Communication

[peterbirks]

One of the things that strikes me in my never-ending world of alienation is how inarticulate most people are. This varies from the inarticulate thick to the inarticulate intelligent.

This isn't a criticism of the inarticulate intellegent. Since Wittgenstein concluded (before he got stupid and changed his mind) that inarticulacy is endemic to language, one can hardly blame people for finding it hard to express complex concepts.

One of the reasons (of the many) that I started to write was an almost obsessive desire to break down my own feelings of alienation, in that it is clearly very hard to communicate what is going on inside to those who are not inside (i.e., the rest of the world). But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try.

In poker and in music and in maths, one of my greatest frustrations is that people who are talented at the game/art/science are rarely sufficiently articulate to express the reasons for their talent. This is probably reason 1 for the adage that 90% of advice is shit. Just because people are good at the game/art/science, that does not mean that their self-analysis is strong. The reasons for them being good at poker might be completely different for the reasons they think they are good at it. And, even if their self-analysis is good, that does not mean that they will be able to express themselves in a way that those who are less talented will be able to understand.

I always found this also to be a fault shared by music teachers and maths teachers (because, as we know, the two are very closely linked). Perhaps there should be some kind of law against people who are naturally talented in these two fields from teaching it to anyone bar others who are naturally talented in the field. Because, for the naturally untalented (like me),there is just too great a chasm.

One of the reasons that I am a good financial writer (and a good teacher of younger journalists coming into the game) is that I am not naturally talented. It's all come about over a long time of hard graft. The same is true of poker. There are no "easy routes" for me, so the best teachers of people like me are the not particularly talented guys who got where they got through hard work, not the geniuses. Geniuses, when it comes to imparting knowledge, are invariably a waste of space.

So, when things start going badly at poker (yep, I had a crappy session this morning -- one of the reasons I stick to lower stakes. It would take a hell of a lot of bad beats to annoy me at $50NL) I don't have the natural ability to analyze it in the way the naturally talented do. I can see obvious bad beats, for sure, but in other areas (did I price this bet right? Did I make a mistake earlier which gave me a tough decision, or was the move right, and I was just unlucky?) I just flounder. I look at Noble/NoIQ and I see that I am now two buy-ins down at $50 NL over about 12,000 hands. Does this mean I'm a loser? I don't know. At $100 NL, I'm up two buy-ins over 1,000 hands. At Party, I'm up (but over a lower sample), At Stars, I'm up (but over a lower sample). And yet, it nags at me that I'm down over 12,000 hands (although the deposit bonus and rakeback more than make up for this, obviously). I feel that this cannot be down to bad luck, pure and simple. But then I analyze the hands (which is slow, and boring) and I can't specifically define mistakes. (Well, one or two, perhaps). Mainly, it just seems like shit luck.

This is the most worrying thing of all. It would seem to indicate that I am intrinsically bad, rather than unlucky or with minor flaws. It seems to indicate that my play is so fundamentally weak that there's nothing I can do about it. In a way, that doesn't seriously piss me off. As I've written before, it's the hope and uncertainty that I can't stand, rather than the absolute knowledge that something is wrong.

And yet, and yet. I'm not broke. The profit still shows an upwards trend. If I look at it that way, I am good. I've seen many many players whom I know to be more talented than me go broke. They have testosterone-filled problems about dominating the table, "beating" the other guy (I want the other guy to go away happier, but poorer). They have no bankroll management. They mock my playing at lower limits given the size of my bankroll. They are, in their own way, filled with certainties (as opposed to my life filled with doubts), and those certainties stand them in good stead, until it all goes tits up.

At that point, I can look at them and smile, and say, as is the case with work, as is the case with the poker table:

"I'm still here".



+++++++++

Top quote of the day, from Pokerworks: ZeeJustin had just won a big 45/55 (why do I never win those?) to go to 1.5m in the 2K NL Hold'Em.

"Several other ZeeJustins, eliminated earlier, are on the rail sweating him".


