Poker Faces in the Crowd: J. Patrick McNamara

This month I interviewed J. Patrick McNamara, a veteran stage and movie actor who's appeared in way more films than I can name. Pat and I discussed how he got into acting, Off-Off-Broadway, working with Steven Spielberg, Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, and how acting has improved his poker game.

I've wondered the same thing. In one of my hypothetical adventures that I'll never complete, I would grind for a month at Ebro just to see the ebb and flow of the place. My guess is Panama City is a big part of the pop...it's like 30 min away.

ps. Nola Circuit Event is in May, cmon ovah

So, is an actor always a false narrator? And, if so, can they ever really be accused of bluffing?

Do you Even Gamble, Bro?

I came across a few books/vids about gambling and addiction, and figured I'd share them here, beginning with Dylan Edwards's TED Talk "What We can Learn from Expert Gamblers."



Evans has written a number of books, including one on "risk intelligence," which he defines as the ability to estimate probabilities accurately. What interests me about his talk is how he categorizes gamblers into three groups:

1. Leisure Gamblers
2. Problem Gamblers
3. Expert Gamblers

He lists poker players, sports bettors, and blackjack players as members. Evans goes on to call poker players "the rock stars of the gambling world, who win fame and fortune on the tournament circuit," to which I say

I think all three categories exist within the poker community, and even within a single player:

1. Leisure Gamblers aka fun players, whales, donkeys, recs

2. Problem Gamblers aka Degens

3. Expert Gamblers aka Sharks, Wizards, grinders

Side question: is "grinder" a compliment, an insult, or neutral? I've definitely heard it used in multiple ways.

I think I'd define a "grinder" as a serious player who logs significant volume. Which means that:
(1) You can be a grinder without being a pro
(2) You can be a grinder without being a winning player



Skolnik was a journalist for the Washington Poast and some other places; I think he's at Bloomberg now. He begins by detailing his own addiction to live poker, which began around 2000. He hasn't completely gone off the rails in ways you might see in the Degen Stories thread: borrowing from a loan shark, betting with a bookie, stealing to raise gambling funds, missed filing taxes, kicked out of an apartment, waking up in a pool of his own vomit, etc. “But there are lots of ways in which way gambling affected me for the worst during my six years in Seattle and more recently in Las Vegas,” he writes. These include unpaid bills, canceled credit cards, incessant borrowing, surviving for weeks on ramen noodles and seltzer water, and, most of all, strained relationships with family and friends.

Ever since his problematic relationship to poker and the rise of gambling in his home state of Washington, Skolnik wanted to write about the consequences of the gambling boom and how we’re, as a nation, gambling with our collective future. “Studies suggest there are likely millions out there like me--people who have gotten caught up in gambling’s grip, mostly or entirely as a result of the spread of legalized gambling over the last several decades,” he writes. “These numbers include many who never would have developed gambling problems if casinos and other gambling businesses hadn’t been allowed to plant themselves in their communities.”

The book is largely about policy, and can thus be considered a successor to Robert Goodman’s 1995 The Luck Business: The Devastating Consequences and Broken Promises of America’s Gambling Explosion. Skolnik's book is arranged into six chapters.

1. The Other Gambling Addicts: The States
2. Welcome to Las Vegas, Problem Gambling Capital of the World
3. The Asian Connection
4. The Rise of the Poker Junkie
5. The Online Fix
6. Evolving Science, Questionable Research
7. A Federal Role, and a Look Forward

The introduction is filled with statistics that made this reader’s eyes glaze over. It’s a good reminder: nothing will lose readers faster than abstractions. As a result I thought to myself, LOL TLDR, and I skipped to the poker chapter.

Poker Junkies

“To date, I know I’ve lost far more than I’ve won," Skolnik writes. "I’ve never determined the exact amount. Yet my game has improved. Though I still often lack the discipline needed to be a winning cash game player, I have become a relatively skillful and consistent poker tournament player. In 2007 and 2008, I earned about $60,000 in nine tournaments big enough to be recognized by CardPlayer.com, one of the poker industry’s main websites. Both years, for what it’s worth, I was ranked by the site to be among the top 4,100 poker tournament players in the world."

