That damn movie!

Did anyone see the movie that stole this blog URL? I heard it was pretty bad.

Adam Carroll had a nice rant, just based on the trailer. The guy (who looks a little like me FWIW) stops a car with a Street Fighter-esque arm pushing motion. But he had to brace himself. Really? If a guy can stop a moving car with his energy, why does he have to dig in his heels like he's bracing for a two-foot wave by the beach.

Last October, I finished fourth (of course!) in the World Poker Tour event at Foxwoods. It was finally on TV. I'll have some thoughts on that soon, especially with the controversy over what Tony Dunst said about me. If you missed it, here's a thread on TwoPlusTwo (anonymous poker forum) discussing what happened:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/37/televised-poker/wpt-foxwoods-world-poker-finals-8pm-april-10-17-fsn-1017315/

Arab Revolutions, Twitter & Narcissism

Pardon me for saying this, but what is happening now in the Arab world doesn’t have a goddamned thing to do with twitter, Facebook, Mah-jong, or any other social media.    What is happening in the streets of the Middle East is the same thing that happened in Europe in 1848 and 1871 and on several other occasions.   People are demanding better government.    The struggle for just and enlightened government is a long one, stretching across centuries. The Arab world is, for the most part, governed by repressive regimes more focused on their own wealth and power than on the welfare of the people.   At some point, people get tired of it, and start to demand better government.    - Bill James

I'm a big fan of Twitter, and I think it has its uses, but it did not cause the revolts in the Arab region, nor do I think it had much influence in keeping them going. I agree with Bill James, people should stop taking about the role of Twitter & Facebook in promoting civil upheaval in the Middle East. Get off my porch!

I love Twitter, because it allows me to read very up-to-date information about what is going on in sports. All the latest injury news in football is on Twitter first. The first place to read reactions to trades is on Twitter. And more than ever, you only need to follow aggregated accounts, where Twitter expert volunteers will comment on and retweet anything that you might want to know about the latest for your favorite sport, or your favorite team. I've read that sports handicappers get all of their team & player news from Twitter, and pay interns to scour the service to look for this information.

In other words, Twitter is great for letting us know what his happening *right now*, in any place or in any field that we are interested in (provided that people there are tweeting).

I think this is why we tend to over-estimate the importance of Twitter for the Arab revolutions. Twitter has allowed us to follow the drama in Tahrir Square, while sitting at coffee shops drinking chai lattes. It's tempting to think that the service is doing something for the people in Egypt, as well as for us. However, maybe all that it does is to inform us, encouraging us to to act, or to do nothing.

We love to think that our opinions on the Middle East help to improve their government. That's how we like to think, as Americans. But they probably don't. So over-valuing the contribution of Twitter to their revolution is just another expression of our narcissism.

Fourth place in WPT (World Poker Tour)

Maybe I jinxed myself by creating this blog. But again I finished fourth in an important competition. This time, I was the third player eliminated from the TV final table at the Foxwoods World Poker Tour tournament. It will be shown on FSN whenever they show WPT season 9.

This was my biggest tournament poker success to date (although my fourth place in the WSOP event was against a much bigger field). Hopefully this won't be my last tournament cash this winter. I played the NAPT (North American Poker Tour) event in Los Angeles, but did not make the money. I don't intent on joining the "poker circuit," but I will be playing more tournament poker in the near future. Wish me luck.

I'll have more to say on my Foxwoods appearance once it's on TV and I will have a better chance to put my play in perspective. For now, here is one story.

On day four of the tournament, we had still not made the money! There were 27 players for 25 paid places, which was kind of absurd. I had a lot of chips though, so I did not mind. I could put pressure on all of my opponents, since any of their allin hands against me could bust them, sending them home with nothing after playing poker for four days.

My table mates included two of today's best young poker players, Jason Mercier and Sorel Mizzi. Neither was extremely short stacked, but I had both of their chip stacks covered. I used this to my extreme advantage.

