A fun listen: Ante Up! podcast

I just finished listening to episodes 1 through 34 of the Ante Up! podcast at lunch today. It's an entertaining listen with several literal laugh-out-loud moments. Want to know how to play against a drunk? How to irritate other players? Why one poker video game gets an "M"ature rating, while others get an "E"veryone (hint: don't ask Mrs. TJ Cloutier)? How to tell if you're a degenerate gambler?

For a taste of the podcast, I'd highly recommend episode 33, their "best-of" show.

Wil Wheaton busts out John Juanda at WPT Invitational

Read the whole report at CardSquad.com:

A little bit later, this sweet girl named Marissa moved to our table. I guess she's on the TV show Stacked. She didn't have many chips, and the pros took what little she had by moving against her on the flop, pretty much regardless of their cards. She had never played poker before last night, and though she was in over her head with these guys, she was clearly having fun, and even said that she was just looking for a good hand to bust out on, so she could go out with some dignity.

Allen eventually busted her with 93o vs. her A-little, when he paired his three. She was a really sweet girl, and we were all sad to see her go. Especially when her seat was filled by John Juanda.

Some of you may have read that I busted John. This is true, but it's not as exciting or masterful as you may think. John was crippled when Jason flopped Broadway for the nuts, and John made aces up on the turn. A few hands later, Daniel Negreanu came running over to our table with some guy I didn't recognize, and said to John, "Can you eat ten Saltines in sixty seconds?"

"What?" John said, and everyone else at the table thought.

"Saltine crackers. Can you eat ten of them in sixty seconds?"

John thought for a second while he looked at his cards.

"Yeah, I think I can," he said.

"Okay!" Daniel said, with a little hop. "Juanda is my horse! You get half my action, John."

"Let's do it!" John said, and shoved his last 1000 or so into the pot. It was folded to me, and I figured that the BB and I were calling based strictly on odds and probably checkint it down. That is, until I woke up with pocket aces.

"I have to raise," I said. While I thought about what amount would get the BB to maybe call with something that I could survive, he folded J2o face up.

"Go ahead and play it out," he said. "I'm not playing this."

I flipped up my aces, and John flipped up KQ. I flopped an ace, busted John Juanda, and ended up with about 16K after the whole thing was said and done. John and I shook hands, and the WPT cameras captured the whole thing. Daniel was putting on quite a show for them, calling for cards and stuff, and it was pretty funny, so it stands a good chance of making the broadcast, especially if I make it deep today.

Second best hand ever = minimal payoff

On Tuesday night, playing four 2¢/4¢ tables at a time, I'm dealt K6o in the big blind. When it gets to me, I check. The flop comes K9K. The small blind checks, I'm in for my 2¢, five others call (SB folds), and the turn comes... the case King. I've hit quads on the turn.

Unfortunately, three of the kings are on the scary looking board, which makes my chances for milking this out of position really slim. If I go in for 4¢, my only hope is that someone with a 9 will play agressively. If I were to try a checkraise, there's a huge chance that it'd check around, and I'd get nothing. I go in for 4¢. The guy to my left calls, and the other four players fold. No big payoff today.

The river's a blank, I go in for 4¢, and the guy to my left calls, showing an ace. Whoopty doo: 18¢ profit on quad kings.

(Incidentally, by best hand ever was a decade or so ago when I drew a 45678 straight flush in a five-card-draw game on a Scout trip. My third best was quad queens last May at the Seminole Hard Rock, at the $1/$2 limit table, which also didn't end up paying out very much.)

300% Bonus; Caro power

Last night was a good night for me at the old home game. Ted, Shrek, Phil, and TMIB showed up, and over the course of about three hours, I grew my $10 buy in to $40.

Early on, TMIB asked about playable hands. For example, K5 offsuit, or what I like to call, "the home team". I advised that I'd never play it, but Shrek said that he'd call from the small blind, but would fold if the big blind raised. The very next hand, Shrek's on the small blind, it's folded to him, Phil raises, and Shrek folds, showing the home team.

The home team was good to me last night, because after that, I just couldn't fold it any of the three times I got it. Two of the three times, my king paired, and I won the pot. The third time, my five paired, and although I got to the end cheaply, it didn't hold up.

