Hassenfeffer's Journey into the land of limit #1

Ok, sat down at a empty .05/.10 table on UB with $5 . Some guy played 8 hands with me and I took $.82 right away from him. He got up and left. I went to find a full table. Cleared .03 of bonus!

Over the next 1.5 hrs I took my $5 to $6.55 and cleared $.94 of bonus.

Dealt 104 hands
Saw 22 flops
Won 9 hands

Of the hands I won, I won 86% of them on the river. I pretty mush had to show down the best cards. People were paying me off with some awful hands on their part. I have 3 new "buddies" to follow.

I did note that I did not check raise the entire time. Lee Jones says it is an important way to get more money into the pot if you have ahuge hand. I'm not sure I missed any check raising opportunites. It seems like I was mostly up against calling stations. I'll post a few hands later.

Total winnings + bonus for night = $3.34

Hassenfeffer's Journey into the land of limit #0

I pledge to start playing low limit holdem on a regualr basis and report in.

Also, I am reading the Lee Jones book on limit holdem and I may comment from time to time.

Take that vile cards!

So I guess we all know who won the 1st annual "I am better than you are" poker tournament! That's right: ME! Hmmm. I think that will be the name of every tournament I win. Only the ones I win get that title though. I think that is fair.

Seriously, I hope everyone had a good time Sunday night. We'll do it again next time I win a big score. I estimate that to be between three and seven years from now. Be prepared!

Do we still play poker?

Come on, people! The one spammer we got a few months back has probably forgotten about us by now. We neeed to get serious in this blog for our fanz!

Lets start the ball rolling with a discussion. KQoff: playable or no? I say in early position NEVER. In mid or late I will position raise with it, but will most likely fold any other time. KQoff can get you into some serious trouble and will more likely lose a big pot for you than win one.

Let's hear and argument, Danger. Do it. Come on. Do it. Yeah, Do it.

Why are WE the ass-backwards country?

House Passes Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

Bill Is Designed to Stop Flow of Money to Online Poker Rooms and Casinos

The United States House of Representatives today approved a bill that would prevent credit card companies and financial institutions from working with online casinos and cardrooms in an effort to stop online gambling.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which passed by a vote of 317-93, would also give authorities the right to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling-related websites.
The bill will now go to the Senate, where it should face a tougher time being approved. The White House said it supports the bill.

If this bill makes it into a law, it would prohibit credit card companies from collecting money for casinos and would force financial institutions to work with law-enforcement agencies to stop money from being transferred to online gaming sites.

Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who sponsored the bill along with fellow Republican Jim Leach, called online gambling “a scourge on our society” on the House floor today, and also repeatedly mentioned the name of Jack Abramoff, the disgraced lobbyist who pleaded guilty in January to various crimes, including bribery, he committed while representing several Indian casinos.

Goodlatte said the bill would help stop the “moral decline” that he claims is now occurring in America. He also claims that online casinos are really fronts for money launderers and that online gambling undermines families and threatens states’ abilities to enforce their own laws.
He says this despite the fact that several online poker sites are traded publicly, including PartyGaming (PartyPoker.com’s parent company), 888.com, Sportingbet (which owns ParadisePoker.com), and Empire Online.

He also sticks by his claims despite the fact that several dozen countries, including the United Kingdom, allows, regulate, and tax online gambling.

The bill does have its critics. Democrat Rep. Barney Frank warned during today’s debate that the bill is a violation of individuals’ rights. “What kind of social, cultural authoritarianism are we practicing here?” Frank asked. “I think (the bill) is a great infringement on liberty. When it comes to an individual decision on how to spend your own time and money, that's not my position. That’s not my business. I am skeptical of people who want to protect people from themselves.”

The online industry recently got a cautious boost of support from the American Gaming Association. The AGA is encouraging lawmakers to explore ways to make online wagering legal, taxable, and regulated. All major casino chains are members of the AGA.

Card Player Magazine and CardPlayer.com encourage readers to fight to save online poker by joining one of several grassroots organizations that are working to make online poker legal. Card Player has supported letter-writing campaigns and our legal expert, Allyn Jaffrey Shulman, has kept a close watch on this issue. Click here for her archives and click here for her comprehensive analysis of the Internet Prohibition Act, which this current bill is based on. And be sure to stay tuned to CardPlayer.com to read updates pertaining to this issue.

Yeah, I'm talking to YOU, you degenerate loser

John Kindt, a business professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has studied the issue, calls the Internet "the crack cocaine" of gambling.

"There are no needle marks. There's no alcohol on the breath. You just click the mouse and lose your house," he said.

nominee for ugliest poker related merchandise

Thanks to Art.com for making this "beauty" available.

Congrats Danger

I'd like to be the first to congratulate Danger Q in his 5th place finish in the $4000 gaurunteed on Ultimate Bet. Good job, Q. Thanks for making me stay up til 3am and not taking 1st. I appreciate it. Really.

Quantum musings

So if the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, and I believe it wins plurality backing among today's admittedly hesitant-to-commit quantum physicists, then in online poker play whenever you are dealt AA worlds will come to exist in which you go on to lose the hand. I don't think there can ever be an instance where you are dealt whatever pocket and not a single world comes into existence where you somehow lose the hand. Okay, well, we all know AA loses a fair percentage of the time in whatever particular world we're conscious of, but consider... there must exist a world in which you have lost EVERY SINGLE TIME you've ever been dealt AA. Imagine that. There may exist a real "you" in which you have gotten AA many, many times, and never, ever won the hand. And that "you" will continue to exist no matter how many times "you" get dealt AA. Sure, this may only be one single world in an ever increasing number of existing worlds stretching towards infinity, but it is real just the same, and that version of "you" is real.

I wonder if somewhere in this particular world there does exist such a poker player. If we knew there did exist such a person, that would be good proof that this interpretation of quantum is correct. I think. Of course, I was a sociology major.

More to come if no one else starts posting.

New book out in August

No word yet whether or not any of us make an appearance.