Egoism
Individualism
Sovereignty
Splendor

(These ideas are explicated in this sloppy manifesto)

 
Indian takers to become Indian givers?

Not to belabor the issue of gaming, but it's something I spend a lot of time thinking about. And this is simply too rich! From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Cash-strapped states are becoming more aggressive in demanding to share revenues with tribes seeking to open gambling businesses, federal and American Indian representatives told a Senate panel Wednesday.

Such revenue sharing could lead to a significant expansion of tribal casinos on land outside of American Indian reservations, said Aurene Martin, the Interior Department's acting assistant secretary-Indian affairs.

Martin said states are "encouraging tribes to focus on selecting gaming locations on new lands based solely on market potential rather than exercising governmental jurisdiction on existing Indian lands."

The states need that Indian gaming dough, but Indian reservations were very purposely put on the absolute worst land, so we have to build fake reservations for Indian casinos in decent locations. Our Native American friends haven't come to the worst news yet, either. Those cash-strapped states--California needs $38 billion--will not be able to get enough lucre from Indian casinos. In very short order, we will see Nevada-style gaming legislation in states like California, Arizona, Florida. The newly-gaming-rich Inidians--and a million Las Vegans--should watch out for an arrow in the back.
posted by Greg Swann at 9:02 AM

 
New York Times discovers poker, fears the worst

The New York Times, taking note of Chris Moneymaker's win at the World Series of Poker, has found a new reason for fear:

While the Las Vegas hype machine focused on the rags-to-riches tale of a man who parlayed a $40 entrance fee into a huge pot, many poker players recognized that the amateur's success signaled the arrival of a new age in the game. Mr. Moneymaker may never have been in the same room as other players in a tournament of Texas Hold'em poker, but he had played extensively online, where the game is faster but the money is just as real. He was as much a rookie as Ichiro Suzuki, who joined the Seattle Mariners after nine years in the Japanese major leagues.

The online poker saloons that nurtured Mr. Moneymaker, 27, are just the beginning. Many players hone their craft with simulation software that allows them to test strategies by playing out thousands or even millions of hands. Some researchers are building software opponents that use sophisticated concepts from economics and artificial intelligence to seek out the best strategy, then use the knowledge to beat human players. The experience of playing thousands of games in roadhouses and casinos is being eclipsed by a cyborg-like intelligence produced by humans weaned on machine play.

There very last thing the New York Times wants is a sapient homo sapiens. Writer Peter Wayner's job is clearly safe, as he laboriously explains what it means to draw to an inside straight, but the article itself is pretty interesting. Nothing newsworthy to poker players, but informative to others in a glossed-over kind of way.

For those who care, and Wayner seems not to, successful poker is almost entirely about not making mistakes. Absent the rake, the game is zero sum in se. That is, in infinite iterations the fluctuations of chance distribute themselves evenly, such that perfect players would finish with what they started with. The variables in the real world are time, chance and the players, with the most siginficant being the players. Most people play poker very far from perfectly. Many people play incredibly badly, losing more money than they would if they played at random, losing more money than they would if they did nothing at all, just posted their requiired bets and folded every hand. This pandemic ineptitude is the ultimate source of all the money won by better poker players.

It's common to say that poker is not a game of cards played with money but a game of money played with cards. In fact, poker is a battle of wits, nothing else, a struggle to relieve the witless of the money they don't have sense enough to respect. As with everything else--who would expect otherwise?--the internet is massively raising the stakes. A global population of already-brainy people--who already reasearch-in-depth and practice-to-perfection everything they do--is going to eat the extant poker world for lunch. The New York Times see this as an ominous portent. I see it as an opportunity.
posted by Greg Swann at 8:26 AM

SplendorQuests