Bleh. Although this quote makes clear that Skolnik doesn't understand poker (in his defense, who really does?) he marshals some meaty quotes into the service of his argument that most legends of the games are in fact adrenaline junkies.

Doyle Brunson? Degen.

TJ Cloutier? Degen.

Phil Laak? Degen.

Stu Ungar? Degen.

The entire tournament poker scene? Welcome to Degenville.

Skolnik also quotes from an old Nolan Dalla article, "So You Wanna Be a Poker Pro? Fuhgetaboutit!" It was surprising and slightly amusing that the future WSOP media director had such harsh things to say about the tournament scene:

Dalla goes on to describe instances where some players would intentionally oversell pieces of themselves so that, like in the Broadway show The Producers, after the players sold more than 100 percent of themselves, they could simply skim the profit off the top and then intentionally bust out of the tournament before making any money.

I believe the word that comes to mind is...standard. weeeeeeeeeeee

Cliffs:I think Skolnik needed to push his own story a bit further—to write a memoir—or to delve deeper into the personal stories of problem gambling, whether in poker or elsewhere. High Stakes is a decent, well-written book, but not as good as Natasha Dow Schull’s Addiction By Design.

The Harsh Reality of Video Game Addiction

The Atlantic recently published an insightful, devastating piece on gaming addiction.



I could easily have met the same fate as the main subjects (who appear as avatars in an unidentified game that reminds me of World of Warcraft or something). If I were to pinpoint a problematic, addictive part of my own life, it would connect to gaming. Growing up, I spent countless hours in front of an NES. I snuck through my dad’s study window to play Command and Conquer: Red Alert. I played online checkers so frequently in college that my roommate made me a TEAM CHECKERS shirt that I proudly wore around campus.

And I much prefer online poker to LOLive poker, probably because it resembles a video game. It's probably a good thing I wasn't born ten years later, because the games the younguns are playing these days look mighty addictive!

If poker is a staged social performance in which all participants are "actors," then should we distinguish "real" actors from the rest of us?

Just ran in to this on my twitter feed, Ben. More grist for the mill.

https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/...dame-mustache/

I've many thoughts about the "gambling" stuff, too. Broadly, I'd say that I'd prefer the sociologists and/or the psychologists to be leading the way on this topic (by applying the methodologies of their respective fields, of course).

I'll never forget the memoir of the two Barthelme brothers about their blackjack addiction---a great example of how a personal narrative can shed some light on the science.

I would add that all narrators of fiction are actors, whereas those narrating non-fiction are simply realising their social identity. The key point is that poker is accepted as a game, in which telling lies is permissible; in this respect all poker players are actors. Part of the fascination/excitement of the game occurs when the consequences of it are felt as "real", usually due to the stakes, at which point the participants sometimes want the game to stop and a trustworthy perspective to resume. Of course, for this to happen the participants need to stop playing---that is, leave the stage---or just accept the heat of the battle.

If some can't leave the game, because they are addicted, whatever that means, then, perhaps, these people are acting less than others.

IDK, it's a pretty long drive from everywhere. I heard that a lot of the players were coming down from Georgia, which seems ridiculous to me.

I've been looking at live poker as mostly "performative masculinity" lately. My efforts to keep the table social and give off a "typical rec" vibe are surprisingly crude sometimes.

This.


I was watching the various ladies' night shows over the past few weeks (L@TB esp, but PokerGo as well), and was deeply struck by how limited the options are for women to enter that masculinely performed space. This, more than anything else, imo, accounts for why there are so few women in poker overall.

Which probably means we need to try to perform a little less crudely if we have any interest in changing that ... but who can resist a little crudite ...

