Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Thursday I played the $50 tournament at the Red Mouse, and made a final table, but no cigar. Reggie's A,J made the four card flush against my pocket queens. Later in the cash game I made $100, and I was pleased to end the night plus $50. I won just one hand with pocket nines and the flop 9,8,8.
Friday in Scott's game no excitement, but at the end of night I lost two hands in a row and recorded -$260.
Saturday at Ho-Chunk I was up in Holdem $130, and than lost $70 in Omaha, but the night was positive $60.
Can someone tell me how professional players pay rent when they are card dead for two months?
Friday, July 24, 2009
In the standard English playing card deck, the king and the other face cards represent no one in particular (though the king of hearts is sometimes referred to as the "suicide king" because he appears to be sticking his sword into his head; evidently, the king of hearts is also the only one of the kings without a moustache, whereas the king of diamonds is the only king not be depicted carrying a sword, wielding an axe instead). The most common names for the court cards were:
Spades: Called “David” on the French deck, probably after the biblical character. He holds a scepter in one hand, and a harp is visible below it (confirming the biblical attribution). He faces forward, a little to the left. On the English deck, he holds a sword. He faces forward, a little to the right.
Hearts: Called “Charles” on the French deck, probably after Charles the Great (Charlemagne) — or perhaps after French king Charles VII. He holds a sword. He faces forward, a little to the right. On the English deck, he also holds a sword (above his head), and both his hands are visible. Unlike the other kings, he does not have a mustache. He faces forward, a little to the left.
Diamonds: Called “César” on the French deck, probably after Julius Cæsar. He has no distinguishing attribute, and no visible hands. He faces right, and is seen in profile. On the English deck, he has an axe behind him, and one hand sticking in front of him. He faces left, and is seen in profile.
Clubs: Called “Alexandre” on the French deck, probably after Alexander the Great. He holds a scepter in one hand, with a shield (?) just below it. He faces forward, a little to the right. On the English deck, he holds a sword in his hand, with an imperial orb just beside it (seemingly floating in air). He faces forward, a little to the left.
Spades: Called “Pallas” on the French deck, possibly after the Greek goddess Athena. She faces left, and is seen in profile. On the English deck, she is the only queen with a scepter. She faces forward, a little to the right.
Hearts: Called “Judith” on the French deck, probably after the biblical character (or perhaps after Judith of Bavaria). She faces forward, a little to the left. On the English deck, she also faces forward, a little to the left (she is not reversed with respect to the French deck).
Diamonds: Called “Rachel” on the French deck, possibly after the biblical character. She faces forward, a little to the right. On the English deck, she faces forward, a little to the left.
Clubs: Called “Argine” on the French deck, an anagram of latin “regina” (“queen”); some have suggested that the name may (also) be related to the Greek Argos. She is the only queen not holding a flower. She faces forward, a little to the right. On the English deck, she does hold a flower like the other queens. She faces forward, a little to the left.
Spades: Called “Hogier” on the French deck: origin is uncertain, but perhaps after Ogier the Dane from the Song of Rolland. He has a feather in his hat. He faces forward, a little to the right. On the English deck, he holds an unidentifiable object (initially a spear). He has a mustache. He faces right, and is seen in profile.
Hearts: Called “Lahire” on the French deck: origin is uncertain, but may refer to Étienne “La Hire” de Vignolles, companion of arms to Joan of Arc. He faces forward, a little to the left, and his face is a little slanted to the left. On the English deck, he also holds a leaf, and has an axe behind his head. He has a mustache. He faces left, and is seen in profile.
Diamonds: Called “Hector” on the French deck, possibly not after the Trojan hero, but perhaps after a companion (brother?) of Lancelot. He faces right, and is seen in profile. On the English deck, he holds a sword. He faces forward, a little to the left.
Clubs: Called “Lancelot” on the French deck, probably after the Arthurian hero. He holds a shield (?) attached to a string. He faces forward, a little to the left. On the English deck, he holds an unreadable object (originally an arrow). There is a feather sticking from his hat. He faces forward, a little to the right.
