Posted by Dr Fro 3:35 PM
From the mailbag:

++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Dr Fro

This email is to notify you that The Longhorn Foundation was unable to fulfill your request for tickets to the Texas vs. Oklahoma football game in Dallas. We exhausted our given allotment of tickets at an annual donor contribution level of $800 with a cumulative giving total of $13,350.

The demand for these tickets significantly exceeded our supply; therefore, it is necessary to refund the amount you paid for these tickets. If you paid using a credit card, a refund will be issued to that credit card. If you paid with a check or cash, a refund check will be mailed to your address of record. Refunds will be processed immediately.

If you have further questions regarding your refund, please call the Athletics Ticket Office at 512/471-3333 or 800/982-BEVO.

Hook 'em, Horns!

(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 9:33 AM


If you think about it, her answer makes sense. You can't use something you don't have! Seriously, she just misunderstood the question. Shame on Slater for not clearing that up for her. I guess he was just blinded by her beauty like the rest of us and failed to see just how deep her thinking really was.


(1) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 11:05 AM

Fox News is the cradle of American conservatism. Rupert Murdoch is conspiring to force his brand of American Puritanism on us through his ownership of the media, including Fox Sports.

(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:18 AM

There is a great article in the NY Times about the WTO case against America's ban on online gambling. If you don't have a registered account on NYT, check out the article on Iggy's site.

And in the random observation category, I just noticed how often it has worked out that the Main Event of the WSOP is won on a hand that is an underdog preflop. Who says it has nothing to do with luck?

(I don't know why the formatting of this table is so messed up - something to do with the html getting trumped by blogger defaults/settings)

Year	Winner / Winning Hand	Runner-Up / Losing Hand	Preflop dog or favorite?
1995	Dan Harrington 9♦ 8♦	Howard Goldfarb A♥ 7♣	dog
1996	Huck Seed 9♦ 8♦	Bruce Van Horn K♣ 8♣	big dog
1997	Stu Ungar A♥ 4♣	John Strzemp A♠ 8♣	big dog
1998	Scotty Nguyen J♦ 9♣	Kevin McBride Q♥ 10♥	dog
1999	Noel Furlong 5♣ 5♦	Alan Goehring 6♥ 6♣	big dog
2000	Chris Ferguson A♠ 9♣	T. J. Cloutier A♦ Q♣	big dog
2001	Juan Carlos Mortensen K♣ Q♣	Dewey Tomko A♠ A♥	big dog
2002	Robert Varkonyi Q♦ 10♠	Julian Gardner J♣ 8♣	slight favorite
2003	Chris Moneymaker 5♦ 4♠	Sam Farha J♥ 10♦	big dog
2004	Greg Raymer 8♠ 8♦	David Williams A♥ 4♠	slight favorite
2005	Joe Hachem 7♣ 3♠	Steve Dannenmann A♦ 3♣	big dog
2006	Jamie Gold Q♠ 9♣	Paul Wasicka 10♥ 10♠	big dog
2007	Jerry Yang 8♦ 8♣	Tuan Lam A♦ Q♦	race

(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 6:02 PM
Funny


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 3:48 PM
I can't say that I agree with the sentiment here, but the writing is pretty funny. One gem:

It got so bad that our mostly white fanbase wasn’t even afraid of our black players. That’s not the natural order of things. White people should always be afraid of black people, young black males in particular.

There are plenty of other good reads on that site. Try the KSU preview. A gem from that one is:

Ron Prince compares Freeman’s physique to JaMarcus Russell. I compare Ron Prince’s intellect to that of a chronically masturbating howler monkey.

Very funny.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:42 PM

A no-brainer play and a brain-dead play

The third night of Poker League Season III was last night. I won the most money ($120) and consequently scored the most league points. I am one point shy of the maximum possible points so far on the season (a 2nd, 1st and 1st place finish), so things are looking good. I just hope I don't get a stinger on 4th and 1 against Kansas State...