Hey Ben, I was just listening to the Chip Race podcast which interviewed a poker writer (who's name escapes me, but is the editor of pokernews strategy section...) who get's into the history of poker, and cinema, and so on... Darn, I was grinding online at the same time, so I am not sure, but it was interesting (I think... ) and I believe you would enjoy. It starts about 19-20 minutes in, but the first part of the show is also a good listen (season 8, episode 5) :

https://soundcloud.com/thechiprace

Edit : I am just listening again and he wrote :...Poker and Pop Culture :

https://www.pokernews.com/news/2019/...ames-33494.htm

TY, Dr. I noticed that the piece is part of an ongoing column about "the art of the gamble." Will be interesting to see where it goes.

You should check out Natasha Dow Schull's work, if you haven't. She falls in the social science/ethnography area, so different than the Barthelme bros, but similarly valuable. She wrote an piece called "Abiding Chance: Online Poker and the Software of Self-Discipline" that has some interesting tidbits.

On the origin of the word "tilt"
HUDs and the technology of the self
Online Grinders and Asceticism (!)
What do you mean by "realising their social identity"? It seems to me that non-fiction narrators are also actors, in the sense that they invent a (reliable) persona to guide readers through the story. I think I'm wondering to what degree our social identity is given/assigned/static vs. invented/unassigned/dynamic

Examples? I'm trying to improve my caveman masculinity game.

I agree with both of yall. seems connected to the essay that DRTJO linked to above...

Thanks, DUBN, Martin is a great guy and the best resource we have on poker and pop culture. His book will be a must-read once it comes out!

Three Podcasts and a Vlog

Brag: I'm writing more
Beat: I'm reading less
Variance: I'm podcasting

GEEMAN

If you only have three minutes, then you should direct your attention here. If you have three hours, then I'm not sure I've come across better pokercentric content than Joe Ingram's interview with GEEMAN.



CreativeNext

CreativeNext explores how technology is reshaping learning and education. There's considerable attention to games, in particular:

How AI has changed chess

How AI Solved Poker

Poker, AI, and Learning

Behind the Grind

PGC hero Randal_Graves is vlogging. Who woulda guessed? Based on the first episode, it looks fascinating.


(DGAF's Poker) Sessions

DGAF's Sessions is quickly becoming one the best poker podcasts.

I have some nonpoker recs as well, but I'll save them for another poast. Hope everyone's month is going well!

Mostly it's just stereotypical stuff like "my wife get's home at 11, and it's a 20 minute drive home, so I can play as late as I want, as long as it's 10:40," or just referencing the punchline of well known dirty jokes. For example, if people are talking about funny names they've heard I might throw in "I once knew this girl who named her dog 'Freeshow.'"

Some great material in this essay, for sure, particularly in light of the ideal poker self that Gman presents these days (an ideal I generally uphold). The non-heroic, stoic, indifferent, rational, accretional, digitally mediated, even non-ethical, self that NDS ascribes to the online poker player is in stark contrast to the kind of self represented by Gman, who makes great efforts to situate poker---particularly variance, both positive and negative---within a larger social context, insofar as looking after yourself and others is crucial to success, whatever that is taken to mean.

To be fair, NDS's focus is online poker and the increasing relevance of a data-driven mode of subjectivity, acknowledging, for instance, that "online poker removes the palpable social and self-performative aspect of live play". I wonder, though, about the "ontological security" that a successful online poker player supposedly gains from fashioning a "self whose value accretes through many tiny actions over time", which by definition must respect "the law of large numbers at every decision point".

The fact that the online player she examines must revert to a +1 optimal state, to allow emotion to enter into his decision making, epitomises so much that troubles me about the poker world. It's interesting, nonetheless, that NDS places this type of "quantified self-regulation" in the context of asceticism, particularly the Jesuits. The fact that Gman can effectively debunk such an approach in a three-hour podcast is no less significant, either (but perhaps we're overvaluing his influence/celebrity, given his recent success on Live at the Bike).

