I've had this happen to me multiple times in the past few years when meeting new people:
Stranger 1: "So, what do you do for a living?"
Me: "Oh, I'm actually in law school."
Stranger 1: "Wow, that's cool! You must be smart."
The responses vary, of course, but they generally have undertones of respect and admiration. But, when I have conversations like this one...
Stranger 2: "So, what do you do for a living?"
Me: "Well, I'm becoming a lawyer."
...the reaction is more typically this:
Stranger 2: "Oh, a lawyer--I'd better watch my wallet." or "Are you gonna be one of those guys who defends big corporations?" or "Great, just what this world needs--another lawyer."
I understand the differences in response: law school conjures up images of a venerable and esteemed institution where students work hard to master the intricacies of the legal system, whereas a lawyer is a pedantic, argumentative drain on society's resources. Still, I think it's amusing that the closer you get to joining the profession, the less respect afforded to you.*
So, with that long-winded hook behind us, let's proceed to the matter at hand. What does it take to become an actual lawyer in Texas? In short: a lot of paperwork and a healthy bank account. But, as my Crim Law prof. once said, "let's put some meat on those bones."
First, I had to file a Declaration of Intent to study law in Texas. That'll cost you $190--if you file that before October 1 of your 1L year. Who does that?! On September 30, 2008, I had no idea whether I wanted to practice in Texas, or Illinois, or California, or Alabama.** So, I paid the $150 "late" fee as well.
The Declaration of Intent asked me for my employment history, whether I had ever failed to file a tax return, etc. It also wanted 6 character references from people who were neither family (too biased, I suppose) nor law students (too predisposed to lie, maybe??). The Board of Law Examiners (the organization who decides whether I get to join the Bar or not) then proceeds to run a background check on me. It makes sure that I have the proper character and fitness to become a lawyer--not a problem for most of us but could be a difficult hurdle to clear if you've, say, filed for bankruptcy or committed a serious crime.
Next, I had to sign up to take the Bar itself. That cost me $450, which, believe it or not, is actually fairly reasonable. (That money includes a late fee of $150 as well; this time, however, I had more than enough time to file and the blame falls on me for being untimely.)
I also paid a mere $60 to take the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE). That's the only test, other than the Bar, that Texans have to pass in order to become licensed attorneys. Virtually every state requires that its would-be members of the Bar pass this test (although the passing score varies from state to state). It's administered three times a year; in fact, I just took the MPRE this Saturday. It's only a 2-hour test with 60 multiple-choice questions, so it's certainly not an onerous exam. It does require a few days of studying, of course, but that's certainly to be expected.
Then, last but certainly not least, you take the Bar Exam itself. That's a three-day test that is administered in February and July--people typically take the test in July after they've graduated. It's a combination of multiple choice and essay questions. Topics that the Bar Exam covers include torts, contracts, property, wills, and much more. You could rely on your old notes and your intrinsic motivation to prepare, but most just cave and purchase a private bar review class for a very healthy sum ($3000, approximately). The review class for Texas begins in mid-May and lasts until July, and people typically spend 40 hours a week engaged in some sort of preparation for the Bar.
In November, you get your results. Hopefully, you've passed! Everyone who passes gets his name listed on a website somewhere, apparently, so if you fail it you're name may be conspicuously absent from the list. Not to fear, though: over 90% of UT Law grads pass the Texas Bar, so you'd probably have to blow it off in order to fail.***
So, grand totals: $3850; weeks of studying; days of test-taking. But, on the plus side, I, uh, get to become a lawyer and have years of those awkward "what do you do" conversations at dinner parties.
*If you're looking to split hairs, you could argue that it's not a sliding scale of respect but rather a consistent amount of respect until one discrete point in your law career. I have two responses: (1) not always true, in my experience--for example, when it becomes known that I'm in my final year of school, it becomes more evident to the stranger that I'll soon be completing my metamorphosis from Productive Member of Society to Lawyer and I in turn engender less respect; (2) you'd make an excellent law student.
**Okay, I'll admit that I knew from Day 1 that I didn't want to practice law in Alabama.
***In November, I may regret typing that sentence.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Inducing the Spaz
(For my non-poker-playing readers, I've included a glossary of terms at the end of this post. The words in bold in the body of the post are those that are defined at its end.)
This lesson deals with what I call the "spaz-induction" play. Poker players use the term "spaz" to describe when a player attempts a high-risk, fairly ludicrous bluff that comes out of nowhere. (You know how sometimes your opponent's play is a little suspicious, and a little voice pops into your head, saying, "you know what, I could probably just go all in and knock him off his hand"? Most of us ignore that voice like 95% of the time, because the risk is too great that you'll be caught red-handed. That other 5% of the time exemplifies spazzing. Spazzing is such a great word for this phenomenon, because it illustrates the situation perfectly: you realize that the smart play is to fold and pick a better spot, but out of nowhere--and virtually uncontrollably--you ignore your superego and push all in with such spontaneity that it almost seems like a spasm.) Spazzing is a form of tilt, and much like there are ways to provoke a player into tilting, there are methods for inducing a spaz.
Of course, before you decide to induce spaz, you have to make sure that you're willing to snap off your opponent. After you induce spaz, your opponent is going to make an overbet for most of your chips--if you're not willing to call this big bet with a marginal hand (say, TPTK), it logically follows that you shouldn't provoke the spaz in the first place.
Okay, so now you know (1) what spaz is and (2) when you should or should not induce it. Now we need to know how exactly we can provoke a spaz. Obviously, there's no scientific formula, but the general way to do it is to play so bizarrely that your opponent gets flustered and, well, spazzes out. Furthermore, your bizarre play should be an underbet as opposed to an overbet, so you can trick your opponent into believing that he can make a successful bluff. Playing bizarrely, however, obviously means deviating from your standard (and theoretically perfect) play. Thus, the bizarre deviation will necessarily be a less than optimal play in the long run. As a result, you should only attempt to induce spaz when your hand is a virtual lock.
In the below example, my hand is very safe--the opponent has something along the lines of JJ or AJ, and thus has only a few outs. We can afford to make a "bizarre" underbet here because even if he fails to spaz out and calls, he'll still be calling with improper pot odds. If the board were wetter or if our opponent had a wider range, he'd have more outs and a bizarre bet would be ill-advised because it'd likely give our opponent favorable odds to call.
Poker Stars $2/$4 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players
BB: $86.00
UTG: $74.00
UTG+1: $112.65 [VPIP 10 PFR 7 through 30 hands]
UTG+2: $84.00
MP1: $80.00
MP2: $243.70 ***[VPIP 45 PFR 9 through 11 hands]***
CO: $74.00
Hero (BTN): $435.00
SB: $97.10
Pre Flop: ($6.00) Hero is BTN with AdKc
1 fold, UTG+1 calls $4, 2 folds, MP2 raises to $20, 1 fold, Hero raises to $60, 3 folds, MP2 calls $40
The preflop play is fairly standard. Admittedly, MP2's preflop raise after a limper suggests some strength, but it's a -EV play to fold here when, as here, MP2 is likely a fish. Some players may advocate for a smooth-call here on the premise that you should keep the pot small preflop so that you have more chips (and "weapons") at your disposal for the postflop play. That argument is for a different day.
Flop: ($130.00) Ah 9s 7c
MP2 checks, Hero bets $52, MP2 raises to $183.70 all in, Hero calls $131.70
Here we see the spaz at work. We underbet the pot, tempting our opponent to try a bluff. To this point, the opponent probably had no plan but to check-fold this A-high flop (unless he has something like AJ, in which case it doesn't matter what we bet because he's never folding a pair of aces). The funky bet probably gives him pause, though, and something like this goes through his head: "Hmm, what a small bet. He would've bet much bigger if he had AK. Hey, maybe he hates the ace on the flop as much as I do. I've already got so much in this pot, and I hate just to throw away a hand like QQ. I've been playing for an hour and haven't gotten a hand this good, and now I'm supposed to fold it? Hell, no. I'm gonna check/raise this donkey and show my hand when he folds. ALL IN!"