There was one hand that I played that warrants a little bit of discussion. I flopped a pair, a gutshot straight draw and a flush draw. Player A bets big, Player B (both A and B have me covered) goes all-in. I call and Player A calls. When I called, I was getting 3:1. With the call from A, I got 4:1. I figured that I had appr. 14 outs (9 to the the flush + 3 to the straight + 2 to get a set.) I figured these outs were right because their bets seemed to be protecting something, the most likely somethings being an overpair or a set. I was half right: Player B had an overpair but Player A flopped the ass end of the straight. So I only had 12 outs. Last time I checked, 12 outs with two cards to come wins 45% of the time. I hit the flush and won, only to get a lecture from Player A that I was lucky (implying, of course, that it was a stupid call.) Huh? Getting 4:1 justifies calling with as few as 5 outs. I knew I would get at least 3:1, so getting 7 outs would make a good call. I was getting 9 on the nut flush draw alone. It was a stupid comment and a no-brainer call.

Then came the brain-dead moment. I very much take the strategy of playing as many cheap hands as possible so as to maximize the possibility of capitalizing on another's mistake (a common occurrence in PL III). Well, this time, I made the mistake!

I rivered the boat, and my opponent rivered the nut flush. He bet $25 and I looked at his chips. One green chip was kinda in front of him and another green and a 50c piece were near him. I thought that the green chip that was in front of him was the chip he bet, so I said, "What do you have? $25.50? I'll bet $25.50 to put you all in." I put in $25.50 as did he. I win the pot and, to my surprise, after scooping the chips, he still had a green chip. Evidently, both green chips were part of his stack, and his bet had been thrown into the pot. So, had I simply said "all-in", he would have called (he confirmed to me he would have), and I would have won $25 more off of him. This is very out of character for me. I usually know exactly what is in the pot (an old habit from PL Holdem in the UK) and have a pretty good idea of exactly how many chips each player has at any time. I just zoned out (after having many beers) and wasn't paying attention. Lesson learned, if you want to go all-in, just say "all-in" and don't say anything else. I probably could have made an argument that I deserved the green chip based on the clear intention in what I said that I wanted to put him all in (on that note, if a verbal declaration is binding, but a verbal statement is contradictory, which part of it is binding???), but I think that would have been dickish. I clearly made a mistake, and I should have paid for it. I did.

And boy did I, as that chip enabled the player to suck a little more money out of me on the last hand of the night!

You live and learn.

(1) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:44 AM
Holy rattlesnakes, Batman !

Check this out.

Is it just me, or does this whole things seem so, so.....Batman-ish?


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:19 PM
A Fro post, Greeney syle

We finally finished the garden, enjoy the before and afters:



Sorry, it is not in HD.

(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 9:20 PM
Just to get it off of my chest - the MLB blackout rules suck, especially tonight. Normally, I wouldn't care if the simulcast on ESPN was blacked in order to force me to watch FSN. Heck, I probably would prefer the local announcers to the ESPN guys, anyway.

But here's what sucks: ESPN is showing the game in HD and Fox Sports isn't. From what I understand, Fox Sports is going to go 100% HD next year just as DirecTV is adding the bandwidth capacity to accomodate them, but tonight, I am being forced to watch fuzzy view instead of the crystal clear view and I am somewhat pissed.


(3) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 1:37 PM

I don't know how I missed this, but there was a big bust of poker cheats last month.

(1) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:13 AM

I incorrectly wrote yesterday that Gus Hansen was involved in the man vs. computer experiment. It was Phil Laak.

And he won.

I do find it interesting that in the 4-game match where the humans went 2-1-1, the lone loss was to the super-aggressive computer. Though a wheels-off out of control maniacal approach is not a sustainable winning approach, if you had to play a single match against a pro, that would be the best way to come out a winner in that single match. I'll remember that the next time I am in that situation. ;-)

(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:55 AM

"New ideas, nuanced ideas, hybrid ideas — and sometimes dangerous ideas — often have trouble getting a hearing "

Some day you will get sick of me attacking conventional wisdom and lauding the merits of thinking outside the box. To postpone that day as long as possible, I have a new source to cite in addition to Billy Beane and Freakenomics.

Steven Pinker wrote a great piece on my favorite subject. Give it a read.

(1) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 2:37 PM

Duplicate bridge involves players playing the exact same hands with the winner being who gets the most out of that hand.

The concept was used in the contest between Gus Hansen and his friend against a computer. Each human and his opponent played simultaneous heads-up poker. Gus and his friend's opponent-computer were dealt the same hand while his friend and Gus' opponent-computer got dealt the same hand. Thus, the luck factor was taken out.

Now they are doing duplicate poker online, and it is legal.

