Worst Beat I Have Seen to Date

One night after the previous post I was at the table while I watched one of the worst beats I have ever seen. Fortunately, I was NOT in the hand. It went something like this:

($1/$2 no-limit table. Three big stacks ($500 or more) at the table and I'm fortunate to be one of them)

Pre-Flop: Kyle (who is under the gun), raises to $6. Everyone folds to the SB who calls for $5 more. BB folds. Heads up to the flop (which was VERY rare at this table - it was loose all night). The two guys are nearly even in chips - only about $10 difference. With the rake the pot is $11.

Flop: QdJs9h. A flop which hit both players and scared them both at the same time (as we will find out later) SB bets out for $10. Kyle raises to $40. SB calls. Pot is now $87.

Turn: Qh. Now, this is a scare card for both players - and, at the same time - hit both players (again, as we will find out later). SB bets $20. Kyle raises to $60. SB tanks for about 2 minutes. He then pushes all in for about a total of $575. Kyle now tanks. And, while thinking starts talking to me (we had been chatting all night). He says, "He can't have K 10. He wouldn't have bet the flop that way. He can't have a boat, he wouldn't have bet the turn that way - nor re-raised me all in." So, I'm thinking Kyle must have a Q. Perhaps a big Queen. Maybe AQ. But, with AQ, it's really, really hard to call that all-in bet. SB could have K 10 or even worse he could have something like Q9 (which would be the case Q so unlikely), or JJ, or 99. So, the all-in move was a really, really good raise. What happened next was even better. Kyle figured that raise wouldn't happen with the straight nor the boat, so, he called! Sure enough, Kyle flips over AsQs. And, SB turns over Q6c. What a phenomenal call. The pot is now about $1200. The all in may have been a great raise, but that call was amazing.

River: Yes, since you know the title of this post, you can probably guess what card hit the river. After Kyle's great call, the river came 6s - and SB filled up, sucked out, and took down the pot for $1200. Kyle, needless to say, took a short break away from the table to cool off before coming back to buy in again.

Best Night Yet

Two hours at the Regina Casino tonight ($1/$2 no-limit), saw maybe a total of 10 flops in those two hours - walked away with huge profits - thanks to some good cards and some very fishy calls by opponents. Three hands:

1. Mid position; pocket 9's. Three callers before me, I raise it to $8. One caller after me and BB (who had just sat down with a $200 stack, so this was his first hand) raises to $18. Two of the previous limpers call. I watched the BB when he raised and had a very funny feeling he was on KK or AA. But, with me being already at half price and three people already in (and one more to act behind me), I thought I needed to call at that point and hope to hit my set. Guy behind me calls - 5 in for $18 Sure enough, flop comes 942 - two clubs. I'm a bit worried about the clubs and want to push the flush draws away. First two players check, and I bet $75 - almost the size of the pot. Guy behind me folds. BB tanks (he's trying to think if I've got AA; I'm sure he doesn't see my set)...and was ready to fold his hand but then came over the top for the remainder of his stack - all-in. The other two callers fold - and I instantly call (duh!). Sure enough, he flips over KK and as he did he said, "Nice rockets" - when I flipped over my set. Pot of around $460.

2. Same guy in the BB from the hand before bought in for another $200. He's talking it up big now, saying how it was a bad beat on the previous hand where I got him. This is now about 20 hands later - and he's chirping. I'm in the SB now, he's mid position. I hold KQ offsuit He raises to $6, three other callers before me, BB calls after. Flop of K7K rainbow. I check, guy behind me bets $21, chirping guy calls, three others fold, and I raise to $50. BB folds quickly and chirping dude tanks again. I figured him to be on tilt so thought the check-raise would tick him off enough that he'd come over the top. Sure enough, he blurts out, "Quit bullying me! My 7 is good! I'm all-in!" So, again, instant call - and take down another $450 pot.

