Book Ratings from 2012 + List for 2013

Happy 2013 readers!  I hope that everyone has a very happy, healthy and successful new year!

Those of you who know me know that I love to read.  Since I have been slow about updating the book review section of this site, I have decided to list all of the books I have read in 2012 along with a simple rating system + for positive, – for negative and = for being ambivalent and perhaps a sentence about why I gave it that rating.  If you have any comments or thoughts I would love to hear them!  I included a list of the books I hope to read in 2013, if you have any you think I should add(or remove), please comment and let me know.

2012 Non-Fiction

(+)No Easy Day by Mark Owen.  The author is humble and insightful about being a SEAL and being involved in the Bin Laden Raid.

(+)The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver.  His book was not as easy to read and entertaining as I had hoped, though it was very good.  That said, he is someone I respect immensely(and have written about in this blog) and it was on a topic I enjoy reading about.

(=)Imagine by Jonah Lehrer.  The book was about how to be more creative and increase imagination, but I had read most of the book in other places.

(-)Mortality by Christopher Hitchens.  I expected some insight or philosophy, but it was just a collection of disjointed thoughts.

(+)We Are Anonymous by Parmy Olson.  It was a good look inside the hacking world of Anonymous and its history, but even though I enjoyed it, it would probably not interesting to most people.

(=)The Amateur by Edward Klein.  The author spoke to high level people with personal knowledge of the President who said negative things about the President.  Much of it has  been written before and although it was interesting, I am usually skeptical of people with a clear agenda.

(+)10 Minute Toughness: The Mental Training Program by Jason Selk.  I thought his discussion and exercises were very good and useful for someone who has a job with a lot of stress.

(-)The Devil’s Highway by Luis Alberto Urea.  The story was interesting, but the author did not captivate the readers.

(-)American Sniper:The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in US Military History by Chris Kyle.  I hated this book because the author was an egomaniac without regard for the people he killed.  Reading No Easy Day reminded me of how terrible this one was.

(=)Assholes Finish First by Max Tucker.  Another in this series of lewd but entertaining tales by this author.  Was readable, but definitely not for everyone.

(=)The Big Short by Michael Lewis.  It was a good book about the recent market crash but was not as good as some others on the same topic.

(+)Boomerang by Michael Lewis.  A very well written and interesting book about market collapses in different countries.  Far better than The Big Short.

(=)Bossypants by Tina Fey.  There were some humorous moments in the book which saved it, but it was dull in a lot of parts

(-)50/50 by Dean Karnazes.  I like running books and his story was interesting, but the book was far too repetitive and uninteresting.

(-)Chelsea Chelsea Bang Bang by Chelsea Handler.  Similar to Assholes Finish first, and not particularly good.

(+)The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot.  The author did a good job of blending the current story with Henrietta’s history and made the book very easy to read and get into, despite the fact that the topic was only mildly interesting

(=)The Last Lecture by Randy Pausch.  His advice was sound and I enjoyed reading his story but it was a bit depressing(obviously) and not that inspiring.

(-)Moonwalking with Einstein by Joshua Foer.  I am not sure that the author’s story could have been interesting in the best of circumstances and he didn’t do a great job of capturing the reader and taking him through his journey.

(+)Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science by Charles Wheelan.  I like these types of books that discuss economics and its applicability to everyday life.  This book has more relevant information then Freakanomics, but is not as entertaining.

(=)The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg.  The author did a good job of condensing a lot of material about habits and trying to teach the reader how to improve their habits and better their life.  However the book wasn’t that well written or engaging.

(+)Scorecasting by L. Jon Wertheim.  It was similar to Moneyball, but addressed different areas in sports and misconceptions.  It was a very good read.

(+)Sex on the Moon by Ben Mizrich.  I think this would appeal to many people as the author has a good writing flow that keeps the reader entertained.  Plus, the story was interesting and probably unknown to most.

(-)Sh*t My Dad Says by Justin Halpern.  It was a collection of uninteresting and not so funny tales.

(-)Unorthodox by Deborah Feldman.  A description of her life and the reasons she left the Jewish Satmar community.  It didn’t really resonate or interest me.

