Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Show One, Show All (Revisited)

Recovery update/explanation:  This is a repost of one of my earliest posts, dating back to my days playing 2/4 limit.  I figured that that for the only way for the time being I could keep you convinced that this is really a poker (and Vegas) blog is to do some reposts from earlier times.  It was posted over four years ago so even those of you who read it may not remember it and can enjoy it again (or not, you are under no obligation to enjoy my posts).

To update you on my recovery, well today I actually worked a few hours for the first time since I was hospitalized.  I must be feeling pretty good.  And I hope to get back to some writing tonite after dinner so that I can have the latest installment of my surgery saga for you in a few days.  In the meantime, here's a blast from the past...

=   =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =

Before I start, I need to explain to those readers who aren’t poker players the rule, “Show One, Show All.”  At showdown, if a player shows his hand and the other player (or players) still in the hand see that they are beat, they do not have to show their cards, choosing instead to just muck their cards. They can show their cards if they want, and sometimes a player showing a hand he thinks is a losing one can be surprised and discover the pot is actually pushed to him, having misread either his hand or his opponent’s.  But he can certainly muck his cards if he wants.  The reason for not showing your cards is simple; if you have lost the hand, showing what you had gives free information to the other players as to how you played that hand and will give them insight into how you play in general.
Sometimes a player will fold his cards but feel compelled to show the person sitting next to him what hand he is folding, either because he’s making such a tough lay down he simple has to show somebody or he is friendly with that person sitting next to him.  This is where the “Show one, show all” rule comes into play.  A player is not supposed to show his dead hand to selective people at the table.  He is offering valuable information, and it is unfair that only one or two people get that information.  It’s a mild form of collusion.  So if/when that happens, someone else at the table who didn’t see the hand (and usually, it’s me), will tell the dealer, “Show one, show all” and if at all possible, the dealer will take the cards the player just mucked and flip them over so that all the players at the table see what was folded, and everyone gets the same information.
OK, so if you play poker for several hours, you will usually hear a player call out “Show one, show all” several times, especially if I’m at that table.  Just keep that phrase in the back of your mind for later.
Anyway, this particular story dates back almost a year, back to the days I was strictly a limit player, playing in a 2/4 game at the BSC.  I’d been there for awhile when two middle aged guys who were friends took the two seats immediately to my left.  They were really chatty, and obviously they had come to town have a good time first, drink a lot second, and play some poker third.  Within a few minutes I learned that they were from back East, they were old college buddies, and once a year they did a guys’ trip to Vegas together, leaving their wives back home.
I first described these guys in this post here  as BSC regulars.  They knew a lot of the dealers, or at least remembered a lot of them, and were particularly interested in having Ginger deal to them, remembering her as a particularly attractive woman.  Ginger was dealing that night but she never made it to our table.  They mentioned her name a few times before they got too drunk to care.
Early on they started giving every player at the table their own nicknames based either on their appearance or how they played.  One guy was “Raisy Daisy” because he raised pre-flop so much. Another guy looked like some character from Spongebob Squarepants and named him that (don’t ask me what it was, you won’t find anyone who knows less about Spongebob Squarepants than yours truly).  Some guys had names because they looked like people they knew.
Did I have a nickname, I hear you asking?  Of course. They called me “Phil” because of the strong physical resemblance I have to famous professional poker player Phil Ivey.

