Interview

Well I've got three work projects going, I'm late for a doctor's appointment, and tons of stuff to do around the house -- in otherwords, the perfect time to make a new entry here. So before we get started on actual poker, first a few basics about me. I'll interview myself so that you can get a better feel for who I am (one of the advantages of schitzophrenia).

Me: When did you first take poker seriously?

Me: I've always played poker since I was a kid, but frequently it was the werewolf baseball kind of game. Two years ago, at my wife's family reunion in Las Vegas, I sat down at a 3-6 holdem game, and after a few hours I was sitting behind a vitual Mount Everest made of clay and plastic thinking to myself, "Hey, I could make money at this. I'm good. I wonder how a World Series of Poker bracelet would look on my wrist. I hope that they don't misspell my name when they put up my picture in the Poker Hall of Fame. Bwaah Ha Ha!! If only those bullies in the audio-visual department who used to steal my lunch money could see me now..."

Me: So what do you believe is the most important trait in a poker player? Reading people? Math skills? Card sense?

Me: Megalomania. All the other skills are secondary.

Me: So you play at casinos then? What about on-line poker sites?

Me: I haven't played any on-line poker. I spend way to much time with my computer, and I am afraid that if I get into on-line poker, I might as well get an internet connection wired directly into my skull. Living in the Los Angeles area, I have the advantage of being able to go to several poker rooms. Someone posted on their web-site what they considered to be the ten best places to play poker in the world. Four of those places are within an hour's drive of where I live. So I go through the effort to go out to casinos. Sort of like getting dressed up for the theatre. Well, not really but I look better than I do when I am sitting in front of my computer in my underwear and my bunny slippers.

Me: What about tells and such? How are you at those?

Me: One problem that I have is that my behavior really matters. On-line I could flop quads and run around the house screaming like Roger Rabbit, and all that the folks in the game would know is that I haven't done anything for half a minute. So although I have a disadvantage there (a friend of mine once told me that his Golden Retriever could hide his emotions better than me), I figure I might as well play the real live games. They are fun, and I certainly need to work on my abilities to hide or disguise my behavior, and to evaluate the behavior of others.

Me: So you enjoy playing games?

Me: I like games. All sorts of games. Strategy games, card games, board games, word games, party games, German tatical games, you name it. I will play chess for money with anyone as long as it is on a moving roller coaster. I think that I am the best player at Boggle as long as trash-talking is allowed. I play bridge fairly seriously. One of my ex-partners is waiting for me to grow out of this poker phase that I am in, although he fears that I have fallen on the Dark Side of the force.

Me: Recently, you have been playing a lot more tournaments. Does this reflect a change in the games that you prefer?

Me: Well. I like tournaments a lot more than ring games. They are finite chunks of time which are independent of the rest of reality. At the end of a tournament, you can say "I won," or "I took third," or "I took 207th out of 209." It's what I like about tournaments versus a ring game. It feels like a finite game, not a never ending continuum. I play games to escape life which does feel like that continuum.

Me: Speaking of which, you were once quote as saying that you found "Dungeons and Dragons" to be boring because it was too much like real life. Many people found that comment odd. Could you elaborate?

Me: Well this came up in a discussion about why I preferred tournaments over ring games. Poker ring games, dungeons and dragons, and real life do not have the ending where you can say how you did. No matter how much money you make at a poker game, you can always say that you could have done better, you could have played longer or quit earlier, but you can never say that you've won. You can artificially set a goal (like walking away with more money than you started), but did you really win a game where you walk away with a $50 profit where you were ahead by $500 at one point?
Similarly, in real-life, no matter how well I do I could always have made more money, have contributed more to society or my community, or have had more beautiful women throw their bodies at me. And speaking of fantasies, when playing Dungeons and Dragons, no matter how many treasures you find or monsters you kill, you can always do more. I really don't see much of a difference between the statement "Finish this project. We will pay you a salary during the project. If you do real well, we may give you stock options," and the statement "Finish this quest. You'll find gold pieces along the way. If you do real well, you may find the Amulet of Yendor."

Me: So there is no winning in ring-poker, Dungeons and Dragons, and real-life. Is there losing?

Me: Yes. You can always lose your entire bankroll, wind up drunk in a gutter dying of Tuberculosis, or end up as Purina dragon chow.

Me: So have you given up on ring games?

Me: No. I just need to treat them as part of the poker hobby. They are still more fun than many things that I do or have to do. They do have the advantage that you can go and play in one anytime and on any day. Tournaments need to be scheduled and planned. Ring games still appeal to me for that spur of the moment aspect.

Me: Thank you. Can we expect actual poker exploits soon?

Me: I hope so.