3. I'm in the SB, Q6 diamonds. The entire table calls so of course I call for $1. Flop - Kd, 8d, 9c. I check. Chirpy dude bets out $5. Now, remember, the pot is already at $18. His bet makes it $23 and there are 4 more callers. I am so priced into this flush draw that I can't fold even if I wanted to. Turn is 4 spades. I check. Chirpy bet's $7 and I'm thrilled. I'm am totally priced in - especially when all 4 other guys call too. River - you guessed it - 2d. Board is Kd 8d 9c 4s 2d I flushed. So, I check. Chirpy bets $75, two guys call and I decide that since I'm not holding the absolute nuts to just flat call. Chirpy turns over A8 - with no diamond. The other callers didn't flush either. Another $375 pot my way.

I decided that enough was enough, stacked my chips and walked away. One always should play the other players and not one's cards, but boy, does it ever help to get the cards too.

I had the privilege yesterday of attending some afternoon meetings where a preeminent educator from Bath, England (who shall remain nameless) was presenting. I had the even better fortune of sitting down for a pint of Guinness with him after the events and we talked about life, education, and spiritual matters. A fascinating discussion.

At one point in the discussion, he mentioned that he went to school with one, now famous, Richard Dawkins. So, I asked, "And what is your perspective on his work?" And, without skipping a beat, he quickly snapped back, "Ah, yes, the 'Dawkins Delusion'." The discussion turned at that point, but not before he mentioned that Dawkins has always been quite proficient at running himself into deep traps from which there is no escape - and quickly called him one of the most fundamentalist thinkers he's met in quite some time (while judging everyone else's fundamentalism).

Thot you'd appreciate that insight, Gil - not that it is surprising or different from anything you've posted or commented on before.

Best Read of the Summer

Yes, I'm aware it is no longer officially summer, but it was warm enough this afternoon to sit on my deck and read - so I'm still counting it that way. In that light, let me share with you a quote from the best read I've had in a while - from "A Brief History of Everything" by Ken Wilber. I'd encourage anyone to pick up this book. A fascinating philosophical approach to a unified theory of the Kosmos (spelling correct). Anyway, here is a very provocative quote from p38:

(Speaking of the fact that self transcendence and creativity is woven into the very fabric of the universe), Religious creationists have seized upon the increasingly obvious truth that the traditional scientific explanation does not work very well. Creativity, not chance builds a Kosmos. But it does not follow that you can then equate creativity with your favorite and particular God. It does not follow that into this void you can postulate a God with all the specific characteristics that make you happy - God is a the God of only the Jews, or only the Hindus, or only the indigenous peoples, and God is watching over me, and is kind, and just, and merciful, and so on. We have to be very careful about these types of limited and anthropomorphic characteristics, which is one of the reasons I prefer "Emptiness" as a term for Spirit, because it means unbounded or unqualifiable.

But the fundamentalists, the "creationists", seize upon these vacancies in the scientific hotel to pack the conference with their delegates. The see the opening - creativity is an absolute - and they equate that absolute with their mythic god, and they stuff this god with all the characteristics that promote their own egoic inclinations, starting with the fact that if you don't believe in this particular god, you fry in hell forever, which is not exactly a generous view of Spirit. So it is a good idea to start simply, I think, and be very careful. There is a spiritual opening in the Kosmos. Let us be careful how we fill it.

A tale of two hands

Yes, Paul, I am alive - yet my lack of posting in recent months may have led to suspicions otherwise. In order to prove that it really is me posting and not some alien who has invaded my body, let me relate the following tale:

Last night, after a couple weeks of really tough losses at the tables (and a waning confidence in my ability to even understand Texas Hold'Em), I gathered my courage and headed for Dakota Dunes Casino. I sat at the 5/10 limit table - and decided to play just simple, solid style - no fancy plays. Well, the return to the fundamentals was indeed helpful for me. That, and the table was very loose and passive, allowing me to chase cards when I needed to and get callers for value when I hit. Two hands are salient:

