-->

Pages

Exit Interview from the World of Poker

A few weeks ago I announced that I was getting out of the poker biz. Since then several of my poker media buddies have asked me why. Last night someone said: "You have any tips for those of us hanging in with the poker beat?" Well I learned long ago from my favorite writing cohort that every writer should learn the art of shameless self-promotion. So I offer here my poker exit interview. I asked a wise, honest, intelligent media maven to conduct the Q&A.

Why are you leaving Poker behind and abandoning all your friends in the poker media?

No one in the "poker media" would ask that question. It's the economy stupid. Along with the U.S. governments assault on internet freedom. With poker magazines down more than 50% in pages printed and online sites getting 90% less poker ad spots, there simply is no money left to pay for ongoing quality poker journalism. Besides that... aren't we all tired of hearing 'a queen and a queen only'?

How did you get started in the poker biz?

My poker buddy and co-author Amy Calistri called me up back in 2005 and asked me to cover a WSOP circuit event in Indiana for PokerPages. I told her I really wasn't interested and she told me that I really was but I just didn't know it yet. She was right, as she is about 50% of the time, and I started covering events for PokerPages.

Who else have you worked for in the biz?

I worked for PokerPages and then at the '06 WSOP, I wrote a Series for PokerNews, where I followed Liz Lieu, Gavin Smith and Tony G. for the entire WSOP. At the '07 Series, I started with PokerNews and then after some creative differences, I switched to CardPlayer doing their Pro Blogs. I was also writing on PokerBlog at this time for PartyPoker and covered the '08 Series on PokerBlog, while Amy and I were finishing our book with Mike Matusow. For the '09 WSOP, this past summer, I did a series with Negreanu, Hellmuth and Matusow on this little blog here. I have also written some magazine pieces and I have worked with ChiliPoker and MadeInPoker on their French language sites.

Who is the best poker player in the world?

Impossible question to answer. Day to day, year to year the success of professional poker players is dependent on table draws, suck-outs, cold weather and bad ju-ju. Johnny Moss or Stu Ungar might have been the best at one time, but today the fields are just too big to have someone dominate the game. I do have some favorites.

I learned the most about poker from Mike Matusow. Working on the book with Mike for nearly two years, I got to see him play a lot of poker and I spent a lot of time on the rail sweating him. He would often tell me his reads on the other players, so I got to watch a lot of high level poker and see the game through the eyes of a real professional.

OK, who is the best person in poker or are there any?

Well I am sure there are lots of good folks who I never met. It's actually easier to tell you about all of the idiots, jerks and fools who populate the poker rooms but on this one I do have an answer. The best person I met in five years of covering professional poker is Bill Edler. No one else even comes close. I won't go into detail, no need to embarrass Bill, but he calls everyone he likes "my friend" and he means it. I am proud to be Bill Edler's friend.

Well I gotta ask, who then are the top bad guys?

During the WSOP this past summer, I asked the senior staff a question like: "Who were the players that give you the most trouble at the tables." The list was surprisingly uniform.

Alan Kessler and Steve Zolotow were on the top of nearly every list. This is unfortunate because both Alan and Steve have some good insights about the game but they both will bitch about anything and everything, all day every day. The boys who cry wolf, as it were.

Next, came Brandon Cantu and David Singer. Again a lot of complaining about any and every aspect of the game but in this case seldom with any legitimate points. Just noize for the sake of noize.

Men Nguyen made every list for his nasty tirades against dealers and junior floor staff. The Master never takes on senior floor staff, he instead goes for the soft spots and makes a fuss about nothing. By the way if you are playing at a table with Men when he does this; his intention is to keep you from playing back at him. It's all an angle to intimidate other players. Don't fall for it.

Todd Brunson, Michael Binger and Andy Black got a lot of votes. Todd would be at the very top of my personal list because he is simply a mean, unhappy person and he often takes it out on dealers or new poker media. One would think that there was an award for random assholery.

Annie Duke would get everyone's award as Queen Bitch. Annie is much better than she used to be, but when she is in one of her moods. Well everyone, even Joe, gives her a wide berth. About as wide as what you have to give the Queen Mary under a full head of Bikram steam.

Special status goes to: Barry Greenstein, Andy Bloch and Howard Lederer. They do complain too often but most of the time they have valid points. Not always points of great import but they are generally right and therefore the staff has to take the time to listen.

Finally, most agreed that a special emeritus award has to be given to Sam Grisle for years of mean spirited nastiness.

Are the professionals really that much better than the rest of us?

Yes, so much better than ordinary players are just not able to comprehend how good they are.

Want to tell us why they are better?