Jason and Sorel are really really good tournament players. They have won many tournaments before, and they have supreme self-confidence in winning again, even without a huge chip stack. At any point in the tournament, but especially during the later stages, they think they have a better chance of winning than a strict count of their chips would indicate. What this means is that they will *never* put their chips allin preflop without a great hand.

This strategy can be very exploitable. Suppose that Jason or Sorel raises and it is folded to me. I can 3bet (reraise) with any hand, knowing that Jason or Sorel will not put the rest of their chips in without a great hand (and great hands are rare). Of course, I can not raise *every* time, but I can, and did, reraise them quite often. Usually, I had nothing and would have folded for an allin, but Jason and Sorel did not play back at me often. In fact, they only played back at me once, in maybe 30 times that I 3bet them over two days. That time, Jason had AK and I called with AQ. He doubled up, but I could afford it, having won so many chips from raising him and Sorel earlier. I wish that he or Sorel had played back at me one of the other times, as I did have AK, KK and QQ on several occasions. Mostly though, I had nothing, and they knew it. But there was nothing that Jason or Sorel could do, expect play their own cards.

There has to be something missing from this story. How can I 3bet with nothing, over and over, against good players and make money with no risk? This strategy only works if everyone else plays along. In particular, I have assumed that all other players at the table will fold. For the most part, this is true! Faced with a raise and reraise, tournament players fold everything except the very best hands. Even if they notice the game that me, Jason and Sorel are playing, how could any of them put all their chips in without a great hand? It's just too much risk! How embarrassing would it be to go allin with something like 88 or ATs into a bet and a raise, to be called and dominated! That is why most players don't do it. Especially having played for three or four days to get close to the money. Their play is rational, and I would do the same, even if the game theory said otherwise.

However, this 3bet strategy totally fails earlier in the tournament, especially against weaker players. Once player are willing to overcall or go all with 88 or ATs against an aggressive 3better, then the play loses much of its appeal. Some of that happened to me in LA at the NAPT. I had a lot of chips early in day 2, but I squandered a fair number of them raising and reraising preflop against players who were less cautions about putting their chips in the pot. What did work for me, however, was raising preflop and then taking down pots on the flop or the turn with more betting. After all, most tournament players don't know how to play so-so hands after the flop, even if they know how to call with them pre-flop.

Going forward, I will keep all of this in mind. My 3betting strategy worked brilliantly during the last three days of the Foxwoods tournament. But I over-valued it in early tournament play, and it cost me in LA. Next time, I will be better prepared. Watch out. I might break that fourth place ceiling yet!

Monkeys, handouts & third grade gangs

My TiVo series manager reads (excluding my girlfriend's shows):

1. Rebel Monkeys
2. Wild Russia
3. Equator
4. Hard Knocks '10: Training Camp
5. Jersey Shore
6. Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations
7. ESPN 30 for 30
8. House of Saddam
9. Repossessed!
10. 2010 World Series of Poker
11. Gangland
12. Bad Girls Club

I love conflict. Especially real conflict. It makes for good TV. "Rebel Monkeys" on NatGeo Wild is the most dramatic show on television. Especially if you sympathize with the monkeys like I do.

I don't know why, but I've always loved monkeys. When I was a teenager, I'd go to the DC zoo (even though I generally objected to zoos) and held long staring contests with the simians. I told my girlfriend at the time that I was communicating with long lost relative. She thought is was cute. I've never read a story about a monkey or have seen a video about a monkey without eliciting some emotion.

I can relate to stories of monkey behavior much more so than to stories of human behavior. I think this is perfectly rational. Monkeys are more trustworthy examples of human behavior than are humans. Here is why:

Humans and simians are very similar. Both are social creatures, and both realize that there are cameras, scientist with lab coats, etc. However, monkeys do not need to be famous, and they don't espouse any ideology. 