1. I'm in position 4, and catch QQ. I hadn't played a pot in nearly an hour so, when I raised, everyone folded, except the two blinds. Pot = $27 ($3 rake). Flop comes 952 rainbow. Check, check and I bet $5. I get two callers. Pot = $41. I'm pretty sure I'm good here. The only thing that would worry me (I believe) is an overcard. Perhaps someone was sitting on A9 suited or something silly like that. Both opponents were quite conservative last night. The fellow in the big blind (I have played him before) however, is known to make some creative plays from time to time. And, he was having a really tough night, down nearly $300 by this time. So, I'm beginning to think that he might be tilting just slightly. So, it's possible he's playing 92 offsuit and blowing some steam. The turn card? J - and now all four suits show on the board - no flush possible - and straights are unlikely. I think I'm still good. Check, Check and I bet $10. Small blind folds and the tilting big blind raises! Now I'm a tad worried. I tank for a while and think. Was he playing J9? Not a bad hand to play from the BB for one bet. I call. Pot = $81. River comes 3. BB leads out with a $10 bet. I tank again. It's either two pair - or else he's bluffing and his strategy from the start of the hand was, no matter what comes, represent two pair on the turn. I raise $10. BB re-raises me! I'm nervous, but I trust my read - and simply call. Pot = $141. We open our cards and he shows 85 - a measly pair of 5's. When I flop over my QQ, I'm surprised to see his reaction of anger - he knew he was bluffing. What did he think I was betting, calling and raising with? I hadn't played a hand in an hour! Oh well, a nice profit on that hand - shows the value of patience in a cash game.

2. I have A9 suited in mid position. About half the table, myself included, call. Flop comes JJ6 rainbow. Everyone checks around. I'm pretty sure that no one has a J. Any 9 or A and I'm good. In fact, I may already be leading. The turn comes 9. Now I'm feeling pretty good. SB bets $10, BB calls, I call, everyone else folds. The river comes 6 and, as I watch the BB see that 6 fall, I get this funny intuitive sense that something bad is about to happen. I still can't tell you what I saw or sensed, just that something was wrong. I was prepared to bet, raise and re-raise that pot, until I noticed his reaction. SB checks, BB bets $10 and I consider my options for a while. A board of JJ696. No one has a J and I am 99.9% sure of that. I have the 9 with top kicker. There is no flush available. No straight. Why did BB bet the turn? Only makes sense if either a) he also has a 9, like Q9 or K9 or 89 or b) he has a 6 and seeing everyone else's weakness on the flop thot maybe his 6 was good. Well, if he has the 6, he's really good now. And, it was an un-raised BB pre-flop. I fold. SB folds. And, BB decides to open his hand and shows off 96. A hand that only cost me $15, instead of $45. A good confirmation about the value of folding when your read tells you to.

I hope these tales quell the rumours of my abduction and disappearance.

Pardon Me?

Heard on the radio regarding Roger Clemens' pending return to the Yankees rotation: "Clemens was scheduled to start the game tonight but due to scar tissue in his right groin he scratched himself."

Freedom and Discipline

Having emerged from perhaps the most stressful 2 month period I can ever remember, I have been challenged anew regarding the value of discipline. Those who know me well, realize that I have been moving more towards the value of freedom in my life - not being tied down by feelings of guilt, fear, or expectations of others. This has been a very good direction for me in life - yet I am finding a down side to it - namely, when I have time and space to allow my mind and heart the freedom to reflect and meditate, I feel centered and at peace. However, when life becomes stressful, when there are demands on my time and mental/emotional space, my mind is not free to wander in those areas which bring freedom and a sense of grounding in god.

I was telling a very good friend of mine the other day that I was really looking forward to July where I would have that time, space, and freedom from demands so that I could return to focusing on my inner life. As the conversation ensued, this confidante of mine challenged me to learn what it is about July that I value so much and take steps to include those values on a moment by moment basis. And, I realized that the only way to do that is by making deliberate choices through self-discipline. Oh, how I hate that.

So, I feel like I am coming full circle. We may all remember hearing in our younger years the value of spending 30 minutes in "devotions" every day. I certainly remember trying that for some time as a magic bullet - a panacea for all of life's troubles. It didn't work - and became a life of legalism. I suspect that many churchgoers struggle with this too. So, I abandoned that approach. Now, I have come to realize what intentions lie behind that daily approach. For myself, I know that I need time regularly to focus on nothing but my breath - the spirit of life in me. I need and desire to find that small voice that whispers in the midst of a cacophony of external demands. And, the challenge remains twofold for me: 1) to actually discipline myself, and 2) to do so while retaining a life of freedom.