For the same reason that Gretsky or Pele or Tiger Woods were just that much better than everyone else. I firmly believe you can learn a lot about poker but there is also an innate skill set that makes the really great just much better than the rest of us. I have heard the pros discuss thousands of hands and they are just taking in more information than we are and they have more options to react to that information than we do.

What's the best and the worse thing to happen to poker while you were covering it?

The takeover of poker by big corporations is my answer to both questions. Despite what the PR talking heads say, poker tournaments are run for the benefit of the sponsors and the owners not the players. On the other hand, the poker boom would never have been so big without corporate sponsorship. The main issue is, of course, money. Unless and until some of the profits from poker go back to the players, it will continue to be a game with unpaid actors making profits for the corporations.

By way of naming names, Harrah's is guilty in the sheer greed category. But the WPT wins the booby prize for complete business incompetence. The jury is still out on PokerStars and the EPT, APT, CCP and LSMFT.

Who are the best writers still covering poker?

Not that I was one of the best. I just wrote from a different perspective. A lot of very good writers have come and gone, just as I am going now. Those have to include Andy Glazer, Jay Greenspan and Amy Calistri. The best pure writer in poker now is Brad Willis. As an insider, no one finds more entertaining stories than Michael Craig. Dr Pauly is a force unto himself and I still do a complete read of the Tao once a week.

There are four or five more writers who are still doing the actual day-to-day around the felt reporting gig. Rather than insult those I leave off the list, let me just say I respect what you are doing, particularly in these times of shortened copy and small payment. Hang in there and try to enjoy the ride. Oh and one piece of advice: When the time comes, get out before you burn out.

Do you still play poker?

Not so much. I am going back to the midwest next month and will play an annual home game in Minnesota that one of my poker buddies runs. Maybe I will play one tournament at the Canterbury Park Fall Classic while I am there. But I really am done with poker. I don't have an addictive personality and given the choice between sitting through a day of Texas Hold'em or reading a good book. Well, no drunk with a baseball cap and sunglasses ever throws a Hellmuthian tantrum while I'm reading.

Any final words for the poker fans?

Read my next book, I promise to mention poker at least twice.
----
photo credit: archives

When in Weed

Today my stop here in Weed technically becomes the second longest stay on my meandering caravan. In January of this year I gave up the last vestiges of a domicile when I moved from the Vegas condo to my friend's cottage in Sebastopol. I was there for over three months while she was off chasing high desert gnomes in the Southwest. I guess actually the next major stopping point was longer than here in Weed, but I paid for my seven weeks at the Extended Stay in Las Vegas to cover the World Series, so I am not counting that as part of my moochers road trip. I will devulge that my current book project begins with a scene on my last day at the Extended Stay Hotel and the story probably will end at the finale of this trip. Unless, of course, I go down one of these rabbit holes that keep appearing in my peripheral visions.

Meanwhile back in Weed: Fall arrived in a rush of wind yesterday. The temperature dropped the pine needles rained down and hopes for some fall color on the next leg of my next journey increased. Also with the advent of cooler weather there is the hope that the hummingbird swarm will appear before I leave Weed. The feeder right outside the window where I write is visited all day long by the local hummers. But once fall is clearly here, there is often a day or two of intense feeding to prep the little birds for their long flight south. In past years the swarm as seen a dozen or more buzzing hummers queuing up for a nectar blast. I promise a picture if the hummers grace us with a fall feeding frenzy.

The indoor creatures seem calm today. Over the last week we have been trying to integrate a new dog with an older and very territorial cat. The relationship gets fractured about once a day with a loud yelp, a running dog, and a too satisfied look on the cat's face. But peace shall reign eventually, there was been a dog in Midnight's life in the past without daily incidents; this is a just a period of territorial statements being made and the cat wants to be clearly understood before agreeing to any truce terms.
-------
photo credit: epodunk.com

Where Were You When?

A couple of weeks ago I commented on the forty year anniversaries of the first moon landing, Woodstock and the Manson murders. Today I woke up to wall-to-wall coverage of the eight year anniversary of 9-11. It made me wonder what events are stamped in the collective conscious of our memories. My apologies to my non-U.S. readers for the jingoism here.

What public events have made a permanent impression on you? The following list is what I think are the big public memory events, they are not necessarily my own personal biggies.

July 20, 1969 The first landing and walk on the moon.
April 12, 1961 Soviet Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, first human in space.

September 11, 2001 The 9-11.

November 9, 1989 The Berlin Wall comes down.
[June 15, 1961 The Berlin Wall goes up.]