Two monster hands made my night, though. The first one, against Shrek, I get pocket aces on the big blind. Ted folds, Shrek puts in "a Ruleslawyer bet," which means 75¢, indicating he's got a hand, Phil folds, TMIB folds, and I raise "another Ruleslawyer bet" to $1.50. Shrek calls, and the flop is Tc8c2d. I bet $2, and Shrek goes all in for another $6.75. I discuss my thought process out loud to the table: "A pair of tens isn't an all-in hand, so he's got to have better than that. If he had two pair, he'd play it slower, to suck me in. Therefore, he's gotta be on a flush draw, holding a couple clubs. I've got Ac, so if we get runner runner clubs, I'd still win. With two cards left to come, he's got about a 40% chance to make it. Another $6.75 is less than 50% of the pot, so it makes sense for me to stay in. But he could be playing two pair. Should I fold these?"

I think about it a bit more, then stack up $6.75 in chips, and ask Shrek "$6.75?", watching him closely. He flinches and gulps.

Caro power.

I call. He turns over TxKc. His pair of tens doesn't improve by the river. I bring in a big pot and knock Shrek out.

About an hour of dealing, and Shrek's made enough in tips to come back into the game, and quickly triples it up to about $3. He had been playing lousy hands agressively, winning all-ins with hands like T8o. Then, I get pocket aces on the button, Shrek on the big blind. Phil folds, TMIB folds, I put in 75¢, Ted folds, and Shrek goes all in for $2.50 or so. As soon as the words "all-in" leave his mouth, I call and turn over my aces. Poor guy. He shows his wired threes, which don't hit the flop, and runs into an ace on the turn.

Ted did well, only down 80¢ for the night. Phil was down a couple of bucks, and TMIB ended up ahead, I think. Good times.

Sklansky + Microlimits = Profit

I can't say enough about Sklansky's Small Stakes Hold 'em, which, as I mentioned last week, I read before losing $50 at $1/$2 limit at Commerce Casino. I've been using its strategies intently at the 2¢/4¢ tables, and over the last week, have ended up...

2/7/06: +1.54
2/8/06: +1.74
2/9/06: -0.25
2/11/06: +1.17
2/14/06: +0.66
2/15/06: +1.56
Total: +6.42

In a nutshell, Sklansky says that at these no fold 'em tables, where any two cards can win, you're not going to scare off weak hands with agressive betting. Your pocket aces are a 6:1 favorite, but you'll see the river with four other people often enough that you're gonna get them cracked, frequently.

My inclination was to tighten up my play, paying monster pairs and maybe AK, AQ. Skalnsky points out that when you fold hands like T9s in the face of a 9-player limped-in pot, you're losing money; the pot odds are in your favor.

Instead, I've been watching the pot odds a lot more closely -- with five others in pre-flop, yeah, it makes sense to go in with A5s.

Sklansky's other advice is that when you get to the river, in these loose games, it's almost always a mistake to fold in the face of a bet. With a 40¢ pot, a 4¢ call gives you 10:1 pot odds, so you'd better be at least 90% sure that the other guy is bluffing. And in these games, you can't be 90% sure of anything.

Expect to see and lose a lot of hands, but those that you win, you'll win big. $1 pots haven't been uncommon.

(Side note: Before reading Small Stakes Hold 'em, I'd been sucessfully trying to play less than 20% of all hands pre-flop, including the blinds. In the last 163 hands, it's been 46%.)

Fear the AJo

I was party to an interesting series of hands tonight, started by my win of $1.57 (net $1.20) in a single hand of 2¢/4¢. I'm dealt AcJd, one off the button at an eight-player table. One player folds, the rest of the players limp to me. I raise to 4¢. The button calls, the small blind raises to 6¢, everyone stays in, I call, and the button caps it. Everyone calls; the pot's at 56¢ already, pre-flop.

The flop is Ad4c9d. Top pair, top kicker.

Small blind checks, big blind bets, the next three players limp, and I raise. Button calls, big blind raises(!), two limpers stay in and one folds. I re-raise to cap it at 8¢, and the four other players call. The pot is at 98¢.

The turn is As, giving me top set, top kicker. Nice. It's checked to me, I bet, the button calls, the big blind raises, the two limpers call, I re-raise, the button folds, and the big blind calls. I can smell her fear now; I put her on a big flush draw. The limpers call. The pot is $1.40.