Monkeys do not believe in anything. That is what separates them from humans. If I see an experiment where monkeys share a resource or cooperate toward a goal (see video here), then I can only conclude one of two things. The monkeys saw sharing to be in their best interests, or their instincts subconsciously pushed them to share. It doesn't matter whether the experiment was set up well. It doesn't matter if the one monkey threatens the other one into sharing. It doesn't matter if the scientist gave both monkeys a reward later. I know that the monkeys did not share their nuts because they have some ideology telling them that sharing is "the right thing to do." Also I know that the monkeys did not share in order to get face time on TV. Unless they were given an incentive to make the researchers look good...

If this experiment was carried out with humans, we would never know why they did nor did not share. Any debate about human behavior invariably leads to a discussion of morals, religion or other ideology. Any television show about humans has us watching a bunch of people who want to be famous. I love "Jersey Shore," "Bad Girls Club" and "Repossessed!" but it's hard to tell whether they represent real human behavior. "Rebel Monkeys" does not suffer from these deficiencies. 

Monkey Reality Show

The show follows several gangs of rhesus macaque monkeys living in and around the Indian city of Jaipur. These monkeys are native to the forests of northern India, and yet hundreds of monkeys live in the city itself. They feed off of unguarded food, garbage, and food offered to them by people.

Wild monkeys have lived in Indian cities for a very long time. However their number have taken off in the recent past. According to this report from 2007, monkeys in Delhi have become a major problem during the past decade, with their numbers increasing by over 10,000. Relocation to nearby forests have failed, and the problem culminated in the bizarre death of a monkey-chasing deputy mayor in 2007. The report claims that the monkeys rushed into the city because their natural habitat has been threatened. Perhaps. But there is something else going on.

Monkeys prefer living in the city. Every nature show waxes lyrically about how animals want to live in the wild. How they yearn to be free. How they love the fresh air. The rhesus macaques on Rebel Monkeys do not want to live in the woods.

One of the story lines is about "Zamir," a troublemaking macaque banished to the woods outside Jaipur by the city's monkey catcher. He quickly found a tribe living there, and learned their tricks of survival. These monkeys live in the woods, yet all they do is seek out humans to feed them, wittingly or not. The band of forest monkeys steal farmers' crops and drink their unguarded milk. But mostly, they sit by the side of the country road, and wait for drivers to throw them scraps.

Given a choice of picking fruit in the forest, picking crops from a farmer's garden, or sitting by the side of the road and waiting for handouts, the monkeys choose the later.

Humans are exactly the same. Given a choice of working for a living or getting paid to do nothing, we would choose to do nothing. Not to say that we would be idle. No, we would watch TV, go to the gym, buy things online, call our friends, talk about politics, and maybe even do something mildly creative. But none of us would work for a living if we did not feel like we had to. Although working hard makes us happier, healthier and wealthier, we'd choose not to do it. Some individuals might work on a farm, but collectively we would all live in the city and get by on handouts, if those provided us with sufficient food and shelter. The farmers would live longer, eat better, and generally be happier. But most of us would live in the city. That is just how we are wired.

Individual monkeys living in Jaipur are much worse off than their counterparts living in the forest. Their meals are irregular and often not nutritious. They are exposes to deadly diseases. Worst of all, they are subject constantly to the violence of other monkeys.

Simian Gangs

Monkeys are social creatures, and they live in tribes. There is violence within the tribe, but most confrontation is limited to threat barks and monkeys chasing each other. However when different tribes come in contact, violence is often inescapable. I don't need to explain this or find a study proving this. We immediately know this is true. Monkeys are just like us.

In cities, monkey tribes constantly trespass on each other's turf. There are many fights. Lots of monkey blood is shed. Monkeys living in the sparser populated countryside are better off. At least as individuals.

I won't argue about whether the monkeys living in the city are better off than their countryside counterparts in terms of genetic propagation. They must be. Why else would individuals choose the tough urban life over the fresh air of the country side? But that is beside the point.