December 25, 1991 The official end of the USSR

May 10, 1994 Nelson Mandela sworn in as President of South Africa

December 7, 1941 The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

August 16, 1977 Elvis Presley dies.
December 8, 1980 John Lennon dies.
May 14, 1998 Frank Sinatra dies.
November 29, 2001 George Harrison dies.
June 25, 2009 Michael Jackson dies.
September 16, 2009 Mary Travers

November 22, 1963 John F. Kennedy assassinated.
April 4, 1968 Martin Luther King Jr. assassinated.
June 6, 1968 Robert F. Kennedy assassinated

March 30, 1981 Assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan
September 5, 1975 Assassination attempt on President Gerald Ford
September 22, 1975 another assassination attempt on President Ford

May 8, 1945 VE (Victory in Europe) Day ends WWII in half of the world.
August 6, 1945 Hiroshima, first atomic bomb dropped.
August 9, 1945 Nagasaki, second atomic bomb dropped.
August 14-15, 1945 VJ (Victory in Japan) Day ends WWII.

April 29, 1975 U.S. troops leave Vietnam.

After the assassination of JFK and the moon landing, my two biggest public memories are:

May 1968 France is shutdown by student/worker strike. I was a student in Germany.

August 9, 1974 Richard Nixon resigns the U.S. Presidency. Still one of the great highlites of my political life and one I still take way too much pleasure in. But . . . once again, "Ding-Dong The Dick is Dead!"

What did I miss from your memories? Remember these are shared public memories, leave out the 'First Time I had ...' send those stories in a private email.
-----
photo credit: archives

Internal Escalation

It would seem that a small but significant number of my friends have been engaged in something I have come to call internal escalation. For anyone familiar with customer service, I am not referring to the flowchartable concept of the same name that is used to bump complaining customers up the chain of command. No, I am referring to a tendency of some individuals to engage in an often self-defeating mode of overthinking. Personally I have been jousting with just such a concept in my writing the last week or so, prompted by a fictional Tibetan monk suggesting:

"An excess of reason is itself a form of madness."

Internal escalation is a process wherein a single individual, on their own, without consultation nor confirmation takes a piece of information, an impression, a snippet of reality or not and mentates on that singular iota of interiority and expands it to the brink of implosion, explosion or madness. More than simply overthinking, internal escalation adds facts, scenes, dialog and potentially wild outcomes to what to others might have been a mere tangent or passing phrase.

The problem with simply stamping out such behavior is that internal escalation lies very close to magical thinking. Again, let me make a distinction. I am not talking here about the definition of magical thinking which says that it involves the belief that thought is the same as action; that can be the stuff of madness and Prozac. I refer rather to the realm of magical thinking where it is believed the sentient thinking does have an effect on the natural world. Interesting how many scientific people "know" that the natural world affects our rational processes but they cannot conceive that it works in the other direction.

So to my many internally escalating friends. Go forth and ponder the world, all these worlds. However, show caution. Stay moderately in touch both with ordinary reality and with other adventurers in the realms of magic. Beyond here there be dragons, so proceed with the Audubon guide to basilisks, hydras and wyverns. And call if you get lost.

[It seems every time I attempted to type escalation, I thumbed out excalation. So I thought I had better look it up. Excalation: The absence, suppression, or failure to develop one member of a series, such as a finger or vertebra. Who knew?]
-------
photo credit: archives

Fuzzy, Oily, Windy Math

I ran across an article from December 2007 that sought to compare the cost of energy from eight sources. Here are those results, which should be taken with the grain of salt I will provide below.

For the amount of energy you receive from one gallon of gasoline (115,400 Btu), here are the purported relative costs based on gas at the pump selling for three bucks:

Hydropower $0.96
Wind $1.74
Geothermal $1.78
Biofuel $2.84
Gasoline $3.00     
Nuclear $3.92
Natural Gas $5.64*     
Solar $15.16    

I am already always skeptical of any study that tosses out numbers without a detailed sourcing of the data behind the numbers or conclusions. So I attempt to update these numbers for September 2009.  My source was the interweb.

First some caveats and only of few of the many I found. This comparison is the cost of an equivalent amount of energy and does not deal fairly well with delivering that energy. As in "cost of gas at the pump" or "electricity at the wall socket". The base value of gasoline is the at-the-pump price of $3 a gallon However, all of these energy sources have different distribution issues not the least of which is whether the producer or the utility company builds and maintains the delivery system (grid). Also there is no factoring for governmental price supports which influence some of these sources very favorably. One study suggested that gas for your car is government subsidize by as much as $1.80 a gallon, another pointed out that if the U.S. government put as much money behind wind and solar as it does for petroleum based energy sources, the relative cost of wind and solar would be immediately cut by more than 50%.