In most cases, a non-fiction narrator, gains authority from their social identity (whether a scientist, poker player, journalist, musician, etc.). For us to be believed as narrators, which is nearly always the goal in non-fiction, much of the integrity of the knowledge brought to the page, depends on the social existence of this identity and the expertise it denotes (I'm assuming that the musician is writing about music and the scientist about lab experiments, etc.). While we have numerous social hats (i.e., can be both a musician and poker player or basketball player and teacher), generally the authority of non-fiction writing is based on the reader's assumption that the writer is immersed in the world being represented, and that this non-fiction/real world is effectively part of the authorial self. Of course, this happens in fiction, too, but the narrator can more easily be an imposter and pretend to be a self that they've never been. While a teacher "acts" in his or her role, when teaching, I don't believe this to be the same as a novelist "acting" as one of his or her characters. Sure, the act of writing non-fiction can alter one's self-perception, but I don't believe it is categorically the same as a novelist occupying another self, as they typically do when constructing a fictional character.

What you say about how much of our identity is static or dynamic certainly complicates what I'm saying here. I mean, the whole idea of "self-fashioning" through writing has to be acknowledged. For example, I wonder what happens to your social identity as poker player when writing about poker? Are you foremost a journalist? Probably, yes, and, yet, I "bet" that when you sit at the poker table, you're likely self-identifying as a poker player, too. In this sense, your non-fiction identity is relatively dynamic (with you being able to switch back to journalist/teacher at the table, unless you self-identify as a "poker pro" in which case your identity is surprisingly fixed). By comparison, what happens when you start fictionalising at the poker table (constructing characters and scenes in your imagination)? Can you self-identify as an fiction author, here? It begins to feel a little creepy (the fact that you're turning your peers into characters). What is the reality of your social identity in this respect? If someone literally asks at the table "so what do you do?" are you more likely to say teaching? Unless you're a publicly known writer (imagine John Updike at the poker table), I'd say that more often than not you wouldn't necessarily disclose your identity, which would hold in any number of social situations. In short, I'm saying that the correlation between a non-fiction author and their social identity is likely to be more direct than would be the case with a novelist.

In the cardroom, I find myself fist-bumping and forearm-bumping and engaging in various other bro-greetings way more often than elsewhere. The other night I was out with a writer who asked me who my favorite beeball player is. I gave the obvious answer

and he gleefully yelled, "Me too!" Without thinking I extended my fist for a bro-bump and he recoiled like I was about to punch him. It was gloriously awkward.

It seems to me that the very best players—GEEMAN might be a good example, given his history—are able to move between both worlds or "selves." Or maybe they're wise enough to choose one format over the other, since live and online demand such different skillsets. I wonder how much of GEEMAN's heroic, socially and emotionally aware self is tailored to the live arena. I also wonder if the live-online distinction will eventually weaken or break down. We're already seeing a collapse between "the digital world" and "the real world," and that seems to be NDS's primary concern: ways that data-driven technologies are transforming subjectivity. Most pokercentric examples still seem to belong to sci-fi—shades with built-in HUDs, a Monkersolver phone app—but I wouldn't be surprised if some version of these technologies pops up, at least in the high-stakes scene.

That makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification, Dr.

Yah, what I'm trying to work through is the relationship between our onstage, or performed selves (in settings like the classroom or the cardroom) and our backstage, or "real," self. I think my position is closer to the one expressed here:

I wish it were easy to switch between these identities. Of all the pitfalls and distractions that routinely torpedo my poker game, the biggest one is that I've developed a peculiar kind of double consciousness: playing poker while thinking about writing about playing poker. It's easy to brainstorm potential scenes or fictionalize, as you put it, which takes you out of "flow" and transports you into the realm of objectification—for the purpose of creating characters/scenes etc. Another odd thing about writing nonfiction, especially as someone who's a "character" in an evolving story, is that you can take an active role is shaping the plot; you can create action.

I'm convinced that, from a poker-playing perspective—from the perspective of earning EV and playing well—this double consciousness is bad. I'm willing to opt into this mindset, though, because maximizing my winrate or climbing the stakes has never meant much to me, and the fulfillment that I gain from writing about poker exceeds any money that I happen to win.

