Killing The Game: Poker's Little Guy Folds

Professional poker player, Phil Galfond, recently blogged about the state of tournament poker, summarily saying that rebuy tournaments are ruining the game, by eliminating recreational players. Others, like PokerListings.com, are agreeing and adding their own views as well.

Many are weighing in on the current affairs for poker in America, and for poker globally.

Galfond is correct, that various casino attempts at creating added revenue, have resulted in less amateur players, as well as lower numbers of smalltime recreational players.

But poker has been decimated by far more than just tournaments trying to make a bigger profit.

Poker has been crushed by "rip-off" professionals like Tom Dwan and Erick Lindgren, poker has been bullied by the government, and poker has been ignored by elitist politicians who are reluctant to legislate for such an "unworthy" cause. The public has also been influenced by the history of poker, as a "cheater's game." And that cheating is front and center even today.

As we know, In April of 2011, the American government seized online poker, simultaneously exposing fraud while eliminating recreational poker. The U.S. feds raided online poker sites FullTiltPoker, Pokerstars, and Absolute Poker, shutting the sites down and seizing their assets.

FullTilt, an American company founded by poker pros, was found to have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars in player deposits. Most of those players were Americans, and mostly consisted of small bankroll recreational players.

In the two years since the seizure, varying stories about who was to blame for the theft of close to 350 million in player funds, ran rampant in the poker world. Some blamed poor management and some blamed greedy professionals. Essentially, many of the pros we see on TV, were also the players at FullTilt that had a freeride on player funds.

In a prior story, I wrote about how "I miss playing micro-stakes poker on FullTilt," and what I meant was, that when I had played there I had fun playing while I also thought the game was safe. PokerStars, for example, operated legitimately, and cashed out its players when the U.S. Justice Department got involved. PokerStars simply pulled out of the U.S. market and continues to operate a legitimate, safe, fun, and profitable online poker site.

FullTilt was later sold, in a deal with the U.S. feds, and as of this writing, most players have not been paid back, which was included in the "terms" of the buyout deal. PokerStars was the buyer, and the U.S. Judicial Office was the supposed distributor of the buyout funds. Why the U.S. is dragging its heels is beyond me.

In the wake of FullTilt's collapse, tempers and opinions were sometimes public. Phil Ivey, considered the best poker player in the world, was critical of the pros and sat out WSOP events in protest.

Howard Lederer, renowned pro and one of the FullTilt CEOs, reported a staggering number of unpaid loans to professional players that were associated with the poker site. Lederer stated that media darlings Erick Lindgren and Tom Dwan, were among those who did not repay loans.

The government's scrutiny in regards to the matters of player deposits at FullTilt, have led directly to a painfully slow process of legalizing online poker. For players like me, the effect has been essentially eliminating. For myself, the situation seems similar to Galfond's blog, and Phil nails it. I hated rebuy tourneys in bigger online tournaments. And I hated "multiple entry" even more. It was hardly fair to players in my realm(at the time), to see seats in $215 "main events," formerly won in $20 buy-in tourneys, only to realize that the $20 satellite was no longer was playable, because the won seat was now a seat into a multiple entry tournament. Like the Galfond blog discusses, the casinos do this to add revenue, and the effect on player diversity, so to speak, is a reason for discussion. The effect will never be like mine, with a zero hands played this week...but all of these factors, have helped the government's case against poker, remain a reality.

And it's not just online poker, or even poker in casinos. Our local governments have been medieval in their approach to recreational poker in the form of ring games. Poker rooms face incredible scrutiny in my home state, unless of course, the game is state-run "video poker," which is in no form, a poker game. Zero poker rooms exist in Albany, where I live, but Oregon Lottery Video Poker "cafes" are everywhere.

There are too many of these so-called cafes to count...

In Portland, attempts at creating ordinances to eliminate poker rooms, received much media exposure and debate, both locally and nationally.

In the end, poker in America will be legal, and safe for all players, at all stakes. Even for guys like me, who racked up a few hands playing one cent-two cent no-limit triple draw.

An online hand.

Public Defender Virtues: Does Money Buy Better Defense?

I sat in a trial recently, that may serve as a starting point for discussions about the inequalities of America's judicial system.

The charges in this trial, were substantial, but what we will focus on is the two most serious charges, Manslaughter and Tampering With Evidence. The charged, was a Sweet Home man, Bobby Ray Hancock, and the charges came out of the wreckage of a motorcycle crash, that took Victoria Richards' life.