Final Thoughts and First Thoughts

I completed reading "Iron John" by Robert Bly this morning and began a new book on male spirituality entitled "From Wild Man to Wise Man" by Richard Rohr. Here are some final quotes from the first book and an opening thot from my new read:

"The Wild Man encourages and amounts to a trust in what is below...a trust in the lower half of our bodies, our genitals, our legs and ankles, our inadequacies...the earth itself...the stubborn richness to which we descend. This attention encourages us to follow our own desires, which we know are not restricted to sexual desire, but include desires for the infinite, for the Woman at the Edge of the World, for the Firebird, for the treasure at the bottom of the sea, desires entirely superfluous. (A man's) wants are to be trusted, that even when their gratification seems furthest off, the uneasiness they occasion is still the best guide of his life, and will lead him to issues entirely beyond his present powers of reckoning. Prune down his extravagances, sober him, and you undo him." (Bly, 225)

There is something in this passage that strikes a chord so deep and low that it seems to resonate in my chest. I can hear the objections, however...objections of hedonism and anarchy that this would create. Yet there is a richness here that may address what has certainly been a downfall of Western spirituality - i.e. attempting to control one's spirituality through morality and proper behavior and by denying one's will and desires. I'll leave it at that for now...

I began the second book by Rohr very shortly after finishing Bly and it began with these gems:

"In my experience there is an almost complete correlation between the degree of emphasis one puts on obligations, moralities, ritual performance and one's lack of any real inner experience." (Rohr, 1)

"Now, believe it or not, we are threatened by such a free God because it takes away all of our ability to control or engineer the process. It leaves us powerless, and changes the language from any language of performance or achievement to that of surrender, trust and vulnerability. This is not the preferred language of men! It makes God free and us not. That is the so-called 'wildness' of God. We cannot control God by any means whatsoever, not even by our good behavior, which tends to be our first and natural instinct...To us it feels like wildness - precisely because we cannot control it, manipulate it, direct it, earn it or even lose it." (Rohr, 2, emphasis his)

"The full male journey is a risky journey where you can only trust God and not your own worthiness or rightness. It is a journey into the outer world, into the world of risk, uncertainty and almost certain failure." (Rohr, 3)

Interesting language which also resonates within me and brings out feelings of being at home - this makes sense out of much of my experience. Perhaps what Bly speaks of in terms of trusting the lower half of our bodies (which are wild and lead us in many and various ways) is similar to what Rohr describes as the "wildness" of God.

This probably isn't the proper thing to say, but men have been accused of thinking with the wrong part of their body for so long that I wonder if we now bear a tremendous amount of guilt for what are incredibly natural (and I would suggest inherently spiritual) impulses and desires. Perhaps it is time to celebrate the "wildness" of God, trust the leading of the spirit, and obligatory "proper" behavior be damned.

A big night at the Casino!

So, after that huge laydown of QQ blogged about two posts down, I guess it was time for my comeuppance. And, sure enough, I found it this very evening. A big Canadian Poker Tour event was held in Regina this weekend and a few pros had shown up, I guess. One of them, Mark Karam, decided to sit at our tiny little $1/$2 no limit table for a while - I'm not sure why - maybe just to amuse the rest of us fish that were there.

Well, after a couple hours at the table, I ended up with 84 in the big blind and was unraised. I checked. Flop came 4 4 10 and I'm ecstatic. Mark bets $20, I call and he looks at me really funny. I got a weird feeling that he was playing a 4 also - but was hoping he had a 1o. Turn came A - exactly what I wanted. He checked, I bet $50 and he called in a blink of an eye. Now I'm a bit worried. I began seeing visions of A4 in Mark's hand. River came 5. He checked, I thot for a long time, pushed all in (for about another $120) and Mark quickly called and flipped over 6 4. My eight was live and I stole about $200 from Mark. I have got to learn to stop shaking at the table, however, because I could hardly stack my chips after that. That was a pretty cool moment - and thot I have to blog about that big win after whining about that tough loss earlier.