Clearly a question worth asking is: Who is paying for the study? Remembering, of course, that the Department of Energy is part of the same government that gives massive tax breaks to Big Oil. But that same U.S. government also has an Environmental Protection Agency and a National Science Foundation. Let's leave it at this, for each U.S. government agency that had relevant data available, there was conflicting data from another agency.

The best manipulation came from the natural gas industry. They have this very interesting formula for calculating the Btu output of natural gas that quite amazingly lowers the costs of natural gas against all other energy sources. I found three studies that used this formula to put out comparisons that have natural gas costing less than gasoline and one had the cost as low as hydropower.     

*[It has been pointed out to me that natural gas prices have fallen dramatically, which is good for the consumer and would change the '07 comparison above. Natural gas would now be less than $2 in that first ranking. However, when you use the formula mentioned above it appears that natural gas may actually be free . . . Be careful with your math, it endures.]  

Speaking of the seemingly inexpensive hydropower option (less than a dollar in our original study), why not use more hydro? Well, first you need water. Lots and lots of water. Then you need to control the water (dams). Then you need or you should deal with the reduced flow of water to those downstream. Hydroelectric plants tend to enrich the area around the dam and diminish the areas downstream. Perhaps the prime U.S. example is the Colorado River, which begins in the Rockies in Colorado. Well actually it begins even further north and at that it really begins with snow fall. The moisture in the snow comes mostly from the Pacific Ocean, well you get the whole Gaia interconnectedness thing.  

The Colorado River flows from the upper reaches of Colorado thru Utah, Arizona, very southern Nevada, back into Arizona and California. The Colorado is basically the boundary line between Arizona, Nevada and California. Eventually, the river flows into northwest Mexico and out into the Gulf of California between the Mexican mainland and Baja. Except that the river is dry now in most of Mexico and reaches the Pacific only in very wet years.

The problem? Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City and all of the agriculture along the way. Oh, right and the dams that make hydroelectric power and in the process public policy on who gets the water and the power and for how much.

Hmm, I seem to have gotten a long way from the original study comparing the cost of energy. But, of course, my real point is: Be careful what you read, be careful what you quote as evidence and don't forget to turn out the lights when you leave. Don't worry about the faucet, the well is already dry.
---
Image credit: www.ehow.com

Feedback Please

Now that my blog has almost completely shed its poker origins and therefore about 50% of my readership as well. I have a request for those of you still seeking out my ponderings here. I have heard in the past that my writing at times sacrifices explanatory content for pithy brevity. Recently I have also had some private feedback that my current writing project (book) may be suffering from the same malady. So I ask you:

Is the blog too brief?

Am I too blunt, breviloquent, brusque, compendious, concise, preemptory, pithy, short, succinct, summary, tart, terse or unceremonious?    

Has this become just a running diary of miscellaneous content drifting towards a miasmic mishmash?

Would you prefer more detail, more bulk, more anything?

Do I leave too much dangling with vague references or the promise of future revelations?

Is the only purpose of life to ask the question: What is the purpose of life?

I have noticed that my readers tend to favor private emails over leaving a public comment. Either or any way you choose to communicate, please do. I am soliciting feedback for the future of Keeping Your Head in All the Games. I am not even vaguely considering abandoning this blog but I may racket it up a notch or simply drift in a different direction. What do you think?

Partially Darken Moon Arisin'

Still a few days from full, a hazy moon rose over Mt. Shasta last evening. My friend was outside outfitting his mini-motor home for a late night departure to begin a long labor day weekend. The rising moon and a big black cat kept us company, while we caught up on the last year or so of our existence. The moon drifting behind the mountain clouds reminded me that my reading from a Bay area astrologer last week had two mentions of a coming lunar eclipses.

This New Year's Eve (2009) there will be a full moon and a partial eclipse, unfortunately not visible where I (or most of you) will be. Not being seeable does not mean the effects of an eclipse on a arithmetically significant day will not trouble, plague or reward you. So for those of my readers who delve into such realms, this NYE could be cautionarily significant. I have been told (or is that foretold?) that it will be a perfect confluence to both end and begin one long term development in my journey. So be wary of the question: 'What are you doing new year's eve?'

More significantly, for all, will be the total lunar eclipse on the winter solstice next year. December 21, 2010 will have a complete eclipse of the moon with totality visible throughout most of North and South America. So plan your solstice celebration early. Change she be acomin' whether you are ready or not. Even in the realms of the absurd or the mystical, depending on your perspective, the advantage goes to the prepared soul.