Who is this mustachioed gentleman gracing a poker blog? He is not a famous gambler of old. The ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche – one of the most influential philosophers in the last two hundred years – can pretty much be interpreted as having application everywhere, including poker.

He gets a bad rap because his writings have been co opted for nefarious political purposes in the twentieth century. *cough*Nazis*cough*

But despite that he has a great deal to say about humanity and, since it involves humans, has import when it comes to poker. An important theme of his writing was the notion of human feelings and actions; do they come from weakness or strength? He took nothing for granted. Judging an action is greatly influenced by that question. The very same feelings can be judged favorably in one instance if it is derived from strength and harshly in another if weakness is the motivating force.

So when a hard decision comes up at the table, the question to ask is, “am I acting out of weakness or strength?” Is folding top pair laudable in this instance or is it cowardly? If, having taken all the available information into account, the conclusion is that the hand is most likely to lose, then folding a strong hand would be coming from a place of strength. If however, a player had been bullied around in the hand and just wants to fold because a tougher player has scared and intimidated them, then that would be acting from weakness. It is both cowardly and does not befit a poker player worth his salt.

The same could be said for the converse situation. Ignorant pride and cockiness are tantamount to foolishness. It’s easy, especially after having done well at a table, to be too self assured and feel like every good hand is a winner. That is a recipe for getting taken by a slow played monster. If, by paying more attention to the available information, it is possible to determine that what looks like a strong hand won’t hold up, continuing to raise is foolish and ignorant – weakness.

For more on Nietzsche on this subject check out Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil. Actually he discusses it in many of his books. They’re all worth reading.

So there is finally new president on his way into the White House. He is going to have a litany of problems to deal with and I’m sure one of the most trivial will be regulating gambling. But it is of some concern to us so lets take a look at what sorts of things one might expect from President Obama.

He has made comments during the primary race that suggest he is wary of measures that expand the legalization of gambling in America. He has concerns for “moral and social costs” associated with gambling and its effects on the lower income segment of society. I think one can safely assume that  these concerns are driven primarily by economic ramifications.  I believe that most economists consider casinos and gambling to be, in the long run, detrimental to an economy. They provide high up front revenue, but the negative aspects that tend to assert themselves (not the least of which being crime and a depreciation of surrounding property value) significantly outweigh those benefits. Now I am no economist and am not familiar enough to say definitively that that is a prevailing view; so take it with a grain of salt.

Now, the reason I say it is primarily on economic grounds that he objects is in contrast to moral objections. He probably doesn’t have strong ones. He is a poker player. A pretty good one from first hand accounts. He would regularly come out on top at weekly games among Illinois political figures. He apparently knows the odds well and, like most things, he always plays to win. He is up for a game of poker like anyone else. His problems with gambling are from a purely pragmatic, social effects standpoint.

That might explain why he was not as strong in his opposition of online poker. In fact he wants an independent study done on the subject in order to be better informed and make the best possible decision. Sounds a lot like the play to win, methodical poker strategy he’s credited with.

Probably can’t say for sure what his final decisions on these matters will be, but he seems to embody the decision making capacities of a calm, dispassionate poker player, so I’m not worried. Whichever way he goes with this decision, or any others really, its a good bet that he can be trusted to make an informed, careful decision. Something this country has been sorely lacking.

Here are a couple of articles that might prove informative on this topic.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/18/nation/na-gambling18

http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/viewarticle.php?id=2920

The feeling of involvement and community at the polls makes any wait more than worthwhile. this is maybe the most historic election in american history. Don’t put yourself in a position to have to say, years from now, that you didn’t participate.

And just so you know, this is not coming from some blindly patriotic lemming who talks, every year, about rocking the vote and how your one vote really matters. I don’t normally vote. In fact I feel that voting is, in many ways a sublimation of one’s power to a system in which they have no voice anyway. But that is a very long discussion for another time. I’ve let my idealistic notions about voting give way to pragmatic concerns. This election is just too pragmatically important to not do what you can to affect this particular change.

And for god sakes, if there is any problem whatsoever with your ability to vote, don’t take it lying down. Report it to any number of hotlines, tell a journalist. Vote stealing and faulty machines as well as a litany of other concerns about the legitimacy of this election have already come up. As much as I don’t like voting to begin with, the idea of a stolen election is so sickening that it can’t be allowed to happen again. I don’t just mean 2000, but 2004 saw some of the most blatant, horrific voter fraud in this country’s recent history. That can’t happen again.

But, if you’ve read all this then you’re wasting valuable time. Some states will be closing VERY soon. So get out now, especially if you live in a swing state like I do.

Gamble with chips at the table, don’t gamble on the future of the country and the world.

I think last night’s debate showed that the obvious answer is Barrak Obama. Sorry for another only mildly poker related post so soon, but I would be remiss if I did not use my one and only bullhorn to a mass audience in an election as important as this.

Last night’s debate really showed how little emotional control John McCain really has. When you’re behind, in anything, the worst thing you can do is lose your cool. You can’t start acting all erattic on the poker table or in politics just because you’re taking some lumps.

Unfortunately for McCain, that is exactly what happened to him. He had fallen way behind over the course of the last few weeks. A combination of a crumbling economy and poor debate showings as well as myriad other factors gave Obama the boost he needed. On top of that, mere hours before last night’s debate, CNN revised their electoral map putting Virginia leaning toward the Obama camp; that was unthinkable for a republican in the recent past. Check out the link here. There’s even a slick little interactive map to tool around with

All that led to a belligerent, angry McCain. Obama, with his calm demeanor, just let him stomp and fume. He reasonably shot down McCains emotionally charged, ad hominem attacks. And with every relaxed retort, you could see the fluster on Johnny’s face. If I was at the table with him, I’d be check raising every round. All I can say is that McCain might do well to check out my post on the dangers of going on tilt. He’s already behind and a bad tilt now would clinch a victory for Obama

You can check out the debate here and judge for yourself.

1. Obama’s Legislative Accomplishments:

2. Obama’s Position on his Spiritual Advisor:

Obama’s spiritual advisor is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. According to a report by Ed Lasky in the American Thinker, Wright has a real bad attitude about Jews, white people and Israel, which he calls a racist state. He believes that black values are superior to middle class American values and that blacks should isolate themselves from the wider American society. He is a long-time friend of Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, who called Jews bloodsuckers.

Does Obama disavow this nutty minister’s nutty views? No.  But why? Is it because he was married by the nutty minister? Perhaps. Or is it because his daughters were baptized by the nutty minister? Perhaps. But what ever the explanation, it is no justification for his silence on the matter, a silence that suggests that Obama might share some of his nutty minister’s nutty views.

3. Obama’s Position on Iran:

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama opposed defining Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group. And he supports opening relations with Iran even if they continue to enrich uranium.

Not terrorists? Come now. The Guards arm and finance Hezbollah, which is certainly a terrorist group. What sort of mark of terrorism is Obama looking for?

Even if you plan on having negotiations with Iran, a country run by evil thugs, I don’t see the wisdom of going around saying this sort of thing. If this sort of foreign policy thinking reflects the way Obama plays poker, then he’s the biggest fish at the table.