Brilliant. For the non pokerati out there, I'll explain it later, unless some other reader cares to do so first.

PJ

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, that's good. ZeeJustin was the guy kicked off Party Poker for having multiple accounts and playing them simultaneously in the same tournaments.

No-one seems to agree on anything about the 'are you a long-term winner / loser' at one particular level question? Is this because the SD of winning is particularly difficult to define - it certainly seems a pretty meaningless figure on my PT?

By contrast, can it be easier to say with confidence that you are beating a tourney? For example, I have played one particular stars tournament twelve times and cashed in six of these. 15% of people cash and the chance of me being in the top 15%, by chance, six or more times out of twelve is under 1%. It seems to me this means that I can therefore say, with confidence, that I am beating this tourney but I guess there might be more to the question than this.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Grr. Just had AA in the big blind, folded round to small blind. He raises to $2.50 and I raise it to $5.50. He calls. $11 in pot. I have $28 left and he's a bit more.

Flop comes QJ3 two hearts (I do not have heart Ace) and the betting goes $4 from him, $12 from me, all in from him. Call from me.

Two more hearts come turn and river, but that didn't matter, since opponent had JJ (no hearts). These are the hands that I fuck up and I can't see what I do wrong. Am I being results-oriented by feeling that I did something wrong when I didn't? Or am I genuiinely fucking up somewhere along the line by letting myself get stacked off?

But surely, JJ in SB vs AA in BB, all folded round, and then a J on the flop, that's a bit unlucky? Or is it? I just don't know. How do I avoid AA getting stacked off in this situation? Or do I accept that in this kind of situation, all of the money is going to go in when I've only got two outs twice?

I wish I was better. It's so depressing.


++++++++++


On your point, look at it another way (my pessimistic way). How many types of tourney do you enter? Let's say 10. In this case, there would be a 10% chance that you would perform as well as this in one of those types of tournament. Still 90% confidence, but not 99%.

Or, look at it another way. Suppose a thousand people enter this set of 12 tournaments. Ten of these people will cash six times or more in 12, solely in terms of random distribution. Who's to say that you aren't one of these "lucky ones"?

Or, look at it a third way. Suppose all of the other players are going to "shit or bust". That could mean that, even though you are cashing half the time and are in the top one percentile of cashes, you might only be in the top 20% of winnings. Once again, that's a reasonable level of confidence, but it's far from a certainty.

Then again, I'm a natural pessimist on these things. I put 12 tournaments in terms of SD at no more than 120 hands (depending, however, on how deep-stacked it is). I'm looking at 12,000 hands, so I guess I would want a thousand tournaments before I would be at an equivalent level of confidence.

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, the AA sucks a bit. Surprsied he didn't re-bet pre-flop with JJ: presume he was waiting for a low flop.

************
Through your three points:

1/ Yep, that's good; it's dodgy to cherry-pick tourneys. (What you have to do for validity is to make a blind choice of tourneys entered.)
2/ We can never say anything with complete certainty: the only way we can express things is with various degrees of confidence. We can quibble about what degree of confidence is acceptable (1% may be a bit generous) but the point is I don't think we need a long run to draw conclusions. The chance of cashing in all twelve is 1 in ten billion; were someone to do that I think we can feel on safe ground drawing some conclusions.
3/ That's a fair point. My big concern is that cashing is not the be-all and end-all; you can cash regularly and still not make a profit. I still think that analysis drawing on the above can strengthen convictions that one is a long-term tourney winner quicker than it shows up in the balance sheet.

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

AAvJJ: Why did you only repop to $5.50? I'd have taken it to somewhere in the $8-10 region. Firstly, he might fold, which is acceptable to me, second, I'm probably denying him implied odds if he reads me for an overpair. On the flop, I might (repeat "might") have been able to fold to his all-in: what did he have that was worth calling a reraise preflop that could make leading out of position? Paints in some combination seems likely, and QJ would be low on my list. AQ or AJ is nice, KQ or KJ nicer, but getting iffy. KK would be superb, but he would probably have jammed preflop.

