25 in chips)
Seat 2: Billy ($200 in chips)
Seat 3: Carl ($218.70 in chips)
Seat 4: Dave ($142.90 in chips)
Seat 5: Eddie ($288 in chips)
Seat 6: Frank ($230.60 in chips)
Seat 8: Gary ($200 in chips)
Seat 9: Hank ($157.05 in chips)
Gary: posts small blind $1
Hank: posts big blind $2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Billy [Kc Kh]
Aaron: folds
Billy: raises $4 to $6
This is the standard raise for this level...if we were playing live in Vegas or AC, I'd probably raise to $20 because every single live player is a fish. Online, however, $6 is enough to get some folds.
Carl: folds
Dave: calls $6
Dave has less than a full stack. (A full stack--ie, the maximum buy-in--for this table is 100 big blinds, or $200 in this case.) That's one of the best indicators that Dave is a fish--an amateur who generally will play more starting hands and play them more passively than a regular would. If you're a good player, you buy in full, because you (theoretically) have an edge at the table. If you have an edge, you want to maximize that edge by putting as much money in play as possible. Also, having a full buy-in allows you to get creative with bluffs, implied odds, and other semi-advanced concepts that an amateur doesn't fully understand. If good-->buy-in full. The contrapositive, of course, is true.
So, I'm definitely happy to see Dave call. I'm hoping he has something like JJ or AJ; that way, he might flop a hand (like a pair of jacks) that he views as strong enough to "play for stacks" (eventually bet all his money) but that still loses to my pair of kings.
Eddie: folds
Frank: folds
Gary: raises $24 to $30
Okay, over the last year or so I've played a few hundred hands against this opponent. He's like me in that he's tight and aggressive: he only plays a few starting hands, but when he plays them, he plays them aggressively. Aggression is essential to success in online poker. If you're passive, you can only win if your cards beat your opponents'. If you play aggressively, you can scare away opponents with inferior holdings in addition to winning with better cards. Of course, untempered aggression is easily exploited...that's where playing tightly comes into play.
Right now, my job is to put Gary on a hand. To do this, I put myself in his shoes. This is a fairly sound approach in this case, because since he plays like I play, it's fair to assume that he thinks similarly as well. Gary may be looking to steal the dead money in the pot. He knows that his raise suggests tremendous strength, especially because he's out-of-position (as small blind in this hand, Gary acts first after the flop, turn, and river). That means that I'll get to see how he reacts to the various community cards; this is a huge advantage for me. As such, Gary would be even more inclined to fold a marginal hand.
On the other hand, there's already $15 in the pot (1+2+6+6)...that's worth stealing. Besides, Gary isn't that worried about Dave. If Dave had a big hand, Dave would've reraised me. So, Gary only is worried about me, basically. He knows that I know that he's tight, so that means that I'll be giving him credit for a strong hand. As such, his steal is more likely to succeed. At this level of online poker, you see these "squeeze plays" fairly commonly. (The name comes from the fact that the original raiser is squeezed between the re-raiser--Gary--and the original caller--Dave--and often ends up folding the best hand of the 3.)
So, back to our original task. What does Gary have? We can't know exactly, so we want to give him a range. Using the above thought process, let's say he has AA, KK, QQ, JJ, or AK. So, how does our hand (KK) stack up against that range? This is a very important part of poker that often gets overlooked. Every novice who watches ESPN knows that AA is 80% to win against KK, or that AK is 30% to win against KK. But memorizing these percentages does very little for you unless you can see your opponent's hole cards. Luckily, there's free software floating around that allows you to calculate your equity (equity just means % to win, essentially) against a range of hands. KK has 62.6% equity against the above range (don't forget that there are more possible combinations of AK than of AA). 62.6 is pretty good for us. If someone offered to flip a coin against you for $400 and your side of the coin was promised to show up nearly 63% of the time, you'd eagerly accept that bet. (Well, unless you're extremely risk averse like my boy Saliya, or if you're working with a limited bankroll, etc.)
So, we're happy to play for stacks. For reasons that would bore you (and require pages of explanation), the best way to proceed is to re-raise (as opposed to calling).
Hank: folds
Billy: raises $48 to $78
We want Dave to go all-in, because we're confident we're beating Dave. If he folds, it's okay but not ideal.