(+)What the Dog Saw:And Other Adventures by Malcolm Gladwell.  A superb, life changing  book that will change your view of the world.  A must read.

(-)Why Do Men Have Nipples? by Mark Leyner and Billy Goldberg.  Q&A’s about random questions that wasn’t that interesting.

(=)The Best Advice I Ever Got by Katie Couric.  I forget what I thought about it, but it was a very fast read.

(+)Back to Work by Bill Clinton.  It is superbly written and reasoned as to why the government should proceed in the manner he lays out.  He writes the way he speaks and is incredibly rational in his discussion.  I liked it a lot.

(+)If It Was Easy, They’d Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon by Jenna McCarthy.  The book is a series of relatable stories and humorous commentaries on married life.

(+)Born to Run by Christopher McDougall.  I enjoyed reading about natural ultra marathon runners and the author did a good job of making it relatable and entertaining

2012 Fiction

(+)Sharp Objects by Gillian Flynn.  The author keeps the reader in suspense and the character development is very good.

(+)Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet by Jamie Ford.  A very moving historical fiction about a Chinese and a Japanese family in America during World War II.

(+)Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn.  Well written with lots of twists and suspense.  It was good enough to make me want to read her other two books, which were both very well received.

(=)The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky.  I read the book after seeing the movie, and the book included a lot background and important information.  It was ok, but nothing special.

(=)Beautiful Disaster by Jamie McGuire.  Kind of a trashy, implausible book that was a page turner, but not particularly good.

(-)Perfume by Patrick Suskind.  The main character was not particularly engaging, nor was the book gripping.

(+)The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time by Mark Haddon.  It was written from the point of view of an autistic boy and was phenomenal.  Moving and captivating, you root for the main character very hard.

(=)Drown by Junot Diaz.  I like the authors unique style, but it was similar to the other books he has written, and I preferred The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao.

(=)This is How You Lose Her by Junot Diaz.  It was better than Drown and but not as good as The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao

(=)The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson.  It is historical fiction in Chicago in the 1890′s which was entertaining, but got a bit long winded and boring in some parts.

(+)Before I Go to Sleep: A Novel by S. J. Watson.  Gripping book about a woman trying to figure out why she lost her memory.  Reminded me of the movie Memento without the violence.

(-)Blindness by Jose Saramago.  The book was almost unreadable as the story was boring and the characters did not entertain the reader at all.  Not sure how it got made into a movie.

(=)This is Where I Leave You by Jonathan Tropper.  I was entertained, but I thought it was nothing special or unique.

(+)The Power of One by Bryce Courtenay.  A fantastic book where you feel in sync with the main character and root for him continuously.  The authors writing is incredible.

(+)Tandia by Bryce Courtenay.  The sequel to The Power of One and was equally good, though a bit long(900 pages) for most people.  I enjoyed every page and it was as good as the previous book.

(=)Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay.  The basis for the show Dexter, which I love.  I did not think the book developed the characters or made me want to follow through with the rest of the series.

(-)Fifty Shades of Grey by E. L. James.  I did not think it was particularly good and don’t know what all the fuss was about.  Was extremely glad to finish and not read the next two in the series.

(+)The Hunger Games 1,2,3 by Suzanne Collins.  The first book was good and made me want to read the others.  Unfortunately, in the next two books the author was struggling to come up with a plausible way to add a sequel and did not entertain me.

(+)American Assassin by Vince Flynn.  It was a page turner about an American spy.

(+)Kill Shot by Vince Flynn.  One in the above series that was also excellent.

(=)The Litigators by John Grisham.  I thought it was medicre, especially for him.  It wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t particularly enthralling either.

(=)The Marriage Plot by Jeffrey Eugenides.  I had a lot of trouble getting into the story, though I thought it was well written.

(=)The Street Lawyer by John Grisham.  I thought this book was ok, but certainly doesn’t compare to the Grisham of old.

(-)The Tiger’s Wife by Tea Obreht.  I tried really hard to like the story but the writers style and the story made it nearly impossible.

(+)We Need to Talk About Kevin by Lionel Shriver.  This was a very different book about a different subject, but I liked the way it was done and the author kept me involved in the book.