(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:07 AM

A blogger came up with his list of Top Ten Dirtiest NCAA Football Programs of the Past Twenty Years. (Read bottom to top or you will get confused - it was a countdown that is now complete.)

He used his own approach to the rating. Though he goes on to explain for pages, it comes down to an approach with which I very much agree:

1. Infractions committed by the school - counted
2. Infractions committed by boosters - not counted directly, but when it leads to a "lack of institutional control" it is counted in category #1
3. Criminal activity of players - not counted.

Category three is not counted for two reasons, the biggest one relating to the difficulty in gathering the statistics

I love how crazy people get when this topic of cheating comes up. Bring up college football playoffs, you will get an argument. Bring up Iraq, arguments. But if you really want to get under people's feathers (that was intentional and is a Stoopsism), bring up the topic of who cheats the most in college football. Look at the comments below the explanation of his approach, and you get gems such as this:

8. Oklahoma beats out Alabama, and where is Texas? (the dirtiest, and most blatant cheats ever) Ok sure over the last 7 years Texas has cleaned up its act (somewhat). I see however your top 10 list goes back 20 years which brings to mind Texas boosters, and staff being banned, and fired for paying refs, paying players, buying them cars, and fancy houses, oh, and lets not forget the NCAA Investigator who got fired for taking a bribe from the University of Texas.

Fantastic (pun intended)! I have no idea what he is talking about here, but he is certain that it is true. If anybody can show me a credible citation, I would (seriously) love to read it. I tried the links at http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/ to no avail.

The reason why I get such a kick out of such discussions is that there is always the line of reasoning thrown out that goes something like, "All teams cheat. My team got caught, but all teams that haven't been caught are cheating just as much. No, actually they are cheating more. Much more. Just look at how many games they have won. Since they are the devil incarnate, they could only win by cheating."

Being one who likes to stir the pot, this is great fun.

The blogger cites this article/list as being his inspiration. The biggest difference in the two lists is the "all time" versus "of the last 20 years" criteria. However, a lot of the same schools appear on both lists.

Read the responses to that article here. The first says:

Gimme a break, dude. WTF has TAMU done to break the rules?! You have the nerve to call the Aggie's integrity into question? We are certainly the most respectable school in the BIg12 and more than likely, the country.

You mention the Aggies and don't even care to remark about USC? Lol, wow. What about Tech having lost about 10 years worth of wins due to infractions? Get real.

That is not just faulty reasoning, it is ignorance of facts. He gets called out pretty quickly, though.

Oh good times, good times.

I am so looking forward to college football season.

(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 9:26 PM
As I sit here watching the Astros tonight, I am compelled to exclaim to the world just how much it annoys the shit out of me that whenever the cubs come to Houston their goober fans come out of the woodwork and cheer for the visiting team almost as loudly as do the home fans for the Astros. STFU and move to the land of ice and snow and elevated railroads if you are so enamored with them, but your bandwagon cheering (even if they regularly fold like the laundry) tires me.

I am pretty sure that most people doing this cheering have likely never been north of Dallas, much less have any claim to be natural-born or otherwise legitimately connected fans, so if you are one of these fans, please take please your Waveland Avenue and shove it somewhere in the proximity of your Billy Goat's hindquarters, OK? I'm sick of hearing you cheer everytime an Astro grounds out to short.


(5) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 2:40 PM

Evan Grant wrote an article in today's Dallas Morning News about Moneyball. It was something of a Where are They Now piece on some of the draft picks discussed in the book. Nick Swisher and Prince Fielder were two players about which much was written in the book, and Evan certainly writes about them. Evan takes the benefit of hindsight to attempt to criticize Michael Lewis and Billy Beane. However, the only thing he accomplishes is to illustrate that he didn't get it when he read the book (or perhaps that he didn't read the book.)

Billy Beane never claimed to have a "magic formula", certainly not a "magic formula" in the way Evan uses the phrase. You absolutely can not predict with perfect accuracy how each draft prospect might turn out. However, by looking at observable, quantifiable data, you can make better decisions than you would if you ignored the same data (or, more commonly, only observed the data that supported your preconceived notions and ignored the rest of the data.)