This part, her death, is a tragic reminder of drunk driving and its consequences. Alcohol and poor decisions took a beautiful life, and if this fact resonates within the public domain, maybe the people and the state can reverse future negative outcomes of consuming alcohol. The state, as well as the public, should consider whether or not, the victim's family is owed. Maybe not monetarily, but socially and educationally. Victoria Richards' life will be missed, and her story needs to be told. I believe that creating a trust fund for her kids, is the right thing for the state to do. I also believe that the state should educate, through its schools and curriculum, about the aftermath of drunk-driving.

The state charged Hancock with her death, and the next two years consisted of investigation and legal hop-scotch, finally coming to trial in August of 2013. The week long trial pitted the Linn County District Attorney's Office and Michael Wynhausen, against Eugene attorney Michael Arnold. The stakes were high, as the two most serious charges carried lengthy prison sentences.

Hancock is fortunate, to afford a very capable attorney(Arnold), in addition to expert accident reconstructionists and medical consultants. The defendant also posted bail, twice.

The fact that Hancock had access to such a high quality defense, is not his fault, and should not be judged on that aspect. But my opinion, after seeing the trial, is that Hancock's chances, his odds, were significantly improved the moment he hired Michael Arnold.

An expert witness for the defense, shows the jury how the motorcycle moves during turmoil, as the prosecution and judge look on.

And it is not because Arnold is a very good lawyer(he is), it is because with a public defender, the quality of defense varies enormously. A local lawyer, who is both a private and public defender, said: "A retainer will get you a face-to-face, but there is no difference in ethics or effort, from attorney to attorney in regard to public defenders." But that statement is more a compliment to some good attorneys in the Albany area. The fact is, this "face-to-face" implication is simply that if there is money in it, there is incentive.

Michael Arnold and the Hancock trial, does show that some lawyers are just better, just as local reputation says that the office of Paul Kuebrich and Forrest Reid, is the best. People know this, and as a very good essay(Ohio State Journal Of Criminal Law) about money defenders, states emphatically, "Marginally indigent defendants are most likely to spend resources for private lawyers, if the charge is serious." But, if you cannot afford Kuebrich, who is significantly more affordable than Arnold, then your quality of defense, possibly decreases.

Sure, good public defenders exist, and some, like Tim Feling of Albany, are exceptional. But even Feling says, "We spend a lot of money, as a country, locking up criminals, but we spend very little on intervention." Which is an implication of a system in need of improvement.

Maybe we should consider two things. One, addressing the idea of 'money buys a face-to-face ' and its inherent discriminations, while focusing on better quality of defense across the public defender board; Two, vocalizing complaints through our politicians, to change the state's approach to arbitrary punishment.

There are some that say the system is overworked and underpaid, and with an aggressive state that demands minimum sentences for minor crime, the burden on the players involved is proving to be costly. America would be better served to solve the issues of system injustice, and then tackle the public defender bias within the arenas and lawyers it exists.

 A municipal court public defender prepares for an appearance.

 "The world would be a better place without Measure 11," said Kuebrich. Others have said that Measure 11, the Oregon Statute that demands minimum sentences, is actually "Blackmail 11," implying that the measure handcuffs prosecutors and judges. But in contrast, Linn District Attorney Jonathan Crow said, "Measure 11 does do things it was designed for, by locking up problem criminals," and Crow pointed to a Willamette Week article, saying that the "liberal" publication had also stated the merits of the measure. Which brings the question, if a public defender is not either capable or willing, how would Bobby Ray Hancock have fared, had he been represented by a public defender?

Hancock, remember, had two extremely serious charges, and if we speculate as to the outcome of a public defender trial, what can be said of the "expert" witnesses? The defense experts contradicted the state's witness, Albany Police Sargent Jerry Drum, by examining the physics of the accident. Without the expert analysis, Hancock would have had a very hard case to prove, considering the state's evidence and stature. The state called witness after witness, and had a seasoned Albany policeman as the primary witness. Hancock may have had very little, without the defense expert witnesses and their testimony, let alone their investigations.

The state buys a prosecution, and along with that, has a traffic jam of witnesses, paid for by the taxpayers of Oregon.

The state, and Drum, contended that Hancock was driving when the accident happened, and that the victim had flown off the rear of the bike. The defense presented expert witness David Karlin, a certified scientist in the field of accident reconstruction. Karlin testified to the science of the accident, and countered Drum's assertion that Hancock was driving. Karlin testified extensively about evidence and physics, and on cross examination by Wynhausen, told of his costs. Those costs, for this case, are in the six-figure range.