I love these "so what do you do?" moments at the table, where we're forced to condense 30 or 40 or 50 years of experience into an impossibly tiny identity, a sound bite, even. "I'm a teacher." I'm a musician." "I'm in the shipping industry." They offer great opportunities for self-fashioning or invention, while also following some internal mandate to be authentic or "true to yourself," whatever that means.

I usually give the same answer to this question. Teach, write, blah blah. Alternatively, I could pimp myself out as Dirk Nowitzki's younger brother or even, given the foolish amount of time I spend at the casino, I might even smugly declare that I play for a living. But I've never called myself a pro, mainly because I'm not one, and also because I don't want to be perceived as one. A few times I haven't been so much asked as accused, with a conspiratorial wink: "So are you on the clock?" It's amusing being at the table when someone directs this question to an actual pro, who then forces a range of undesirable options: admit he's a pro, deflect the question, lie, feign hunger in order to visit the Lucky Dog stand, etc.

That is a helluva post right there, sir.

First, as Doniger's academic grandchild, I always smile when folks reference her. If you ever move into something that touches on myth/how myth operates/how we read it, _The Implied Spider_ is pretty fantastic. Second, that link! Roar Lion Roar!

Masks as a gateway to possession seems a decent concept as well, in light of the fictional selves discussion.

I think the multiplicity of selves thing is really important, and touches on a key to mental health: integration. You are **all** of those things (ok, I'm skeptical about, outside of the Wire Season 2, your relationship to the shipping industry), and we are constantly in this flux between representing ourselves fully and representing ourselves tactically in everyday life.

Even the choice isn't an either/or: there aren't many places where we *can* or perhaps *should* be our multiplicity of selves. But our awareness of that really does fall back into that double consciousness thing. And I cant write "double consciousness" without thinking WEB Dubois.

I wonder if Dubois' thoughts on it would offer any insight on those moments at the table. The core insights into the process of constantly bouncing back and forth between "what I think" and "what I think they think" does seem to have some relevance to playing cards, as does the standard pitfall of misinterpretation (lots of folks reduce Dubois to "what I think" and "what they think," which is both inaccurate and largely uninteresting).

Finally, yeah, end of day, it ends up being a lot like the GOAT question in baseball: if you don't end up with Babe Ruth, it's because you're trying to make some other, specific point.

Lol'ed at this. The only time I actually fist-bump genuinely in real life is after hockey games in the post game line up with the opposing team + referees (in recent years it has become more acceptable to do this with gloves on instead of actually shaking sweaty hands where germs/etc. can be passed). I think I may do it ironically (don't think that is the right word?) with friends/family as an obvious joke. But in the poker room, I actually find myself doing this for realz and even, egad, sometimes instigating it.

GIdon'tevenknowwhoIamanymoreG

Who's the grandfather?

I'm getting close to rewatching. The show's GOAT scene came up in conversation the other day..true fans will know what's coming...wait for it...

I strongly doubted that my friend would know it, but, being the boss that he is, he immediately acknowledged it as the GOAT scene almost before I finished bringing it up, and we enjoyed a rare union of the minds—the total opposite of the failed fist bump described above!

Something about cardroom culture, I dunno. I did it again today. I can't stop myself.

April Results, May Goals



[X] Read

After feeling informed but dissatisfied with Sam Skolnik's High Stakes, I read Christina Binkley's Winner Takes All, character-driven narrative about Steve Wynn and the construction of the Vegas Strip. I can only describe Binkley, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who covered the casino beat for almost a decade, as feisty. She writes with verve and wit, and seems to relish the moments when Steve Wynn, Kirk Kerkorian, and Gary Loveman—the book's three "heroes"—act and talk foolishly. At the same time, I never felt like Binkley was being unfair to them, Wynn's ex-wife Elaine, or the dozens of testosterone-fueled tycoons who appear in the book (Trump, Adelson, etc). I agree with this critique from a NYT review:

Despite the lack of a through narrative or an "argument," Binkley is incredibly well-informed—she had access to all three main men, and clearly did an enormous amount of reporting and research. If you want to learn more about the race to build the Vegas Strip, and also the philosophies underpinning Wynn, Caesars, and MGM, I doubt you'll find a better book.