SNAP-CALL-FIST-PUMP.
Turn: ($497.40) Tc
River: ($497.40) 8c
Final Pot: $497.40
MP2 shows QdQh
Hero shows AdKc
Hero wins $494.40
(Rake: $3.00)
Glossary:
-EV: Shorthand for less than optimal (origin: "negative expected value")
Check-fold (abbreviated "c/f"): To check, and then, if facing a bet from an opponent, to fold. Ex: if you had 87 on a AK9 board, you'd probably be check-folding.
Check-raise (abbreviated "c/r"): To check, and then, if facing a bet from an opponent, to raise that bet.
Limper: One who calls the big blind (as opposed to raising it) preflop
Outs: cards that will win the player the pot.
Overbet: To bet a bigger percentage of the pot than what is common/expected. Typically, a competent player bets about 70% the size of the pot on each street, so an example of an overbet would be when a player bets 125% the size of the pot.
Range: all possible hands an opponent could reasonably have. Ex: if your opponent is fairly tight and has just reraised you before the flop, you can reasonably assign him a range of {TT, JJ, QQ, KK, AA, AQ, AK}, abbreviated as TT+, AQ+.
Snap Off: To call an opponent's bluff quickly and confidently. In a sentence: "I put him on a missed flush draw and, being out of position, I checked to him, hoping that he'd try to bluff at the pot. He did, and I snapped him off with bottom pair to drag the pot."
(Related: the phrase "snap-call-fist-pump", which means that you snap call (ie, call quickly) and celebrate (via fist pump) before the cards are flipped because you know your opponent is weak and that you have him crushed.)
Tilt: to allow an emotion (anger, frustration, boredom) to make you play less than optimally
TPTK: top pair, top kicker. Ex's: AJ on a J32 board; AK on an A62 board.
Underbet: To bet a smaller percentage of the pot than what is common/expected.
VPIP/PFR: Percentage of times that a player Voluntarily Puts Money into the Pot or makes a Pre-Flop Raise, respectively. A tight player has a low VPIP, a loose player has a high VPIP, an aggressive player has a near 1-to-1 ratio of VPIP to PFR, and a passive (fishy) player typically has a much higher VPIP than PFR.
Wet: replete with draws. For example, a board of Qd 9h 8h is wet because there are both straight draws and a flush draw out there. A wet board means a few things: if you have a made hand, you typically want to bet to protect it. Also, if you have a made hand, you're willing to get all-in with less of a hand than you'd be on a dry board because it's more likely that your opponent is semi-bluffing (pushing a draw in hopes that you fold).
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Robbing a Casino for Dummies
On December 14, 2010, the Bellagio got robbed. The thief's modus operandi wasn't exactly reminiscent of Danny Ocean, however--more like Snake from The Simpsons. He drove his motorcycle up to the front door, dashed in, and swiped $1.5m in chips at gunpoint from a craps table. He bolted out, hopped on his bike, and drove off into the Vegas night.
Of course, if the story ended there, it wouldn't be newsworthy (or even blog-worthy). The man had stolen both $5k chips and $25k chips known as "cranberries" for their distinct color. (See the accompanying image.)
While the $5k chips were easy enough to dispose of, the cranberries were too unique to simply bring them to a cage (the slang term for the cashier's window in a casino) and get them cashed. As such, our friend the Biker Bandit went about trying to sell the cranberries at a discount. (Note: a lot of other amusing stuff accompanied this robbery, as the police report indicates. I recommend reading the report in full if you have some time to do so.)
Around the same time, the robbery was a bit of a hot topic on twoplustwo.com ("2p2"), a popular gambling forum. Members wondered how easily a person could cash in a stolen chip, and one poster wondered, "over/under 20 times a day the robber views threads like these?" Here's where the story gets good...
A poster who joined the forum in January of 2011 and went by the name "oceanspray25" and indicated his location is "Cranada" quoted this post and responded, "Under 20 but more than 3 brother. Know anyone lookin for a bargain on a few pieces of fruit? Great for the liver and kidney and they make great stocking stuffers" (emphasis added). I know y'all have figured it out by now, but let's break it down anyways, just for hilarity's sake.
Our buddy oceanspray25 clearly was so desperate to move this hot "fruit" that he put himself in plain sight on a popular forum. In fact, he actually messaged another member to inquire about his interest in buying the cranberries. Unsurprisingly, he got caught shortly thereafter.
The Biker Bandit clearly isn't playing with a full deck, but you've gotta admire his willingness to lay his chips on the table (so to speak).
Of course, if the story ended there, it wouldn't be newsworthy (or even blog-worthy). The man had stolen both $5k chips and $25k chips known as "cranberries" for their distinct color. (See the accompanying image.)
While the $5k chips were easy enough to dispose of, the cranberries were too unique to simply bring them to a cage (the slang term for the cashier's window in a casino) and get them cashed. As such, our friend the Biker Bandit went about trying to sell the cranberries at a discount. (Note: a lot of other amusing stuff accompanied this robbery, as the police report indicates. I recommend reading the report in full if you have some time to do so.)
Around the same time, the robbery was a bit of a hot topic on twoplustwo.com ("2p2"), a popular gambling forum. Members wondered how easily a person could cash in a stolen chip, and one poster wondered, "over/under 20 times a day the robber views threads like these?" Here's where the story gets good...
A poster who joined the forum in January of 2011 and went by the name "oceanspray25" and indicated his location is "Cranada" quoted this post and responded, "Under 20 but more than 3 brother. Know anyone lookin for a bargain on a few pieces of fruit? Great for the liver and kidney and they make great stocking stuffers" (emphasis added). I know y'all have figured it out by now, but let's break it down anyways, just for hilarity's sake.
- First off, "oceanspray25?" "Cranada?" I guess one reference to a cranberry didn't suffice--he needed three.
- Believe it or not, people don't sell fruit on 2p2--let alone for bargains.
- I like the reference to the body's internal organs, but I would've preferred a "what, you on your period or something?" allusion a la The Departed. Alas.
Our buddy oceanspray25 clearly was so desperate to move this hot "fruit" that he put himself in plain sight on a popular forum. In fact, he actually messaged another member to inquire about his interest in buying the cranberries. Unsurprisingly, he got caught shortly thereafter.
The Biker Bandit clearly isn't playing with a full deck, but you've gotta admire his willingness to lay his chips on the table (so to speak).
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Ricci v. DeStefano
Howdy, folks--a buddy of mine asked about this case a while back, and I can finally give him the answer he deserves. I actually have a final tomorrow (Monday) on this class, so the timing worked out well.
Background: Ricci v. DeStefano was decided by the Supreme Court in June 2009. It received a fair amount of media coverage, so maybe the facts will ring a bell.
Disclaimer: this case required me to summarize a healthy portion of employment discrimination law. For your sake and mine, I elided over some of the parts that weren't relevant. So, if you're an employment law scholar and you're reading this, don't expect it to cover every twist and turn in the Title VII landscape.
FACTS:
Crucial to our understanding of the case, of course, is a firm grip on the facts that led to the legal controversy. (I'm mainly pulling these facts from the majority opinion as found in this textbook. I'm going to omit quotes, citations, etc. to make this more readable. Don't sue me for plagiarism!)
In 2003, 118 New Haven firefighters took written examinations to attempt to qualify for promotion to the rank of lieutenant or captain. These tests made up 60% of each applicant's total score--the other 40% came from an oral examination. The collective bargaining agreement between the city and the firefighters' union set some experience and education requirements as prerequisites for taking the test. (I'm just mentioning that so it's clear that a rookie with great test-taking ability would not have had a chance to get promoted.)