What does the story of monkeys flowing to the inner cities and forming gangs tells us about urban decay? What does the monkeys' preference for handouts over foraging tell us about homelessness and welfare? Possibly nothing. But if we wanted to jump to conclusions, here are a few that I'd suggest.

The Beggars & The Homeless

We all know that giving money to beggars on the subway encourages more begging. Yet most of us give money to beggars anyhow. The homeless live off of the government, off of opportunistic pilfering, and occasionally by working. But they survive mostly from the handouts given to them by individuals. Just like the macaques of Jaipur. The television show shows macaques stealing fruit form the market, foraging through garbage cans, jumping in open windows, and (in several highly staged scenes) stealing the lunch of various citizens. However, the show makes it clear that the bedrock of the monkey diet is food given to them directly by people. If they did not feed the monkeys, the citizens of Jaipur would not have to live with hundreds of monkeys and a dozen violent monkey gangs. The people know this. They choose to live with the monkeys. Monkeys are well liked by many Hindus (and also by this humble New Yorker, who keeps a small bronze statue of Hanuman on his desk). Or at least enough citizens of Jaipur like monkey, so that the rest are forced with that choice.

I am not suggesting that the beggars and the homeless would all get jobs if we stopped giving them money and food. But we choose to have as many beggars as we have here in New York City. Maybe we think that they make our city more interesting. Generally they don't bother me. But I do not choose to support their numbers, so I never give money or food to beggars.

Urban Gangs

My TiVo priority for "Gangland" is low, but only because the show is so poorly made. Not all gang are sensational and commit shocking acts of violence. Some are interesting for other reasons. So I'm not sure why the producers of the show try to fit each gang into the same square peg. But the prevalence of gangs in America is fascinating. Every city and every well-represented local ethic group forms a gang. All gangs are made up mostly of younger single men, and they inspire a strong sense of fellowship amongst the members. Just about all gangs mark themselves with tattoos, throw gang signs and parol their territory. Policing sometimes breaks up gangs and often curbs gang-related violence. But they never stamps out gangs for good.

Given how prevalent and similar gangs seem to be, can we just admit that gangs are never going away? No social program, preacher or draconian punishment will prevent young men from forming and joining gangs.

Nor will young men join gang-like structures that society sets of for them. Some will, but not the ones who want to join an organization with turf, power (perceived or actual), and some form of self-selected leadership. Most teenage boys won't find that at their local Boys & Girls Club.

How many men walk around with Boy Scouts tattoos? To think that these organizations could provide the sort of kinship that gang members crave is crazy. Former gang members interviewed on Gangland often still have feelings for the gangs that they once ran with. Even those who gave up violence and got steady jobs or turned to Jesus Christ still feel a connection to their former brothers. The government can't create that kind of organization for all men. The Marine reject most applicants.

Restricts Gang Violence, not Gang Membership

The best we can do to prevent gang violence is to make it easier for gangs to form and to stay together, but to restrict the gangs that get too violent or intimidating. This is essentially what Japan does. Its government allows the Yakuza to function, but it does not officially condone their activities. The Japanese government monitors gangs, and goes after violent criminal activity. Some yakuza gangs (bōryokudan) have been around for decades. The government keeps them in check, but allows them to operate and does not pick winners.

In America, we stamp out gangs, even the non-criminal ones. By definition, gangs resist authority, seek to patrol turf, discipline their own members, and have conflicts with other gangs. If we consider these criminal acts, then all gangs are criminal organization. But lots of boys join gangs to be a part of a gang, not to commit greater crimes. By stamping out all of the harmless gangs, only the most violent and criminal gangs can survive. Narco-trafficking gangs serve two purposes: to facilitate the illegal drug trade, and to give their members a sense of belonging associated with gang life. Extortion gangs serve two purposes: to tax local businesses, and to provided an ethic-based hierarchical organization to local youths who crave it. The mid-1990's Russian Mafia in Brooklyn served two purposes: to make huge sums of money for their leadership, and to give newly arrived immigrants an outlet for their skills and a sense of belonging. A gang that exists purely for camaraderie and does not fund itself on crime has no chance of survival. The criminal gangs have more resources because of their illegal businesses, and the government restricts non-violent gangs, as well as violent criminal ones.