I also reread one of my favorite books: The Great Gatsby. It's been five or six years, and I'm always astounded by the taut beautiful narrative. I found myself wondering if there are any redeeming characters in the book. Maybe Owl Eyes.

[118] Write 100 hours
[22] Play XX hours

Harrahdise had one its best promos in recent memory (which isn't saying much, but still): $170 single table sattys in which first got a $1700 Main Event seat (for the upcoming Nola Circuit), and a free $400 seat was added for second. Last Thursday they added a free $400 AND a $250 seat for third. Ridiculous value, despite the fast structure.

Which reminds me: I read a poker book! Like, an actual "here's how to play well" poker book—Dara O'Kearney's Poker Satellite Strategy. It's good. I like this analogy:

Distinguishing between "normal" tourney strat and satty strat might be the book's biggest value. For example, I'm familiar with the idea that, with 15-20ish BBs, you want to open jam middle-of-range hands that hate getting reshoved on: a pair of fives on the button, A2s, etc. Then you minraise/fold bottom of range and minraise/call top of range. But in sattys, you don't want to raise/call with many hands at all, even at deeper stack depths:

Heading into the Circuit, I have three donkament seats and will probably play a good bit of cash. I'm also looking to to dip back into some studying.

Harrahdise Biloxi didn't get the memo that I'm a lowroller

Easter in Nola
May Goals

[ ] read
[ ] write 50 hours
[ ] study 50 hours
[ ] play XX hours

Fun story regarding Dara O'Kearney : back in February of this year in Sinaia, Romania (a ski resort located 90 minutes outside the capital Bucharest), I found myself on the pure bubble of Unibet's Open ME. And then it dragged on, and on, and on, like north of 2-3h, which is simply insane for an initial player field of just under 400 people HHs started to make their way to our table with rumours of a single Big Blind stack shoving KK UTG and holding up vs 6 other players colluding to bust him Long and behold, it was Dara, not only representing well Unibet's reputation as an Ambassador, but putting his perfectionist/logistic EV calculations to good usage

Love the story. Fitting that there's a whole chapter in his book devoted to stalling

No matter what the subject is—dating, cockfighting, baking, hot-dog eating—there will always be someone pursing an optimal strat. Dara might be the Satty Crusher.

Poker Faces in the Crowd: Lou Marziale

This month I spoke with Lou Marziale, a 93-year-old WWII vet who's a regular at Harrahdise's craps and LOLimit tables. Lou told me about growing up in the 1920s, serving in World War II, running successful shoe and furniture companies, and the time when he fired Lee Harvey Oswald.

May Results, June Goals



[30] write 50 hours

I needed a break from my lil poker project, and it was nice to focus on some other stuff (teaching, enjoying Nola, watching the Raps advance to the NBA finals). After sending out some drafts for feedback, I heard, for the first time, a strong inner voice: I don't know if I can do this. I think these doubts are natural and a necessary part of the peaks and valleys that accompany any longterm project. They have also gone away—for now —and I'm eager to get back on the writing grind.

[X] read

I read-watched this fantastic overview of the NBA finals rivalry between Pippen's Bulls and Ewing's Knicks (the year MJ played baseball)

I read Mohsin Hamid's Exit West, a story about migration that somehow isn’t political. Best book I've read in a year or two, I think, so then I grabbed another one of his books—The Reluctant Fundamentalist—which is more political and less good imo, but still an enjoyable read.

I reread The Moviegoer. I forgot how much it’s a Nola novel—the descriptions of Carnival, the French Quarter, Gentilly and other neighborhoods, Biloxi, and the Gulf Coast, are all beautifully rendered. The book is also a philosophical quest, a kind of Russian novel set in the South, and I found it confusing and interesting.