Dave: folds
Damn. Oh, well. We still have Gary. We wouldn't mind a fold from Gary, because that'd allow us to win $38 (the amount of money in the pot that wasn't originally mine) 100% of the time, as opposed to winning $208 (Gary's $200, the big blind's $2, and Dave's $6) 63% of the time. Still, .63 * 208 is greater than $38, so we'd rather see a reraise all in (assuming he'd play JJ the same way he'd play AA...if he'd fold anything but AA in this spot, we'd obviously rather see a fold).
Gary: raises $122 to $200 and is all-in
Sweet.
Billy: calls $122 and is all-in
We've done our job...we've gotten it in good (ie, as a favorite). Now it's in the hands of the poker gods.
*** FLOP *** [Jd 7h Td]
Okay, that's not a great flop. JJ is crushing us now, obviously. QQ is still in big trouble. KK is freerolling. Freerolling means that you can't lose the pot, but you can still win it. In this case, if Gary has KK, he and I are gonna chop (split the pot) unless he goes running diamonds (if the next two cards are diamonds), because that'd give him a diamond flush (we know he has the Kd because we don't). If he has AA, we're still in big trouble. If he has AK, the most likely hand he could have, he has 7 cards that'll win him the pot (4 Q's for a straight, 3 A's for a better pair), giving him approximately a 30% chance to win. Of course, he could also have a diamond (or two), which would improve his odds.
So, what's our equity at this point? 50.2%. We're officially coinflipping for $400, boys and girls.
*** TURN *** [Jd 7h Td] [7d]
Ugh, a 3rd diamond. This doesn't immediately change anything unless he has AdKd, but the general rule is that if a card doesn't help you, then it hurts you. If Gary has QsQd, he now has 10 cards that'll win for him (8 diamonds and 2 Q's). If he has KK, he has about a 20% chance to scoop the pot (take it all) and I have a 0% chance to scoop. Worse, if Gary has AK with a diamond, he has 14 ways to win, giving him a 32% chance to win.
Our overall equity (against his range, that is)? 47.1%. Now we're slightly worse than a coinflip. We don't want to see an ace, and we definitely don't want to see a diamond (unless it's the Kd, which gives us a nearly unbeatable full house).
*** RIVER *** [Jd 7h Td 7d] [Ad]
Worst card possible. We're now losing to AK. We're losing to KK. We're losing to any QQ that has the Qd. We're losing to JJ. FUCK!
Our equity? 15.8%. So, the only way we can possibly win (assuming our range is accurate) is if Gary has QsQc or QhQs or QhQc. 3 combinations out of, well, a lot. Kiss that money goodbye.
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Gary: shows [Qc Qs] (two pair, Queens and Sevens)
Hallelujah!
Billy: shows [Kc Kh] (two pair, Kings and Sevens)
Billy collected $405 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $408 | Rake $3
Board [Jd 7h Td 7d Ad]
Seat 1: Aaron folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: Billy showed [Kc Kh] and won ($405) with two pair, Kings and Sevens
Seat 3: Carl folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: Dave folded before Flop
Seat 5: Eddie folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Frank (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: Gary (small blind) showed [Qc Qs] and lost with two pair, Queens and Sevens
Seat 9: Hank (big blind) folded before Flop
So, we escaped. Phew. The discussion of equity throughout the hand is a bit misleading. Don't think that, just because our equity was junk by the end of the hand, that we played the hand poorly. When the money went in, we had sufficient equity to feel good about our play. This is the only metric that matters. Also, this hand discussion was a bit academic; my toughest opponents and I think like that throughout the games, undoubtedly, but it's an unwritten rule that a player will never fold KK in that situation. So, this specific situation required little thought on my part. Still, I wanted to go through a bit of discussion because I'm always eager to take the opportunity to defend poker as a game of skill.
*It goes without saying that this isn't my personal graph. The X-axis, by the way, is the number of hands played. Poor Grimstarr...rumor has it that he lost $200k "coinflipping". That is, he and an opponent both agreed to go all-in regardless of their cards. The result of this agreement is that you have 50% equity (assuming your opponent doesn't renege), because your cards and your opponent's cards are random; as a result, you have a veritable coinflip. Players sometimes flip to get unstuck. If someone lost $1000 playing poker, for instance, he might ask an opponent he trusts to flip him for $1000. Poker players are weird like that about money; at the end of the day, you're either up, even, or stuck. If you're stuck, it doesn't matter how stuck you are, so you might as well try to get back to even, assuming your attempt is at least neutral in terms of your expected value.
Regarding this hand: the thought process is typical, the gameplay is typical, and the outcome is typical. The only thing remarkable is the way in which the outcome occurred.
First, though: why "acid" raindrops? Cuz of this song...check it out.