But it's all hindsight. I'd probably have called and paid him off. But my game's all over the shop at the moment.

I never had a good music teacher. In the end I learned most of what I know by having a good ear. Of course, I didn't know what I wanted to learn then.

I did once have a good maths teacher, as well as several pitifully bad ones. He had the happy knack of injecting knowledge into his pupils' heads without them ever really realising it. He's dead now.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Actually, I meant to mention that this guy's stats were 36%/25%, so I'd put his raising range here on close to any-two. As you say, his failure to three-bet is puzzling. Perhaps he had me marked down as v tight, as I suspect I had been running card-dead at that table for about 50 hands.

I wasn't denying the assumptions that you were probably a long-term winner at that particular tourney, merely that the level of confidence probably wasn't as great as a lot of people would think. Perhaps my assessments are off, but I tend to assign a "range" on quite small samples, and only slowly do I increase my level of confidence in that range (or keep the same level of confidence for a grdaually narrowing range) as the sample size increases.

PJ

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Because a repop to $10 will probably just take down the pot there and then, and I want to stack the guy off or at least take a bit more money off him than he has already put in. Just as you can't make it too cheap for your opponent, neither can you make it too expensive.

Let's suppose a repop to $10 elicits a fold about 90% of the time, and of the times he calls, I win on the flop half the time, stack him off a fifth of the time he calls, but I get stacked off 30% of the time he calls.

So, I win the pot of $3.25 90% of the time = $2.93
I win $13.25 5% of the time = $0.62
I win his stack of $33 2% of the time = $0.66
I lose my stack 3% of the time = minus $0.99.

That gives a total expected win of $3.20, or about six times the big blind. I happen to know that my average win with aces is higher than that, from any position. Here, when I have position on the raiser and only two of us are left, I'd really be looking for more than that as an average. In other words, I think you are making a fairly standard error that I see from players at this level, which is raising too much when they have a good hand, because they are scared of getting sucked out on.

By reraising to $5.50 (I thought about $4.50, but I decided that this would price him in too much given our stacks, and I thought about $6.50, but decided that this would make him too likely to fold) I'm charging him another $3 into an 8.50 pot, which I think is about fair pre-flop. In other words, I think he'll pay, but I think that (given my hand) he is paying too much. That's really how I approach NL Hold 'Em. I try to make opponents pay too much, and I try to avoid paying too much myself.

This is why I don't moan about the bad beats that you see many bloggers moan about. If I have charged a guy too high a price, and he's still paid, I don't care if he hits or not.

So, in this case, pre-flop, I'm happy. I want the guy to call.

Now, post-flop, it's me who is paying too much.

Is this "just one of those things?"

Well let's look at the pricing thing. Given that the guy has called, how will things progress?

Well, most of the time he will miss. Let's say 67% of the time he will check-fold.

Given his range, he will probably hit a hand he is prepared to go to war on (top pair, two-pair, a set, an overpair) about, what, 10% of the time? (remember, this is given his range, not given his JJ). The rest of the time he will probably call the flop and then fold the turn unless he improves.

It's hard to work out the percentages here, and this is where I flounder. Other players (who are good) just way "why bother?" But that's how I need to think. It's the way my brain works. I don't have their instincts.

But let's assume that, of the 10% of the time he goes to war, I win half and lose half. That at least gives us some mathematical simplicity.

This gives me an EV from the $5.50 repop of

$5.75 * .67 = $3.84
$10.75 * .23 = approx $2.50 (the times he calls flop and folds turn).

Then 5% of the time I lose $33 and half the time I win $33. Cancels out.

So, that gives me an EV of $6.34, compared to the $10 repop EV of $3.20.

