May 2006 Archives

As reported in this Washington Post article, the government will finally stop collecting a certain telephone excise tax enacted in 1898 to fund the Spanish-American War. There's some controversy over the legitimacy of the tax, so in an unusual move the government is allowing taxpayers to request refunds of the taxes they paid since March 2003.

Something in the article caught my eye: an explanation why taxpayers have to go through their own phone bills to add up the taxes they paid, rather than having the phone companies automatically refund them:

It would be very costly for communications providers to comb their records and tell consumers how much tax they've paid, said Annabelle Canning, assistant general counsel at Verizon Wireless. Verizon has 53 million wireless customers and provides traditional phone service to 30 million households. "It would take tremendous resources," Canning said.

Oh, please. Which takes more resources: asking the phone company to write a small computer program that adds up taxes paid in its billing database, or asking 30 million individuals to do the same thing themselves? This is the same tactic used by rebate programs, which bank on customers forgetting to send in the rebate forms, or class action settlements, which almost always require class members to fill out intricate forms to claim their 75-cent settlement proceeds. If the value of the time required to claim something exceeds the value of the thing to be claimed, then rational people won't claim it.

I have registered to play in the PokerStars World Blogger Championship of Online Poker!

This Online Poker Tournament is a No Limit Texas Holdem event exclusive to Bloggers.

Registration code: 7330476

Things are looking better:

Notable results:

• $4.40 180-player SNG, 1st place, $216 (with a "you're disgusting" bonus comment from my heads-up opponent after my all-in A4s sucked out against his AJs).
• $4.40 180-player SNG, 3rd place, $85.
• $4.40 180-player SNG, 10th place, $8.64 (not especially lucrative, but significant nonetheless because I was able to reach the money in 3 of my 4 most recent $4.40 SNGs).
• A bunch of smaller SNG finishes in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place.

My game has tightened up almost ridiculously. Before the final table in the 180-man SNGs, I've typically seen fewer than 10% of flops. It's agonizing to fold AQ in middle position, but rewarding that my raises are respected and that I win most of my showdowns.

The downside is that I've regressed to almost exclusively Level 1/Level 3 thinking. Either my starting hand is not premium and I fold, or it's a monster so I can safely skip Level 2 (what's my opponent holding?) and go to Level 3 (how can I make my opponent think I'm weak?). This won't hold up against skilled opponents, who should peg me as a slowplaying rock and refuse to give me their chips when I am in a pot.

In future games I'll make a couple adjustments: first, play a few more late-position hands and occasional trash hands, making sure to show these down cheaply if I can. Second, spend the 90% of the game when I've folded a hand paying attention to my opponents' play, attempting to build some Level 2 skills. For the 180-player SNGs where I'm going to spend perhaps an hour with the same opponents before a redraw, the study should be especially worthwhile, as opposed to the turbo SNGs, where players are either weak-tight or super-aggro, and in any event gone after 20 minutes on average.

There are a couple factors at work here.

First, my 2nd-place finish at the $4.40 180-man SNG triggered a textbook case of the Peter Principle; I promoted myself from my level of competence ($6.50 SNGs) to my level of incompetence ($16 SNGs and $20 180-man SNGs). There were a few ITM finishes, so these weren't total disasters. But they were net negative and took a huge chunk from my $200 bankroll that I've been nursing since 2003.

Second, after exhaustion from 4-tabling for a couple weeks, I wanted to try thinking a bit deeper about my plays, going beyond the ABC strategy that generally ekes out a reasonable profit in SNGs. That's a good goal, and it's obviously crucial to becoming a better poker player, but (a) I'm not very good at it yet, (b) I used it as an excuse to stay longer in second-place hands, and (c) I applied it even to turbo SNGs, which doesn't make any sense because the answer to the question "What is my opponent thinking?" is almost always "absolutely nothing." A mechanical, tight-preflop, aggressive post-flop strategy continues to be optimal in turbos, and any second-guessing disguised as deep thought simply doesn't help.