Check also The Four King Truth
Monday, July 20, 2009
Charts are comparison between the first five months of this year, and the last two months. Good news is, for July I'm down only $150. (Flat line in April is: two weeks period I spent in Europe and didn't play poker.)
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
By Mike Sexton for POKER NEWS DAILY Posted on March 29, 2009
Recently, I went to Charleston, South Carolina to testify as an “expert witness” in a poker trial. The case was the Town of Mount Pleasant versus five poker players who pled not guilty when they were busted for playing in a $20 tournament in someone’s house a couple of years ago. South Carolina law is similar to about 20 other states’ laws which say that it’s illegal to bet on any games of chance (in South Carolina, any game of dice or cards is considered to be a game of chance). Our mission was to prove that No Limit Hold’em poker was predominantly (more than 51%) a game of skill rather than chance. Fortunately for everyone in the poker world, Judge Larry Duffy agreed to hear testimony on this.
To poker players, whether poker is a game of skill or chance is a “no-brainer.” In my research for this case, I learned that several previous cases failed to prove this in court (even though two recent rulings in Pennsylvania and Colorado ruled that skill was the predominant factor in Hold’em). Proving that skill predominates over chance in a court of law is quite different than discussing it among poker players. Even if someone was a big favorite to win a pot, people who really don’t play poker see that any card can come up in the end and, therefore, many would think that Hold’em poker is primarily a game of chance.
Twenty states have laws similar to South Carolina’s, which says that it’s illegal to bet on any games of dice or cards. They claim it’s illegal to gamble on games of chance. If we were able to prove to the judge that poker was predominantly (51% or more) a game of skill, then perhaps the law could be changed to allow poker players to play in their homes without fear of criminalization. Obviously, the more court rulings that agree with this, the better the chance we have to change the laws nationwide.
Prior to going to South Carolina, I was forwarded a paper written by Howard Lederer on the predominant factor of skill versus chance in poker (specifically in No Limit Hold’em, as this was the game these guys were playing when they were busted). I thought Howard’s paper was brilliant. It was well thought out and very well written. Howard understood why previous cases had failed to prove that skill predominated over chance in poker. For the most part, they basically rested their testimony on the fact that that better players have an edge and the same people win year after year. He felt this thought process was doomed to fail in court.
The crux of Howard’s paper focused on the “predominant factor” and the skill elements of the game - things that are in total control of the player such as betting, calling, and folding. Everyone agrees on what the chance elements are in poker - the randomness of the cards and how they are dealt. The skill elements are what need to be defined. If there was no betting or folding in poker, it would be showdown poker and the luckiest player would win. It would simply be a game of chance. But that’s not how poker is played. One key point (verified by over 100 million hands played) is that over 70% of the hands dealt in No Limit Hold’em do not go to showdown (regardless of who may or may not have had the best hand). These pots are won by the skill applied by the player betting and getting everyone out of the pot.
In my testimony, I listed ten points that I felt were vital to becoming a successful poker player and stressed that there is so much more to playing poker than just the cards you get. I brought footage of actual hands that were played on the World Poker Tour to use for demonstration. They showed bluffing (where the guy won the pot, not because of his cards, but because of his skill), amateurs making mistakes, tells that were read properly by an opponent, someone making a tough call, and someone making a good laydown. These visual aids were very impressive in demonstrating that skill predominates over chance in No Limit Hold’em.
After hearing the testimony of myself and Dr. Bob Hannum (an expert in gaming mathematics who also testified as an expert witness), it seemed pretty obvious to all, especially the judge, that skill was the predominant factor in poker. Although the prosecutor asked us a few questions, he didn’t really make an effort to produce any contradictory evidence to the facts we testified on. He said his case didn’t matter whether poker was a game of skill or chance, but simply that these players were playing in a “house of gaming” and were guilty as charged.
The decision by the Judge Duffy resoundingly held poker to be a game of skill. However, he ruled against the five defendants. Judge Duffy is leaving it up to the appellate courts in South Carolina to decide if that fact is determinative of whether playing in a home game with a rake is legal under South Carolina law. He noted the absence of authority from the South Carolina Supreme Court as to whether the predominance test is the law in the state.
