High On Poker

We have a two-fer for you today. After tabling my most recent Which is True, I came across a hand ideal for a You Decide analysis. I’m looking for some discussion on these two topics, mostly because I feel that they are worthy of debate. So, let’s get right to it by starting with

Which is True #3
This one will be slightly different than the past Which is True posts. We are going to have three options and its up to you to figure out which is accurate. Let’s get right to it.

The greatest accomplishment out of the three options listed is (choose one):

(A) Winning (1st place) an online 50 person tournament with a $50 buy-in for a profit of $1200.
(B) Placing in 5th in a 1000 person online $10 tournament for a profit of $650.
(C) Making the final table of an online 9,000 person freeroll, winning $250.

I’m not quite sure what my vote is, but I’m curious to hear yours. The heart of the question is how you evaluate tournament winnings across a variety of circumstances.

And while you are chewing on that, lets examine a wacky and wild play from last night’s Wall Street Game (where I incidentally lost the first tournament when I got T8o to call my all-in preflop with AA, and by the river, the T8o made an 8-high straight, and then chopped 1st and 2nd in the 2nd tournament). Here is

You Decide #54
You are in the second or third hand of a single table tournament, live, with a mix of players with varied experience against you. In the preceding hand, you limped along with 5 or so others, the BB raised to 250 (from the 50 BB), and everyone folded. In the BB, you are dealt AJd. By the time it gets to you, there are 5 limpers, none of which look like they are holding very good cards (its usually an aggressive table, so no raise reads as weakness). You raise to 250. First question: was this too little? too much? unnecessary with AJd out of position? My plan was to either push out most players and then outplay the remaining players depending on the flop, or get some more information while I am playing out of position with likely the best hand preflop. I only get one caller, a newbie to the game who I have read has having marginal cards.

The flop is KQ7, with two hearts and one diamond. Out of position, I decided to raise to 350, hoping to force the opponent to fold. The bet was sized so it didn’t look like a blatant attempt to get him out of the pot AND it didn’t overcommit me to the hand if he decides to raise back or even call. He calls after a brief hesitation.

The turn is a Qd, making me a nut diamond flush draw. I bet out 600, hoping that my opponent does not have a Queen. To my surprise, he pushes all-in, for 1200 more. This will put me all-in if I call. This is really the biggest question for you all. Up to this point, I’ll admit that my overaggression was misplaced, and I was digging myself a deeper hole. I was slightly worried about KQ too, but he wasn’t that confident in his cards. I thought for a long while until I ultimately called. He showed KJ, a surprisingly weak hand, given his play. The river was a Ten and I hit Broadway to take down the pot.

So, I think its safe to say that my overaggression was a bit unnecessary, even if I was ahead preflop and had good draws on the turn. But was that all-in call correct? I figured that it was so early in the tournament that I’d be willing to shake things up with a bold play. Still, I doubt that my play was stellar, and I am wondering how others would have played it. Is simply checking preflop the right move and folding on the flop. Perhaps.

Overall, I had a great time at the Wall Street Game last night. Its so freaking close to home that I even stopped off home for a few minutes between the games. I was in great shape in the first tournament, at a point where there were only 47.5 big blinds on the table (thanks to escalating blinds) and about 6 players left. I had been repeatedly stealing from the button until I conned a played into calling my all-in from the button with my AA vs. her T8, but you know the rest. After losing that way, I steamed quietly for a bit, went home to gather my senses, and then returned and had a great run in the second game. I was dealt some monster hands, AA at least twice, KK and QQ once as well, which is definitely something I don’t get to say a lot. I joked with new player Lynette (who was on my immediate left for both games) that I always do better in second tournaments (true) because players recall my loose play from the first tournament (meant as a joke, but now in hindsight probably true).

Oddly, I’ve played tournaments twice at the Wall Street Game and won one tournament each time, but I lost in my cash game attempts there. I need to figure out what the hitch is, but it may just be card deadedness. After all, the sample size is small.

While talking to Lynette, we also mentioned how poker really does provide a high. That’s when I outted my blog, since I appreciate fellow players that can acknowledge the euphoric state that poker can bring. Truthfully, if it wasn’t for that adrenaline rush, I don’t even know if I’d play the game. But really, that rush is intrinsic to gambling, so to imagine poker without the excitement is like imagining drinking booze without the concept of drunkedness. Its possible (non-alcoholic beer) but its stupid as fuck.

Until next time, make mine poker!

I don’t have much time lately. I’m running around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to get everything done at work and my post-work schedule isn’t much lighter. Last night, for instance, I cooked dinner for wifey Kim, bro-in-law Mark, and his girlfriend Coco (nickname, people). The menu was my specialty, teriyaki skirt steak with red onions, served with sweet potato fries, corn on the cob and green beans (aka string beans). The dinner went over very well, but from the time I got home at 6:30 until dinner was served at about 7:30, I was going nonstop in the kitchen heat. No complaints, really, as it was nice to spend some time with family and friends, but by the time the couple left at 10pm, I was exhausted. Luckily, no online poker for me. It’s the devil!

This morning I headed out to NJ for a deposition. I got back tot he office at about 1:30 and since that time have received a tidal wave of tasks from the Big Bossman. I’d stay late, but instead I make my return to the Wall Street Game tonight for two tournaments. I played there on Sunday, losing $160 in .50/1 NL, but having a great time the whole while. Since the $3000 online score, my results have been less exciting, suffering a string of losses broken up by modest wins, but I’m hardly concerned. I’ve heard it said that great players can expect to win anywhere from 60-55% of the time, so if I’m losing now, it isn’t a reflection on skill, but rather on luck or variance. Truthfully, I’m going through a card drought, and I’m too active a player (read: I’m too stupid for my own good) to fold for hours on end.

I recently came up with the theory that my activeness at the table benefits me in homegame tournaments moreso than cash games. Part of it is my lack of fear of busting. It can be a big help in a tournament when everyone else is scared. It is, essentially, what allows me to overwhelm the table with my aggression. However, in recent cash games, I merely find myself getting into hands I don’t need to get into. I’m not sure if I’m doing this any justice, but essentially, I just can’t get people to fold as easily in a live game. My goal, I suppose, is also different, or at least it should be, but whatever the case, my live cash game has been fairly weak lately, so its something to keep an eye on for the future. Maybe I’ll watch some High Stakes Poker on the computer to get some new perspective. I should probably read a poker book too, but I don’t know if I can take poker guide books anymore.