New Haven hired an outside firm, IOS, to develop and administer both the written and oral tests. IOS performed job analyses to identify the tasks, knowledge, skills, and abilities essential for the lieutenant and captain positions. For example, IOS interviewed incumbent captains/lieutenants, rode along with on-duty officers, etc. At every stage, IOS deliberately oversampled minority firefighters to ensure that the results would not unintentionally favor white candidates.
IOS drafted a 100-question multiple choice exam written below a 10th-grade level (presumably so that firefighting attributes, rather than reading comprehension, would be tested). IOS compiled a list of training manuals, procedures, etc. New Haven gave this list to the test-takers three months in advance, so that the candidates would have a chance to study for the exam.
For the oral exam, IOS assembled a pool of 30 assessors, all from outside of Connecticut and all superior in rank to the positions being tested. New Haven gave its approval of each of the assessors. 66% of the panelists were minorities, and each of the nine three-member assessment panels contained two minority members. (I know, I know--9 * 3 is 27, not 30. Maybe there were 3 alternates?)
New Haven's city charter imposed a "rule of three"--whoever was promoted had to be among the top three scorers. This means that if there was 1 spot open, the promoted candidate would have to have scored in the top 3. If 10 spots were open, all 10 candidates would have to have been in the top 12 (because the 10th promote was either 10th, 11th, or 12th). So, there's a bit of flexibility but not much.
Candidates took the tests in late 2003. Seventy-seven candidates took the lieutenant test (43 whites, 19 blacks, 15 Hispanics). 34 passed (25 whites, 6 blacks, 3 Hispanics). Eight lieutenant positions were vacant, so under the rule of 3, only the top 10 candidates were eligible for immediate promotion. Everyone in the top 10 was white.
Forty-one candidates took the captain examination (25 whites, 8 blacks, 8 Hispanics). 22 passed (16 whites, 3 blacks, 3 Hispanics). Seven captain positions were vacant, so (under the rule of three) 9 candidates were eligible for immediate promotion: 7 whites and 2 Hispanics.
New Haven got the results, and it's safe to say that it wasn't happy. The New Haven Civil Service Board (CSB) had the task of deciding whether to certify the results. CSB was shown lists displaying the candidates' races and scores, but not their names, at least. Some of the firefighters, without knowing who passed or who failed, spoke at the first CSB meeting in favor of certifying the results. There were some sob stories about how hard they had studied and how much time/money they had devoting to preparing for the tests. One man was even dyslexic and hired his neighbor to read the materials on tape, the poor guy! (I'm not trying to make light of his learning disability; I'm scoffing at how the Court included this in its summary of the facts--doesn't seem germane to the legal issues at play.) Other firefighters spoke against certifying the test results, calling the questions outdated and irrelevant.
The CSB held more meetings and, to its credit, conducted extensive research into the validity/reliability of the test as well as the legal ramifications of certifying. Ultimately, the CSB voted 2 to 2 on the use of the test results, which meant that the results would not be certified. The evidence--at least as a majority of Supreme Court justices saw it--suggests that the tests were fair and that the CSB chose not to certify because of the racial disparity.
Seventeen of the white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who passed the tests got together and sued the city of New Haven. Frank Ricci, the named plaintiff, is one of them. (Who's DeStefano, you ask? He's the mayor of New Haven--clearly you don't go to Yale. Don't worry, neither do I.) There was a ton of procedural history (appeals, etc.), but all you need to know is that the case eventually got in front of the Supreme Court.
LAW
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, etc. Title VII prohibits two major types of discrimination: disparate treatment and disparate impact. To understand Ricci, we're going to have to gain a basic understanding of each of these terms:
Simply put, "disparate treatment" is intentional discrimination on the basis of race or any other protected trait. When you hear "discrimination," you almost certainly picture some type of disparate treatment. For example, if an employer chooses not to promote a black employee (for simplicity's sake, let's call him "Barry") because he's black, the employer is intentionally discriminating on the basis of race. Thus, he's in violation of Title VII. That's easy. Let's make it more complicated...
The employer chooses not to promote Barry, but solely on the basis that the black employee is less qualified than his white coworker (how about "Walker"). This, almost as obviously, is not disparate treatment. Sure, the employer is "discriminating" in one sense in that he's distinguishing two employees, but the employer is not discriminating on the basis of race. That's the key.
Okay, same facts (employer promotes a better-qualified white coworker over a less qualified black coworker), but this time, the employer let race play a role in the decision. The employer thought to himself, "This candidate is black, and I don't want to promote a black person. Also, Barry doesn't have the managerial skills that Walker does," and then proceeded to promote Walker. What now? Well, it turns out that we do indeed have disparate treatment. The law says that if race, etc. plays a "motivating factor" in the employment decision--even if other factors also motivated the decision--this establishes an unlawful employment practice under Title VII. This is where people's opinions start to fracture. Most will agree that Situation 1 should be illegal, and most will agree that Situation 2 should not be illegal. Situation 3 is much tougher, though. On the one hand, Barry was clearly looked at differently than Walker, and isn't one major purpose of law to protect equality? On the other hand, the result would have been the same whether Barry was black or white--even had he been white, he would have missed out on the promotion. So, how can we hold the employer liable when the same result would've occurred regardless of Barry's skin color?
Those first three scenarios covered various ways in which an employer can discriminate (or not) on an individual basis. Of course, system-wide discrimination--referred to as "Systemic Disparate Treatment"--is also unlawful under Title VII in almost* every case. There are two types of systemic disparate treatment: overt (a stated policy of discriminating) and covert (no stated policy but a de facto practice of discriminating), and each type comes with its own procedures. Happily, we needn't concern ourselves with the details of each; the takeaway is that systemic disparate treatment is illegal under Title VII.
Now that we've covered "disparate treatment," we can spend a few seconds on "disparate impact." Disparate impact makes it illegal for an employer to use a facially neutral practice to achieve a discriminatory effect, unless the practice is related to the job and consistent with business necessity. That definition might leave you scratching your head, but an example or two will make it clear:
In the watershed case in this area, the employer administered an intelligence test to all applicants and only hired those who scored above a certain threshold. (Sounds familiar...) Unlike Ricci, however, the applicants in this earlier case were applying for unskilled positions. The test is neutral on its face--it's just as hard for blacks as it is for whites. The test had a discriminatory effect, however--a way bigger percentage of whites passed than did blacks. The Supreme Court held this practice illegal under Title VII, and, even though I'm a free-market guy, I tend to agree. In this first case, it was fairly obvious that the employer was giving its applicants this intelligence test just to weed out the black applicants--before Title VII had passed, the employer had been openly discriminating against blacks--and the test had nothing to do with the job requirements.
Some tests are fine, however--that goes back to the "job-related" and "business necessity" component of our definition. No need to get into the specifics of what will be illegal under Title VII and what won't. For our purposes, we simply need to know that giving a test that's fair in form but discriminatory in effect is illegal, unless the test is job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.
APPLICATION:
So, let's now apply the law we just learned to our facts (if you still remember them after slogging through that boring lecture).
At this point, the Court makes a determination of law based on precedent, reason, etc. It holds that before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the purpose of avoiding a disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe that it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race conscious, discriminatory action. What does this mean? It means that the defendant (here, New Haven,) has to look at the entire definition of disparate impact and determine whether there's a strong basis in evidence that it faced liability.
Applying this standard to our facts, it's clear (to the Court) that the city would have avoided liability. Admittedly, the black applicants would have been able to bring a case because New Haven did use a test that had a discriminatory result. BUT--the Court found that New Haven would have avoided liability because the tests were job-related and consistent with business necessity. As a result, the Court concluded that there was no strong basis in evidence for the defendant to fear a disparate-impact suit. Thus, for the city to take the discriminatory action of throwing out the test results on the basis of race was held unlawful. The plaintiffs win.