To quote Judge Duffy in his decision, “This Court, based on the above stated facts, finds that Texas Hold’em is a game of skill. The evidence and studies are overwhelming that this is so.”
This was my first testimonial as an expert witness and it was a unique experience for me. It was also a positive result for poker. The case will be appealed to a higher court and we hope that it goes by the “predominance” part of the state statute. If so, look for the law to change where people can play poker in the privacy of their homes (whether online or live) without fear of criminal prosecution.
A special thanks to the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) for their support in this case. They helped fund the attorneys and expert witnesses in an effort to stand up for the rights of poker players. I also want to thank Bob Ciaffone (advocate for poker players’ rights) and Chuck Humphrey (expert on gaming law) for their efforts in coordinating the lawyers and expert witnesses for the case. The brief of amicus curiae put together by Tom Goldstein was fantastic. Everyone who enjoys poker owes them a tip of the hat, as they are all fighting for your right to play poker.
It was a fun four days in Charleston for me. Someone said, “Sexton’s a rock star!” I wouldn’t go that far, but I was appreciated by the defendants and the supporters of the case for being there. I was in the local papers and on television every day. One blogger from the courtroom wrote, “Everyone in that courtroom should have paid to hear Sexton’s testimony!” I must say, that was pretty cool. To that blogger and to Howard Lederer (for writing that paper), let me say, “Thank you!”
- South Carolina Judge Finds Poker is a Game of Skill, Defendants Still Guilty
In breaking news from South Carolina, Judge Larry Duffy “wrote that there is ‘overwhelming’ evidence...
- Dutch Probability Expert Claims Poker Is Game of Skill, Not Chance
Dutch Professor used his retirement speech to drop a bomb, stating that according to his...
- Study Reveals Poker is a Game of Skill
In a study released on Friday, it was revealed that Texas Hold'em, statistically at least,...
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Online Tracking Services:
www.pokercharts.com/ $2 montly fee
http://www.pokerjunkie.com/module-BankrollTracker.html Free Online Bankrol Tracker
http://www.thefuturepokerstar.co.uk/2008/02/poker-bankroll-stats-spreadsheet.html Excell spreadsheet
Free Poker Game Tracker by Mr. Wegas
To track my games I started with a simple Excel spreadsheet, but later I created a dabase in MS Access 2000. You can download this program and use it. After a few weeks, if you have any new ideas for more reports or functionality, let me know and I can make some changes. You need MS Access on your computer to use this tracking tool. Access is part of MS Office, but not included in basic versions.
Click to Download Free Poker Tracker Database
Screen shot of the main Poker Game Tracker window with sample data.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
|Joe Navarro spent over twenty-five years with the FBI, working both as an agent and as a supervisor in the area of counterintelligence and counterterrorism. Through his work, he has become one of the foremost authorities on reading the nonverbal communications that human beings exhibit when they are lying.|
Joe first realized that his skill set could be applicable to poker after filming a Discovery Channel special entitled “More Than Human” where he met Annie Duke in a test of human lie detectors against machine lie detectors. He then applied his craft at Camp Hellmuth, Phil’s poker fantasy camp in August 2005, and by some accounts, stole the show with his presentation on Decoding Non Verbals at the Poker Table.
Applying his expertise to poker, Joe is revolutionizing the science of detecting and interpreting tells. The subtle mannerisms that betray the strength or weakness of a player’s hand. Navarro teaches "Read Em and Reap" seminar www.navarropoker.com, and often shares his information at WSOP Academy events.
Navarro is now poised to reinvent the study of poker “tells” and create a new generation of poker players to be feared. You can read some of Narro's articles online at www.bluffmagazine.com
Monday, July 6, 2009
I'm wondering how professional players make living with cards like this. I'm sitting there for hours and not playing a hand. There is about 30 hands per hour. With 9 players at the table everyone should win on average 3 hands per hour. But it's not like that. I sometimes don't enter the pot for 2-3 hours. That is almost 100 hands. So who is wining my 3 hands? I have no clue, but it's boring.