Heh heh.  The truth is, I don’t look anything like Phil Ivey, and they didn’t call me Phil.  But I have been told, at least a dozen times in a poker room (and once or twice elsewhere), that I do have a strong physical resemblance to someone who is a fairly well known poker personality, someone who appears on televised poker, who is also famous (or was) in a different, non-poker related field.  No, it isn’t Jennifer Tilly, though she fits that description.  Believe me, I don’t look anything like Jennifer Tilly.  If I did, I’d never leave the house.
But in keeping with my desire for secrecy, I won’t say who this poker personality is that I supposedly resemble, to help keep my identity a bit more secure.  But tell you what, when you folks meet me in Vegas, as most of you probably eventually will, if you guess who it is I’m told I look like, I’ll tell you if you’re right and who it is if you’re wrong.  No prizes will be offered for getting this “right.”
So for now, we’ll say they called me “Phil.”  I didn’t mind, these were good-natured, here to have fun guys.  But soon I did ask him if they had their own nicknames we should use at the table.  They said it was up to others at the table to nickname them, so I thought for a bit and tried to come up with appropriate and silly names for these clowns.  Finally I came up with “Heckle and Jeckle” and told them of my decision.  They laughed and were fine with it.  Heckle was on my immediate left, and Jeckle was on his left.
For whatever reason, I had a very good night at poker while these guys were laughing, drinking and losing chips.  They weren’t bad players at all, pretty reasonable for the 2/4 game, but it wasn’t their night.
One time I had J/10 and the board was 9-8-7-6-5.  Jeckle had pocket Jacks and had to call my river bet because If I didn’t have a 10 we’d chop it. But I actually had a seven card straight and took the pot. He was not amused.
Then in the big blind I had 10-7 diamonds, no one raised.  Flopped a flush draw and a gutshot straight draw.  The turn gave me a straight.  The river gave me a flush.  I actually didn’t want the flush, figured my 10 high flush might not hold up but I thought my straight would be good.  But it turns out that Heckle had the exact same 10-7 I had, but his was unsuited!  If I hadn’t made my flush, we would have chopped the pot, but the flush gave me the whole pot, and it was a big pot for a 2/4 game!  The dealer said he’d never seen anything quite like it.
I was quite amused but Heckle was extremely pissed. He bitched and moaned about that for quite some time. Of course, what I didn’t point out, because I’m no table bully or asshole (see Gary’s blog post here and my comment on it below), that the guy had only himself to blame.  What the hell was he doing calling pre-flop with 10-7 unsoooooted?  Under the gun, yet?  I was the big blind, that’s the only reason I saw the flop.  But I failed to point that out to him, because that’s the kind of guy I am!
One more hand of note.  I had A/J of hearts and called a pre-flop raise by “Raisy Daisy”.  Heckle only called the raise (remember, this is limit, the raise pre-flop can only be two bucks).  Ace on the flop, plus two hearts.  Turn is a blank but the river is 8 hearts, which is the second 8 on the board.  So I had to be a little concerned about a full house beating my nut flush, especially in a limit game.  Heckle bets the river, pre-flop raiser calls, I raise.  Heckle and other guy call.  Pre-flop raiser had pocket 9’s and should have gotten out a long time ago.  Heckle showed AK and was really upset.  He said I was behind the whole way and said I sucked out on him….I “chased it down.”  He said he wished he was playing No Limit so he could have bet me off of it.
I tried to point out that not only did I flop top pair, decent kicker but I flopped the nut flush draw.  I wasn’t going anywhere.  He wouldn’t listen. This was another really big pot for a 2/4 game.  He wouldn’t stop pissing and moaning about it.  Again, I reminded him I flopped the nut flush draw, and then he got mad because he said I didn’t have the nuts.  He’s right, I didn’t have quad 8’s.  I told him I had the nut flush and tried to make the distinction, but he was too upset to listen.  I even asked the dealer to confirm that I was right, I had the nut flush even though I didn’t have the nuts.  But Heckle wasn’t in a mood to listen.
I guess I’m making it out like these two guys were bad guys but really they weren’t.  At least 90% of the time they were laughing and joking.  It was only when they lost a big pot that they turned sour.  Especially since every time they lost a big pot it was to me.  At one point, when they were back to being jovial, they looked at all the chips in front of me (most of which I got from them) and one of them said, “Well, with your winnings, at least you can get laid tonight, Phil.”  I just laughed.
The whole table was chatty and fun, led by Heckle & Jeckle.  One topic of conversation was movies, and there was a debate about what Natalie Portman’s first movie was. I neither remember nor care about the answer—a cell phone was used to confirm—and Heckle said something to the effect that Portman was a beautiful woman but she had absolutely no breasts whatsoever.  He made several comments to the effect that she had gone far as an actress without actually having any breasts.