(+)Room by Emma Donoghue.  I liked different perspective that the author wrote from and she really stimulated my mind.  I enjoyed the whole book overall.

2012 Poker

(+) Playing the Player by Ed Miller.  A superb book that is great for middle stakes no limit players looking to improve.  I am very tough on poker books, but I think this one was excellent.

(=) Exploiting Regulars by Tri Nguyen and Tom Marchese.  The book is well written and probably cutting edge in its time, but I don’t think it is particularly applicable to today’s online games and not good for live play.  It doesn’t do a great job of teaching you to think, like Playing the Player, and is more about specific hands.

(+)Small Stakes No Limit Hold’em by Ed Miller, Sunny Mehta and Matt Flynn.  Good book for beginning no limit players.

(-)The Poker Blueprint by Aaron Davis and Tri Ngyuen.  The hands and concepts were ok, but it did a poor job of teaching applicability, which is where most players go wrong.

(+)PLO8 Revealed by Dan Deppen.  The book is the only book about PLO8 on the market and does a good job of teaching the basics, which is enough.

(+)Let There Be Range by Tri Ngyuen and Cole South.  This was one of the first expenive poker ebooks written and still stands the test of time.  It is no wonder why Cole crushed the games and you seeing his thought process is great.

(+)The Mental Game of Poker by Jared Tendler.  The author has intricate knowledge of what is necessary to improve the mental game and does a great job of explaining it.  He is very descriptive about player types and goes through exercises to help in the future.

(=)A Rubber Band Story and Other Poker Tales by Tommy Angelo.  I didn’t think this book was as good as his other ones but it was entertaining as the author has a knack for captivating the readers.

(+)Advanced Pot Limit Omaha Volumes 1, 2, 3 by Jeff Hwang.  There isn’t a lot of good material on PLO, and his is among the best out there.  3 and 1 were considerably better than 2 though.

(+)Every Hand Revealed by Gus Hanson.  His explanations about why he does certain things can be useful to every type of player.  Though his advice might not be directly applicable to anyone, seeing his thought process in tournaments was very insightful.

(-)Treat Your Poker Like a Business by Dusty Schmidt.  I disliked this book because the author assumes that because his way of playing poker works, it is applicable to business, in which he has no experience.  Aside from that, the book gives general advice that is in no way unique or special, even as directed towards poker players.

(=)High Low Split by Ray Zee.  It was and probably still is the best book on 7 card stud, but the advice is basic and probably will not help even a medium stakes player all that much.

(+)Raiser’s Edge by Bertrand “ElkY” Grospellier.  He advocated a completely different style of play that is explained well and can be applied to all games.  While there is some very useful information in the book, there is a lot that might not work for most people.

(-)Winning Poker Tournaments One Hand at a Time: Volume 2 by Eric Lynch, Jon Van Fleet and Jon Turner.  I disliked this book because I thought that 2 of the 3 authors played  terrible in the hands they describe.  To people who cannot discern the difference between good and bad play, this will lead them down the wrong path.

Books I Hope to Read in 2013

The Middlesteins by Jamie Attenberg

The Age of Miralcles by Karen Thompson Walker

Eat and Run: My Unlikely Journey to Ultra Marathon Greatness by Scott Jurek

The Lifespan of a Fact by John D’Agata

Brain Training for Runners by Matt Fitzgerald

The Big Thirst:The Secret Life and Turbulent Future of Water by Charles Fishman

The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking

Crazy for the Storm: A Memoir of Survival by Norman Ollestad

Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder by Vincent Bugliosi

The Complete Guide to Buying and Selling Apartment Buildings by Steve Berges;

Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life by Winifred Gallagher;

The Art of Fielding by Chad Harbach

Argo by Antonio Mendez and Matt Baglio

Ikes Bluff by Evan Thomas

Seven Days in the Art World by Sarah Thornton

12 million stuffed Shark by Donald Thompson

America Again: Re-becoming the Greatness We Never Weren’t by Stephen Colbert

Telegraph Avenue by Michael Chabon

The Glass Room by Simon Mawer

Soccernomics by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski

Antifragile by Nassim Taleb

The Fault in Our Stars by John Green

Dark Places by Gillian Flynn

Mr Penumbra’s 24 Hour Bookstore by Robin Sloan

How Children Succeed Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character by Paul Tough

How to Read Hands at No Limit Hold’em by Ed Miller

Quiet by Susan Cain

The Elegance of the Hedgehog by Muriel Barbery

Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson

Life of Pi by Yann Martel

A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khalid Housseini

Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose

The Essays of Warren Buffett by Warren Buffett

The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder

Posted in Book Review, Live Poker | Leave a comment

Adios 2012!