The river's a Qh, so the blind's missed her flush. It's checked to me, I bet, the big blind folds, and the limpers call.

I take down the $1.52 pot. The limpers show A6o (with the 9 and Q on the board, his 6 kicker was worthless) and KQo (WTF?).

Over the next six hands, two more players get AJo and win with it.

Then, seven hands later, I'm dealt AJo again, and win a smaller 44¢ pot when I river the ace against Q5o, with a board of J4Q-3-A. Good times.

While Sklansky's book didn't help me on Monday, it's improved my online play a bit.

To Seahawks and fans: don't sweat the bad beat

Chris Sprow of the Chicago Sports Review commisserates with the Seachickens, but warns of the danger for the team and the fans going on tilt.

The most dangerous person at a poker table is often the one who takes a "bad beat," which is poker terminology for playing a hand well, only to see the flop go against you, or your opponent to have made a hand that was statistically unexpected. It is a common term in poker, mostly used by people to describe their own play. It applies in other sports as well, for we all know that nobody ever loses because they played poorly, the cards just didn't go their way.
...
Seattle is in the same position now. Perhaps more than any team in Super Bowl history that doesn't have a kicker named Scott Norwood, they genuinely feel they lost a game that for moments, was in their grasp. They had the cards, they feel they played them well in most cases, and, from their perspective, the refs dealt them a death blow. Whether it was fate or conspiracy, they only know the franchise is languishing in despair.

Yesterday, when the Seahawks arrived home to a stadium where over 15,000 fans awaited them, Mike Holmgren drew a huge cheer (and probably an equally significant fine) when he said, "We knew it was going to be tough going against the Pittsburgh Steelers. I didn't know we were going to have to play the guys in the striped shirts as well."
...
Any team dealt such a hand needs to smart for a moment. The question is, will Seattle's fans be wise enough to eventually drop it, leave the conspiracy theories behind, and address the future, which, to anybody with some football sense, looks bright?

The fact is, those who spend too much time licking their own wounds can lose their taste for anything else. Namely, winning.

Seattle, an organization with class players and coaches, will recover quickly if they leave behind what was truly a bad beat.

Hopefully their fan base will allow them.

I must still be doing something wrong; (-$50)

Back in LA this week, and I've spent a lot of time last week, and on the plane down, reading Sklansky's Small Stakes Hold 'em. After my last visit to the $1/$2 no fold 'em tables (net result: about -$100 over three losing sessions), I knew I had to do something to play better. Tight but agressive didn't work. Super tight didn't work. Insane loose isn't something I'd dare to try -- the reason I'm at the $1/$2 tables is because I treasure my measly bankroll, and the variance would be too much playing hands like 83o every time.

After reading Sklansky, I realized that part of my problem was my tendency to fold hands that will very frequently lose, even though the pot odds said stay. For example, Sklansky writes:

For example, say you have 8d7d in the big blind. Four players limp, and the button raises. The small blind folds. You call, as do the limpers (12.5 small bets). The flop is Th7c5c

You check, and everyone else checks to the button, who bets. You should raise. You have middle pair and a [runner runner] backdoor straight draw. You estimate its worth at about five outs (the two-flush and the coordinated nature of the board lower the value of your hand somewhat). For a five out draw, you need the pot to lay about 8-to-1 to continue. Getting 13-to-1, you clearly should at least call. ... When the pot is large, invest extra bets if doing so improves your chance to win.

He later continues:

In small stakes games where many of your opponents play too many hands and go too far with them, the pots will often be big. This means that hands that will win only a small percentage of the time are still frequently good enough to pay off on the river, and some questionable raises can also be correct.

Several times, I got decent starting hands, ended up with overcards on the flop, the pot odds to six outs were good on the flop and river, and they never paired.

I won two hands all night (three hours). I sat down at a newly opened table, and got dealt KK in middle position. I bet it agressively, and ended up +$12 for the hand when my final opponent folded on the river.

The other winning hand I got dealt A9o on the small blind, and the flop came A99. My mistake on that hand was failing to raise it on the flop, hoping to keep people in (a mistake that Sklansky points out repeatedly). The turn and river were rags, but the guy to my right was the only other person in at the river, with AQ.