POKERSTARS GAME #23840203616: HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($1/$2) - 2009/01/12 16:48:07 CT [2009/01/12 17:48:07 ET]
Table 'Menkib IX' 9-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: Aaron ($260.25 in chips)
Seat 2: Billy ($200 in chips)
Seat 3: Carl ($218.70 in chips)
Seat 4: Dave ($142.90 in chips)
Seat 5: Eddie ($288 in chips)
Seat 6: Frank ($230.60 in chips)
Seat 8: Gary ($200 in chips)
Seat 9: Hank ($157.05 in chips)
Gary: posts small blind $1
Hank: posts big blind $2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Billy [Kc Kh]
Aaron: folds
Billy: raises $4 to $6
This is the standard raise for this level...if we were playing live in Vegas or AC, I'd probably raise to $20 because every single live player is a fish. Online, however, $6 is enough to get some folds.
Carl: folds
Dave: calls $6
Dave has less than a full stack. (A full stack--ie, the maximum buy-in--for this table is 100 big blinds, or $200 in this case.) That's one of the best indicators that Dave is a fish--an amateur who generally will play more starting hands and play them more passively than a regular would. If you're a good player, you buy in full, because you (theoretically) have an edge at the table. If you have an edge, you want to maximize that edge by putting as much money in play as possible. Also, having a full buy-in allows you to get creative with bluffs, implied odds, and other semi-advanced concepts that an amateur doesn't fully understand. If good-->buy-in full. The contrapositive, of course, is true.
So, I'm definitely happy to see Dave call. I'm hoping he has something like JJ or AJ; that way, he might flop a hand (like a pair of jacks) that he views as strong enough to "play for stacks" (eventually bet all his money) but that still loses to my pair of kings.
Eddie: folds
Frank: folds
Gary: raises $24 to $30
Okay, over the last year or so I've played a few hundred hands against this opponent. He's like me in that he's tight and aggressive: he only plays a few starting hands, but when he plays them, he plays them aggressively. Aggression is essential to success in online poker. If you're passive, you can only win if your cards beat your opponents'. If you play aggressively, you can scare away opponents with inferior holdings in addition to winning with better cards. Of course, untempered aggression is easily exploited...that's where playing tightly comes into play.
Right now, my job is to put Gary on a hand. To do this, I put myself in his shoes. This is a fairly sound approach in this case, because since he plays like I play, it's fair to assume that he thinks similarly as well. Gary may be looking to steal the dead money in the pot. He knows that his raise suggests tremendous strength, especially because he's out-of-position (as small blind in this hand, Gary acts first after the flop, turn, and river). That means that I'll get to see how he reacts to the various community cards; this is a huge advantage for me. As such, Gary would be even more inclined to fold a marginal hand.
On the other hand, there's already $15 in the pot (1+2+6+6)...that's worth stealing. Besides, Gary isn't that worried about Dave. If Dave had a big hand, Dave would've reraised me. So, Gary only is worried about me, basically. He knows that I know that he's tight, so that means that I'll be giving him credit for a strong hand. As such, his steal is more likely to succeed. At this level of online poker, you see these "squeeze plays" fairly commonly. (The name comes from the fact that the original raiser is squeezed between the re-raiser--Gary--and the original caller--Dave--and often ends up folding the best hand of the 3.)
So, back to our original task. What does Gary have? We can't know exactly, so we want to give him a range. Using the above thought process, let's say he has AA, KK, QQ, JJ, or AK. So, how does our hand (KK) stack up against that range? This is a very important part of poker that often gets overlooked. Every novice who watches ESPN knows that AA is 80% to win against KK, or that AK is 30% to win against KK. But memorizing these percentages does very little for you unless you can see your opponent's hole cards. Luckily, there's free software floating around that allows you to calculate your equity (equity just means % to win, essentially) against a range of hands. KK has 62.6% equity against the above range (don't forget that there are more possible combinations of AK than of AA). 62.6 is pretty good for us. If someone offered to flip a coin against you for $400 and your side of the coin was promised to show up nearly 63% of the time, you'd eagerly accept that bet. (Well, unless you're extremely risk averse like my boy Saliya, or if you're working with a limited bankroll, etc.)
So, we're happy to play for stacks. For reasons that would bore you (and require pages of explanation), the best way to proceed is to re-raise (as opposed to calling).
Hank: folds
Billy: raises $48 to $78
We want Dave to go all-in, because we're confident we're beating Dave. If he folds, it's okay but not ideal.