2012 was a great year for me personally.  I got married to a fantastic woman and I couldn’t be more happy and excited for the rest of our lives together.  We took a great honeymoon to Argentina and have plans to travel much more in the coming year.  I am lucky that I was able to find someone so special, that I mesh with so well, and to convince her to marry me :) This year I was also able to spend a lot of quality time with my family, especially my nephews, and am very lucky to have such a great family that lives so close.  I have several good friends who got engaged in the past year and I am looking forward to being a part of their weddings.

Professionally, 2012 was a bit of a downer, as this was the first full year that I have been unable to play poker on the internet and no legislation has been put in place to allow that to happen.  I am hopeful that at the beginning of the year NJ will allow internet poker(the bill has passed, just waiting on Governor Christie) and that perhaps something will happen federally.  I have been travelling to Atlantic City, Las Vegas and Parx to play in person and it has been going quite well, however I much prefer to have a flexible schedule and to work from home.  This website has been growing in popularity and I have enjoyed writing the content for it.

This year I did not run any races, though I did complete the 9 week insanity boot camp that really increased my fitness.  I really enjoy doing that sort of thing and hope to include it in my work outs in the coming year as a complement to running.  I find reading very relaxing and I read a lot of books on a wide range of subjects.  I will probably make a separate post with my book ratings soon, along with a reading list for the coming year.

Hope everyone has a wonderful new year!

Posted in Internet Poker, Live Poker, Poker | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Do NFL Coaches Do Silly Things?

Whenever I watch a football game, I can’t help but cringe when I see teams on their opponents 1 yard line kicking field goals instead of going for the touchdown.  There are other times when I see the coaches making clearly wrong moves (I am not terribly knowledgeable about football either) and I wonder why they don’t make the mathematically correct play.  These guys are working 18 hour days during the season, to prepare their team, how do they miss the easy ones?

Over the past few years there have been some incredibly smart people who have broken down football(as well as other sports), in a way similar to Billy Beane in Moneyball, in order to determine what the correct play is in different situations.  For example, having 4th down and 1 on your opponents 40 yard line is worth a certain number of points (on average over a large number of trials) .  This is based on field position of success, as well as potential field position if you fail (the number can be negative too, think about 4th and 10 on your own 1 yard line). So, if 3rd down and goal on your opponents 1 is worth 4.5 points (I am making up the number) then kicking a field goal for 3 points instead of going for it, is like losing 1.5 points.  Yet this is precisely what you see coaches doing all the time, under the guise of “getting on the board” or some other nonsense.  While there are certainly late game situations to vary from the “correct play” down 7-0 in the first quarter certainly does not qualify.

The result of the analysis done by experts, is that teams should be going for it far more on 4th down then they actually do.  On 4th and short, the breakeven point is somewhere around their own 35 yard line.  So why do most coaches not follow where the math leads them?  Well, I have a few ideas.  The first is that they have been involved in football their entire lives and believe that their experience lets them “know the game” and are therefore resistant to outsiders with new ideas.  The second is that by sticking with the pack and doing what everyone else does, they receive less criticism from management and fans then if they were to “take risks.”  This makes it more likely they will keep their jobs.

I see many similarities to the evolution of poker.  Poker was the same for many, many years until people, mainly young men, began playing for money on the internet.  As a result, with the ability to play many hands simultaneously and a reason(a lot of money) to figure out the best way to play, evolution occurred.  This has led to more betting and raising to take advantage of the “old school” players who have not adapted.  These players have not adapted, in my opinion, because they “know how to play” and are very set in their ways.  By looking at the ages of people at the final table of the World Series of Poker over time, you can see that no limit hold’em is being entirely dominated by younger people.  While not all of the newer breed of younger aggressive players are winners their style is a dominating one over players who play the older more passive style.  There can be no other explanation for the influx of younger players who disproportionately dominate no limit tournaments and cash games.