To say that Billy Beane was wrong in his draft picks would be like saying it was wrong to play pocket aces - after they get cracked. Think about it - it is always the right decision to call heads up and all-in with aces pre-flop. If you get into a raising war and find yourself in that situation, you are pleased. Five cards later, the aces might win, but they might get cracked, too. Irrelevant. It was the right decision at the time, and if you do it often enough, you will win more than you will lose. The A's win in the draft more often than they lose.

Of course, I wouldn't expect a sports columnist to get this. Sports columnists are, by their nature, results-oriented. Nobody ever writes a column about the team that was clearly the best team but managed to lose due to some bad luck. The story is about the champion, the winner. Results-oriented.

(Billy Beane was so opposed to letting results cloud his decision-making, he wouldn't even watch the games. Get the statistical advantage, and let the long run play out.)

Poker players, on the other hand, are precisely the opposite. They are EV-oriented and care little about results. This is why in poker, people say, "Dude got all-in with the nuts, and some donkey made his one-outer on the river. What crap." Sports columnists never write, "Dude, the Mavericks were so the best team all season long, but the donkey Warriors drew out on them on the river." No, the headlines read, "Dallas=losers; Golden State=winners" Until Golden State loses of course, then they become the losers de jeur.

Being a poker player, I often struggle reading the sports page because I simply can not put up with the ridiculous opinions that writers spew forth based on a results-oriented mindset.

That brings me to Mack Brown.

Mack Brown was one of the most criticised coaches in sports, probably the most criticised in college football. The shtick on Mack was that he was a great recruiter off the field, but he was a loser off the field. This reputation was created by and reinforced by every sportswriter with a keyboard and half of a brain.

In typical fashion, the opinion was first determined, then the critics went about to selectively find facts that supported their opinion and ignore those that didn't support it.

I actually read in the Dallas Morning News once prior to the 2005 game, "Mack Brown has never beaten Oklahoma." There was a retraction later that said, " Mack Brown did beat Oklahoma (1998), but he has never beaten Bob Stoops." That retraction was never retracted, but it should have been. Mack Brown beat Oklahoma twice - in 1998 and 1999. Bob Stoops was the coach of OU in 1999. Never mind the facts. We want to believe the Mack Brown can't ever win the big one.

The other fact that was commonly cited was how many years Mack Brown went without ever winning a conference championship. This statistic of course included his many years at UNC. This was simply unfair. He made UNC, a terrible team, the second best team in the ACC. Although they never beat FSU, they were competitive with them. FSU was absolutely dominant on a national level during this time, and to take a crap school like UNC and make them consistently competitive with FSU should be an accomplishment to be praised. But alas, it made him a loser. I wish I could be such a loser.

Mack Brown was constantly criticised for "never winning the big game." This was folly. He beat NU in 98, 99, 02, and 03 to go 4-0 against them in the regular season. He beat OU twice. He beat A&M in 98, 00, 01, 02, 03 and 04 to go 6-1 against them in his first 7 years. He beat Washington, Mississippi State and LSU in bowl games before beating Michigan in a BCS game. He beat Kansas State and Arkansas and plenty of other teams that would have been considered "big games" if we had lost. But only one game mattered - the game against the best team in the nation, OU. With them as the measure, he went 2-5 in his first seven seasons. It seemed that once again he was in the same conference with the best team in the land, a team that he could not beat.

And this was the one and only criticism of Mack that was ever accurate: He did not do well against OU.

All other statistics that seemed to point to him being a terrible coach were just double-counting his lack of success against OU. His record against top 5 opponents, against top 10 opponents, against ranked opponents, on neutral fields - you name it - they seemed to paint a picture that he sucked. But if you adjust each of these for the 2-5 record against OU, they painted the picture of a winner.

Stop with the facts! Mack is a loser.

Here is a great fact, even with the poor record against OU, Mack Brown had a better winning percentage than any other coach in college football.

People that understood that fact would then point to the lack of Big XII championships, but I would again suggest that this is double-counting. In four of his first seven years, OU was the reason he didn't get to play in the Big XII championship game. Again, there is no denying that he sucked against OU, but any other criticism is simply double-counting.

Where did this perception come from?

I think it comes from one stereotype, one image and one game.