On Friday of this week, I’ll be flying out to Oklahoma for Okie Vegas. Until then, I’m just a hollow shell of a man waiting for time to pass.

I have an idea for another Which Is True post that I’m excited about. It addresses the valuation of different types of tournament wins, and I’m very curious to see what people think. I’d include it here, but if everything keeps going as roughly as it has, it’ll make for a nice quick post tomorrow.

I guess that’s all the drivel you get from me today. Wish me luck tonight. I’m fairly close to the top of the leaderboard in fifth place after one showing, and if I can take the top spot by cashing twice tonight, I’ll be a happy man.

Until next time, make mine poker!

I was watching Kathy Griffin: Life on the D-List because I saw that she was going to prison. Like some other people, I like shows about prisons, so I decided to give it a go. And then it happened. Or more like he happened, he being Mike “the Mouth” Matusow. So, now I’m live blogging Life on the D-List for all you pokerfiles out there.

11:03am – Kathy mentions that her assistant got her a blind date tonight with a “celebrity poker player”. For a second, names race through my head, but then she says it: Mike Matusow. The reason why Mike is a good blind date, according to Kathy: he’s straight and his fans are straight, so it’ll help Kathy get into the straight demographic. That Kathy’s got high standards!

11:04am – Kathy unveils her cleavage-laden outfit. I’m sure Mike won’t be staring at her knockers. Kathy’s mother hopes Mike is a nice guy. I guess she doesn’t know about his jail stint for drug dealing.

11:05 – Mike meets Kathy’s mom and admits he doesn’t know her ‘work’. Smooth, Mike. Smooth. Way to read her body language, poker impressario.

11:06 – As Mike escorts Kathy out of the house, he says loudly to her mother: “Mom, I’m going to take care of her. If she gets out of line (kicking) right where it goes.” And with that, we have Mike’s first threat of physical violence, made before leaving the house. Mike works quick.

11:06:30 – At the sushi restaurant, Kathy asks if Mike has the typical poker intellect, meaning that he is really smart at math, but an absent minded professor in everything else. Ironically, Mike is probably bad at math AND everything else, so while the question is absurd, the answer is still no. Ironically, Mike doesn’t answer the question because (I kid you not) he gets distracted by the shiny silverware. Nothing kills conversation like shiny objects. Kathy: “He emotionally is about four…”

11:07 – Kathy confirms, “He is definitely straight. He looks at my boobs instead of my eyes.” My guess is that he’s checking for tells. He then burps…twice. Kathy: “I like Mike. He’s a pig.”

11:07:30 – Mike threatens to “beat her ass” if Kathy doesn’t eat the sushi. This is his third or fourth threat of violence, as explained by Kathy, but as she aptly puts it “he might be kidding”.

11:08 – They leave the restaurant and are confronted by paparazzi. “Mike was a little bit inappropriate when he saw my level of fame, which is three degrees higher than his.” That would make celebrity poker players, the G List, except for top guys like Hellmuth and Brunson. I guess they’d be the F List. I’m not sure which list name I prefer.

11:08:30 – Date wrap up by Kathy: “I probably wouldn’t go out with him again because I want to live.”

So, there you go. Mike did a decent job of making poker players appear to be super degenerates, which will certainly help our mainstream media image. But all kidding aside, its good to see Mike and poker spilling over into the mainstream (even if Kathy is fringe mainstream).

That’s all from High on Poker’s TV Correspondence Desk, where, “We’ll watch crappy television, so you won’t have to!”

Until next time, make mine poker

Lets start with a quick statement about yesterday’s post. I posted about the BBT point system and how I personally felt that the system did what it set out to achieve: encourage widespread participation. I got a lot of comments, which I wholly appreciate, but I think its important that I state this, lest someone think otherwise: The BBT Points debate doesn’t matter that much to me. So, I’m sorry if I may have seemed flippant in some of my responses, because ultimately, it really shouldn’t be a point of contention. I do believe, however, that it will be impossible to come up with a system that everyone will appreciate, so any changes to the point system for the BBTwo (I refuse to believe that there won’t be a BBTwo) will likely be met by another slew of critical posts and comments. That’s the pitfall of these massive events, but in the end, I’m just glad we have them. I know for me, the BBT got me to play more of the blogger tournaments, which in and of itself is nothing great, save for the fact that it got me to spend more time with the blogger community, something that is crucial for the longtime survival of the friendships I have made through this blog, this blog itself and the poker blogging community as a whole.

Now onto brighter things. I haven’t mentioned it here, mostly because I’m merely going to be a guest at the soiree, but in one week, I’ll be in beautiful Oklahoma, drinking Keystone Light and slinging cards with a smattering of poker bloggers. For all of the details, I suggest you check out GCox’s blog, as he is hosting and doing a fine job at that.

I have had occassion in the past couple of weeks to mention my Oklahoma trip, and I usually get one reaction…”Why Oklahoma?” Depending on the person, I’ll give a variety of answers: “I’ve got a friend who lives there.” (the most accurate, yet least detailed explanation) “To play poker” (for fellow poker degenerates who don’t know or think highly of the blog/blogging) “To hang out with a bunch of fellow poker bloggers” (to those in the know).

I really don’t know what to expect of Oklahoma, but I know I’ll be in good hands. I leave in the ass crack of dawn on Friday, arriving in OKC after a layover in Chicago at 10:30 am. From there, we will be heading to G’s lakehouse, more accurately a trailed by the lake. Interestingly, being a jew boy from NY, I don’t think I’ve ever been in a trailer overnight before, and I’m looking forward to the experience. It isn’t so much the trailer aspect as it is the lake itself. I’m not much of a nature guy, but its more due to availability than temperment. I can think of nothing finer right now than sitting lakeside drinking beer and enjoying the summer breeze.

On Saturday, we’ll return to GCox’s actual home for a poker tournament. Really, though, I’m excited about three letters, B, B and Q. In NY, BBQ is okay. But I LOVE BBQ, so I’m really looking forward to some authentic Southern cooking. Oh, and the poker.

Sadly, Monday, I have to catch a 7:30 am flight back to NYC. At least I’ll be back in time to sleep off the weekend. I don’t see me getting much sleep at all. Over/under for Friday to Sunday’s flight, 8 hours of sleep total. 4 and 4 will do just fine. I may even have to take the Under.

Meanwhile, I have a week to go before any of this happens. Bloody torture. Ah hell, I’ve lost steam in this post. The point is, Okie Vegas, man! I couldn’t be more excited.

Until next time, make mine poker!