So what to do? Well, notice the little red smudge in the bottom right of the graph that points upward if you squint. That's me after listening to a podcast from Chris Ferguson. A couple years ago, as a personal challenge, Ferguson started with $1 in an online account and worked it up to over $20,000. The specific numbers aren't particularly interesting; anyone who can afford $1 can probably afford $100, and $20,000 isn't enough to quit your day job. What is interesting is Ferguson's discussion of his bankroll management during the challenge. He never risked more than 5% of his bankroll on any single table. For example, if he had a $20 bankroll, he would play only $1-buyin ring games, and $1 tournaments. (Obviously, he had to make exceptions at the very beginning, because there isn't much you can do with 5 cents even on an online poker site.)

Besides limiting downside risk -- you won't go broke unless you hit a 20-event dry spell at the lowest buyins -- Chris's approach creates a nonmonetary incentive to succeed at individual events based on the assumption that higher-buyin events are more fun to play. Suppose my bankroll is $120. I can't enter $6.50 tournaments anymore because that would risk more than 5%. That sucks! But I do have enough to enter $3.40 tournaments, and if I come in first place, I now have $132 -- just enough to play one $6.50 tourney.

Applying a new bankroll management strategy, as well as attempting to use the right basic strategy for SNGs, seems to have stopped the downward slide. I'll no doubt keep bumping up against incompetence as I build my bankroll and move up in buyin levels. But if I tilt again, at least it'll be at a lower price.

We're back in California after a week in the Eastern timezone. I worked out of the Google New York office while Mary and the kids cruised around Manhattan.

Highlights:

• The weather was perfect. Just like our last visit in September, we were there right around the change of seasons, so it wasn't too hot, and it wasn't too cold.
• Meeting coworkers who I knew only from email.
• Sitting down with one coworker who I normally sit 20 feet away from in Mountain View and talking in depth about flaws in the cookie security model. He happened to be visiting NY at the same time. It was one of those Our Town moments where you look back and realize that you've had this opportunity every day but didn't recognize it.
• My continuing appreciation of the New York subway. I would love to have a 10-minute commute to work without having to drive.
• Coming in 44th out of a field of about 9,000 in a freeroll hold 'em tournament. That's the top 0.5 percent!
• Getting to play a few poker tournaments that usually conflict with work because they're scheduled on East Coast time.

Lowlights:

• I had a cold the whole time I was there and couldn't taste any food. But at the same time my illness protected me from various street odors, so not all was lost.
• How I lost that freeroll tournament. While I was in 5th place, my QQ fell to AK when he caught a K on the river. I had him covered by about 50K chips but that hand crushed my spirit and I went out soon thereafter. Sure, I was a favorite in the hand, but we were both stupid to risk everything so close to the bubble (top 27 advanced to round 2).

Major Discovery of the Trip: Our double stroller turned out to be just too damn wide to fit in the stairwell of our apartment or seemingly any store we wanted to visit. I was about to get out a hacksaw and solve the problem once and for all when I saw the Buggy Board. Buy a $15 umbrella stroller, bolt this thing on, and problem solved:

Emily loved being able to hop off whenever she wanted to get a closer look at something (and fortunately, she was responsible about her new privilege and didn't try to run off into the street), and the whole contraption was practically weightless and easily maneuverable. If you have two kids and one's old enough to climb on the couch without your getting worried about it, then I recommend a Buggy Board. Be sure to get the 3G model (we didn't), which can supposedly be reattached to different strollers.

Tonight's Mookie tourney was a heartbreaker. After a weak start in which the relentless chatter of bloggers seduced me into playing too many hands, I tightened up and worked my way up to chipleader. I said to myself, "Hmm, better take a picture of this one while it lasts." Et voila:

Moments later, the horror began:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t200 (7 handed)

CO (t4585)
Button (t3200)
SB (t7153)
BB (t4860)
Sowbug (t6426)
MP1 (t4470)
MP2 (t2806)

Preflop: Sowbug is UTG with Js, Qc.    
Sowbug calls t200, 1 fold, MP2 calls t200, 3 folds, BB checks.