The stereotype is that Texas high school football is bar none, hands-down, the best football in the universe. Since Mack Brown was successful recruiting in Texas, he must have the best talent in the nation. Therefore, anything short of winning it all would be "doing less with more." The problem is that although Friday Night Lights, Athlon's and Lee Corso might think that all Texas high school football players are just short of superheroes, it simply isn't true. At a minimum, it isn't as true as they might think. The talent is good, no doubt, but if Texas talent was that much better than anywhere else, why didn't Texas universities win sixty straight national championships from 1900 to 1960? I know that in the 70's and 80's, our talent went out of state, but what about before then? Why do the Texas all-state teams lose when they play other all-state teams? Why does USC keep winning championships without any Texas talent?

If Billy Beane were a college football coach, he would do his recruiting outside of Texas. This isn't denying the quality of the talent, just saying that it doesn't live up to the hype.

The image that just killed Mack was the one of Chris Simms getting sacked to effectively end the OU game in 2001. Chris Simms, the crowl jewel of Mack's recruiting, gets crushed by OU's Roy Williams. It made the cover of a few magazines and most sports pages. Mack Brown could bring the recruits such as Simms in, but he would be dominated by Bob Stoops' Sooners on the field.

This image just killed Coach February in the eyes of sportswriters. Article after article, they made the point that Bob Stoops could "do more with less." This was all just based on perception of course. Bob Stoops, in reality, did more with more. Bob is a heckuva a recruiter himself. He did well in Oklahoma, and he did very well in Texas. He also had a no-name kid from South Dakota win him a national championship. In fact, he had so much talent on his team, that when Nate Hybel got injured in the UT game, a kid came off the bench that just destroyed Texas. That kid won the Heisman Trophy in 2003. You tell me who has more talent when one team had a Heisman Trophy winner riding the pine.

The third and final blow to the perception of Mack Brown was the UT-Colorado Big XII Championship game in Dallas in 2001. This was a big game. (UT had beaten Colorado earlier in the year. No sportswriter would give Mack credit for that as a big game. )

So here is Mack. If he wins this game, he wins a conference championship, goes to the national championship game and proves the doubters wrong. That is what happens if he wins. Late in the game, UT commits a penalty that allows Colorado to kick what proved to be the game-winning FG. We also rough the punter which may have kept us from being able to win. Early in the game, our best running back and best offensive lineman ran into each other. They both got hurt. All together, we had some really crappy and unlucky things happen to us, and we lost the game by 2 points.

Two points.

Mack Brown was ostracised as a choker and a loser. Had we scored 3 more points? He would have been a champion, a gamer.

This is the logic of the sportswriter.

I do not mean to suggest that the losers of sporting events should be applauded as if they had won. What I oppose is the massive extrapolation of results into broad generalizations. To say that Mack Brown didn't win a championship was factually correct. To say that he never would was foolish.

It is all so funny to me. If you (or I) saw a poker player make the final table at the Main Event 10 times without winning, your reaction would be that they are a great player and that surely they are very likely to win one of these days. A sportswriter would observe the same pattern and declare it as proof that the poker player was a loser.

Mack Brown never was a loser. The program was going one direction for eight years. There was some deviation along that trajectory, but the trajectory was clearly going up. At least it was clear to this poker player.

(3) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:18 PM

If you see two guys on TV with percentages next to their hole cards of 57% and 43%, do you think that is each of their percentage chances of winning the hand? Do you think they indicate that the guy with the 57% has a higher EV than the guy with the 43%?

Really?

Because I don't.

First of all, understand that ESPN shows you the percentage chance of a hand being the best hand in the event of a showdown.

There are two reasons why these percentages can be a misleading indicator of who the favorite is.

The first is because, as we know, the best hand does not always win. The uninformed fag at this point says, "yes, because of bluffing." That is why he is an uninformed fag. Yes, bluffing is one reason why the hand with the highest ESPN percentage might lose. So is semi-bluffing. And despite the fact that the two concepts seem to only be separated by a prefix and a hyphen, they have very little to do with each other in either purpose or expected result. Furthermore, sometimes the better hand has to fold to an inferior hand because, all else equal, the better hand has worse position. The ESPN percentages do not care what your position is. Your percentage chance of winning the hand does. Often late position is an advantage. Heads up in a race, it is good to act first. If you go all-in, you are now much more likely to win the hand because your opponent might fold.

So for starters, the percentages do not indicate the percentage chance of winning the pot.