I know that was a lot. If you made it all the way through, thanks very much for reading. Happy holidays.
*I say "almost" because the employer is allowed to have this overt policy of systemic discrimination if the discrimination is based on a "bona fide occupational qualification." If the BFOQ is "reasonably necessary to the normal operation" of the employer's business, he'll be allowed to discriminate. For example, a prison's hiring policy that required prison guards to be of the same sex as inmates was held valid because women guards simply would not have been able to keep the prison safe. This is a very narrow defense, however. For example, an airline's policy of hiring only female flight attendants because "that's what the customers want" was held illegal because it's not necessary to the airline's normal operation to have nothing but female flight attendants. Customer preference is very rarely an appropriate reason for systemic discrimination. One more note: the BFOQ defense is only available for overt systemic disparate treatment. If the employer is covertly discriminating system-wide (ex: a company has no formal policy but never hires women), the BFOQ defense cannot come in.
Background: Ricci v. DeStefano was decided by the Supreme Court in June 2009. It received a fair amount of media coverage, so maybe the facts will ring a bell.
Disclaimer: this case required me to summarize a healthy portion of employment discrimination law. For your sake and mine, I elided over some of the parts that weren't relevant. So, if you're an employment law scholar and you're reading this, don't expect it to cover every twist and turn in the Title VII landscape.
FACTS:
Crucial to our understanding of the case, of course, is a firm grip on the facts that led to the legal controversy. (I'm mainly pulling these facts from the majority opinion as found in this textbook. I'm going to omit quotes, citations, etc. to make this more readable. Don't sue me for plagiarism!)
In 2003, 118 New Haven firefighters took written examinations to attempt to qualify for promotion to the rank of lieutenant or captain. These tests made up 60% of each applicant's total score--the other 40% came from an oral examination. The collective bargaining agreement between the city and the firefighters' union set some experience and education requirements as prerequisites for taking the test. (I'm just mentioning that so it's clear that a rookie with great test-taking ability would not have had a chance to get promoted.)
New Haven hired an outside firm, IOS, to develop and administer both the written and oral tests. IOS performed job analyses to identify the tasks, knowledge, skills, and abilities essential for the lieutenant and captain positions. For example, IOS interviewed incumbent captains/lieutenants, rode along with on-duty officers, etc. At every stage, IOS deliberately oversampled minority firefighters to ensure that the results would not unintentionally favor white candidates.
IOS drafted a 100-question multiple choice exam written below a 10th-grade level (presumably so that firefighting attributes, rather than reading comprehension, would be tested). IOS compiled a list of training manuals, procedures, etc. New Haven gave this list to the test-takers three months in advance, so that the candidates would have a chance to study for the exam.
For the oral exam, IOS assembled a pool of 30 assessors, all from outside of Connecticut and all superior in rank to the positions being tested. New Haven gave its approval of each of the assessors. 66% of the panelists were minorities, and each of the nine three-member assessment panels contained two minority members. (I know, I know--9 * 3 is 27, not 30. Maybe there were 3 alternates?)
New Haven's city charter imposed a "rule of three"--whoever was promoted had to be among the top three scorers. This means that if there was 1 spot open, the promoted candidate would have to have scored in the top 3. If 10 spots were open, all 10 candidates would have to have been in the top 12 (because the 10th promote was either 10th, 11th, or 12th). So, there's a bit of flexibility but not much.
Candidates took the tests in late 2003. Seventy-seven candidates took the lieutenant test (43 whites, 19 blacks, 15 Hispanics). 34 passed (25 whites, 6 blacks, 3 Hispanics). Eight lieutenant positions were vacant, so under the rule of 3, only the top 10 candidates were eligible for immediate promotion. Everyone in the top 10 was white.
Forty-one candidates took the captain examination (25 whites, 8 blacks, 8 Hispanics). 22 passed (16 whites, 3 blacks, 3 Hispanics). Seven captain positions were vacant, so (under the rule of three) 9 candidates were eligible for immediate promotion: 7 whites and 2 Hispanics.
New Haven got the results, and it's safe to say that it wasn't happy. The New Haven Civil Service Board (CSB) had the task of deciding whether to certify the results. CSB was shown lists displaying the candidates' races and scores, but not their names, at least. Some of the firefighters, without knowing who passed or who failed, spoke at the first CSB meeting in favor of certifying the results. There were some sob stories about how hard they had studied and how much time/money they had devoting to preparing for the tests. One man was even dyslexic and hired his neighbor to read the materials on tape, the poor guy! (I'm not trying to make light of his learning disability; I'm scoffing at how the Court included this in its summary of the facts--doesn't seem germane to the legal issues at play.) Other firefighters spoke against certifying the test results, calling the questions outdated and irrelevant.
The CSB held more meetings and, to its credit, conducted extensive research into the validity/reliability of the test as well as the legal ramifications of certifying. Ultimately, the CSB voted 2 to 2 on the use of the test results, which meant that the results would not be certified. The evidence--at least as a majority of Supreme Court justices saw it--suggests that the tests were fair and that the CSB chose not to certify because of the racial disparity.
Seventeen of the white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who passed the tests got together and sued the city of New Haven. Frank Ricci, the named plaintiff, is one of them. (Who's DeStefano, you ask? He's the mayor of New Haven--clearly you don't go to Yale. Don't worry, neither do I.) There was a ton of procedural history (appeals, etc.), but all you need to know is that the case eventually got in front of the Supreme Court.
LAW
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, etc. Title VII prohibits two major types of discrimination: disparate treatment and disparate impact. To understand Ricci, we're going to have to gain a basic understanding of each of these terms:
Simply put, "disparate treatment" is intentional discrimination on the basis of race or any other protected trait. When you hear "discrimination," you almost certainly picture some type of disparate treatment. For example, if an employer chooses not to promote a black employee (for simplicity's sake, let's call him "Barry") because he's black, the employer is intentionally discriminating on the basis of race. Thus, he's in violation of Title VII. That's easy. Let's make it more complicated...
The employer chooses not to promote Barry, but solely on the basis that the black employee is less qualified than his white coworker (how about "Walker"). This, almost as obviously, is not disparate treatment. Sure, the employer is "discriminating" in one sense in that he's distinguishing two employees, but the employer is not discriminating on the basis of race. That's the key.
Okay, same facts (employer promotes a better-qualified white coworker over a less qualified black coworker), but this time, the employer let race play a role in the decision. The employer thought to himself, "This candidate is black, and I don't want to promote a black person. Also, Barry doesn't have the managerial skills that Walker does," and then proceeded to promote Walker. What now? Well, it turns out that we do indeed have disparate treatment. The law says that if race, etc. plays a "motivating factor" in the employment decision--even if other factors also motivated the decision--this establishes an unlawful employment practice under Title VII. This is where people's opinions start to fracture. Most will agree that Situation 1 should be illegal, and most will agree that Situation 2 should not be illegal. Situation 3 is much tougher, though. On the one hand, Barry was clearly looked at differently than Walker, and isn't one major purpose of law to protect equality? On the other hand, the result would have been the same whether Barry was black or white--even had he been white, he would have missed out on the promotion. So, how can we hold the employer liable when the same result would've occurred regardless of Barry's skin color?
Those first three scenarios covered various ways in which an employer can discriminate (or not) on an individual basis. Of course, system-wide discrimination--referred to as "Systemic Disparate Treatment"--is also unlawful under Title VII in almost* every case. There are two types of systemic disparate treatment: overt (a stated policy of discriminating) and covert (no stated policy but a de facto practice of discriminating), and each type comes with its own procedures. Happily, we needn't concern ourselves with the details of each; the takeaway is that systemic disparate treatment is illegal under Title VII.