I recently read a book about the history of modern Turkey. The Turkish government suppressed all ethic-based organizations in the 1970's and 1980's. As a result, peaceful Kurdish organizations could not form in Kurdish areas of southern Turkey. The violent Marxist terrorist organization PKK was the only organization strong enough to survive. As a result, it was the only organization speaking on behalf of Kurdish rights. The government made the PKK what it is by restricting all of its competition. Kurds who do not support Marxism or violence were not given a voice, and the government radicalized the general Kurdish population of Southern Turkey.

Non-criminal gangs have no incentive to punish members who choose to leave the gang life. Macaques that leave their troops are not welcome back, but they are not killed. As long as they stay away, they can do as they please. Violent gangs punish those who leave, because those men often have the capacity to help bring the gang down. Gangs that distribute drugs can't just let their members walk away with their secrets. College students who quit their fraternity (or simply graduate) are not a threat to the other members, unless those are also cooking meth in the basement.

Gangs we Tolerate

Social fraternities are legalized gangs on campus. Although they are tolerated (and occasionally commended) by the universities they associate with, they are more tolerated than encouraged, and they are definitely not run by the colleges. In fact, they have all the classic marks of a gang. They have a loosely centralized national structure with local cliques, their own turf, use gang signs and handshakes, get tattoos or brands, and maintain a quasi-democratic leadership structure. They are often organized along religious or racial lines. They have a certain disdain for the university's authority, and they organize low-level illegal activity, such as beer sales to minors. They discipline members who violate their rules. And yet, we accept them as mostly benign organizations. Their members usually graduate, get normal jobs, and do not shun people from other fraternities that might have been rivals in their college years. I would never have been welcome at a hispanic or black fraternity on campus, but I would not hesitate to work with someone who was a member of such a fraternity.

Why is it that we allow young men in college to join fraternity gangs, and yet we don't allow their counterparts who don't go to college the same privilege?

Blame the Kids

When I was in the third grade, three gangs formed amongst the elementary school population (officially a middle school, grades three through six). Two were white gangs, and one was a Puerto Rican gang. Actually there were two gangs, the white gang and the Puerto Rican gang. Then a third group formed called the "playground patrol." I did the math, and joined the playground patrol. I was a gang member for a week, before the principal suspended a bunch of students and broke up the gang leadership.

Our gang had a kid named Tim with blonde hair and a bowl haircut. His father had a foul ball that he caught during the '61 World Series. Tim said he had never cried. Not even when he broke his arm. We also had a kid named Jonathan, whose father was the principal of the elementary school (grades K through second). Or maybe Jonathan joined the other white gang. I can't remember.

Both of them were suspended. The principal call a school meeting, one of the few with both halves of the circular auditorium open at the same time. During this joint session of the student congress, he told us how much we should be ashamed of ourselves. We came from good families (at least some of us did). One of us was the son of a principal. How could we form gangs, and along racial lines, at that? We should be ashamed of ourselves. The parents didn't like it, but he was going to send us a message with some long suspensions. Whenever Bug Selig or Roger Goodell hand out a suspension and give a press conference, I remember that principal. A lot of kids got short suspensions. A few kids got longer one. No one realized I joined a gang, so I got nothing. I wasn't very important in the third grade.

Tim's father was furious that his son was suspended. He told Tim so, and Tim told us. His father went to argue with the principal. Why were they sending his son home for two weeks? These were just kids. No one got hurt.