A bit later, Heckle & Jeckle started bitching about the waitresses refusing to serve them shots. And then he made the rather bizarre statement, “Not being able to get shots in Vegas is like getting in trouble for showing tits in Vegas.”  Suddenly I was getting the impression that Heckle was “obsessed with bosoms,” (unlike me).  Especially when soon thereafter I heard him brag, “My wife has the world’s greatest tits.”  Jeckle confirmed this.  He said “they are real and they are spectacular.”  Brent was dealing at this point and he said, “Oh, like Terry Hatcher on Seinfeld.”  Yes, they agreed, except Mrs. Heckle’s breasts were truly spectacular.
Jeckle said that not only had he seen Mrs. Heckle’s tits, but he had actually had the thrill of motor-boating them.  And this was with the encouragement of Heckle.  Heckle pointed out that his wife will go “topless or even naked in public” at the drop of a hat.  He insisted that was true, and then, to back it up, he took out his cell phone and started looking for some pics.  He indicated he had no problem with his wife doing this at all, he had no problem with anyone seeing his wife’s tits, just as he had no problem with his friend not only seeing his wife topless (at least) but motor-boating her.
First he showed a pic of two naked women, and after insisting that this was his wife and her best friend, admitted that he was kidding and that this was just a porn pic.  But then he showed me a close-up of a huge tit, completely out of a dress, completely exposed (yes, I could see the nipple, plain as day).  Heckle insisted, and Jeckle backed him up, that this was really his wife’s bare breast.  After he showed me, he passed the phone around for all the guys at the table to see. Even Brent (our dealer), got a peak.
When he got the phone back he was involved in a couple of hands, then began to start fumbling around with his phone again.  He said he was going to find a fully nude pic of his wife that she sent him this morning from a girl’s night out that took place the day before as he and his pal arrived in Vegas!  However, before he could get the picture, somehow, a female floorperson, had somehow gotten wind of him passing around the prior topless pic and came over to him.  She said that he had to stop doing that.  She didn’t say what “that” was but it was clear that she somehow knew about him passing around the topless pic, and perhaps the pornstar pic before that.  She said that such activity might “offend” someone.
Interesting.  There were no women at this table, and I don’t think any of the guys would be upset, and if they would be, they could have passed on it.  But, I can see from the casino’s point of view that they might not want such activity at the poker table.  Whatever.  So he had no choice but to put the phone away.  If he really was about to show us a totally naked pic of his wife, I’ll never know for sure.
A down or two later, Samuel came to deal.  Samuel is generally one of the less talkative dealers, but every once in awhile he snaps off a wickedly witty comment.  So somehow, the discussion turned back to Heckle and his wife’s allegedly amazing breasts. Of course I had to tell Samuel that Heckle had actually shown most of us at the table, including Brent, a picture of his wife topless. Samuel of course was interested in that, and asked the guy if he could see the picture.  But he refused, telling him that the “mean” floorperson said it was offensive and he couldn’t show any more risqué pictures at the table.
Samuel instantly replied, “That’s not fair.  Show one, show all.”
Not long after, the Heckle and Jeckle had decided they’d lost enough money for the night—most of it to me—and took off, never to be seen again.  But since I had most of their money, it was a very good night—in more ways than one—for me.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

The Popular Vote Means......Nothing

OK, I am totally breaking format here with a post about the election and its aftermath.  I will get back to my surgery saga soon (I hope). But as mentioned in my last quickie post, I have been somewhat consumed by the election.  And an issue has come up about which I have something to say and I very rarely see the point I am going to make made.

So I hope you’ll indulge me.  If you have no interest in the election (or can’t bear to read anything about it because you’re too upset with the result), come back next time.

By the time I went to bed Tuesday night (really, Wednesday morning) after Trump gave his acceptance speech, I was already hearing that Hillary was likely to win the popular vote.  And I wondered if there would be a big to do about that.

Initially I didn’t see much, and I was relieved.  But more and more I’m seeing this referred to.  “Clinton won the popular vote.”   “Clinton got more votes than Trump.”  In some cases, this fact is being used as an argument to get rid of the Electoral College.  But more than that, I’m seeing this used to prove that the election was somehow “unfair.”  Much worse, however, I’m now seeing on social media and elsewhere this being used as an argument to try to persuade electors (from the Electoral College) to switch their votes from Trump to Hillary.  After all, she got more votes, shouldn’t she be our next President?

No.

Here’s what the fact that she won the popular vote means:

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

Now, I don’t mean this just because our constitution clearly states that the winner of the Presidency is decided by the Electoral College.

What I mean is that the neither campaign attempted to win the popular vote.  The campaigns knew it was irrelevant.  They both spent all their time trying to find a path to the 270 electoral votes that would insure them the Presidency, and based their campaign strategies on that.

If they had, instead, being trying to win the popular vote, they would have each had very different campaign strategies. 

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the Electoral College didn’t exist.  Do you think Trump or Hillary would have been campaigning so much in tiny New Hampshire?  Or Iowa?  Or Nevada? Or Colorado? Or in that one little congressional district in Maine?