Now that we've covered "disparate treatment," we can spend a few seconds on "disparate impact." Disparate impact makes it illegal for an employer to use a facially neutral practice to achieve a discriminatory effect, unless the practice is related to the job and consistent with business necessity. That definition might leave you scratching your head, but an example or two will make it clear:
In the watershed case in this area, the employer administered an intelligence test to all applicants and only hired those who scored above a certain threshold. (Sounds familiar...) Unlike Ricci, however, the applicants in this earlier case were applying for unskilled positions. The test is neutral on its face--it's just as hard for blacks as it is for whites. The test had a discriminatory effect, however--a way bigger percentage of whites passed than did blacks. The Supreme Court held this practice illegal under Title VII, and, even though I'm a free-market guy, I tend to agree. In this first case, it was fairly obvious that the employer was giving its applicants this intelligence test just to weed out the black applicants--before Title VII had passed, the employer had been openly discriminating against blacks--and the test had nothing to do with the job requirements.
Some tests are fine, however--that goes back to the "job-related" and "business necessity" component of our definition. No need to get into the specifics of what will be illegal under Title VII and what won't. For our purposes, we simply need to know that giving a test that's fair in form but discriminatory in effect is illegal, unless the test is job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.
APPLICATION:
So, let's now apply the law we just learned to our facts (if you still remember them after slogging through that boring lecture).
- New Haven chose not to certify the test because of the statistical disparity based on race. This is systemic disparate treatment--systemwide discrimination on the basis of race. To show systemic disparate treatment, the plaintiffs need to show that the defendant (New Haven) had either a race-based classification or a race-based goal. Here, the city's goal of promoting diversity or balancing the composition of the fire department officers is race-based (no matter how benevolent it is), and thus it's disparate treatment. Note that had the Court determined that the city's goal was simply to come up with a better test, the goal would've been neutral and New Haven likely would have prevailed in this case.
- The Court found that by rejecting the test, New Haven was trying to avoid disparate-impact liability. Remember that the test had a disproportionate impact on the races. That put New Haven in danger of violating the "disparate impact" aspect of Title VII. By now, you kinda have to feel for the city--if it certifies the test, it risks a lawsuit from black candidates. If it doesn't certify the test, it risks a lawsuit from those who were in line for the promotions.
At this point, the Court makes a determination of law based on precedent, reason, etc. It holds that before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the purpose of avoiding a disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe that it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race conscious, discriminatory action. What does this mean? It means that the defendant (here, New Haven,) has to look at the entire definition of disparate impact and determine whether there's a strong basis in evidence that it faced liability.
Applying this standard to our facts, it's clear (to the Court) that the city would have avoided liability. Admittedly, the black applicants would have been able to bring a case because New Haven did use a test that had a discriminatory result. BUT--the Court found that New Haven would have avoided liability because the tests were job-related and consistent with business necessity. As a result, the Court concluded that there was no strong basis in evidence for the defendant to fear a disparate-impact suit. Thus, for the city to take the discriminatory action of throwing out the test results on the basis of race was held unlawful. The plaintiffs win.
I know that was a lot. If you made it all the way through, thanks very much for reading. Happy holidays.
*I say "almost" because the employer is allowed to have this overt policy of systemic discrimination if the discrimination is based on a "bona fide occupational qualification." If the BFOQ is "reasonably necessary to the normal operation" of the employer's business, he'll be allowed to discriminate. For example, a prison's hiring policy that required prison guards to be of the same sex as inmates was held valid because women guards simply would not have been able to keep the prison safe. This is a very narrow defense, however. For example, an airline's policy of hiring only female flight attendants because "that's what the customers want" was held illegal because it's not necessary to the airline's normal operation to have nothing but female flight attendants. Customer preference is very rarely an appropriate reason for systemic discrimination. One more note: the BFOQ defense is only available for overt systemic disparate treatment. If the employer is covertly discriminating system-wide (ex: a company has no formal policy but never hires women), the BFOQ defense cannot come in.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Back to School
First off, let me wassup to Chicago's own, Mr. Michael Chin. Looking forward to Portillo's, Chay-Money.
So, 3L year began today. I'm enrolled in five classes that cover diverse topics of law--five classes is a lot but I somehow managed to cram them all into the first three days of the working week, so I have a four-day weekend. Ship it.
First class of the day: Antitrust, taught by this guy. Some of the highlights of that brief wikipedia entry: my professor was nominated to be a judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (one step below the U.S. Supreme Court) but his ultra-conservative writings were so controversial he was not a politically viable nominee. Bummer! On the plus side, he's married to a woman who wrote an anti-feminist book, so you know he's probably not doing the dishes.
After Antitrust comes Evidence. Class only meets on Mondays and Tuesdays, and since UT's calendar begins on Wednesday for some reason, I can't elaborate much on the course. Long story short: it's a class that takes 3 months to answer the question, "is this piece of evidence admissible at trial?"
After Evidence comes Jimmy John's, most likely. Vito, Italian Night Club, even the Veggie sub--can't go wrong with any of 'em.
After my lunch break, I head to Criminal Procedure, which explains the various procedures that occur between arrest and trial (assuming there is a trial). To sum this one up, just check out this helpful flowchart:
We talked briefly today about an accused's right to probable cause, and already I'm learning new things. For example, did you know that a person who is arrested must be "presented" before a judicial officer without substantial delay? "Substantial delay" isn't precisely defined, of course--if law were cut-and-dried, no one would hire expensive lawyers--but it basically means that you get to appear in front of a magistrate (minor-league judge) within 48 hours and he decides whether the cop who hauled you down to jail had probable cause to do so. (Probable cause has two elements: (1) has a crime been committed and (2) does evidence exist to link the crime to the person being detained?) So, next time you get arrested for, say, DWI, you'll know why you're appearing in front of someone in robes. Note that this isn't a trial: you aren't necessarily entitled to a lawyer and you might not even get a chance to give your side of the story (I say "might" because each state has different procedure), but it's better than nothing.
As a reference point, our professor told a story about how a drug smuggler got detained in France over the summer (while the judges were on their five-week vacations that the denizens of Francia cherish so dearly), asked for a probable cause determination in front of a neutral third-party (ie, a judge), and was told, "sure, no problem...as soon as a judge gets back in late August, we'll get you in front of him." Ouch. What's worse is that he's stuck in jail until then, because no one is around to set bail. Those lazy sonsuvbitches, that's why we had to bail them out in WW2!
My working day concludes with either Employment Discrimination Law (Mondays and Wednesdays) or a Federal Criminal Prosecution seminar (Tuesdays). I can't remark on the seminar because I haven't had a class yet, but I'm sure it'll be just as interesting as it sounds. Regarding Employment Discrimination, this course tackles the age-old question of "I don't want to [hire/promote/respect] the [black/old/atheist/gay] [woman/pregnant woman], but how can I treat her badly (and how badly can I treat her) before I risk getting a pesky lawsuit on my hands?" Since 1964, white men like myself have been struggling with the answer--hopefully this class will shine some light on the topic.
But seriously, folks, this course seems interesting to me. One question we mulled over today was this: must there be some sort of intent to discriminate (or, at the least, knowledge of discrimination) before we give relief to the protected class member, or are actions sufficient? For example, most of us agree that we should award damages to a black person who is not hired solely because he was black.* But, what if the prospective employer--an honest, decent man who has no prejudices and has no intent to discriminate against any race/sex/religion--administers a test as a precondition of employment? Let's say that the test is neutral on its face but has the result of disqualifying a disproportionately higher percentage of blacks than other races. Should a black person who fails the employer's test (and consequently isn't hired) get relief, or should the employer be allowed to administer the test? Does it matter whether the test relates to the position for which the prospective employees are applying?