There’s been a decent amount of chat amonst the intertubes discussing the point system in the recently completed Battle of the Blogger Tournaments. The two sides of the argument seem to be that the system was based on Poker Stars’ system, and therefore is fair vs. the highest money winners did not necessarily correlate to the top 50 point earners, making a flawed system. Well, folks, I’m an opinionated prick, but I’m also fairly logical, and I’m here to tell you that the BBT point system wasn’t just satisfactory…it was PERFECT! But to understand that, you need to look at the BBT as a whole and discern what, exactly, the BBT is rewarding.

The beauty of an event like the BBT is its ability to drum up large playing fields. This is done by creating a hype around the event by way of a leaderboard, point system, prizes and publicity. The publicity certainly goes a long way, but its the points, leaderboard and prizes that keep the players loyal and consistent. If the BBT didn’t have these things (leaderboard, points and prizes), there would be less incentive to play and we would essentially have had the same numbers in blogger tournaments as the pre-BBT days. This would have been fine, but the point of the BBT was to increase involvement, so right there we have the #1 goal of the BBT: Encourage mass participation.

Now we’ve established the goal of the BBT, to get poker bloggers into these poker blogger tournaments. Now, lets look at the best way to encourage this, with particular focus on the three things I keep mentioning, the leaderboard, points and prizes.

There have been three primary groups that must be examined to understand this issue: (1) those who won money but did not get many points, and (2) those who didn’t win significant money but got many points, and (3) those who did not win points or money but played 1/2 of the events to get into the freeroll.

The first group, the Money Leaders, are the main opponent to the current scoring system, and from their prespective, their argument makes perfect sense. They won the most money, and therefore must be regarded as one of the better players in the field, since money is the scorecard of poker. It seems to make sense, but only if you lose sight of the number one goal of the BBT, to encourage mass participation. Take, for instance, twoblackaces, who is listed as number 2 on the money leader board and number 89 on the points board. On its face, it would appear that twoblackaces was robbed of his rightful position in the freeroll. He won the 2nd most money (behind my boy and number one stunna, TripJax, holla if ya hear me!) but he still wasn’t considered in the top 50 of the tournament!

But really, twoblackaces has nothing to complain about, because he probably got the greatest benefit from the BBT giving the BBT anything worthwhile. Let me explain. Twoblackaces won over $1200 from the BBT by playing in only ONE even, a Blogger Big Game. If it weren’t for the BBT, the Big Game would have had a smaller field, reducing that sole win from $1200 to probably $1000 or less. So, even though twoblackaces isn’t in the freeroll, he already benefited from the BBT by winning from that larger prizepool. Meanwhile, did twoblackaces help the BBT? Hell no! The BBT was looking for loyal players to build the freeroll prizepool, essentially, the rake from each tournament, thanks to a great deal arranged with Full Tilt by the BBT organizers. Twoblackaces only put about $6 into the shared prizepool and didn’t return for any other games. So, while it may appear that he is NOT rewarded for his great job, that isn’t true at all. He is awarded by the larger payout during the tournament, but BBT won’t bend over backwards and hurt its own goal just to make twoblackaces extra happy. He got his $1k+, so enjoy! (Mind you, I don’t know who twoblackaces is, and I am merely using him as an example of people who did well on the money leader board, but not the point leader board).

So, those who won a lot of money but did not play a lot of tournaments benefited from the BBT with larger prize pools, while offering the BBT close to nothing. Hence, they got their benefit, and do not get the added benefit of the freeroll. The next logical step is to look at those who did get into the freeroll and determine why they should get into the freeroll when other more profitable players didn’t.

One of the largest complaints is that the BBT encouraged players to fold into the points, bastardizing the game of poker and making the BBT tournaments somehow tainted. I heartily disagree with this notion. Those profitable players who are complaining about people folding into the money are really missing the mark. Instead of complaining about these players, they should be celebrating them. Players who are willing to fold into the points with no chips are essentially dead money for the second half of the tournament. Some of them might get lucky on a few occassions, but for the most part, the more active players can constantly take their chips until the points bubble and then have enough chips compared to the point whores (I mean that nicely) to dominate into a money spot. Again, the profitable players BENEFIT from the very thing they complain about, but because we are ALL so focused on the BBT leaderboard, we ignore that benefit conferred and focus on the benefit NOT conferred, the freeroll.

Does the BBT point system encourage people to go for points instead of cash? The answer is plainly No. Some people may have chosen to go that route, but it is not an optimal strategy. Why? Because getting into the freeroll just isn’t worth it. The freeroll consists of 1/2 of all of the rake played in the BBT. Assuming a player plays ONLY one half of the BBT events, he is essentially paying his way into the freeroll. If he plays MORE THAN HALF of the BBT events, he is paying more money into the freeroll than his equity in the event. Some might argue that I am ignoring all of the other players throwing money into the freeroll via rake who do not get to play the freeroll. True. But you are ignoring the hundreds in actual buy-ins that were lost by the point whores in their attempt to get into the top 50 leaderboard spots. So, in reality, playing for points is like throwing money down the drain. So you may be wondering why we reward these “stupid” players who throw money down the drain. The reason: they gave the BBT what it wanted, loyal players mixed with some dead money. They were the chum that got the sharks (i.e., the profit leaders) to swim. They made the BBT as juicy as it was. Realistically, I’m not talking about anyone in particular and I don’t mean to disparage anyone. I merely am offering another way for those profit leaders to feel about the apparent injustice of rewarding the point whores. I also want to add that this is exactly the type of thing that the BBT should be doing for these consistent players (either consistently scoring well or willing to play 20 events). They should be giving them something back for their time and money, and a freeroll is just that thing. Its not even handing them the money back. Its making them earn it. In this regards, the BBT completes its purpose, encouraging players to actually play multiple BBT events.

From those two groups, the money leaders and the point whores, we have one last group, the point leaders. That group consists of the top 6 point spots. If you placed in the top 6 spots overall in the points board, you won either a cash or electronics prize. This is the final group of competitors, those who benefited the most from the format of the BBT, if not from the actual event. I make this distinction because 3 out of those 5 players were actually net losers in the BBT tournaments, without considering any leaderboard prizes. Those players who were not profitable but still made the top 6 deserve a kickback, essentially, for their hard work. They played an obscene about of tournaments, since all of the top 6 played at least 31 of the 39 events. They put time, effort and prizepool money (both in individual tournaments and toward the freeroll prize pool) into the events and were able to perform consistently enough to accumulate the most amount of points. They are essentially the cream of the crop of the point whores, the Heidi Fleiss of point whores, if you will, and for thier time and sacrifice, they get a rebate/reward. In this way the BBT encourages extreme participation, its main goal, and does what it sets out to do.