Otherwise, hands that I played the pot odds with never came through. Six times I had a flush draw on the turn and river; I hit it twice. The first time it hit I lost to a bigger flush. The second time I lost to a full house (fives over threes).

My pocket tens lost to pocket kings (mostly low board with a scary but ultimately harmless Q on the flop). My AKs and AKo never hit.

And my final hand, Qd9d, hit the flop which came 8Q3 rainbow, which I bet agressively in late position after it was checked to me and raised by the under-the-gun. Several players stayed in for the turn, but by the time it got to my final $3 all-in on the river, it was me and the UTG (one to the right of the button), who turns over his 83o for two pair. Sigh.

That's my bankroll for the week. It'll be a while before I hit brick and mortar play again.

Big stacks (of windows)

I've had five consecutive bad tourney finishes (i.e., out of the money, most by losing 45%/55% races), so it's temporarily back to the 2¢/4¢ limit games. They're obviously looser than, well, her, so the strategy, as always, is to play tight tight tight.

This leads to a generally boring game, so I spiced it up tonight by playing three tables at once. This worked well, and I ended up ahead on all three tables when the night was done. A few times, I had to act on two tables at the same time, and accidentally called once when I should have folded, but I think it really kept me more disciplined. Heck, I folded pocket kings when faced with a re-raise following an Ace on the turn. And pocket jacks when the flop came AQx. Those have always been hard hands for me to get away from.

But... on to the hand of the night:

Eight players, and I'm dealt QJo; I'm one off the button. Pre-flop, all but one player are in, so I call too, and the big blind raises 2¢. Everyone, including myself, calls. Two more cents to win 28¢? I'm liking those odds.

The flop is 3TQ rainbow. The question in my mind: pair of queens... is my J kicker good enough? I think so. BB checks, UTG bets 2¢, two callers and a folder later, I raise to 4¢. The button and SB folds, and the three remaining players call. At this point, I figure an overpair, AQ, or KQ would have re-raised, so I'm feeling good.

The turn's a 7. It's checked to me (my read: nobody's got a queen), and I bet 4¢. Two callers and a fold. Vey nice.

The rivers a 2. No straight possibilities, no flushies, it's checked to me, and I bet 4¢. BB calls, the last player folds, and BB shows TK for a pair of tens. I collect the 66¢ pot, net +50¢ for the hand, and net +96¢ for the night.

It's about time I won one of those. If this was last night, the river would have been a K.

Goonies 2: Dead, dead, dead

IGN Interviews Richard Donner: Part Two says:

IGNFF: A Goonies sequel has been discussed for years. I know you've gotten this question a million ways over the years, but the fans just want to know if there is still any hope. Do you think it could ever happen?

DONNER: We tried. No, I don't think so. We tried really hard. Steven and I, we pitched a couple of things to them and, quite honestly, they weren't right. And we put it aside. If I could ever find a really good handle on a screenplay for it, I'd go pitch it again, because talking about [something] I'd want to see… It's extraordinary. But it's got to be right, or don't do it, because I couldn't believe that movie. It's done to generations of kids what it's done.

IGNFF: I've shown Goonies to young kids recently, around 7 and 8 years old and they loved it. They watched it and were totally enraptured. They kept the DVD and watched it over and over.

DONNER: Awww.

IGNFF: Now they love to quote Chunk.

DONNER: You know, I still stay in touch with these kids. Chunk's a lawyer and he's great. Cory, he's doing great. He went through some s***, but he's really pulled himself out and he's clean and married and has a baby and he's the happiest kid. They're all good, they're all great. I love that movie. That's probably my favorite process of filmmaking in my life. I've fallen in love with all those kids. I was lucky because I never had kids. I never wanted kids. I wanted dogs. If I could come up with a really great concept, I would take it to Steven. And if it was really right, he'd know it too. Maybe one day Chris Columbus will write it for us and we'll get back to the old group.