All in all, should be a pretty fun semester--being a 3L is great. You can check out the hot new 1Ls, you know where all your classes are and just how much you can slack off without it affecting your grade, and you have an ever-growing group of friends with whom to gchat while the professor digresses. I'll try to update this blog whenever I learn something that a reasonable person may find interesting. Until then, enjoy the rest of y'all's summers.
*I know there are free-market arguments against this, but in the long run we're all dead and blah blah blah.
So, 3L year began today. I'm enrolled in five classes that cover diverse topics of law--five classes is a lot but I somehow managed to cram them all into the first three days of the working week, so I have a four-day weekend. Ship it.
First class of the day: Antitrust, taught by this guy. Some of the highlights of that brief wikipedia entry: my professor was nominated to be a judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (one step below the U.S. Supreme Court) but his ultra-conservative writings were so controversial he was not a politically viable nominee. Bummer! On the plus side, he's married to a woman who wrote an anti-feminist book, so you know he's probably not doing the dishes.
After Antitrust comes Evidence. Class only meets on Mondays and Tuesdays, and since UT's calendar begins on Wednesday for some reason, I can't elaborate much on the course. Long story short: it's a class that takes 3 months to answer the question, "is this piece of evidence admissible at trial?"
After Evidence comes Jimmy John's, most likely. Vito, Italian Night Club, even the Veggie sub--can't go wrong with any of 'em.
After my lunch break, I head to Criminal Procedure, which explains the various procedures that occur between arrest and trial (assuming there is a trial). To sum this one up, just check out this helpful flowchart:
We talked briefly today about an accused's right to probable cause, and already I'm learning new things. For example, did you know that a person who is arrested must be "presented" before a judicial officer without substantial delay? "Substantial delay" isn't precisely defined, of course--if law were cut-and-dried, no one would hire expensive lawyers--but it basically means that you get to appear in front of a magistrate (minor-league judge) within 48 hours and he decides whether the cop who hauled you down to jail had probable cause to do so. (Probable cause has two elements: (1) has a crime been committed and (2) does evidence exist to link the crime to the person being detained?) So, next time you get arrested for, say, DWI, you'll know why you're appearing in front of someone in robes. Note that this isn't a trial: you aren't necessarily entitled to a lawyer and you might not even get a chance to give your side of the story (I say "might" because each state has different procedure), but it's better than nothing.
As a reference point, our professor told a story about how a drug smuggler got detained in France over the summer (while the judges were on their five-week vacations that the denizens of Francia cherish so dearly), asked for a probable cause determination in front of a neutral third-party (ie, a judge), and was told, "sure, no problem...as soon as a judge gets back in late August, we'll get you in front of him." Ouch. What's worse is that he's stuck in jail until then, because no one is around to set bail. Those lazy sonsuvbitches, that's why we had to bail them out in WW2!
My working day concludes with either Employment Discrimination Law (Mondays and Wednesdays) or a Federal Criminal Prosecution seminar (Tuesdays). I can't remark on the seminar because I haven't had a class yet, but I'm sure it'll be just as interesting as it sounds. Regarding Employment Discrimination, this course tackles the age-old question of "I don't want to [hire/promote/respect] the [black/old/atheist/gay] [woman/pregnant woman], but how can I treat her badly (and how badly can I treat her) before I risk getting a pesky lawsuit on my hands?" Since 1964, white men like myself have been struggling with the answer--hopefully this class will shine some light on the topic.
But seriously, folks, this course seems interesting to me. One question we mulled over today was this: must there be some sort of intent to discriminate (or, at the least, knowledge of discrimination) before we give relief to the protected class member, or are actions sufficient? For example, most of us agree that we should award damages to a black person who is not hired solely because he was black.* But, what if the prospective employer--an honest, decent man who has no prejudices and has no intent to discriminate against any race/sex/religion--administers a test as a precondition of employment? Let's say that the test is neutral on its face but has the result of disqualifying a disproportionately higher percentage of blacks than other races. Should a black person who fails the employer's test (and consequently isn't hired) get relief, or should the employer be allowed to administer the test? Does it matter whether the test relates to the position for which the prospective employees are applying?
All in all, should be a pretty fun semester--being a 3L is great. You can check out the hot new 1Ls, you know where all your classes are and just how much you can slack off without it affecting your grade, and you have an ever-growing group of friends with whom to gchat while the professor digresses. I'll try to update this blog whenever I learn something that a reasonable person may find interesting. Until then, enjoy the rest of y'all's summers.
*I know there are free-market arguments against this, but in the long run we're all dead and blah blah blah.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
A Funny Hand (little to no analysis, I promise!)
On 2p2 (the popular poker forum I browse), it's customary to include humorous and fitting pictures to go with the hand history you're posting. Why? Probably because the hand is often far more interesting to the poster than the readers, so to compensate, the poster tries to jazz up the hand with some funny jpegs.
Note: the opponent is a competent regular. If this were a fish, I'd be playing much differently.
Poker Stars $3/$6 No Limit Hold'em - 2 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com
BTN/SB: $763.00
Hero (BB): $600.00
Pre Flop: ($9.00) Hero is BB with 4
6
BTN/SB raises to $18, Hero raises to $54,
BTN/SB calls $36
Flop: ($108.00) 5 Q Q (2 players)
Hero bets $66,
BTN/SB calls $66
Turn: ($240.00) J
(2 players)
Hero checks,
BTN/SB checks
River: ($240.00) 6 (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN/SB bets $138,
Hero calls $138
Final Pot: $516.00
BTN/SB shows 8 9 (a pair of Queens)
Hero shows 4 6 (two pair, Queens and Sixes)
Hero wins $515.50
(Rake: $0.50)
A few quick thoughts on this hand:
Note: the opponent is a competent regular. If this were a fish, I'd be playing much differently.
Poker Stars $3/$6 No Limit Hold'em - 2 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com
BTN/SB: $763.00
Hero (BB): $600.00
Pre Flop: ($9.00) Hero is BB with 4
6BTN/SB raises to $18, Hero raises to $54,
BTN/SB calls $36
Flop: ($108.00) 5
Q Q (2 players)Hero bets $66,
BTN/SB calls $66
Turn: ($240.00) J
(2 players)Hero checks,
BTN/SB checks
River: ($240.00) 6
(2 players)
Hero checks, BTN/SB bets $138,
Hero calls $138
Final Pot: $516.00
BTN/SB shows 8
9 (a pair of Queens)Hero shows 4
6 (two pair, Queens and Sixes)Hero wins $515.50
(Rake: $0.50)
A few quick thoughts on this hand:
- Our opponent could have won this hand on either the flop or the turn, had he raised. You really need to turn up the aggression when you're playing heads-up, and he didn't.
- I felt okay with calling here because I couldn't put him on a huge hand (like three queens) because he checked the turn and I couldn't put him on a marginal hand that still beat me (like 77) because I didn't think this particular opponent had the capacity to value-bet that thin. Honestly, someone with 77 or the like should be checking the river because I could easily have 99, JT, etc.
- This hand is a good example of how tough the games are these days and of how high-variance heads-up play can be.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Value-Betting for Beginners
To value-bet is to make a bet after the flop with the hope of getting called. Knowing when to make a value bet (and how much to bet) is a necessary skill for a winning player to acquire and cultivate. As you may know, most bet sizes are determined as a percentage of the pot. (For example, I typically make a bet in the amount of about 70% of the pot.) As the pot grows, the size of the bet necessarily grows. As such, the decisions that you make on later streets (the turn and the river) will involve bigger amounts. Since all we care about is money, clearly these bets are very important to our bottom line.
For example, suppose you're in a hand that has involved some betting throughout. When the river falls, it gives you three of a kind (but also puts a third heart on the board). By now, the size of the pot is, say, $300. Your opponent checks to you. You are scared that your opponent has a flush, so you check behind. He shows you two pair. You win the hand, but by failing to make a value bet on the river, you've missed out on anywhere from $150 to $200 of your opponent's money. That may not seem like much to those of you working at Baker Botts or Google or whatever, but that's some real folding money to me.