The second subgroup of the point leaders is the most exciting, the Winners. This group are the players who got an overlay prize and profited during the BBT events. These players DESERVE everything they got because they fulfilled everyone’s goals by playing in lots of events (BBT’s goal) and making the endeavor profitable (by winning the most points). Hence, they receive the greatest benefit, a large guaranteed portion of the rake pool and/or free prizes. These players truly are the BBT champions because they balanced consistent attendance with good performance as opposed to the profit leaders (good performance, inconsistent attendance or results) and the point whores (consistent attendance and results, but bad performances).

By creating the varied “prizes,” the BBT accomplished its goal, to encourage larger tournament turnouts. Some think that giving all of the prizes to the most profitable makes sense. After all, they are the best players based on the traditional poker scoring method, money. But the BBT isn’t about finding the most profitable player. Its about getting the community out, so it just makes more sense to spread the prizes. Specifically, those prizes need to go to the people who are not necessarily the most profitable. They need to go to the players who would otherwise not play the events because they are not the great players that the profitable players are. They need to go to the players who played many events, making the BBT what it is. So, in the end, I think the BBT scoring system was perfect. It spread the wealth and worked toward the BBT’s goal. And it doesn’t hurt that I made a fatty profit of $25 and entered the freeroll in the high 40s out of 50. Yep, that’s right, I’m a veritable point whore.

Until next time, make mine poker!

I feel energized today, and 1/3 of the reason has to do with poker!

After work yesterday, I fully intended to return to Salami for their $60 rebuy tournament. Coming off of my recent losses at the LI underground club, I felt a bit uncertain about my game. This is par for the course, really. Generally, whenever I have a loss, I’ll feel it for days until I can get a win under my belt. I recognize this as a shortcoming, in a sense. After all, I also believe that you must be confident to play your optimal game. At the same time, this heightened feeling of uncertainty can sometimes help me to adjust my game, essentially what I discussed in the last post. So, as long as I am able to channel that nervous energy in the right direction, I suppose it isn’t the worst thing in the world. At least it doesn’t mean that I am going to tilt.

So, Salami was on the menu for yesterday evening until I got an Evite reminder from Jamie of the Wall Street Poker game. I had played there in June and lost about $100 in the cash game, but since that date had been otherwise busy when the twice weekly games arose.

This time, Jamie was running a $25 tournament, with $23 going to the prize pool and $2 going to a leaderboard challenge. By the end of the three month season, the player with the highest points wins 1/2 of the $2 pool, and the other half is put into a freeroll for players who played a set number of games, akin to the Battle of the Blogger Tournaments freeroll rules.

Fortunately, there were still spots left in the game, and since it was a mere three walking blocks from my apartment, I jumped at the opportunity. After work, I headed home, changed into some non-descript shorts and a black t-shirt (successfully breaking my dependence on my poker uniform), and headed out the door with my backpack in tow. I arrived at the game near last, and poker was underway in no time.

I wish I could say that I kicked ass in the first tournament. I did, sorta, to start off, when I won an early hand with K8o. I was UTG, but the two blinds were dead stacks from players who had yet to arrive. I figured I’d limp and see if I can get lucky. Sure enough, I limped and the button is the only player, raising to 150 from the 50 big blind. At that point, I still liked my chances, given the dead money and pot odds, so I called.

The flop was K53. I checked and my opponent, a seemingly unexperienced player, bet out 200. I flat called. The turn was a low card and I checked. My opponent bet out 300. I called. The river was another blank and my opponent bet 300 again. I flat called. He showed 66 and I took down the pot.

To the untrained eye, I played two crappy cards and then passively played the hand, asking for a suckout and certainly not maximizing my potential. To me, I found the perfect balance of getting paid off and not exposing myself too much if I was behind. Admittedly, I didn’t have much information about my opponent’s game or his cards. On the flop, I called with odds, hoping to flop the King or simply fold. Essentially, it was 100 into the 275 pot, and if I hit, I was confident I could win enough chips to make it worth the call. When I hit, I still had no info on his hand, but I was fairly confident that he did not have AA or KK. He may’ve had AK or even KQ, but the much more likely hand was any pocket pair, QQ or under. So, I was likely ahead, but I checked because I wanted more information. His bet was small, but also his demeanor was not at all confident. I called because I could afford the 200 into the now 575 pot, since my starting stack was an ample 2500. Keep in mind that I am also very confident in my abilities to come back from a ‘short’ stack, so I didn’t mind gambling it up early.

On the turn, I checked again. I was confident that I was ahead, but I was just as confident that he would do the betting for me. He did, a weak 300, but I chose to flat call because a raise would push out a weaker hand and encourage a re-raise from a stronger hand, to which I would have to fold. Sure, that would provide more information, but it was not information I could act on AND he was pricing me into calling. Also, I did have reason to believe he didn’t have a better hand. In his position, I’d think a bigger hand would bet back more, but alas, instead he was betting out a paltry 300, and that’s all I had to call into the now 1075 pot. Call I did.

The river was much the same as the turn. I didn’t worry if I didn’t get another dime into the pot, so I checked it. I was happy to win the 1375 pot outright, and I was confident that my opponent, showing weakness (and not apparently feigning it) would bet small, if at all. He obliged with 300, and I had to call into the now 1675 pot. And hence, I seemingly played very passively with crappy cards after I got lucky on the flop, but in reality, I just let my opponent hang himself.

Still, I didn’t win the first tournament, due to a huge blow taken with 88. The blinds were rising steadily, so I raised to 1400 (200/400 blinds) UTG with 88. Steven, a decent player sitting across from me, pushed all-in for about 1000. To my surprise, Mary of the IHO games, decided to raise all-in, for an additional 1500 or so on top of my 1400. It may have been even more, like 1900. I thought for a moment and put Mary on a range of AK, AQ, and overpairs. It seemed like a good time to fold, but I just couldn’t get the image of AK out of my head. Mary is known as a tight player (“known as” being the important words), but she also knows me as loose and she’s more likely to open her range against me, speaking from experience. I called and she showed 99. Steven showed A9. The turn was an Ace and I was very shortstacked. I later went all-in one a cointoss, and was down to 50 chips. I tripled up once, but eventually busted in the BB with 23o v. 33. Oh well.