The herd mentality is dominant at the poker table.  One player talks about how he never reraises AK because it is a “drawing hand” and people not only agree, but start doing it as well(yes, people talk about how they have and will play hands at the table).   If asked why a player plays a hand in a particular way, there answers are no more than superficial and anecdotal(“I remember when I lost a big pot with this hand”).  If they lose a big pot, they are able to get consolation from their neighbor that they “played it the right way.”  Few players stop to think about the reasons behind doing something and its possible outcomes.

So what can be done in football and in poker to counter this?  Well, for starters, you must do work away from the table to figure out what the right answer to the problem is.  You might not be able to figure out the answer exactly, but you learn a lot by trying to get there.  For example, what are the possible outcomes from reraising AK and how does it compare to doing else?  When is it helpful to call instead of raise?  When is it good to fold?These are questions that need to be answered using numbers and scenarios, not “AK is a good hand so I don’t fold.”  Secondly it is necessary to keep asking questions(that require new answers) in order to see if there are different avenues of play you have not explored.  For example, it has come to light that surprise onside kicks are recovered at an enormous rate and should be done more frequently.  Maybe a team will start trying it a bit more than their share.  Maybe analysis will lead to teams fake punting 50% of the time because that is closer to optimal.  You never know what you will find unless you start digging through the data and listening to the answers.

Posted in Live Poker | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Conditional Probability

I was reading an article recently about the enormous Powerball Jackpot which said that you are 25 times more likely to win an Academy Award(25 million to 1) then to win the Powerball Jackpot (175 million to 1).  I dislike it when writers use statistics that are right factually, but that are wrong when applied in the right context.  I am going to explain why the writer was wrong, and how the right thinking can have a big impact on the way you make decisions.

First, what are the true odds that I will win an Academy Award?  Realistically, about zero.  I am not an actor, do not have plans to become one and am in no way involved in the production of movies or films.  On the other hand, what are the odds that Anne Hathaway will win one?  Pretty damn high (my wife thinks that she will win this year for Les Mis).  So, putting the odds of both myself and Anne Hathaway at 25 million to 1 is seems to be wrong.

So, how do you go about figuring out what the right answer truly is?  The answer is Bayes’ Theorem and it has applicability to many things, including drug testing, medical experiments and our everyday decisions.  Basically, you include the specific data you have about a situation and compare its probability to the general data you have.  The formula is a bit complicated and there are many online calculators available, but it is best explained by the example here.

How does this help us figure out the true answer to the Academy Award question?  Well, instead of figuring out the odds that anyone will win an Academy Award and applying it to me, you take the information you know about me(that I am not an actor) and apply it.  What are the odds that I will win an Oscar, given that I am not an actor.  Miniscule.  What are the odds that Anne Hathaway, given that she is an A list actress with a major film role upcoming will win an Oscar?  Pretty high!

There is a slightly more complicated example of Bayes’ Theorem that applies to medical testing that is very important since its impact can be outsized in its impact on our lives.  You read that there is a rare cancer that occurs in .1% of the population and that there is a test that will let you know if you have it that is 99% accurate for people with the disease.   1% people who do not have it will also get a positive result.  Should you take the test, and if you come back positive, what is the likelihood that you have it?  Most people would say they should take the test(I am not going to weigh in on that) and that they are 99% likely to have it, but the number is much, much, lower than that and should be considered before deciding whether or not to take the test.  Here is the math behind it:

There are 350 million people in the USA and if everyone were tested, 350,000 people would be expected to have it(.1% of 350 million).  Of those, 99% would come up positive, so 346,500 people of the 350,00 who have it would come up positive on the test.  Of the 350 million people tested, 3.5 million will test positive for the cancer when they are really negative.  So, to figure out the odds of actually having the cancer after testing positive for it  you would take the number of correct positives and divide it by the total number of positives or 346,500/350,346,500 or ~1 in 1,000!

This uses the same Bayes’ formula as the Academy Award example (the given in this case is that you have a positive result) and shows that a test that seems great on the surface(99% accurate for the disease!) actually leaves 99.9% of the people who test positive thinking they have the disease when they do not.

