My brother Dylan provided this interesting analysis about the “professional” advice that The Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper, includes as a daily feature on its comic page (Globe Review).
While the hands are interesting, the analysis ranges from mediocre to awful.
For example, the hand for Wednesday, May 30th, 2007 was:
World Poker Tour Season III: Invitational at the Commerce
Johan Storakers / 925,000 in chips / 10c 8c
Tom Everett Scott / 612,100 / 6d 6cPreflop:
“With the blinds at $8,000 and $16,000 with a $2,000 ante, Johan raised to $35,000 from the small blind. Scott reraised to $100,000 from the big blind. Johan called.”Flop: 7s 7h Ks
“Johan checked. Scott went all-in for $510,000. Johan folded.”Analysis:
“Scott won the hand with his aggressive play. With only $200,000 in the pot he could have made the bet smaller than he did and found out the same information. If he made it $300,000 Johan would have only re-raised with a better hand and Scott could fold if he was beat.”
This analysis is just plain wrong. If Scott had bet $300,000, a re-raise by Storakers means absolutely nothing as Scott is already pot-committed and is getting great odds on the call. Scott would be getting 5:1 on the final call (210,000 into a 1,014,000 pot). No pro alive would advocate folding in that spot.
Bad analysis, but the average reader probably doesn’t take a close enough look to care.
I have no passion or knowledge of poker or other gambling — I get too worked up to be a gambler.
What does my brother know? Am I participating in The Cult of the Amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture
I spent a period of time living in Nevada and was fascinated by the gambling culture. I enjoy playing cards with friends, but I like my money too much and like to keep it in my own pocket to ever really gamble.