So, that's why I didn't repop the higher amount. However, all this assumes that opponent will not usually call the reraise. If I know that most of the time he will call the reraise, then the larger reraise is right. If I know he will call my all-in reraise, then that is right.

PJ


PS. While typing this I missed my stop-win position on sterling dollar. Damnit Mikey, you've cost me seventy quid on the forex....

I never had a good maths teacher after infant school (she had the sense to put me onto the "10s" within a week of starting, while most of the others were still trying to remember what shape a 5 was).

I never had a good music teacher at all, although the range is small and he was a very nice guy. But, sadly, too talented at music.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

As to what he could have to lead out, I thought some kind of half-way hand was most likely. Top pair with a backdoor flush draw, KQ, maybe KT with one or two hearts. I didn't give it forever to concentrate. I am after all at four tables, so timing out is the major nightmare. I'd basically decided my play pre-flop here, which was possibly a mistake, and was likely a function of the fact that I had been running so bad for a couple of hours (i.e., a kind of tilt). What I did not want to be was too weak-tight because I had been sucked out on so many times in the previous couple of hours (I was already 0 for 2 with Aces). When this happens I tend to become too passive, and I was determined not to let that happen.

In retrospect, I can't see what I did that wrong here, which is what worries me. The only difference I might make (which I would have done if the flop had been textured differently) would have been to flat-call the flop and then raise the turn. But QJx two of a suit was a bit too frightening for that play.

I'm just confused, is'all.

PJ

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Oh, and as a final point, note that my raise to $12 (the area where I was most un certain about the right move) left me with $16 behind. If he goes all-in I'm putting in $16 to win $50. At the time I thought that my worst possible position was that I was against QJ, and that there were a lot of other scenarios (including him folding) that were better. It's only a set against which I'm not getting the right price. And JJ and QQ (in that position) I would have expected a three-bet pre-flop.

So, in fact, my raise (which effectively pot-commits him) is actually looking to elicit a reraise all-in (on the fact that players often go "what the hell, in for a penny, in for a pound" when faced with that kind of situation. I just wonder if my analysis of hands is just so woefully adrift that my assessment of the situation is so askew that what I think is a positive EV way to play the hand is, in fact, totally awful.

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

You need to re-raise more pre-flop. If they make it X then re-raise to 3X, giving them 2-1 to call out of position.

matt

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Hi Matt

But isn't that too high a price? When I've tried the 3x reraise with good hands, it seems to elicit folds nearly all the time, so, although I win more pots, I feel as if I am costing myself EV.

From watching the general tenor of reraises at this level, 2.5x seems to be the norm (i.e., a raise to $2 from MP1, and then a raise to $5 from the button) and this is the level I normally choose.

If the guy is definitely going to call the 3x, then why not 4x? How is the "3x" figure arrived at? This is what is giving me hell. Is it experience? Mathematical analysis? "Gut feeling" from players with more of an instinct for the game than me? I really feel that my raise is charging him too high a price, given the size of our stacks. Now, as I said earlier, if I can charge a higher price, knowing that I will get called, then I should charge that higher price. But if 3x will always get a call, then 4x might be a better price to charge. And if 4x always gets a call, then 5x might be a better price. Like you say, 3x might be right, but poor old Birksy is never happy with that, the sad soul. He needs to know more, such as why.

PJ

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

By way of an addendum to this, when I am reraising OOP (against a potential stealer), I tend to make the raise bigger (but with a smaller range of hands), so that we are both committing more of our stacks. Is this right, or should I just wait to see the flop a bit more?

And, if the bigger raise OOP is right, by how much more should I make it? 4x? 5x? All-in?

PJ

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Also, what if I have a good hand inthe blinds but the original raiser is not a potential stealer and is in something like MP1?

PJ

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

And finally! I'd also point out that if we had both had $50 or more in front of us, my reraise would obviously have been larger to deny my opponent the implied odds. That we both had about $33 was a factor in my decision here. Perhaps I overcompensated and still gave him the implied odds. I don't know. Looking at it again, I still don't think that I did, but I certainly priced it somewhat marginally. perhaps this is one of my bigger errors. Give myself more "profit margin" on pricing, because people will still call and, if they don't, my reduced EV comes with a lot of reduced variance.