Even if the percentages could possibly go through all permutations of possibilities and accurately assign probabilities to what each player might do in response to each other's actions, that would still only tell us the percentage chance of winning the pot - a more relevant measure than the percentage chance of having the highest hand in the event of a showdown - but still not a complete measure of the EV of a hand.

This is because, as we know, some people will do a better job of eking more out of winning hands and cutting losses on losing hands. So even if you have a percentage chance of winning a hand of, say, 55% against Daniel Negreanu, I would say that your EV is probably negative. He will take your shirt off your back when he wins and not pay you off win you win. So your EV is = +(55% * not much) - (45% * a lot). Sucks to be you.

Although everything I have written thus far is intuitively obvious, I don't think people really think through this properly in poker.

For instance, people will say, "I think he has XX, and that makes me a 3:2 favorite, so I called." What they should say is "I think he has XX, and that makes me a 3:2 favorite to win the hand in the event of a showdown. I think that if I call, he will shove all in and I won't be able to call and get to a showdown - bad for me. Furthermore, he is a more seasoned player and he won't pay me off if that third spade comes. So, I need to adjust my calculation to account for the fact that my EV is less than what I might suppose based solely on my chance to win the hand in the event of a showdown."

Of course, the opposite can happen. If a very good player is playing with a table full of numbnuts, he is right to call pre-flop with all sorts of junk because he knows that his post-flop playing abilities make him an EV favorite with just about any holding.

So it is important to not only put your opponent on a hand (or a range of hands), you have to think through how the hand might play out on subsequent streets to determine what your next action is. Whether you are "ahead" or "behind" is not as important as what will happen on subsequent streets in determining your EV. After all, if you wanted to maximize the number of showdowns you win, the optimal strategy is to check/call every street. If you want to maximize the number of pots you win, you should go all-in pre-flop every street. But these aren't your goals, making money is. Adjust your decisions accordingly.

(1) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:04 PM

I have been running well.

Well, I have been running. I got taken for 5 bucks by a girl; that wasn't cool. That was one of three SNGs that I lost in New Braunfels this weekend. I also lost $32 in HORSE (actually, it was HORS). But I rebounded well in Poker League III by winning $216 on Sunday. Pile that on top of a $90 in week #1 of PLIII, and I am up $306 in PLIII. For 2007, I am up $637 in Poker Leagues due to a big run on the end of PLII plus the results to date of PLIII.

There is one big reason for the results: Omaha 8.

It is unbelievable how easy that game is when you actually play O/8 and don't play Holdem strategy in an O/8 game. My ability to eke out much more in Holdem is limited and waning, but O/8, well that is the new frontier for me.

By frontier, I only mean the opportunity to win in the Poker League; I would get slaughtered in Vegas in O/8. I am still, on an absolute basis, better at Holdem; I am just relatively better in the Poker League at O/8.

But enough about me...

KTL is the new Razz God. All bow down to the Razz God. Personally, I couldn't spell Razz if you spotted me two or more Zs, but KTL could. PLIII plays at my house next and we will play HORSE. I will fold for R, but play HOSE hard.

(2) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:57 PM

If you didn't take the opportunity to do so yet, you should read the full article linked in JMG's post.

The article is interesting in how it compacted both an insightfulness and a breadth of poker-related topics into such a short piece. If only bloggers could be so precise and interesting.

(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:04 PM

Although in previous years I have not, I have very much enjoyed the 2007 WSOP events on ESPN leading up to the Main Event. My favorite event to date was the PL Omaha Event. What a final table: Minh Ly, John Juanda, Devilfish Ulliot alone would make for a great table. The dude that won, Burt Bacherat, reminded me a bit of Mark Junell: jittery, nutty, looney.

Having played a lot of Omaha (btw, when the "/8" is omitted, it is the high-only version that is the most popular form of poker outside of the U.S., but when the "/8" is added, it refers to the 2nd most popular form of poker in the U.S.) while I was in the UK, it was fun to see it. And it is truly the only form of poker that Americans generally are worse at than players from outside the U.S.

When I used to play the "round of each" table at the Vic in London, they would always joke that when it was time for Holdem, they would fold "to the bloke from Texas" to save their chips to rape him at Omaha. Joke was on them, I guess, because my approach was precisely the opposite.

(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:00 PM
This one is for CCM:

(my favorite is at 4:01)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGukLuXzH1E


(1) comments