Since value-betting is such an essential skill, it probably won't surprise you to learn that it is a very nuanced, intricate decision. Obviously, if you have an unbeatable hand, you're going to be betting, but what if your hand is a marginal one? That is, your hand is probably better than your opponent's but if your opponent raised your bet, you'd have to fold. Should you still bet? This situation is dependent on the type of opponent you're facing. If your opponent is very passive, he's easier to value-bet because you don't have to fear being check-raised. Inversely, you have to be wary of an aggressive opponent--he's liable to raise you (either for value or to bluff you off a marginal hand). Considerations like this one are beyond the scope of this introductory post--I just want to demonstrate some of the intricacies involved.
In determining whether to value bet, you simply must put your opponent on a range of hands. I've seen beginners go through a process similar to this: "Well, I have two pair. That's okay, I guess, but it's worse than a straight flush, quads, a full house, a flush, a straight, or three-of-a-kind. I guess it's not a very good hand." The beginner fallaciously believes that his hand has an absolute value. This is wrong. The only value that your hand has is its value relative to your opponent's hand. You can lose pots with full houses and you can win 'em with Ace-high.
**As your hand only has relative value, you need to determine your opponent's hand so you can decide just how relatively valuable your hand actually is.** Here is a fairly routine example of this process. As the focus of this post is the value-bet on the river, I will be eliding over the play on the other streets.
Poker Stars $2/$4 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players
Hero (CO): $410.60
BTN: $454.15
SB: $1056.50
BB (slightly loose, definitely passive): $416.00
UTG: $469.00
Pre Flop: ($6.00) Hero is CO with A
8
1 fold, Hero raises to $12, 2 folds, BB raises to $24, Hero calls $12
We've been playing this guy for about an hour and we haven't seen him 3bet (a/k/a "reraise") before the flop. Thus, we can assign him a pretty reliable range of JJ+, AK. So, we're clearly behind but we have "implied odds" to justify our call. Basically, our thinking is this: "hey, this guy has a hand he's in love with. If I can catch a flop and crack his big pair, I can probably take him for a decent-sized pot. If I airball the flop, I merely lose a small pot and no harm is done. My hand--a suited ace--lends itself to big flops, so let's invest this $12 and try to catch gin."
Flop: ($50.00) 5 5 9 (2 players)
BB bets $20, Hero calls $20
Great flop for us. We could throw in a raise but we have very little fold equity because we're pretty sure he has a big pair and fish hate folding big pairs (justifiably so). Let's keep the pot small until we're winning.
Turn: ($90.00) T (2 players)
BB bets $32, Hero raises to $72, BB calls $40
Boom. We have our flush and if our range is accurate, we know we're ahead. We could get cute and simply call the turn bet, but we want to build the pot while our opponent still likes his hand. If we smooth-call and a fourth spade comes on the river, that could freeze our man and we'd be left with winning a small pot. We do not want to win a small pot, especially in this situation where we called the preflop 3bet knowing we were behind for the express purpose of flopping big and winning a big pot.
When he calls our raise, we can rule AK out of his range (unless he has the king of spades, perhaps). So, now we're putting him on JJ+. Yes, I suppose he could have TT but that's quite unlikely considering he didn't reraise us on the turn.
River: ($234.00) 9 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $40, BB calls $40
Any fear of TT (or 99, I suppose) evaporated when he checked the river. Now we know exactly where we are: we have a flush and he has an overpair to the board. If we were beginners, we might be tempted to think to ourselves, "Shoot, now any 9 or any 5 beats us. There's so many full houses out there that maybe we should be careful and just check behind." Luckily, we're thinking players who realize that although the board looks scary for someone with a flush, it is nearly impossible for our opponent to have a better hand. We have determined (approximately) what our opponent's hand is, and now we know that relative to his hand, our hand is valuable. Also, we know from observing our opponent that he's fairly passive and we thus don't have to fear a check-raise from him that would probably force us to fold.
So, we've done all the hard work--now it's just a question of extracting value. Here we only bet $40--we probably could have gone as high as $60, honestly. (We don't need to talk about bet sizing today..we've enough on our plate as it is.)
Final Pot: $314.00
Hero shows A 8 (a flush, Ace high)
BB mucks Q Q
Hero wins $312.00
(Rake: $2.00)
ez game.
For example, suppose you're in a hand that has involved some betting throughout. When the river falls, it gives you three of a kind (but also puts a third heart on the board). By now, the size of the pot is, say, $300. Your opponent checks to you. You are scared that your opponent has a flush, so you check behind. He shows you two pair. You win the hand, but by failing to make a value bet on the river, you've missed out on anywhere from $150 to $200 of your opponent's money. That may not seem like much to those of you working at Baker Botts or Google or whatever, but that's some real folding money to me.
Since value-betting is such an essential skill, it probably won't surprise you to learn that it is a very nuanced, intricate decision. Obviously, if you have an unbeatable hand, you're going to be betting, but what if your hand is a marginal one? That is, your hand is probably better than your opponent's but if your opponent raised your bet, you'd have to fold. Should you still bet? This situation is dependent on the type of opponent you're facing. If your opponent is very passive, he's easier to value-bet because you don't have to fear being check-raised. Inversely, you have to be wary of an aggressive opponent--he's liable to raise you (either for value or to bluff you off a marginal hand). Considerations like this one are beyond the scope of this introductory post--I just want to demonstrate some of the intricacies involved.
In determining whether to value bet, you simply must put your opponent on a range of hands. I've seen beginners go through a process similar to this: "Well, I have two pair. That's okay, I guess, but it's worse than a straight flush, quads, a full house, a flush, a straight, or three-of-a-kind. I guess it's not a very good hand." The beginner fallaciously believes that his hand has an absolute value. This is wrong. The only value that your hand has is its value relative to your opponent's hand. You can lose pots with full houses and you can win 'em with Ace-high.
**As your hand only has relative value, you need to determine your opponent's hand so you can decide just how relatively valuable your hand actually is.** Here is a fairly routine example of this process. As the focus of this post is the value-bet on the river, I will be eliding over the play on the other streets.
Poker Stars $2/$4 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players
Hero (CO): $410.60
BTN: $454.15
SB: $1056.50
BB (slightly loose, definitely passive): $416.00
UTG: $469.00
Pre Flop: ($6.00) Hero is CO with A
81 fold, Hero raises to $12, 2 folds, BB raises to $24, Hero calls $12
We've been playing this guy for about an hour and we haven't seen him 3bet (a/k/a "reraise") before the flop. Thus, we can assign him a pretty reliable range of JJ+, AK. So, we're clearly behind but we have "implied odds" to justify our call. Basically, our thinking is this: "hey, this guy has a hand he's in love with. If I can catch a flop and crack his big pair, I can probably take him for a decent-sized pot. If I airball the flop, I merely lose a small pot and no harm is done. My hand--a suited ace--lends itself to big flops, so let's invest this $12 and try to catch gin."
Flop: ($50.00) 5
5 9 (2 players)BB bets $20, Hero calls $20
Great flop for us. We could throw in a raise but we have very little fold equity because we're pretty sure he has a big pair and fish hate folding big pairs (justifiably so). Let's keep the pot small until we're winning.
Turn: ($90.00) T
(2 players)BB bets $32, Hero raises to $72, BB calls $40
Boom. We have our flush and if our range is accurate, we know we're ahead. We could get cute and simply call the turn bet, but we want to build the pot while our opponent still likes his hand. If we smooth-call and a fourth spade comes on the river, that could freeze our man and we'd be left with winning a small pot. We do not want to win a small pot, especially in this situation where we called the preflop 3bet knowing we were behind for the express purpose of flopping big and winning a big pot.