Flop: (t700) Ts, 9c, Jh (3 players)
BB checks, Sowbug bets t750.

So far, so good. I have top pair, reasonable kicker. I bet the pot to keep pot odds poor for anyone on a draw. And I have an excellent bluffing hand because nearly any card that completes someone else's straight also completes my straight.

MP2 calls t750, BB folds.

Hmm, so MP2 either is on a draw but can't compute pot odds, or also has a pair. Let's call it AJ (though wouldn't he have raised preflop with that? Maybe not in middle position, but most likely he would. And wouldn't he have come over the top on the flop?), or maybe 67 or even 78.

Turn: (t2200) 8h (2 players)

OK, I have my straight. If he was on a draw, he probably does, too, and I beat him. If he did have TPTK, I beat him. Let's put him to a decision.

Sowbug bets t1856, MP2 calls t1856 (All-In).

River: (t5912) 3h (2 players, 1 all-in)

Final Pot: t5912

Results below:  
Sowbug has Js Qc (straight, queen high).  
MP2 has Kc Qh (straight, king high).  
Outcome: MP2 wins t5912.

Ouch! Turns out he'd flopped the nut straight and my best hope all along was a chop. Even if I had somehow figured out he was holding KQ on the turn, I'd have been shoved into a Dan Harrington back-alley mugging with my betting earlier on. This hand dropped me to middle of the pack, but I was far from crippled. Still, it's no-limit hold 'em, so you don't need to be crippled to be knocked out on a single hand:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t200 (7 handed)

UTG (t4585)
MP1 (t3700)
MP2 (t7053)
CO (t4560)
Sowbug (t3320)
SB (t4070)
BB (t6212)

Preflop: Sowbug is Button with 5c, Ah.    
1 fold, MP1 calls t200, 2 folds, Sowbug calls t200, 1 fold, BB checks.

Flop: (t700) 6c, 7h, Ad (3 players)
BB checks, MP1 bets t200, Sowbug calls t200, BB folds.

Turn: (t1100) 5h (2 players)
MP1 bets t3300 (All-In), Sowbug calls t2920 (All-In).

River: (t7320) 2s (2 players, 2 all-in)

Final Pot: t7320

Results below:  
MP1 has 6s 6d (three of a kind, sixes).  
Sowbug has 5c Ah (two pair, aces and fives).  
Outcome: MP1 wins t7320.

... and I'm out. No comment on his hand, other than that it was nearly the same hand I used to knock out the esteemed SirFWALGMan earlier on in the tourney:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t50 (8 handed)

CO (t1413)
Button (t900)
SB (t1075)
Sowbug (t1705)
UTG (t1250)
UTG+1 (t605)
MP1 (t1932)
MP2 (t1645)

Preflop: Sowbug is BB with 5c, Ah.    
4 folds, CO raises to t150, 2 folds, Sowbug calls t100.

Flop: (t325) 3c, Ad, 2h (2 players)
Sowbug checks, CO bets t250, Sowbug calls t250.

Turn: (t825) 5d (2 players)
Sowbug checks, CO bets t600, Sowbug raises to t1305, CO calls t413 (All-In).

River: (t3143) 3h (2 players, 1 all-in)

Final Pot: t3143

Results below:  
Sowbug has 5c Ah (two pair, aces and fives).  
CO has As 6h (two pair, aces and threes).  
Outcome: Sowbug wins t3143.

... only this one went so, so differently, and in the winning version at least my excuse for playing A5o at all was that I was in the big blind heads-up against an aggressive player against whom I thought, correctly, I could get action if the stars aligned.

Moral of the story? Don't take screenshots until you're finished. :)

Congrats to jjok and surflexus who were heads-up last time I checked!

If you're talking about things that happened at a prior job, "led" means you acted as leader. "Lead" is a metal that alchemists turn to gold. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if "lead" is the only purported verb in a bullet point, but there is no doubt about "lead and managed."