After the game, I hung out with Jamie and a new player while they played Backgammon. Its an interesting game, but a far cry from poker. Regardless, I love games.

While perusing the apartment, I saw a DVD-ROM with all of Amazing Spiderman comics from its inception to 2006. Jamie and I began chatting, as I had a similar CD-ROM collection, and he mentioned that he had a slew of old Green Arrow comics that I could have. My eyes lit up like a kid on Christmas (according to movies…I’m Jewish). In total, I grabbed 30 comics, and have another 90 to go when I’m done with this set. That was the first part of my triple score of happiness.

I stuck around for the second game and things went a lot better. In both games I had a lot of fun, chatting with the table and being my usual sarcastic self. Everyone were good sports, thankfully, and it was a great time. It didn’t hurt, though, when I began to whoop arse in game two, chipping up fairly early when I bet out preflop with AQ and only got one caller. We checked it down to the rivered Ace, I bet out 500 and he called, showing AJ.

I hit a major hand not too much later when Pauly, a smart player who is prone to tricky manuevers, raised to 200 in LP with JT. I had AJ, and having limped UTG, I opted to call. We saw a Jack-high flop with two clubs. I checked, Jamie (the third player in the hand) checked, and Pauly checked. The turn was an Ace of clubs. I bet out 400, Jamie folded, and Pauly raised to 800 total. I had two pair, and I didn’t see him with the flush, so I raised back 1000 on top. He thought briefly and raised all-in. I called, and he showed JT, for flopped two pair. I turned him for the “suckout” (really, he sucked out first on the flop and I resucked before getting all our money into the pot).

I began to amass a big stack and I used it as such. One of the players, Wendy, even commented that I was willing to use my big stack. “That’s what a big stack is for!” I got very lucky in a hand against Jamie, who had emerged as second chipleader. He limped UTG and I raised with 77. I think we had one other preflop caller. The flop had maybe two overcards to my 7s, and two clubs. Jamie pushed all-in. I thought for a while and called. He showed KK and I went runner runner for the flush. Incidentally, his play screamed AA or KK, but I thought it screamed it too obviously. In other words, I thought he was representing AA or KK because he really had AQ or AK and missed the flop. I was wrong. Interestingly, it was the mirror image of a hand I had with CJ recently, only that time I was Jamie and I held AA. It’s interesting being on the opposite side of the same hand.

After unceremoniously sucking out on the host, I was a huge stack. I bludgeoned the rest of the table periodically, enough to keep their stacks down but not appear like I’m playing any two cards. These were smart players and if they thought I was raising with anything, they’d play back at me and I’d have to fold. However, eventually I busted the rest of the table until it was just me and Mary heads up. She began raising all-in a lot, so I folded, hoping for a better spot. I started to feel pushed around, so I began open pushing with mediocre hands. It worked too, until she called my allin when I had J4c and she had A9. The flop had a Jack, and no Ace came. For my troubles, I won $152 ($102 profit for the night), and made my spot on the leaderboard, where Mary sat comfortably on top after winning a tournament sometime in the last week or so. Winning the tournament was a huge relief fot me, and was the second third of my triple score of joy.

This morning, I scraped myself out of bed at 9am. I fortunately didn’t have to wake up early today because I had a deposition at my old office, right across the street from Jamie’s apartment. I was extremely nervous. Depositions are essentially like taking testimony (like what you see on TV) except instead of being on the stand in a courtroom, the parties are asking the questions in an office. It’s essentially like a pre-interview. They are crucial to cases, because it’ll let you know what information is out there BEFORE trial, and you get responses immediately, instead of making a document request and waiting 30 days for a response.

I had taken depositions before, but not many for my current employer. Luckily, this was a crap case (value wise, not liability wise) so my boss let me have at it. In my first deposition in this case, however, I felt like I did a piss poor job. More accurately, the defendant produced an employee with no relevant knowledge, but I still felt uncertain about my questions and the way I handled myself. Today, however, was a different story.

For you non-lawyers, just imagine an aspect of your job that is somewhat new, crucial to your career, and can only be done once. No do-overs, no mulligans. I had to get the information or we were going to have a damn hard time winning this case. And amazingly, after 5 minutes, it just felt so natural. I’m a natural talker and I’m good with logic, so asking questions is kinda easy, given my skill set. Its more than just using a script. You have to listen to the answer and change your questions accordingly. You also want to avoid going in order because its too easy for deponents to have a pre-set story, coached by counsel. If you can ask things out of order, it can throw them off, and you’ll get more sincere responses. This is what I did, and after the initial questions, I didn’t even need my notes. When I ran into some roadblocks, I was able to change course and use the negative responses in my favor. By the end, it was clear that defense counsel was rethinking her case and wondering if maybe there was more to it than she originally estimated. This is the part of the job I love. Thinking on your toes, getting your hands dirty, getting to the heart of a matter. I’m a big fan of simplifying, so if I can turn a broad case into one simple topic, hopefully one that is obviously in our favor, that’s what I’ll do. I did that today.

I practically skipped back to the office, thanks to this third part of my triple score. Now I’ve got to get back to my daily life, but at least I’m doing it with a smile. It’s been a while since I’ve had one of those.

Until next time, make mine poker!

**********************************
*****This post sponsored by the fine folks at the GNUF poker room. *****

I really need to focus on adjustments in order to continue my improvement at this dastardly game. The first adjustment is to avoid falling back into the trappings of online poker. I played in the Hoy tournament last night and really played horribly. Part of it relates to my second point, which we will get to in a moment, but for now, I want to focus on online poker.

When I was at the recent Sunday night homegame, a couple of the players were discussing online poker success stories (and I’d be remissed if I didn’t give a shout out to new father and big MTT winner, SoxLover). I have still been resting on the laurels of my $3k win, but I have also fallen back into the online poker trap. In the tournament last night, I signed up last minute and then returned to wifey Kim, expecting to pick up the game a little late. Sure enough, I was playing within 15 minutes of the start time, but I was not playing well. I was forcing the action, trying to make plays where there were no plays to be made. This strategy can often get me into a huge stack, with which I like to run over the competition. However, it can also cause me to donk out quickly, which isn’t the worst thing in the world, but a tad embarassing in front of my blogger bretheren.