Paying $60 a cache

Thanks to DarthSlumlord for pointing me to Skysite.com. From their FAQ:

Space Data launches SkySite's(a communication relay device) via helium balloons. They fly up to 100,000 feet and "loiter" for 12 to 24 hours, providing a coverage area of about 400 mile in diameter. Their system cam be used for tracking vehicles, relaying data from remote oil or gas wells, provide text messaging or business communications in remote areas where no "land line" or cell phone service exists.
...
Because of the wide ranging areas where the SkySites can land, its impractical for Space Data to recruit and hire employees all around the United States to recover SkySites. That's where SSRS(www.skysite.com) comes in. SSRS was convinced that geocachers would be the perfect group to take on the challenge of finding and recovering SkySites. After all, they have the required equipment, they have honed the necessary skills required to search better than bloodhounds for caches that are hidden on purpose.
...
All SOGS [SkySites on Ground] pay $60, unless other wise noted, for Recovery and Return to a SDC launch site.

When a SOG is found by a "Third Party" (someone not connect with the program) find a SOG, they call into the 800 number on the SOG to Space Data. Space Data then sends me that TP contact info and I post that info on the website on the Third Party page. All TP SOGS pay $60 unless otherwise noted.

According to the map, they're mostly in the San Antonio area, but some are located as far north at the north Texas border. Not much use for us here in the great North-wet, but next time I'm down that way, I might give it a try.

The adrenaline of heads up

At a $2+$0.20 SNG, I'm in the money (either $3.60 or $8.40), heads up against SID4515, who has a much larger stack than me (about 5000 to my 1000). After several, several plays, and a few lucky all-in's, the blinds are at 150/300, and I've gotten up to 2,420. I've been using my heads-up strategy of tossing or calling the weak hands, and raising with Kx, Ax, or two paint cards, and bluffing when I get two black cards. It's worked well.

But now, first to act pre-flop, I've got a beauty -- pair of nines (black, so there's no way I'm holding back here). I go all in. SID4515 calls - and shows his pair of threes (club and heart). I can taste the money now. Kim's in the room, and I'm hooting -- "pair of nines" -- here's the flop -- "and a nine on the board". It's 4d9d2h.

Even a three can't save him now. My first $2.20 first place seat is mine. The turn's As. "Whoo hoo!" I yell to Kim. "You're playing for real money right now?" she asks. "Yup." I answer smugly.

The river's a 5c.

Dealer: LauricT shows three of a kind
Dealer: SID4515 shows straight
Dealer: Winner is SID4515 with straight
Dealer: LauricT has finished tournament in 2 place.
Dealer: Sid4515 has finished tournament in 1 place.

I congratulate him on a well played game, and sulk.

I enjoy the rush of these heads-up tournament showdowns, but perhaps it's telling that at the $2+$0.20 level, I'm 0-for-4 in them.

Thou Shalt Play Texas Hold 'Em

The Calgary Sun - Poker has holy spirit:

Pastor John Van Sloten intends to preach to his congregation about the positives of poker during his sermon tomorrow [Jan 30] at the New Hope Christian Reformed Church.

"Right now, everybody's interested in poker -- in Texas Hold 'Em, in particular," Van Sloten said yesterday.
...
So, said Van Sloten, officials of the church that meets Sundays at the West Hillhurst Community Centre on 19 St. and 6 Ave. N.W., believe there is good in the card game for God's faithful.

And he'll make that the theme of his sermon for 300-some gatherers -- plus hundreds more via its Internet feed -- during tomorrow's service beginning at 10:10 a.m.

"In my view, poker has a lot to teach us about ourselves and even about God," said Van Sloten, who has, in the past, preached the positives about the TV program The Simpsons and the heavy metal band Metallica.

Late play, late luck

It's very late in a 6 player $1+$0.10 SNG, and there's still four players left. Blinds are at 200/400, and I'm in the big blind. The guy to my right +left+ is going all-in for 755, and the button and small blind fold. I'm holding a crappy 23o, but for 355 more, I might luck out and knock this guy out. I'm the big stack with about 2800 in chips, and I call his all-in. He shows QTo. The board comes 925-2-3, giving me a full house. Great oogly moogly.

So now I'm facing this situation, two hands later: three players left, I'm on the button, and the big blind has a stack similar to me. The big blind only has about 340, so he's going to be blinded out. I get KJo, and try to scare off the small blind with an 800 raise. He calls instead.

The flop is QA2, giving me four to the straight, but those are scary cards. The small blind bets 400, and I'm left with a quandry. The big blind was the smallest stack coming into the hand, so if we both lose, I'm in the money in second place. Since the small blind is representing a strong hand, I'm thinking he's going to beat both of us, so I raise another 400 to scare him out, in case he's got a weak hand. He calls, as expected.