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

If they're folding too often when you re-raise with good hands then loosen your re-raise requirements. Result! You're making the adjustment (re-raising less) that makes their play more correct rather than the adjustment (re-raise with more marginal hands) that makes their play less correct.

matt

Lose It Aggressively

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that his preflop call was probably to see if he'd get a low flop. If he reads you as tightish he probably interprets any reraise preflop as more likely to be a higher pair or two overcards to his JJ than not, so he's mostly a dog or in a coin-flip. In short he was hoping for that flop, and when he got it he set his betting to get all-in.

I can't quite see the "raise more preflop" argument as being directly salient here. You really don't want him to fold a pair of Jacks in that situation, ideally you want him to come back over the top of you with a push. But it is relevant in terms of his VPIP and PFR%. If he's entering that many pots, that aggressively, he needs to have them stolen back from him on a regular basis or else he'll run you over. (Incidentally I regularly play a VPIP of 40+ and I don't play "any two", just "most two".)

My (fairly hand-waving admittedly) opinion is that you played the hand OK and were unlucky. With two strong hands dealt in he hit a great flop and so it cost you your stack. If you'd called his flop bet you'd be letting him draw to straights, flushes and suckout two pairs and sets, with just a small probe bet. You can't fold to his reraise as you could still be ahead, probably have two outs and are priced in. I'd say he played it well, and if he plays like that all the time you have to ask yourself why you would feel entitled to see a profit from him.

It's a kick the cat and carry on hand.

Lurker

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

OK, I get that, Matt. That's helpful and it's a rule of thumb I will follow as a default, although it somewhat begs three questions: the first being (and I'll try to guess the answers).

1) What is the obverse? In other words, suppose they always call the 3x raise. Do you tighten up your raising standards, or do you increase the size of your raise? If the answer is the former, it seems counter-intuitive to tighten up your raising standards against opponents who are playing more loosely.

2) If the answer is the latter, then 3x becomes a tipping point (i.e. if they fold to the reraise too much, you loosen your raising standards, but if they always call your reraise, you increase the level of the reraise). My question then would be, why is 3x the thipping point? Why not 4x? Why not 2.5x? Although your answer makes sense, it doesn't answer the question, where does the 3x number come from?

3) Surely the minimum stack size of the pair is a factor that needs to be considered? So, does this affect your standard of hand, or does it affect the level of the reraise?

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

Barry Greenstein made the deeply enlightening comment that the correct adjustment against players who are raising frequently is not to tighten up but to lower your own re-raise standards.

If they always call then of course there's little point bluffing and a lot more point value-betting. Barry's advice doesn't apply since it's implicit in his comment that the aggressive player will often fold to a re-raise. So if the raiser always calls then tightening up to a solid range of hands but then always re-raising and never just calling would seem to be the logical exploitation.

I see a lot of bad beat posts where the moaner had a big pair but limped or min-raised pre-flop. They "had" to do this as according to them raises were getting too much respect... Of course they completely miss the point that on a tight table like that you should be raising all your normal hands plus any pair, suited connectors etc. Eventually you'll get caught out and then rest assured you'll get plenty of action on your big hands. By limping or min-raising a big hand they were making the tables over-tight play correct ... and then whining about their bad beat ... crazy.

I don't think 3X is set in stone although it can't be much less. If you re-raised 2X the amount then you're giving 3-1 odds which if they've raised with anything vaguely playable is a call. If you're raising 5X or 6X then you'll get little action on premium hands and get hurt when they have one. I think it's also a function of the fact that most people sit with about 50-100 big blinds in NL. If a raise is 5X and the re-raise is 25X then there's no real room for manoeuvre or skill post-flop. However if the raise is 3X and the re-raise 9X then no-one is yet committed and there's room for some flop and turn play.