Of course not.  They would have mapped out totally different strategies.  Neither campaign set foot in California or Texas or New York (except to raise money) but if they were trying to win the popular vote, they would have spent all their time in those states, along with Florida and Illinois and Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Even in deep blue California, there are plenty of Republican areas for the GOP to mine for votes.  Same thing in Texas for the Democrats.

Campaigns matter.  At least, with all the money they spend on them, you sure hope they do.  Not just the rallies, or the advertising, but the ground games, the get-out-the-vote efforts.  The GOP didn’t invest any money in getting out the vote in California.  You can be sure they would have invested plenty in California—perhaps their biggest effort—if the popular vote mattered.

Now, as it happens, since we’ve never elected a President by popular vote, no one really knows how to run a campaign to win it.  It’s unchartered territory.  So if we abolished the Electoral College between now and 2020, both parties would kind of be running by the seat of their pants, trying to figure out how best to do it on the fly. It would be interesting to see.  The winner of that election could very well be the campaign that figured it out first.  Actually, there would no doubt be somewhat different blueprints for each party.

But that’s just idle day dreaming.  For this past election, we did indeed have the Electoral College and each side tried damn hard to win it.  Trump did.  He’s the President-Elect.  That’s the way it works.

The fact is, that since neither side tried to win the popular vote—and would have had a massively different strategy had they tried—the winner of the popular vote is nothing more than a footnote.  It can be used to make no point whatsoever.  Period.

Am I saying that, if we didn’t have the Electoral College, Trump would have won the popular vote?  Not at all.  I have no idea what would have happened (except that I likely could have attended Trump and Hillary rallies without leaving my home county, Los Angeles county).  Neither do you.  Because all that time the candidates spent in New Hampshire and Nevada would have been spent in CA or NY or TX or IL.  And that would have made a big difference.

Look, you can’t change the rules after the game is over.  Trying to use the argument that Hillary won the popular vote to convince “faithless electors” who are committed to Trump to switch to her is ridiculous.

Imagine an NBA game where the Warriors beat the Spurs, 99-95.  And then the league decided, you know what?  We don’t think it’s fair that some baskets count for three points instead of two.  So we are going to re-score the game and every field goal only counts two points, no matter where the shot was taken from.  Spurs win 87-85.

Obviously, if the teams knew before the game started that all field goals were worth two points, they would have designed their offenses (and their defenses, for that matter) much differently.

If you’re gonna change the rules, you better do it before the game takes place, not after the fact.

I hope I’ve made my point clearly and you get it.  Because there’s another point I want to make, which will help explain how there could be such a (relatively) large discrepancy between the popular and electoral votes.

It has to do with my home state of California and the idiotic rules it has adopted for its own elections.

Most of those votes that keep adding on to Hillary’s total at this point are coming from California.  California in recent years has become the bluest of the blue states.  It’s been quite a few election cycles since the GOP candidate for President has even thought about trying to win in California.  With one notable exception (I’ll get to that), the GOP hasn’t won a statewide office in CA in nearly 20 years.  There are local GOP office holders—congress, legislature, etc.  But statewide, forget it.

So that in and of itself would mean that the California results are going to skew the national result.  Because CA is by far the most popular state in the union.

But you might not be aware of the way California holds its elections these days, and it affects the Presidential election results.  The last “Republican” to hold state-wide office was Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Before he left office, he somehow managed to convince Californians to change the primaries (for state offices, not the Presidential primary).  I believe it is called the “Top Two” primary.

All candidates that qualify to run enter a single primary and the top two vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, are on the ballot in the general.  Voters get to vote for one person.  So for Governor, you could have four Democrats, three Republicans, two Libertarians, a Green party candidate and a bunch of independents all on that ballot in June competing for the top two slots.  The end result could be two Democrats running against each other in November.  Or two Republicans.  Or a Democrat vs a Libertarian.  You get the idea.

As California is turning bluer and bluer by the hour, more and more often it turns out that, on the statewide level at least, it is two Democrats running against each other.  Note, locally, there are more likely to be different parties running against each other.  There are lots of congressional and legislative districts that are competitive, and swing from one party to another every so often.

Personally, I think this kind of primary is the worst idea since the dawn of time.  Yes, it is actually dumber than the Designated Hitter rule in baseball, and I didn’t think that was possible.

Anyway, to tie this up…..this year, on our CA ballot, there were only two statewide races.  The Presidential race of course and a Senate race.  Note:  Governor and all other statewide offices take place in the off year elections.  So 2018 there will be a bunch of statewide offices on the ballot.  But in a Presidential year, there may not be even a Senate race, but if there is, that is the only other statewide race.