The turn's a 9. I all-in my final 960 and get called. The river's another Q.

I've got nothing but a king; the other two players turn over A7 (small blind) and A3 (forced big blind), giving them each two pair (AAQQ9), and me nothing (AKQQJ). I'm out in third, out of the money. Who'da thought?

(Yes, the right move was to fold when I saw the ace, and let the other guy try to knock the tiny stack out.)

That was a crazy game of poker

The Lord Admiral Card Club podcast has OAR's Crazy Game of Poker (last disc, track 2) as its theme song; the Ante Up! podcast uses it as their internal bumper music. I downloaded the whole song yesterday -- it's an odd yet enjoyable reggae country tune.

It also describes a hand last night where I lost a good chunk of money. More on that later.

My favorite hand last night was when I got into a pot heads up against Darthslumlord. I'm holding 89c in the big blind, and there's two clubs on the flop. As would be expected, we both check (or was it a 75 cent bet and call?) to get the turn, which is another club. I've hit my flush. I bet small, to keep Bill in. He comes over the top for $2, I think. I assess the situation, and conclude that because he's played the same way I did, he hit his flush, too. And I'm certain that his flush is higher than mine. I fold, he shows his A5c, nut flush. Great lay-down on my part. That's $1.25 I saved on the turn, and who knows how much on the river.

But the big money-losing hand was late in the night, against Trestin (Tres, correct me if I'm wrong about any part of this hand -- it was late and I don't remember the betting amounts clearly). I got dealt pocket 9h 9d in early position. I bet my standard "I've got a hand" bet of 75 cents. Everyone but Tres bailed; he called. The flop is Qc 2c 8c. Hmm... I check. Tres checks.

The river's a 9s. I've hit my set. There's a flush possibility out there, though, and if we get a club on the river, I'll be scared. I need to bet to scare him out, to make the pot odds not worth drawing to the flush. I bet $3. He calls. He's either got two pair (Q8?) or top pair with top kicker (QA).

The river's As. Nice -- if he had QA, he's got top two pair, so I'm expecting a good call from him, or better. I bet $3, and he comes back with a raise to $8. I call.

He shows the Ac 5c he slow played -- he hit the nut flush on the flop. Brutal yet beautiful play. Kudo's to Tres.

Roulette is hazardous to your bankroll. Duh. BRT.

Noble Poker recently added double-zero roulette to their system (house edge: a brutal 5.4%), and I'd avoided it up until yesterday. Back in 2004, when I was on a major hot streak, about half my $1800 in winnings came from poker; the other half was single-zero roulette (2.7% house edge) and Pontoon blackjack (0.17% house edge). The hot streak ended when I went on tilt at the roulette wheel, and lost more than I care to admit (I was up well over $2000 before I dropped back to $1800 and cashed out).

Within the week, the site I was playing on (Phoenician) closed up its card room and went exclusively to table games. Coincidence? I chose to avoid the online poker scene for several months afterwards, starting back up last fall with a freeroll win of a no-strings attached $2 at Noble Poker.

As of Wednesday night, I'd built my online bankroll up to $15, finally having enough to play in the $1 SNG without worrying about a losing streak. Then, for some dumb reason, after winning $4.80 as the first place prize, I went to the roulette wheel and lost $1, a dime at a time, hitting lucky 9 and coming out $2.60 ahead.

Yesterday was similar; a few tourneys, up $2.30, and a horrid session at the wheel dropping me below where I started. This, combined with three later bad tourney beats (including the brutal 56o in the BB, losing to 76s UTG, with a board of 765-6-Q, going all-in on the turn), dropped me back below $10.

No more roulette for me, for at least six months. You may taunt and smite me if I do.

Syberia

I bought Syberia last week (WalMart, $9.88), and finished it yesterday. The premise of the game: You are New York attorney Kate Walker, and you've been sent to a small town in the French alps to tie up the sale of an old toy factory. Once you arrive, you discover that the owner has passed away, and your adventure of finding the heir begins.

My review (also posted at Amazon) follows:

I hate "find the pixel" type adventure games, where if you don't see the key hidden in the background, you're stuck forever. I encountered this thrice in the game (once in the notary's office, once on the factory platform, and once at the cosmodrome), but online walkthrus helped me out.