I think Tim's father had a point. And more importantly, the principal over-reacted. He got rid of gangs in our school. But I'm sure they just reformed a few years later. The Puerto Rican kids were different. They were new arrivals to the town. So were the Russians, but we were more or less accepted. Many of our town's residents descended from Russian Jews, or otherwise felt some kinship toward us Ruskis. We spoke Russian, but we quickly learned English, took classes with everyone else, excelled in math, and did not start our own gang. The Puerto Ricans seemingly refused to speak English, and most of them took the remedial classes together. They were all in the lowest math class. Gangs form all the time, and often along racial lines.

Whether you blame the parents, the school, or human nature, the students of Highland Park Middle School did not do anything out of the ordinary. I'm not saying that the principal should have let the gangs organize and build their membership. But all we were doing was a natural extension of everything else around us. Breaking up the gangs and suspending a bunch of kids taught us nothing. The principal did, however, succeed in getting us to fear the school's authority a little bit more. By punishing us rather than holding our hands and helping us resolve our differences, he encouraged a bunch of third graders to resent authority.

Young men will always form gangs. Let them. Don't pretend that social institutions can become a substitute for gang life. Just make sure that the gang are not violent, and that members can leave their gangs voluntarily when they are ready to move on with the rest of their lives.

Twitter

I'm up to seven followers. Stuck on four for a while...

Fourth place in WSOP

Maybe it's cruel irony that I named by bullshit blog "I am Number Four." I've gotten fourth place in many competitions where people like to get first and put on on their resumes.

This year I made the final table of a mixed games event at the World Series of Poker (WSOP). I finished fourth.

Stalin would have liked red light cameras

I was born in the Soviet Union. Like many others born there, I don't trust cops and generally despise authority. Naturally, I don't like red light cameras at traffic lights. But I could never explain exactly why, except to point out that the companies running those cameras make a fortune.

Fortunately, Bill James thought about this, and explainedwhy he hates red light cameras (behind the pay wall). I agree wholeheartedly:

We all know why the city councils want red light cameras, don’t we? Money. You set up a camera at the right intersection, you can print 200 tickets a day. $85 a ticket, processing costs of $15. . .what is that, a half-million a year?

The problem is, you’re trying to punish people into driving more carefully. It will not work. It will backfire, absolutely and without question. We don’t know how it will backfire, exactly, but it will. Punishment works through the mechanism of fear. Fear changes people. It makes them angrier. Fear makes people dislike those who cause them to fear.

From the 1930's through the 1950's, Stalin sent millions of people to the gulag. This served the join purpose of punishing his enemies, and also of building up Siberia in strategic places where people did not want to live or work.

I've heard Stalin apologists defend his policy, saying that "well, it was cruel, but how else would they have built those canals & run those Siberian lumber mills"? In "Gulag Archipelago", gulag veteran Alexandr Solzhenitsyn challenges those people:

• What purpose did those canals serve?
• What was the cost of employing gulag guards in Siberia?

The White Sea Canal was built by gulag prisoners between 1931 and 1933. According to Wikipedia, 8,700 people died building the canal. It was never used heavily, and nowadays it take a dozen or so boats a day. The government is good at monopolizing resources, but has not been very good at delivering value in return. Not surprisingly, gulag labor was not very efficient.

Neither was this labor free. Solzhenitsyn pointed out that gulag guards in Siberia were paid double the rate of guards in Moscow, and they could retire in half the time. Needless to say, even pampered guards in Moscow were paid better than normal workers. So even with meager rations, no medicine and insufficient clothing, gulag workers' labor was far from free. It would have been more cost efficient to hire local people for many of the projects assigned to the gulag. Of course, Stalin often did not trust local people. I have read some speculation that Khrushchev scaled down the gulag project in part because it was not delivering much economic value to the motherland.

Of course, the red light cameras are not quite like the gulag. But they do dole out steep punishments to lots of law-abiding citizens. If they did not raise large amounts of revenue, they cameras would not be installed or maintained. They punish large numbers of normal people for "crimes" that we all commit, taxing them $100 at a time. As Bill James points out, no one would object to red light cameras if they sent you a warning, or fined you $10. It's the draconian fines that cause fear and resentment. Stalin would have been proud.