If the re-raise is a significant (15%+) chunk of the smallest stack then I'd probably just move in or flat call. The pot will be too big post-flop for meaningful decision-making if you make that re-raise and get called.

matt

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Thanks Matt:

Of your points:

I had already concluded that flat-calling a raise rarely, if ever, seemed right if both you and raiser had a reasonable stack and if you had position on original raiser. I liked the phrase that I think Ed Miller used (although he may have been quoting someone else) that to win big pots you have to build big pots. I see a lot of players at this level play too passively pre-flop, which makes it very hard for them to win big pots if they hit their hand. As a rule, I'm the raiser (my stats are now about 18.5/13), so I'm not used to playing that many other aggressive opponents. It's usually them trying to trap me.

I've spotted their post-flop strategies (which are a necessary function of their pre-flop passivity) and developed avoidance techniques. But I still have trouble against the players who are more willing to gamble. It woud appear to me that I have to be prepared to gamble back, relying on the fact that, at least some of the time, they will fold to my reraise. After all, I often fold to other players' reraises!

I think you are right that the 3x is basically a function of the average stack divided by the size of the blinds. That would (or should) mean that, if one was playing in a deep-stacked game all round, if the initial raise was only 3.5 times the big blind, then the reraise would need to be a higher percentage. However, since in the deep-stack games the initial raise tends to move up nearly in proportion, this means that the reraise can still be 3x, because the first raise does the work of pushing the size of the pot to the level where there can still be play on the flop and the turn.

Now, suppose the initial raise is higher than normal, this would seem to make a lower reraise amount reasonable, would it not (although not by a lot). I mean, if I have Aces, and we both have 70 x the big blind. I am in the Big Blind and Small blind, instead of putting in a normal raise, makes it 8 x the Big blind. Now, if my reraise was 3x in this scenario, we are looking at 24x in the pot pre-flop. Which, as you say above, leaves no room for manoeuvre.

Would this be one of those rare occasions to mini-reraise?

Incidentally, the mini-raise is very popular on the flop on Stars if there is a continuation bet.

PJ

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

PS: I've just looked at my $50NL performance in open play (i.e., ignoring bonuses and rakeback) over all sites, and its plus $600 over about 18,000 hands. So that's $3.50 a hundred. That isn't very good, but it isn't as bad as I thought it was.

PJ

in re articulation

[(Anonymous)]

Good maths teachers are ten a penny; they just don't tend to end up in a school. I was lucky; five of my six were brilliant, and the other one doubled as the divinity teacher and told me I would never amount to much. I quite enjoyed getting 97% on his mock exam and thus one of two "Distinctions" at school. (The other one, strangely enough, was in divinity, although not under his tutelage.)

The concept of a good music teacher is completely beyond me, and here we may have to reach into Wittgenstein. It is, in several ways, possible to quantify the ability of a maths teacher, irrespective of the quantification of the pupil's ability. What makes a good music teacher, however, is almost certainly a more commutative judgement.

And so to Wittgenstein, a man whose works, other than "On Certainty," which I read in a bored and terminally unemployed moment in the Birmingham public library and which struck me as crap, I have never read. Mind you, as Dylan would put it, I was so much older then, and now perhaps I should.

I presume that your representation of his initial position comes from the Tractatus, and that your comment that he got stupid and changed his mind refers to the Philosophische Untersuchungen. Well, it's a bit harsh to knock sombody when they're down, particularly when they're six feet down. It also raises the interesting question: if one, say Mr W., has already established to their own satisfaction, and possibly also to that of an admiring coterie of Cambridge dons, that inarticulacy is endemic to language (although I suspect you mean inherent, rather than endemic), then why should Mr W. be castigated for posthumously revoking such a statement?

It would seem to me that Mr W. has, essentially, established one or more axioms which entitle him to say pretty much whatever he feels like and then claim that he was misquoted. Rather like the Monty Python "Confuse-A-Cat" sketch, or possibly Michael Vaughan.