This is an absolutely gorgeous flick. I went into this game expecting it to be more of an interactive movie than an adventure game, and I wasn't disappointed. Sure, the premise is a bit thin (but think of all the billable hours her firm's getting!), but once you decide to suspend disbelief and just immerse yourself in the world, it's very entertaining, for about ten hours.

But, Kate Walker, you'll discover, Kate Walker, that your robot engineer becomes really irritating, Kate Walker, really quickly, Kate Walker.

It's definitely a good pickup for $10 or less. I encountered no technical issues on my two-year-old laptop, except that the intense graphics drained the battery in about 45 minutes.

Tourney loss, loss, win, win

I played the $1 + .10, six player sit-n-go tourneys at Noble for the first time, starting yesterday. First place gets $4.20, second gets $1.80.

My first tourney, I placed third, going in with the small stack with K9o. Down $1.10.

My second tourney, I placed third, getting drawn out by an inside straight. Down $2.20 total.

My third tourney, I placed second, surviving with a small stack, 900 to 5100, for quite a while, before losing to a pair of 8's with my AJo. Down $1.50 total.

My fourth tourney, I placed first. My win on the first hand with AKo, knocking out two others and giving me 3000 in chips helped a lot; winning a race with my AKo against pocket queens locked it up. A monster bluff with a board of J-5-3-5-5 helped a lot, too (he folded, I showed, he was demoralized). Up $1.60 total.

Best blonde joke ever

It's a good one.

Children's Casino Opens in Prague

Children's Casino Opens in Prague.

Hmmm... is Chuck E. Cheese a "casino"? The ball roll and mole whacking games are games of skill (cf. poker, of course) and not games of chance (blackjack, roulette, craps). The article is light on details, but it sounds to me like it's more the former than the latter (in spite of CardSquad's take on the story).

To further blur the line, however, the coolest Chuck E. Cheese "skill games" area I've ever seen was at Circus Circus in Vegas, just a chip's throw away from the blackjack tables.

Would you let a 14-year-old spend their allowance at Chuck E. Cheese?
Would you let a 14-year-old spend their allowance at poker?
Would you let a 14-year-old spend their allowance at blackjack?
Would you let a 14-year-old spend their allowance at roulette?

Where would you draw the line, and why? What if the kid's 10, or 6?

The first children's casino & amusement park in Prague has recently opened. The atmosphere in the casino resembles a real-life Vegas-style casino, with many electronic gambling machines. The main “audience" is made up of preschool children, who buy the casino's golden coin “counters.” The minimum purchase is 40 counters, with each one costing five crowns (approximately 20 cents).

In addition, the facility holds the Czech Republic's largest climbing frame and a wall for simulated mountain climbing. However, those two draw less of an audience – and even fewer profits – than the children's casino. When the children succeed in winning at the casino's games, they receive more chips, which they may use to play again or buy toys. Currently, the big jackpot is a kiddie version of a Harley Davidson motorbike, which costs 32,000 chips.

The casino, highly inspired by similar US venues, draws many controversial opinions from parents and psychologists. Some parents bring their children, along with big groups of their friends, to celebrate birthday parties. Some even return to the casino on a regular basis, bringing their children with them. However, many fear that the casino could cause their precious children to develop horrible gambling problems, which could ruin their future. They base this fear on the fact that many children “fall in love” with the gaming machines after just one visit and ask to return for another visit very soon.

One mother reported to a local paper that, although the casino could be a splendid thing, she fears the outcome might be bad. She continues allowing her child's visits to the casino because she doesn't want to spoil his fun. The head doctor of the ward for addiction treatment at the Prague-Bohnice psychiatric hospital, psychiatrist Karel Nespor, publicized his opposition to the children's casino, citing that, although the casino might seem harmless, it still amounts to gambling, which is illegal for people under the age of 18.

Others take the safe stand of the middle-ground. Psychologist Vaclav Mertin reported that he would neither fear nor support the casino. He claims that one must remember that children's future development depends on their family and parental upbringing as well, hinting that the casino alone cannot be held as the reason for gambling problems. Another psychologist advises parents to monitor their children, and not be worried unless kids begin spending their entire free time playing at the casino.