The big issue, though, is that I fell into the very pitfalls I lamented about in January. I don’t play as well online as live because I’m often intoxicated, distracted, and playing impulsively. In this case, I was all of the above. Playing poker online everyday might work for some people, but it doesn’t work for me. I’m a creature of routine, so eventually, my play becomes part of my routine and not something that I am independently looking forward to. This leads to bad decision making, first playing too loose, and then playing awfukit or absent-minded poker. Plain and simple, this is not good for me or more online bankroll. So, I will have to adjust my mentality, and that will likely mean some ‘time off’ from online poker. (Note: Time off may consist of as little as one day, potentially later in the week).

The other adjustment is a bigger deal, though. I need to get back to adjusting my game for the current conditions. I won the $3k because I was playing my game. It just so happened that my game worked given the table conditions. However, there are going to be times when I will have to switch up my game, because conditions are not primed for my chosen style.

So, when are those times. Blogger tournaments are great examples. Believe it or not, I find these games to have looser calls than most regular tournaments, so my aggressive style is probably not a winning strategy. It doesn’t help that I have a reputation. That said, I need to USE my reputation, lest it abuses me. That means playing smarter, more patiently.

In fact, that smart patience is really the major adjustment I have the most problem making. I can think of two other examples quickly. The first happened last week at the homegame/undergound poker room hosted by Two Diamond Phillips’ boss. There, the action was super-loose aggressive, and if I could have controlled my impulses to limp or make plays with crap cards, I would have been in a lot better shape. After all, at those sorts of tables, I can fold all day and get paid off when I suddenly start betting out with the nuts. So the correct strategy is to do just that.

Similarly, the LI poker club I went to this week had a very loose style. I was into the $20 rebuy for $140 because I was so willing to mix it up. It wasn’t as bad of a decision, given the rebuy structure, but I could have been better off if I played a bit tighter.

Alas, these are all things that I can and will work on. If you cannot be self-critical in this game, then you are going to stunt your own growth, so I don’t see this as me getting down on myself.

Interestingly, I think my style works best with tables that have lots of limpers. This is opposed to the generally tight or loose tables, which both have pitfalls that mess with my primary style. In loose games, I can’t shake off enough competitors to make my small preflop raises with mediocre cards. In fact, I can’t even make those raises, as they will be re-raised. In tight games, I can only pick up the blinds with that style. But give me a table with lots of limpers and I feel confidence. Maybe it is my confidence in post-flop play, or the benefit of stealing those limped blinds. But it seems to be what works for me.

It also tends to piss of the competition and get them to make mistakes. An example from the $3k win:

“Beautifully, all of this stealing started to annoy the hell out of the guy on my right. In fact, it caused him to eventually gift me his stack when he was fed up. As per usual, it folded to the SB who called, and I raised from the BB with K9o. He called and we saw a flop, KQx. He checked, I put in a pot-sized bet and he raised me. I thought for a moment and decided to raise him back. He pushed all-in and by then the call was academic. He showed Q7 and I didn’t get unlucky, eliminating a player and further strengthening my stack.”

I wonder, what table conditions work best for your given style, and while you are at it, how would you describe your style?

Until next time, make mine poker!

I’ve really overextended myself lately. I barely saw wifey Kim for the entire weekend, instead spending much of my time playing (and losing) at poker or traveling to or from poker.

Friday evening was really the only time for wifey Kim and I. I can’t even remember it all too well, likely because I knew we had to be up early on Saturday morning. Wifey Kim had a cavalcade of plans this week, including a bachelorette party for a friend which was to start and end (in a sleepover) at my apartment. My official orders was to find something to keep me busy and somewhere to sleep, so after I arranged to crash in my brother’s apartment, I arranged a busy day.

A couple of close friends who I will keep nameless, have began dealing in an underground poker room on LI. I decided to head out with one of them on Saturday to play the 12:30pm tournament while he deals. It was a $20 rebuy tournament, and, well, by the time it was over, I was in the hole for $145. I lasted until the final table…sorta. Actually, I went out 10th, which IS final table, technically, but I busted right before condensing. If I waited another hand, I would’ve had to push anyway at the final table, so I figured I’d take my chances with 84o, knowing that at the very least, I’d probably have two live cards. I was actually hoping to pick up the blinds and antes, since I was almost down to the felt, but a guy who likely had a borderline retarded IQ labored on his decision for a good 4 minutes before calling with 9Tc. I hit my 4, but he hit is Ten, and IGHN. Or, actually, ISAAWFMF, which is short for I stick around and wait for my friend, since he was dealing AND my ride. Oh, and $140 in a $20 rebuy might seem like a lot, but I immediately rebought, rebought once when I dipped below a certain point, double rebought when I was felted, and then bought a double addon. Good thing for me, I was budgeted for $160.

After watching the entire final table, we headed out. It was about 5pm at this point, so we went to a nearby friend’s apartment, where we watched old DVR’ed episodes of High Stakes Poker and attempted to watch an episode of Poker After Dark with one of the worst tables ever. I can’t even remember who it was, but I had the distinct feeling that I didn’t give a shit. I settled, instead, on a recent WPT episode, waiting until 7pm rolled around.

At that point, my dealer friend and I headed back to the LI club for their evening $120 tournament. I went out around 6 out of 12, but I made some great plays. In one instance, I limped along with most of the full table with 66. The flop was 399 and a chick in the SB bet out. It folded to me and I thought for a bit. I knew she was a knowledgeable player, but she had the sort of knowledge that was not reinforced with experience. Basically, she was going to play like a book, so I just needed to make sure I was on the right chapter. This chapter wreaked of a probe bet. Since it was just her and me, I called, thinking that she probably had a 3, but could have luckboxed a 9. The turn was a King or Queen, and she checked. I checked behind, still not sure where I was exactly. The river was a blank, and when she bet out, I took a moment to think it out. I didn’t want to just hand her my money with crappy cards, but there was something about her demeanor that told me she was trying to force me out of the pot. I don’t recall bet sizes, but I’m sure her bet size also tipped me off about it. I ultimately called, and she showed A3. I proudly showed my winning 6s with all sorts of overcards out there. Alas, the tournament was not meant to be as I later called her down a long way to try to hit a flush. Didn’t happen and I was crippled. So goes poker. At least I felt like I played well.

After that, I took the long trip home, first in a car for 30+ minutes, then waiting for a train for 15 minutes, taking a train for 30 and then waiting for a subway for 30 minutes before I gave up and took a cab. Sometimes some of my LI chums give me shit for leaving places early, but if they (or anyone, for that matter) had to take a 1 1/2 hour drive to see me, I wouldn’t expect them to stay late. Even though most of these people are close in distance, that doesn’t make travel easy.