[70] Play xx hours
[25] Study 50 hours

What is a repetition? A repetition is the re-enactment of past experience toward the end of isolating the time segment which has lapsed in order that it, the lapsed time, can be savored of itself and without the usual adulteration of events that clog time like peanuts in brittle
—Walker Percy, The Moviegoer

Ah, the Nola Circuit. The same convention hall, the same faces, the same nagging desire to reclaim past glories by gathering thousands of trinkets in order to earn that most coveted trinket, a gold WSOP ring, plus cold hard cash. I logged roughly equal time in cash games and tournaments. To most of us, the cash action felt less good than in previous years. My favorite hand involved a Euro grinder and one of our own fun rec players.

2/5 NL

fun player limp UTG (2K)
Euro ($700) isos to 25, BB call, Rec calls.

Flop As6d7d. Check, Euro bets 50, BB fold, fun player raises to 200, Euro ships, Rec tank calls.

Euro: T9dd
Rec: J2dd

Turn brick, river brick, Jack Hi good! #DefendNola

Thanks to a few Harrahdise satties, I went into the month with three free seats, including one to the Main. After the first break, the best player in the world, the GOATest of GOATs, graced our table with his presence. I had never played with Maurice Hawkins before, but I'd seen and heard him plenty. Just the other day, as he sat one table over in the Monster Stack, his persistent aggressive banter floated over like he was the host of his own radio station, Swaggy Mo 96.7.

[Quote=The GOAT] Oh, I’m the GOAT, period. I mean the thing about it, is if we’re talking about the circuit, I have the most rings, the most money earned, the most charisma and the most personality, the most known, the most table presence. I’m the most. I’m Mr. Most. On the circuit, I’m Mr. Everything. I think that’s just a subset to my life. I think life is about knowing how to stay relevant and stay successful. I’m successful. Numbers prove I’m successful. I played big events. I got fourth in the WPT Borgata main event. I got 16th in the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure main event. If I played the PCA everyday, I’d probably be the best at the PCA. But I play the circuit all the time. It’s just that I play that the most.

Maurice was uncharacteristically quiet when he unracked a starting stack at our table. I discovered why after I checked one of my group texts:

Busted Hawkins again
He is my *****

It wouldn't be inaccurate to say that oodles of grinder despise Maurice and take special pleasure in busting him. But there are other things to mention: his thick-rimmed hipster glasses. His savvy self-awareness. His ability to not only manipulate others' scorn, but to adroitly cultivate it. After losing a few pots, Maurice began accumulating. It was quickly clear that he has a skill shared by elite players—selective aggression. He also seemed more aggressive than he actually was thanks to the chattering that grew louder with every pot that he won. Suddenly he had 60K, and the natural order of things was restored.

For my part, despite a relatively soft table, I couldn't get much going. By the 6th level I was down to 20 bigs, and jammed AQ over a bunch of limpers. I was called by A8o and earned a full dubble. A few hands went the other way—the same player limp rejammed AK vs my AQ—and I had a few wild levels that eventually led to a flip with AQ (again) vs JJ, which I lost. I wish I could say that dipping my toe into the donkament pool has sparked my desire to go bracelet-hunting during the WSOP, but no. I'm sure I'll play some cash once I get to Vegas, but most of my time will be spent hopping back onto the writing grind. Crazy that this will be my 5th WSOP. As always, reach out if any of yall are around!

The Harrahdise grind requires a balanced diet


Aces in LOLimit = zero chance of winning

My new bed, my new ride, and a dream #WestwardHo

June Goals

[ ] read
[ ] write 100 hours
[ ] play xx hours

Good stuff bob.......actually great stuff!

Dunno if you saw this: https://mankinlevine.com/2018/04/rea...-mohsin-hamid/

Mohsin Hamid‘s debut novel, Exit West (2017) is a most rare creature: a gentle dystopian work.

I liked it a lot, too ...

If the GOAT fell into TheAbyss(tm), would he still have horns?

I mentioned this thought in another thread recently, but I'm guessing the true joy of art comes in the act of creating it rather than the act of having others experience it, especially when I would guess the vast majority of art is only experienced by the creator themselves. It's kinda the conclusion I've come to as someone who dabbles in creating art (music, all horrible not that it matters) that will never be experienced by others.

Ggoodluckwithyourproject,gogogo!imoG