The Latest Addition

Congratulations to Jeffrey Peters on being the first winner on the fine poker table pictured here. After a month of waiting for the final materials to arrive, I assembled the last pieces this week and must say I am quite proud of the results. All you poker aficionados out there are most welcome to stop in whenever there is a game and enjoy the new atmosphere. Stop in here to sign up for the next tourney on April 14th!

How Would You Have Played This Hand?

I sat down in Casino Regina this evening and put some money on the $1/$2 no-limit cash table. I was in seat 9. The play was really loose, money flying everywhere - and I noticed that a player in seat 3 would play any Ace from any position. He was young and obviously very new to live poker - he was doing the Phil Laak thing - hoodie and sunglasses. He constantly put money in out of turn and was playing like he believed that any A was destined to win. The table was so loose, that I just hung onto my chips and didn't try to make any plays at all, knowing that if I just hit one hand - I'd make a huge profit.

About an hour into the game, I caught QQ in my pocket. I'm on the button. Several players limp, telling me there is nothing of real strength there. So, of course, I raise, hoping to scare off all those silly little hands. I made it $20 to go - 10X the big blind and about 1.5X the size of the pot (which wasn't a terribly over-sized raise at that table but big enough to tell everyone that I'm good - and drawing hands are getting a terrible price). Seats 10, 1 and 2 all fold. Seat 3 calls. I'm assuming some kind of A in his pocket - but no pairs, at least not big ones. Seat 4 folds. Seat 5 calls - a player I don't have much of a read on yet. Everyone else folds. Flop comes 10 A 2 rainbow.

Player 3 is first to act and he bets $25. He is quickly called by Seat 5. I am now assuming that my Q's are dead - especially considering 3's penchant for playing ANY ace. And seat 5 wouldn't call $25 on that scary of a flop with nothing, would he? So, it hurts, but I fold.

Turn comes K. 3 bets hard, 5 calls. I'm really glad I folded now. River comes 5 - a blank (except for the off chance that someone stayed in with 34 - but with the $20 raise, I doubt it). Again, heavy betting after the river. (That's Betting with a B, Gil) It goes to showdown. Seat 5 showed his cards first and turned over 66. Seat 3 mucked. And I'm stunned. Should I have folded that hand? How could I have possibly played it?

Eisenhans

Some of you may be aware that I am involved in a spiritual director's formation program - held at Queen's House of Retreats one weekend a month for the next two years. Well, 1/2 a year has already passed. It has been a marvelous experience thus far. We are learning much about how to connect with the journeys of others as they find their way. And I am learning even more about myself and my own journey. My eyes have been opened to so many things that have up until now, remained dormant, unseen, lying in shadow.

This last month, we explored the issue of sexuality and spirituality - and it was refreshing to hear and affirm that sexual energy and spiritual energy come from the same place - from the very depths and core of our identity as humans. Part of the discussion about sexuality and spirituality was centered around the topic of gender, and how our journeys in life reflect our sexual identity (that seems obvious, eh?). Much of the discussion hit very close to home and I saw many things I had never seen before. One small area that I heard that relates to the male spiritual journey is the old fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm called "Iron John" or "Eisenhans" in the original German. An American poet by the name of Robert Bly has picked up on that fairy tale as a deep metaphor for the journey of a man through this world and has written a very intriguing and engaging book.

Bly argues that men have lost much of what makes them men in the current age. There has been a push (the author states) to make men more "new agey". As such, he claims that men have learned to become passive, numb and naive. Passive because they ask their wife or girlfriend or children to do their loving for them. He believes that men must learn to keep the thread of intimacy unbroken by learning that "Talking is not everything, but it is a part of loving, as are buying gifts, getting to 'completion' in a conversation, praising the other person..." (p62). Men have become numb because (and this may be controversial) they have been pushed to adopt the emotions of females - most specifically their mothers. Fathers have remained emotionally distant so boys have looked to their mothers for emotional protection. But, boys are men, not women and so have found themselves in a women's emotional world which, as good as it is, is foreign to men. So, many men have therefore, chosen to feel nothing.