Even a good public defender, like Tim Feling or Paul Kuebrich, cannot present this sort of expert testimony. So, as we see, money does buy a better defense. But what about minorish crime? Crime that potentially involves jail, and may be arbitrary? The Willamette Week article(prior link) addresses prisons in regard to Measure 11, but does not address arbitrary courts that are simply "moneymakers."

Municipal courts are known to be biased, and have a reputation as a revenue outlet for the municipality. Albany attorney Janet Boytano said, "Municipal courts are money courts." Even in a county court(state court), arbitrary state tactics leave some defendants with charges that a public defender who is assertive, can combat the state's tendency to punish minor offenses with harsh demands.

According to the advocacy website, National Legal Aid & Defender Association, public defender caseloads are excessive in some jurisdictions, and exceed legal standards. A New York Times article exposed caseloads of 1000, well beyond accepted norms.

The same website, NLADA states five concerns with defendant rights on its homepage. Among these concerns, "in some jurisdictions, adhering to civil rights and right to counsel," and lack of consistent representation.

A local defendant told me, "My public defender attorney wouldn't even return my call." And this sort of disregard is common, if not prevalent, in the industry. Maybe an examination of municipal courts, and state courts, is in order. And maybe examining America's tendency to act like world police, even at home, would be beneficial to everyone involved.

Half-an-hour late in a local municipal court, inefficient for all involved, and far too common.

So, we have heard a lot about money in legal defense, and most of this is common sense. Money talks, so to speak. But when discussing the area of small-time public defense, acknowledging stark contrast from one attorney to the next, is the start of a solution.

The people's goal, and mine, is a system where bias is not present, where public defenders work as hard as Paul Kuebrich works, and where the ones who do not provide the defendant with the best possible defense, are held accountable.

The people have rights, and we should remember that exclusively.

Skatepark Action

Oregon DHS and Complaints About Caseworker Failure

Typical.

When I heard Judge Daniel Murphy, speaking about "good little Democrats," I knew that his mental strength was restricted to the practice of law. Partisan statements from partisan judges, only serve to show that in a world of crap, the Republicans are the gold standard. The Democratic Party is pathetic, but the right wing is far worse, and entirely not credible.

In another court, a different judge questioned DHS quality, saying "DHS has little jurisdiction in my court."

Maybe Judge Murphy should consult with the Department Of Human Services(DHS) on ways to be even more inept, more pathetic.

After a dozen complaints, and DHS inquiries, into Kelley Forrester and her unmotherly meth use(among other complaints), one would think that DHS might get involved in the children's safety. Nope, "we are busy," they said. In an offered testimony, Jessica Wilcox(DHS caseworker) told Forrester, "Ronald Borst has told me of surveillance and photos of the young males, aged twentyish, 'hanging out' at the home at 1481 2nd."

That home is at 1481 2nd St., Lebanon, Oregon.

Wilcox declined comment for this article, but did comment initially, about my inquiries into complaints.

The latest two complaints to DHS, about Forrester, were reported by different factions of law enforcement. Lebanon Police complained, and requested DHS look into reports from neighbors, that the kids had reported abuse. The second complaint came from Rob Perkins, a Linn County Juvenile Supervisor, and was about the oldest child of both Borst and Forrester, and a recent minorish crime spree that included Unauthorized Use Of A Motor Vehicle, punishable with jail.

Ms. Wilcox, when asked by Lebanon P.D. to inspect the house in Lebanon, initially declined, saying DHS was "busy." When Wilcox finally did get around to "screening" the complaints, a process that took almost a week, and Wilcox requested Lebanon P.D. accompany her, Lebanon P.D. declined, saying "We are busy."

Apparently, after a decade of complaints, some from medical staff, others from neighbors, and still more from law enforcement, Wilcox has yet to determine anything about the drug traffic at the home on 1481 2nd in Lebanon. Nor has DHS found any evidence of other crime, saying "No other persons were at the home during the 'Welfare Check.'" Wilcox also said that the residents were informed of the time and date of the check, which explains why these folks were not there:

Wilcox, remember, also conspired with Forrester, telling the methamphetamine addict that the father of the children involved, was "watching the house and recording the traffic." Wilcox also stated the she "doesn't check email after 5p.m.," and the eight-year DHS veteran also stated that she was extremely busy, and "could not check emails when so busy."

When a state worker assigned with child protective safety, cannot attend to her emails, or even contemplate risks associated with meth, the citizens who depend on the state to safely supervise its children, should ask whether or not DHS is adequate for the taxpaying citizens who have paid for that service.

At some point, the people of Oregon should look at how we fund social services, and examine who we hire in that capacity.