This year’s senate race, as predicted, was a contest between two Democrats.  There were virtually no differences in their policies or their ideology.  They were both female too.  So if you wanted to vote for a woman, it still didn’t matter who you voted for. And if you were a sexist and wanted to vote against a female candidate, you were out of luck. Only if you were totally invested in identity politics did it matter.  One was half black and half Indian.  The other was Hispanic.  Man, if you wanted a woman who was half Hispanic and half Indian, it was quite a dilemma. 

(Note:  I make fun of identity politics because I hate it.  If someone says, “Vote for me because I’m a woman, or black, or Hispanic, or gay, or Jewish” that is the surest way to lose my vote.  Instead, you better tell me you have good character and why your policies are right for the state or the nation).

Now as we know, this year we were presented with a particularly unpleasant choice at the Presidential level.  The two most unpopular candidates of all-time.

And in California, to make it even more unappealing to vote, the second biggest “draw” on the ballot was a Senate race between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. 

Perhaps if you were a Democrat, you could find enough of a distinction to choose one of the Senate candidates.  But if you were a Republican, it was hard to find motivation to go to the polls to select between Democrat A or Democrat B.

So, knowing that your vote for President didn’t matter because there was not a chance in hell that Hillary wasn’t going to win CA’s electoral votes, and with no down ballot office worth voting for, it is likely that GOP turnout in CA was really low (I tried to confirm this but I don’t see that the numbers are in yet).

But imagine if there was no Electoral College?  Knowing their votes would actually count, California Republicans would have been much more likely to go to the polls.  Admittedly, California Democrats would be more motivated to vote too.  But psychologically, I think it is more likely that Republicans (who know they are going to lose in CA) stay home than Democrats (who know they are going to win).

So you see that popular vote is really inflated for Hillary because in the most popular state, Republicans had no motivation to vote.  If it mattered (if popular vote determined the winner), you can bet every Republican in CA would have been called a dozen times to get them to the polls, and Trump would have lost the state by less than the 28% he did.

Anecdotally, I know several California Republicans who registered their disgust with the choices by not voting for President, leaving it blank.  From my conversations, they were taking the easy way out, knowing that it didn’t matter.  But I’ll bet most of them would have voted for Trump if they felt their voted counted.

As for me personally, I had every reason not to vote.  I was just barely out of the hospital after my triple bypass.  I was uninspired by either Presidential candidate.  There was no real choice for Senate.  Yeah, there were a few propositions on the ballot I wanted to vote on, but nothing earth-shattering.

In the end, though, I felt it was my duty to vote, and I figured out a way to do it. It wasn’t easy, but it was the right thing to do. And now I am very glad I did.

Anyway, I hope you can see how totally irrelevant the popular vote is.  It proves nothing under our current system. It’s not even worth talking about.  As long as candidates are running to win the Electoral College, the popular vote is meaningless.

And needless to say, I would be saying the exact same thing if Hillary won the Electoral College and Trump won the popular vote.

By the way, if you want to see a short video explaining the benefits of the Electoral College, see here.


Thursday, November 10, 2016

Just a Quick Update

I had hoped to publish another chapter in my surgery saga by now, but all I can do is get this quick update on my current status online.

On Monday I went to see a cardiologist.  This was my first time out in public on my own, and my first experience using Lyft.  I’ll get the good news out of the way first.  The cardiologist says everything looks good, my recovery is proceeding well.  No issues that he can see.

But it was an ordeal for me going to see the doc, alone.  In addition to the cardiologist, I had to walk to get a chest X-ray (haven’t heard back, so I assume everything is ok) and also to the pharmacy.  It is a big medical complex, so much walking.

On top of that, this being the first time using Lyft, I kind of did some extra walking because of my unfamiliarity with the app.  To make matters worse, I gave the Lyft driver the wrong address to pick me up at the medical facility.  That meant walking a whole bunch to find her.

The visit wiped me out for a day, maybe two.  Needless to say, it doesn’t take much to tire me out these days.



After that, being the political junkie I am (despite thus far attempting to keep politics off this blog), I’ve been spending a lot of my waking hours from Tuesday on engulfed in the election and its aftermath.  It was such a historic election, how could I not?  Really, no one saw it coming and I’m still waiting for someone to write the definitive explanation about how everyone got it so wrong. 


Anyway, I’m hoping I’ll be able to get back to some serious writing in the next couple of days.  Hopefully I’m getting a little bit stronger and have a little more energy every day.