When he calls our raise, we can rule AK out of his range (unless he has the king of spades, perhaps). So, now we're putting him on JJ+. Yes, I suppose he could have TT but that's quite unlikely considering he didn't reraise us on the turn.
River: ($234.00) 9
(2 players)BB checks, Hero bets $40, BB calls $40
Any fear of TT (or 99, I suppose) evaporated when he checked the river. Now we know exactly where we are: we have a flush and he has an overpair to the board. If we were beginners, we might be tempted to think to ourselves, "Shoot, now any 9 or any 5 beats us. There's so many full houses out there that maybe we should be careful and just check behind." Luckily, we're thinking players who realize that although the board looks scary for someone with a flush, it is nearly impossible for our opponent to have a better hand. We have determined (approximately) what our opponent's hand is, and now we know that relative to his hand, our hand is valuable. Also, we know from observing our opponent that he's fairly passive and we thus don't have to fear a check-raise from him that would probably force us to fold.
So, we've done all the hard work--now it's just a question of extracting value. Here we only bet $40--we probably could have gone as high as $60, honestly. (We don't need to talk about bet sizing today..we've enough on our plate as it is.)
Final Pot: $314.00
Hero shows A
8 (a flush, Ace high)BB mucks Q
QHero wins $312.00
(Rake: $2.00)
ez game.
The "Write the Future" Curse
"Write the Future" is the name of the breathtaking Nike soccer ad that feels more like a movie trailer. While the reviews have been resoundingly positive, its cast has performed less than admirably in real life. Could there be a "Write the Future" curse? Let's examine the evidence.
First, here's the ad in case y'all haven't seen it yet:
Let's break it down:
1. The first player to touch the ball is Didier Drogba, from the Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast). Days before the World Cup, Drogba broke his arm in a friendly against Japan. While he has admirably taken the pitch despite the injury, his contributions have been limited. Furthermore, his team will likely fail to advance from its group.
2. Fabio Cannavaro takes over next in the commercial. Italy--the team for which Cannavaro plays and the defending champions--lost today to Slovakia and consequently finished last in its group (a group widely believed to be the weakest of the 8).
3. After Cannavaro comes Wayne Rooney, the diminutive English striker. While England has advanced, they look very shaky (they finished behind the United States, need I say more?) and Rooney has been kept off the scoresheet. I'm gonna chalk this up as evidence in favor of the curse.
4. When Rooney makes his heroic tackle, the commercial cuts to scenes of Rooney's popularity/greatness, including one where he bests Roger Federer at ping-pong. Federer has struggled mightily at Wimbledon this year, getting taken to five sets in his first match and going to four in his next (both against unknown opponents).
5. Next after Rooney we see the one-and-only Ronaldinho, the oft-imitated Brazilian superstar. At this point you're thinking, "Brazil have looked untouchable so far...surely this can't be evidence of a curse." But wait, don't forget that Ronaldinho himself was left off Brazil's World Cup team. Clearly, the commercial has used its powers to curse Ronaldinho while rewarding those who have neglected him (his national team).
6. One of the celebrity cameos we see is Kobe "No surname necessary" Bryant doing his own version of the Ronaldinho stepover celebration. Kobe just won his fifth ring by beating the archrival Celtics--he's on top of the world right now. So, obviously, Kobe is the exception that proves the rule. Moving on...
7. Cristiano Ronaldo features last in the ad, and I gotta admit, his team has played well (it helps to have someone like North Korea to use as a punching bag). But surely the Curse has something in store for this Mediterranean metrosexual--besides, if it doesn't, I'm sure I can use my heightened powers of rationalization to explain why Ronaldo's success is not evidence against the existence of the Curse.
8. Homer Simpson. Well, the Simpsons have been going downhill for a while, so unless the Curse is able to have some sort of causal effect on events that occurred earlier in time, we'll just have to view Homer's appearance as a wash.
So, you decide: is this curse just a series of unfortunate coincidences* or something rivaling 4 8 15 16 23 42? Only time will tell...
Update: Apparently I'm not the only person to have this idea. For what it's worth, I didn't bite anyone's shit, I came up with this on my own.
*ELAINE: Well, I mean, he was in the apartment, and then it's gon and it's in your apartment.
First, here's the ad in case y'all haven't seen it yet:
Let's break it down:
1. The first player to touch the ball is Didier Drogba, from the Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast). Days before the World Cup, Drogba broke his arm in a friendly against Japan. While he has admirably taken the pitch despite the injury, his contributions have been limited. Furthermore, his team will likely fail to advance from its group.
2. Fabio Cannavaro takes over next in the commercial. Italy--the team for which Cannavaro plays and the defending champions--lost today to Slovakia and consequently finished last in its group (a group widely believed to be the weakest of the 8).
3. After Cannavaro comes Wayne Rooney, the diminutive English striker. While England has advanced, they look very shaky (they finished behind the United States, need I say more?) and Rooney has been kept off the scoresheet. I'm gonna chalk this up as evidence in favor of the curse.
4. When Rooney makes his heroic tackle, the commercial cuts to scenes of Rooney's popularity/greatness, including one where he bests Roger Federer at ping-pong. Federer has struggled mightily at Wimbledon this year, getting taken to five sets in his first match and going to four in his next (both against unknown opponents).
5. Next after Rooney we see the one-and-only Ronaldinho, the oft-imitated Brazilian superstar. At this point you're thinking, "Brazil have looked untouchable so far...surely this can't be evidence of a curse." But wait, don't forget that Ronaldinho himself was left off Brazil's World Cup team. Clearly, the commercial has used its powers to curse Ronaldinho while rewarding those who have neglected him (his national team).
6. One of the celebrity cameos we see is Kobe "No surname necessary" Bryant doing his own version of the Ronaldinho stepover celebration. Kobe just won his fifth ring by beating the archrival Celtics--he's on top of the world right now. So, obviously, Kobe is the exception that proves the rule. Moving on...
7. Cristiano Ronaldo features last in the ad, and I gotta admit, his team has played well (it helps to have someone like North Korea to use as a punching bag). But surely the Curse has something in store for this Mediterranean metrosexual--besides, if it doesn't, I'm sure I can use my heightened powers of rationalization to explain why Ronaldo's success is not evidence against the existence of the Curse.
8. Homer Simpson. Well, the Simpsons have been going downhill for a while, so unless the Curse is able to have some sort of causal effect on events that occurred earlier in time, we'll just have to view Homer's appearance as a wash.
So, you decide: is this curse just a series of unfortunate coincidences* or something rivaling 4 8 15 16 23 42? Only time will tell...
Update: Apparently I'm not the only person to have this idea. For what it's worth, I didn't bite anyone's shit, I came up with this on my own.
*ELAINE: Well, I mean, he was in the apartment, and then it's gon and it's in your apartment.
RAVA: Maybe you think we're in cahoots.
ELAINE: No, no.. but it is quite a coincidence.
RAVA: Yes, that's all, a coincidence!
ELAINE: A big coincidence.
RAVA: Not a big coincidence. A coincidence!
ELAINE: No, that's a big coincidence.
RAVA: That's what a coincidence is! There are no small coincidences and big coincidences!
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Going on the Record...
...and saying that I will be very impressed with the Celtics and Doc Rivers if the C's manage to win Game 7 on the road without Kendrick Perkins (whose injury will prevent him from playing). Perkins has been a crucial component to the Celtics' success, and his loss causes huge problems for Doc. Rivers might end up relying on 'Sheed, who has been, uh, far from reliable.
The Lakers are -7 and I'm guessing (I use the word "guess" cuz I don't pretend to be an expert, a sports bettor, or an expert sports bettor) they handily cover.
The Lakers are -7 and I'm guessing (I use the word "guess" cuz I don't pretend to be an expert, a sports bettor, or an expert sports bettor) they handily cover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)