If you don't question the axiom(s), which you don't, then you're hardly at liberty to question the self-contradiction.

It's a bit like Euclid, really, only without the confusion over three-dimensional geometry that makes the fifth axiom distinctly questionable. Which is why maths is so much less annoying, and more precise, than philosophy. As to whether it has anything at all to do with music, who knows? Galileo came up with a few scratchings, but I'm not convinced. Don't even mention Schoenberg. And the whole point of Bach's Well Tempered Clavichord was that it wasn't actually well-tempered in the first place. Don't even mention Aristotle.

Whether this helps you in your quest to quantify your shortcomings in online poker, I couldn't say. I'd like to think that it does. On the other hand, I too am one of the Great Alienated, and my biggest concern is my own, and it seems permanent, inarticulacy.

By the way (we inarticulates like to drift away from complex and incompetently addressed issues ... you may have noticed this), have you any idea what the motivation is for people who continuously lose to play online at Poker? I mean, I can see online Roulette. That's just cretinous, and therefore ideal to attract irrational gamblers. I can also see the point in being a bad face-to-face poker player, where at least you're not facing what, to be honest, is a bunch of possibly high-class, worldwide (excluding the USA) pixels. There is a certain amount of human interaction going on, face to face. But, bad (ie losing continually) and online? Am I missing something?

On the other hand, at least Ludwig got to see one of James Stewart's better movies before he died.

Re: in re articulation

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Well, if good maths teachers are ten a penny, I'd really like to know why I never found one who was capable of stringing a coherent sentence together, or was capable of showing how Z followed from A without skipping at least 13 steps and occasionally skipping 24.

Yes, I did mean inherent rather than endemic. I knew that endemic probably wasn't right when I wrote it (is it specific to a geography? I suspect that it is).

Now, as to Mr W. I like Tractatus. It's neat and, what I understand of it, it sees language like a nice Venn Diagram, with sets, intersections, exclusions and the like. (For example cat is not equal to dog, but cat and dog are both in the set of animals. Then we have two-legged mammals, which are also in the set of animals, but exclude cats. Unless, of course, the cat has had two legs amputated. Or it might be Schroedinger's Cat, and we would have no idea how many legs it had, and no way of checking.

But, and this was my point above, Wittgenstein seemed to me to maintain that the limits on language and what it could express were severe -- to the extent that anything that was really worth saying, couldn't be said (or at least, not accurately). This seems to me to be a fairly accurate summation of language, and the fudge that he later came up with in the Blue and the Brown Books (which I kind of understand to be "hell, language does more complex things than I thought possible. Therefore I must have been wrong", strikes me as a bit erroneous. Of course, I might be completely misinterpreting Wittgenstein. This, given what he was positing in the first place, might prove my point.

Now, what is in it for long-term online poker losers? This question has indeed been asked of me by a bricks-and-mortar (as poker people term FTF) poker player. And the answer is, not being a long-term online loser, I just don't know. I suspect that there are a few possible reasons.

1) There are none. All the long-term losers are convinced that they are long-term winners who happen to be going through a bad run, and that they will soon get even.

2) They know that they are losers, but they enjoy online poker. What they enjoy, who knows?

3) They know that they are losers, and they would prefer to play live, but there is no love poker available. The computer is "the only game in town" (I once played online against a guy who was so far north in Canada that I thought it must be Russia. For this guy, a quick trip to the casino was not on).

4) They have won money in a tournament, and they fancy playing some cash. In their minds, the money is not "their" money. It's the tournament winnings, so if they lose it, it doesn't count.

5) There are none. There are only short-term losers who give up after three months or even less. This is the frightening scenario for most online players, because, if this is the case, the supply will eventually dry up badly.

6) They are long-term winners who have become long-term losers (because the games have got tougher) but they just haven't realized it yet.

PJ