Dave: folds
Damn. Oh, well. We still have Gary. We wouldn't mind a fold from Gary, because that'd allow us to win $38 (the amount of money in the pot that wasn't originally mine) 100% of the time, as opposed to winning $208 (Gary's $200, the big blind's $2, and Dave's $6) 63% of the time. Still, .63 * 208 is greater than $38, so we'd rather see a reraise all in (assuming he'd play JJ the same way he'd play AA...if he'd fold anything but AA in this spot, we'd obviously rather see a fold).
Gary: raises $122 to $200 and is all-in
Sweet.
Billy: calls $122 and is all-in
We've done our job...we've gotten it in good (ie, as a favorite). Now it's in the hands of the poker gods.
*** FLOP *** [Jd 7h Td]
Okay, that's not a great flop. JJ is crushing us now, obviously. QQ is still in big trouble. KK is freerolling. Freerolling means that you can't lose the pot, but you can still win it. In this case, if Gary has KK, he and I are gonna chop (split the pot) unless he goes running diamonds (if the next two cards are diamonds), because that'd give him a diamond flush (we know he has the Kd because we don't). If he has AA, we're still in big trouble. If he has AK, the most likely hand he could have, he has 7 cards that'll win him the pot (4 Q's for a straight, 3 A's for a better pair), giving him approximately a 30% chance to win. Of course, he could also have a diamond (or two), which would improve his odds.
So, what's our equity at this point? 50.2%. We're officially coinflipping for $400, boys and girls.
*** TURN *** [Jd 7h Td] [7d]
Ugh, a 3rd diamond. This doesn't immediately change anything unless he has AdKd, but the general rule is that if a card doesn't help you, then it hurts you. If Gary has QsQd, he now has 10 cards that'll win for him (8 diamonds and 2 Q's). If he has KK, he has about a 20% chance to scoop the pot (take it all) and I have a 0% chance to scoop. Worse, if Gary has AK with a diamond, he has 14 ways to win, giving him a 32% chance to win.
Our overall equity (against his range, that is)? 47.1%. Now we're slightly worse than a coinflip. We don't want to see an ace, and we definitely don't want to see a diamond (unless it's the Kd, which gives us a nearly unbeatable full house).
*** RIVER *** [Jd 7h Td 7d] [Ad]
Worst card possible. We're now losing to AK. We're losing to KK. We're losing to any QQ that has the Qd. We're losing to JJ. FUCK!
Our equity? 15.8%. So, the only way we can possibly win (assuming our range is accurate) is if Gary has QsQc or QhQs or QhQc. 3 combinations out of, well, a lot. Kiss that money goodbye.
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Gary: shows [Qc Qs] (two pair, Queens and Sevens)
Hallelujah!
Billy: shows [Kc Kh] (two pair, Kings and Sevens)
Billy collected $405 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $408 | Rake $3
Board [Jd 7h Td 7d Ad]
Seat 1: Aaron folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: Billy showed [Kc Kh] and won ($405) with two pair, Kings and Sevens
Seat 3: Carl folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: Dave folded before Flop
Seat 5: Eddie folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Frank (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: Gary (small blind) showed [Qc Qs] and lost with two pair, Queens and Sevens
Seat 9: Hank (big blind) folded before Flop
So, we escaped. Phew. The discussion of equity throughout the hand is a bit misleading. Don't think that, just because our equity was junk by the end of the hand, that we played the hand poorly. When the money went in, we had sufficient equity to feel good about our play. This is the only metric that matters. Also, this hand discussion was a bit academic; my toughest opponents and I think like that throughout the games, undoubtedly, but it's an unwritten rule that a player will never fold KK in that situation. So, this specific situation required little thought on my part. Still, I wanted to go through a bit of discussion because I'm always eager to take the opportunity to defend poker as a game of skill.
*It goes without saying that this isn't my personal graph. The X-axis, by the way, is the number of hands played. Poor Grimstarr...rumor has it that he lost $200k "coinflipping". That is, he and an opponent both agreed to go all-in regardless of their cards. The result of this agreement is that you have 50% equity (assuming your opponent doesn't renege), because your cards and your opponent's cards are random; as a result, you have a veritable coinflip. Players sometimes flip to get unstuck. If someone lost $1000 playing poker, for instance, he might ask an opponent he trusts to flip him for $1000. Poker players are weird like that about money; at the end of the day, you're either up, even, or stuck. If you're stuck, it doesn't matter how stuck you are, so you might as well try to get back to even, assuming your attempt is at least neutral in terms of your expected value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)