A records request was met with denials from two "supervisors," who stated that they could not comment because my questions were about an "ongoing case" and the questions were too "general." Dave Purcell and Andrea Bellows, the two supervisors, offered no comment on my kids' case, nor did they comment on questions about DHS objectives , protocols, and policies.

Forrester's first involvement with DHS came in the hours after giving birth to Borst's second daughter. The hospital medical staff informed DHS of meth and narcotics in Forrester's drug analysis.

At the time, Borst had little do with Forrester, other than to inquire daily, about the health of mom and baby. Borst and Forrester were not together as a couple at this time.

DHS never followed up on the hospital's drug tests or the nurses' assessment of "poor prenatal care."

Two years later, after months of refusing Forrester's requests for living space(at Borst's house), Forrester was in fact living in Albany with Ronald Borst at the residence on SW 9th Avenue. Borst let her move in because once again, Forrester was pregnant with Borst's child(third). But at birth, Forrester represented that she lived in Lebanon and was estranged from Borst. "He is not involved," she said to hospital officials.

Forrester, again was on drugs during pregnancy and birth, and had almost no prenatal care.

Borst had spurred the only care, when he let her move in. And even then, Forrester didn't have much to do, other than to get high.

Months later, after a son was born, Borst locked Forrester out of the residence on 9th in Albany. Forrester would simply not give up the amphetamine high, and Borst severed relations with Forrester.

Simple exchanges or "visitations," at this point, became a game of payback for Forrester, and the illegal court process has been relentless. An incredible abuse of "legal instruments" has taken its toll on the court, the children, and the father of those kids.

DHS, meanwhile, has been called numerous times since. Also in the 10 years since, Forrester has been investigated for food stamp fraud, hiding crimes of sex offender Jacob Spencer, and drug traffic at her home. Law enforcement has received complaints from neighbors and school officials, as has DHS. The list of complaints and number of people complaining, is substantial.

Multiple requests to DHS, for all records pertaining to my kids, have been denied. DHS says it is an "open case." No evidence of that open case exists.

The only evidence is that the DHS unit in this case, has failed.

A lie to the court, document from Forrester to the court. All lies...

Wrong Zip Code, should be 97355.

Six-Handed Aggression In A Micro Stakes Home Game

We play for nickels. We play "Dealer's Choice." And we play to annoy each other.

The majority of us don't have much money, so our poker games are more about fun than about long-term winning, or even skill. In a nickel-ante game, the five or ten dollar buy-in is manageable, and sometimes one player buys another in. It's a tough economy, and we still have a great time, playing the lowest stakes we ever have.

After eight years of regular Saturday night games, we all have a lot of information about our opponents. Everybody knows who bluffs, who is the rock, and who is a pushover. Witnesses abound to the exploits of bluffers, as do the standard details of a bad beat story.

Even so, there is a way to beat this game. I am going to tell you, and I won't change any names.

The games generally start at 6 p.m. and go 'til midnight. So there is plenty of time to pick your spots and even pick your opponent. Generally, our game is six or seven handed, and rarely less than four or more than eight. We have a revolving door of  20 players. By playing position poker, a player in this game can increase power(to bluff), and increase odds of winning.

We play Dealer's Choice, and the games run from 3-card Lowball to 7-card Stud "No Peek," and back to Texas Holdem and Omaha 8 Or Better. Omaha 8, as it is called, is played high and low, and makes for some crazy weird pots. Sometimes, we have more fun in doing something "donkish," and winning, rather than playing well.

Our little game consists of a few tight players, Bob and Paul, and sometimes Harold. Bob is so tight he squeaks. This is a player that is exploitable. Bob is rarely calling without a very strong hand, and therefore is bluffable from most positions. Position in these confrontations, gets more important as the quality of player gets better. As we get to Paul, it is important to remember that even some tight players can do unpredictable things, and Paul has learned to sometimes bet draws, for instance. Adjust accordingly, make good reads, and continue to steal with and without position.

Aggression is the key, and playing a skilled player, is no different. But as we go about, picking on these players becomes a bit trickier. Three-bets(reraises) before any cards are out, get riskier, as does playing out of position after cards are exposed. In Omaha 8, for example, a good high and a low draw is necessary to play from out of position against multiple opponents in a growing pot, or even in a heads-up pot versus a good player. Aggression in Holdem, or even Deuce To 7 Lowball, is good for stealing many small pots, and making good decisions from "up front" can lead to sustained success.