The third criticism Bly has of the modern man is that they have become naive. Men have learned to accept the attacks of others as sick way of loving the other. Men will be proud to pick up the pain of others, particularly women's pain. To this, Bly writes, "I think each gender drops its own pain when it tries to carry the pain of the other gender. I don't mean men shouldn't listen. But hearing a woman's pain and carrying it are two different things. Women have tried for centuries to carry men's pain, and it hasn't worked well" (p64).

Bly continues by stating that, because of naivete, men have not learned to state what it is that hurts them, to set boundaries, and use their strength as men should. "The naive man often...lets things go on too long. At the start of a relationship, a few harsh words of truth would have been helpful. Instead he waits and waits, and then a major wounding happens farther down the line. His timing is off. We notice that there will often be a missing beat a second or so after he takes a blow, verbal or physical. He will go directly from the pain of receiving the blow to an empathetic grasp of the reason why it came, skipping over the anger entirely. Misusing Jesus' remark, he turns the missing cheek" (p66-7).

Bly refreshingly states that there is a gender difference - a very politically incorrect comment in the modern day. He calls for men to accept their maleness - to learn to be active, alive and aware as opposed to passive, numb and naive. There most certainly is something that is different between the genders (thank God!). Openness to discussion about this topic would be very welcome. As would a growing respect from each gender to the other. How often have we heard, when men get together, the common language of running down the female gender? I believe that it would be incredibly wonderful to hear language expressing ourselves for who we are rather than for who we are not - and all the while celebrate what makes us human, male and female, in the image of God.

The Holy Longing

I have picked up a book entitiled "The Holy Longing" by Ronald Rolheiser and have been deeply intrigued by his opening chapter. It is a book dedicated to the search for spirituality.

His opening chapter is basically a look at the definition of spirituality. He takes the view that humans, by their very nature are restless and at a fundamental dis-ease in this world. There is a fire that burns in each one - a fire that drives us; an unquenchable desire. This desire, he states can show itself as an aching pain or a delicious hope. Spirituality is ultimately what we do with that desire.

Spirituality is not something on the fringes, an option for those with a particular bent. None of us has a choice. Everyone has to have a spirituality and everyone does have one, either a life giving one or a destructive one. No one has the luxury of choosing here because all of us are precisely fired into life with a certain madness that comes from the gods and we have to do something with that. What we do with that madness is our spirituality. Hence, spirituality is not about serenely picking or choosing certain spiritual activities like going to church, praying or meditating, reading spiritual books, or setting off on some explicit spiritual quest. It is far more basic than that. Long before we do anything explicitly religious at all, we have to do something about the fire that burns within us. What we do with that fire, how we channel it, is our spirituality. It is more about whether we can sleep at night than whether or not we go to church. It is about being integrated or falling apart, about being within community or being lonely, about being in harmony with Mother Earth or being alienated from her. Irrespective of whether or not we let ourselves be consciously shaped by any explicit religious idea, we act in ways that leave us either healthy or unhealthy, loving or bitter. What shapes our actions is our spirituality. (p6-7)

This is but a short taste of his offerings but it has been a very helpful piece for my own reflection. In my quest for addressing the spiritual in life, I have often been left feeling guilty for not doing the right things in the right way at the right time - or feeling the right way when I was doing them. Rolheiser offers a helpful view for me. I wonder what it would look like if, as we engage others in conversation around spirituality, we were to begin by discussing desires and passions and the fire that burns in us as opposed to our religious activity.

Either way, I look forward to the remainder of this read and I welcome your comments or reactions.

Hell Froze Over

After blogging became all the rage among my friends and acquaintances, several people said, "Andrew, why don't you start a blog?" And I believe my response was, "When Hell freezes over!" Alas, for one who doesn't necessarily believe in hell, I have been caught by my own metaphor - perhaps this has become my own private hell. Sigh.

Welcome all who decide to have the patience to listen to the ramblings of a man fighting mid-life crisis and beginning a descent into old age. Your comments are invited - I desire to create a safe place for all opinions and viewpoints. Feel free to share, challenge and disagree.

I have no idea how frequently I will leave thoughts here and make no promises to update any more frequently than time and free thought permit.