This blog is getting long, so just a quick note on how Bayes’ Theorem applies to poker.  Sometimes I have to make decisions without as much information about my opponents as I would like.  I learn as much as I can about them as quickly as I can, but sometimes, a situation comes up that requires me to make an important decision within the first few hands of having played with someone.  So what do I do?  Well, instead of pretending I have no information, I use the information I do have (limited as it may be) and apply Bayes’ Theorem.  For example, when someone sits down and raises his first 3 hands I now know that it is way more likely that he is a maniacal player than if he sat down and folded the first 3 hands.   Knowing how rare it is that a “normal player” would raise 3 hands in a row as compared to how often a maniacal player would, helps me allow for the data I have and lets me change my actions accordingly.

If you have any questions please email me at Jason@PokerConsultant.org.

Bonus question: Do the odds of Anne Hathaway winning the Oscar change when you know that my wife, who has won several Oscar pools, and is very good at picking the winners, thinks that she will?

Posted in Internet Poker, Live Poker, Poker | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Changing Your Mind

There is nothing wrong with changing your mind.  Your opinions are constantly shifting based on new information and a change in the status quo.  A month ago, 20 minutes felt like a long time to wait for gas for your car.  3 weeks ago, it felt like a short time.  Now it’s back to feeling like a long time.  The one thing that remained constant is that you waited 20 minutes for gas and all that changed is your opinion about how long 20 minutes was.  That time could have used to call a friend you hadn’t spoken to in a while no matter whether it felt long or short.

The point is that your preconceived view of this situation (and others) can cause you to make poorer decisions than if you evaluated it without bias.  People’s decisions about how to spend the 20 minutes would vary considerably based on whether or not they felt it was a long time or a short time.  That seems silly to me.  There is nothing wrong with being annoyed that the outcome is not as you would have liked, but at a certain point, you have to step back, evaluate your options and take the best one irrespective of the preceding events.

In poker, you continually get new information and it is necessary to change your opinion about the relative strength of your hand and how much it is worth.  One of the best poker players to play against is someone who looks only at the strength of his own hand, and is oblivious to the actions of the other players.  For example, certain people will never fold pocket aces after the flop, no matter what the board or how much raising occurs.  They are stuck on the first piece of information they have(I have a strong hand!) without taking in other information like the board, the other players and the betting.  It is important to independently evaluate the action and to come to a solid conclusion and to leave your preconceived notions out of it.

Here is a great example that occurred when I was playing in a $5/$10 NL game during the Borgata Fall Open:

A bad player who was playing passively preflop and calling a lot of bets on the flop(I had seen him call with a gutshot once, and another time with just one overcard) called and the button raised preflop to $60.  The big blind called and the bad player called.

The pot was $200 and the flop came AsJdJc.  Both players checked and the button bet $140.  The big blind folded and the bad player called and said, “I check the turn without seeing it.”  From my live experience, this means he virtually never has a Jack and often has an ace.  This is very important information that he gave away unnecessarily by talking in the middle of the hand.

The turn is the 4h and both players check.

The river is the Ts and the bad player fires out $600(which is a very big bet to him and in this game) into the $440 pot.  How does this change things?  Well, the bad player is not the type to make such a large bet without a straight or better (I think it is unlikely he would do this with something like KJ).  That means that an overwhelming amount of the time, he has KQ for a straight with the occasional slowplayed full house on the flop.   When I was thinking about the hand as it was going on, he could have had a lot of hands such as any Ax, KQ, KT, QT and any pocket pair.  However, the information of him betting so large on the river narrows it down considerably so that ANY hand that the button has that does not beat a straight should be folded.

If the button was slowplaying 3 Jacks by checking the turn or has AK, he should be folding because of the information given to him by his opponent(the speech after the flop action and the river bet).  What happened, of course, is that the button ignored the additional information, thought for a while, showed a Jack and said, “how can I fold this?” and called.  The bad player showed KQ and won the pot.  The button said to me, “I had such a strong hand and I don’t get them so often, so I had to call.”  I nodded in agreement, noted what had occurred and got ready to play the next hand.

Posted in Live Poker | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment