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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)