Shawn is one of our better players, and is a math wiz. He even teaches math, at a high-school 25 miles away. Shawn makes efficient and calculated decisions. He understands position, and likes to reraise soft with the benefit of position paired with knowledge that I like to bluff. So I raise back at him often, knowing that I can bet later as well. If we are playing 7 Card Stud, and we get to 6th Street, I may back off, especially if he is smiling...but I pursue this player much like I do the rest, aggressive pretty much nonstop.

This tactic leads to bigger pots when I do in fact, make a hand, and because of the suspicion of my aggression, the calldowns in big pots like these, instill fear in the very thinking of calling next time. It also causes some players to overbet reraise, hoping to steal a bluff reraise from me. The constant aggressive nature of my play has led to a crazy good table. I have the whole table, under my thumb, so to speak.

What are the mechanics, the specs, of the aggressive player's style? Well, in this game, I like to minraise every pot, even when I have aces. The constant, in your face, every hand, like clockwork raise, tends to illicit reraises and suspicion. Bart, a local farmer and a "no-fear" kind of player, hates my raising style, and likes to reraise me and sometimes calls another reraise, putting alot in gambling with say, Q10 and A3 suited preflop in holdem. These spots are nice for the chipstack, especially when we hold big pairs, AK/AQ, QJ suited, and even JJ and 10s, versus this move from Bart-like players.

As we see, in my little game, aggression wins pots against a varying array of players and egos, some bold and stark, some timid and shy. All exploitable.

No matter what, use aggressive, non-stop pressure in short-handed ring games, no matter what the stakes.

Thanks for reading and Good Luck!

Mixed Games Micro Stakes Is What I Miss

Before the sustained poker explosion, brought on by an aptly named Chris Moneymaker, games outside of Texas Holdem, such as Deuce To Seven Lowball, were just as popular.

In the midst of the poker boom, Black Friday was the United States' Government response to online poker. On April 15, 2011, the U.S. feds seized the two most popular online poker sites, PokerStars and FullTilt. PokerStars was operating ethically, while FullTilt was an American company full of professional poker players who bilked player deposits to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

I played on both sites, playing "micro stakes" mixed games. Table limits from penny bets to dollar entry fee tournaments, made the experience fun.

Lowball games are what the name sounds like. The worst hand is the best hand, and in this low game, Deuce To Seven Triple Draw, the best hand is 23457. And, as the name says, it's a three-draw game. Which essentially means, draw to a very good hand or go broke. It also has a Single Draw(SD) version, and gameplay is the same. Players are dealt five cards, and have three draws(SD is 1 draw) to make a five card low hand. This game is generally played at the no-limit stakes.

Badugi is another draw poker game that has three draws and is low. Unlike "Deuce," and like most low games, the Ace is low. Badugi is a four card game, with a catch. In addition to four different low cards being the objective, different suits are also required to make a "Badugi" hand. Players are dealt four cards and have three draws to make a four card, differently suited, poker hand. This game is played at limit and no-limit standards.

The start of a Badugi hand, limit poker.

Omaha, a highly popular game that is played structurally like holdem, except that there are four cards in the hole, whereas two are held in Texas Holdem. Omaha can be played high, low, or both. It is played limit, pot limit, and no-limit.

Razz, another low game, is Seven Card Stud, played for low only. In Razz, any low can win, as long as it's better at showdown. Seven Card Stud is a popular game among the poker games, played in many casinos as a limit game. Players are dealt two cards "down" and the one at a time for a total of seven. Betting occurs after each draw session. The object is a winning five card hand.

It is odd to me, that we live in a world where online poker is illegal, but state run games are legal. There is a continuing effort to make online poker legal again, and some states already have American casinos operating online.

The history of poker is both rich and crooked, as the various games have been used to swindle naive players, as well as capture the passion of honest players. Developed as a riverboat game in the 19th century and derived from games of American forefathers, the game we know today was grown in the American south in the 1960s, and by the 1980s, poker was on television. Of course, some scandalous players still try and cheat the game, but overall safety is actually very good.

On my son's actual birthday in 2005, while sitting in the hospital and holding little Paden, a television show called Beyond The Glory, showcased "Texas Dolly," Doyle Brunson. For a player like me, it was fitting.

Today, poker is alive and kicking in the U.S. Cardrooms are everywhere, casinos spread many different games, garage home games are at an all-time high, and online poker is making an effort to be legitimate.

I miss playing triple draw lowball for pennies on FullTilt, and my only poker wish these days is for an American system that is safe for players to play online.

Penny ante poker is an American right, as is most poker games in the traditional format. Contact your congress representatives and the poker industry.