Sunday was a blur. I sat around most of the day while wifey Kim was at my future sister-in-law’s bridal shower. I saw the movie Ghost Rider (passable, but not amazing), hung out with buddy Jefe and his girlfriend, and met wifey Kim for our favorite restaurant, Baby Bo’s. After that, I thought about backing out of the homegame I was invited to (I’m not sure if I’m allowed to publicize the host), but decided against it. I went to the game on the upper West side and arrived a bit early, so I found a nice stone bench at a nearby park and lied down for a bit while listening to my iPod. I felt like I was on life tilt. Work has been tough lately, as though I am floundering most of the time, and life at home has been hectic. I sincerely miss the easy days of winter, when wifey Kim and I were not stuck in 1000 obligations and I hadn’t promised 10 people that I’d meet up with them for poker. I felt burnt out on the game, but decided that all I could do was center myself and have fun.

And have fun, I did. As soon as I entered, I felt a wave of relaxation wash over me. I was there to play poker for fun stakes in a fun game. We ended up starting with a $20 tournament. I went out somewhere in the middle, but not without first manhandling some players at the table. My cards were poop, so I just focused on playing the players. One player in particualr was my play thing. I apologize to that player in advance because they read this here blog and I mean no disrespect. I just got a great feel for this person’s play and I acted accordingly.

The first hand with the PlayThing happened when said person raised preflop from the blinds and I called, having already limped with KQ. The flop was AXX with two diamonds and I sensed that PT didn’t have the Ace, so when PT bet, I flat called. The turn was another diamond, and PT checked. I made a modest raise and PT folded. I acted as though I had the Ace, and PT admitted that he/she had an underpair to the Ace. Just as expected.

Later, we played a $20 max cashgame, and I found myself in another intereseting hand with PT. I was in a blind with Q6o and called PT’s modest preflop raise. PT was on my immediate right. The flop came down AQ2. PT bet out, and I could tell he/she didn’t have an Ace. The biggest hint was PT’s bet. After everyone checked (a lot of people called the modest preflop raise), PT bet out a large amount for the table. It looked like PT was trying to force everyone out of the pot. Essentially, I figured why bet that much if you want these scared players in the hand. I had a picture of 8s in my head, so I decided to flat call. I could’ve raised, but I wanted to see how action developed, especially with all of the players behind me. Everyone folded, and we were heads up. The turn was a 3, and PT bet out again. I called, confident that nothing changed. The river was a 4, and I goaded PT into putting all of his/her chips into the pot. When I called, PT showed 55 for a rivered wheel. At least my read was close enough (underpair to the AQ board).

Overall, though, I won back the $20 I spent on the tournament and left even. It was a fun crowd, but it was almost 11:30 and I hadn’t been sleeping. I gave up on the random Sunday trains and cabbed it way downtown to my apartment. It cost $25 by cab, not helped by the cabbie’s scenic route. Whatever the case, I got home and was exhausted. I still didn’t go to sleep until almost 1:30 though. That’s how it goes when I’m overextended.

This week, my goal is to survive. I want to get a better handle at things at work, and spend as much time with wifey Kim as possible. She is such a pleasure to be around, yet sometimes I forget to enjoy it. This weekend is my older brother’s bachelor party, and then on Sunday, I intend to play another round of the SIF homegame. And I can already see another weekend sans wifey Kim. I might have to reschedule.

Until next time, make mine poker!

I’m falling way behind on posting, even though I posted thrice yesterday. Specifically, I’ve saved a few hand histories recently that we will discuss shortly, and I expect a couple of people are waiting for me to write about the psuedo-homegame I played at on Tuesday.

The psuedo-homegame was set up in Queens, run by the employer of Two Diamond Phillips (aka 2dP), one of the Roose crew. 2dP’s boss and a couple of other guys ran a homegame tournament and cash game, but took a fee. Initially, I was a little miffed at the idea. I have a strict homegame-don’t-have-rake rule, but it sounded like there would be a lot of dead money, and I just likened it to a day at an underground club.

As it turned out, the fees were more than made up for by the food and drink available. The fridge was stocked with beer and sodas, and barbecued burgers and hotdogs were served by the hosts. They even had a dealer, which helped the action to move and made me feel like we were actually getting something for our money.

Unfortunately, I lost the tournament and then $15 in the 1/2 NL game. In both instances, I was just not catching cards. I tried to make some moves in the tournament, but it was a very loose aggressive game, and it didn’t pan out. During the cash game, I made some strides and got paid off on a big hand, doubling up, but then lost most of it back. Plain and simple, next time I’ll play tight ABC poker. It’s not my usual style, but I know it will work, and its always important to adjust to table conditions.

After about an hour of cashgames, Robbie Hole and I headed over to Scotty’s house for the Roose homegame. Roose had left 2dP’s boss’ place a while before us, and once we were all settled in, we played a one rebuy bounty tournament. I lost that one too. I was playing well, but ultimately, just couldn’t get anything going.

A day before that, I played in the Hoy, making it to 7th place (out of 23) after coming back from two insane suckouts. I remember one of them was AK v. AQ after an AK flop. Runner runner flush and I lost. I don’t remember the other, but it was probably overpair to underpair. In both instances, I took the beats in stride, and was proud that I had more chips (although not much more chips) than my opponents. If you are going to suffer a bad beat in a tournament, at least try to have more chips when it happens.

Here’s a fun hand in the tournament between Chad and Schaubs. With blinds of 25/50, Chad had 2790 and Schaubs had 3660. Chad called UTG and Schaubs called UTG+2. TripJax raises to 200 on the button and after the blinds fold, Chad and Schaubs call. The flop is AJ7 rainbow. All players check. The turn is an 8c, bringing a club draw. Schaubs bets 525 (pot) and after a delay, Chad raises pot to 1950 total (with 640 or so behind). Schaubs pushes and Chad calls. They show: Chad’s 88 (set of 8s on the turn) vs. Schaubs’ A2c (flopped top pair, weak kicker, with a nut flush draw on the turn). The river is a 5d, and Chad wins.

Chad seemed to have a lot of problem with Schaubs play, but interestingly, I think the major problem with Schaubs play was PREFLOP. It wasn’t the bet on the turn or the reraise, which I think was fairly justified given what information was available to him. Allow me to explain.

Preflop, A2 suited is crap UTG. You are playing for the flush and the flush only, since you have to be wary of a stronger Ace. So, I would argue that Schaubs should have folded UTG or, at the very least, folded to Trip’s raise. After all, Schaubs has a potentially dominated hand and is out of position.

On the flop, Schaubs hits top pair, but with his kicker he can’t bet out. So he checks. Once Chad and Trip checks, now Schaubs can reevaluate. Perhaps his Ace is good and he’s facing two lower pocket pairs.

On the turn, he gets his flush draw too. He can assume his Ace is good, but have confidence in his backup draws, if he needs it. So he bets out. Now, Chad raises pretty damn large. Well played, Chad. Without a doubt, Chad played this hand well, so I’m not particularly interested in analyzing his play. But from Schaubs’ perspective, Chad might be trying to take the pot with lesser cards. Chad’s extreme bet can be viewed in one of two ways: (a) He has a monster and just decided to make his move now, or (b) he has a marginal hand and wants to take down the pot, since everyone checked on the flop. If it’s (b), then Schaubs is in great shape, so the raise makes sense. If its (a), then at least he has a chance to river the flush. That flush is coming 18% of the time (discount the times that it makes a full house against 8s) or over 20% if you surmise that Chad has the nuts as of the turn. Now add to the fact that Schaubs outchips Chad (i.e., is not making this play for his tournament life) and Schaubs decision isn’t horrible. Mind you, I still say its potentially marginal. Schaubs could’ve gotten away from his top pair, shitty kicker, but I do think there is some justification for his willingness to push.

Interestingly, this just highlights why playing tight(er) is often helpful in ways we don’t initially comprehend. If A2c was not played UTG then all of this would have been for naught. Schaubs would still have a nice stack and Chad would’ve picked up a couple of hundred instead of doubling up. Its akin to a situation that has happened to me a couple of times. I’ll play crap cards, hit a flop and then get “sucked out” on the turn or river. The truth was, if I didn’t play the crap cards in the first place, I wouldn’t have put myself in a position to be sucked out upon. Any other thoughts?

That’s all I have for today. This weekend, I plan on playing in an underground poker room on Long Island, now that I know one of the dealers, and on Sunday, I plan on playing at a local blogger game.

Until next time, make mine poker!

No Poker Content. Just sayin’.

“Consumer groups questioned the rate increase and said there hasn’t been a recent increase in medical malpractice claims. They’ll urge the new task force to focus on the root problems of malpractice by reducing medical errors and correcting industry mismanagement.”
– Associated Press

As a plaintiff’s attorney, I often cringe when I hear people lambasting the legal process for allowing frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits that cost doctors and insurance companies millions of dollars for risks that are a natural part of the medical practice. On its face, the argument makes sense. People see a medical professional, something happens, they sue, and the poor, altruistic doctor is then dragged through the court process. The argument continues that these cases are usually bullshit, but can provide big paydays to the people making the claims and the attorneys taking the cases. As a result, we have a crowded court system, wrongly accused and victimized doctors, and evil plaintiffs and plaintiff attorneys lurking in the shadows. The poor, altruistic insurance company is then forced to up their rates because the doctors are all targets of the evil lawyers. Therefore, to protect the altruistic doctors and insurance companies, we need to have laws in place limiting medical malpractice cases. In most cases, the awards are capped, often at under $1,000,000 or $500,000 (not so in NY, but true in other states). This will stop those greedy people from filing suits and allow the doctors to offer cheap healthcare and insurance companies to offer cheap insurance to the doctors! Yeah for progress!

Yeah, sounds right. But its wrong. The truth is that medical malpractice cases are the most expensive cases to BRING if you are a plaintiff, and the most DIFFICULT cases to win. Less than 30% of medical malpractice cases are won by the plaintiffs. To successfully prepare a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff’s attorney needs to spend tens of thousands of dollars on expert analysis and testimony (usually multiple experts), medical research and other necessary requirements to a lawsuit. Therefore, most plaintiff’s attorneys are careful when taking a medical malpractice action, since there will be significant investment before any reward. This immediately weeds out most of the “frivolous lawsuits.”

If most frivolous lawsuits are not taken, then why is success rate so low? Because as a people, we look up to doctors. There is a natural bias toward the defendants in these cases. Juries are more inclined to believe that a doctor did everything he could do, or was not at fault for a natural occurence during medical treatment. As a result, the vast majority of lawyers and plaintiffs are NOT making oodles of undeserved cash just by bringing frivolous lawsuits.

So then why do the insurance rates constantly go up? Because insurance companies are the problem, not the plaintiffs. Insurance companies look for any reason to up their rates, including BS arguments regarding frivolous lawsuits. With the creation of medical malpractice caps around the country, you would think that insurance rates have dropped in some areas, right? Nope. The laws go into effect and the rates stay high. In fact, as you can see from the quote above, NY insurance companies have gotten permission to raise their rates by 14%, even though there have been NO increase in the amount of lawsuits.

Insurance companies are the house, if we are using a gambling analogy. They’ll do whatever they can to get a higher edge, because they are not interested in the players (doctors), but just in the bottom line. Even when they seem to be doing things for the doctors (claiming that frivolous lawsuits are crushing the medical profession), its all a scam. Misdirection, people! Look that way while we relieve you of your money!

Meanwhile, I have personally had to turn down cases out of state because of bad local laws limiting lawsuits. I work with a lot of infant cases. Basically, the infants are injured when the doctor du jour doesn’t read the patient’s record, doesn’t notice the likelihood of complications, and then doesn’t adjust their technique when the complications arise. As a result, my clients, usually babies, FUCKING BABIES(!!!), are left partially paralyzed for the rest of their lives. And its a routine situation. Most doctors know what to do, but they mess up. Its not a low standard. We have to prove that they did not follow accepted medical practices, and as a result, a baby is paralyzed. Am I the villain for taking the case? Are the parents the villains for having the audacity to seek money to help pay for their child’s medical expenses and future care? Make no doubt about it, most, if not all, of the awards go straight to the infant, placed in an account to accrue interest until he/she is old enough to accept the funds, and/or placed in an annuity to ensure the money will be there when they go to college, or need a surgery in the future. Are the babies the villains?

I’m constantly coming across posts that knock the legal profession for their dastardly ways, particularly in reference to the poor defenseless doctors. I’m not knocking the doctors. They are not the villains either. Its the insurance companies. The fucking insurance companies. Its just a shame we can make laws limiting the amount of damages a paralyzed kid can recieve, but we allow increases to insurance rates without any actual justification. This is a cause that doctors and lawyers should be working on together. But instead, we are pitted against each other by false claims by insurance companies that frivolous lawsuits are to blame.

Until next time, make mine poker!