cyan's Journal: The Correlation Between Gambling and Flash Cartridges

As of this writing, I'm currently *second* place in the World Pub Poker Tour. I'm only 27 points away from the holder of first place, Tom Grassick. Tom and I aren't exactly good friends or anything, but we've had a few good laughs around the poker table. I guess you could say that we're on friendly terms. We like to talk poker strategy while playing strange poker variants. More importantly, though, Tom has described me as a "solid player."

Wow, if the WPPT leader is calling me a solid player, then I really must not suck that bad. I've tried pretty hard over the past year or so to improve my game, and I think it's paying off. Although I will admit that a large portion of my points comes from simply being adamant about attending every event (and, perhaps to a smaller extent, being sober during the second game), it would seem to stand to reason that skill is a big factor as well.

Martin Millerchip is a WPPT player who busted me out on the very first night playing poker at the WPPT. In the most recent game at Jack Lonsdale's, while Tom and I were taking a seat, he groaned and said, "Oh no.. I have to sit at the table with Tom *and* Randy? Isn't that a bit too much?" I couldn't help but laugh at the situation. Here was a player who I had respected for the entire duration of the WPPT series of tournaments suddenly complimenting me in his own little way. In fact, there seems to be more of this happening now ("Oh no, I have to play with *him*..?") You'd think that this was a negative thing, but really, it's probably one of the most sincere forms of flattery you'll ever get at a poker table.

When you play in the WPPT, you get what's known as a "pink chip." The pink chip is your all-in chip. So, instead of calling "all-in", you just toss your pink chip into the pot and it clearly signals what it is that you're doing. The nice thing about this is that if you knock someone out, you get their pink chip. The pink chip then adds an extra point to your leaderboard standings. This means that there's more aggressive play through the tournament, since calling someone's all-in has just become more worthwhile. Think about it: what's worth more? A pink chip that gives you a permanent boost in your standings, or playing conservatively to accumulate more play chips that will ultimately be worth nothing? Remember, Doyle Brunson once wrote that the key to no limit Texas Hold'em is to put your opponent to a decision for all of his chips. Nobody ever won any Texas Hold'em tournament without getting into a few coinflip showdown situations.

Anyway, here's a situation in a recent game that highlights how important that pink chip really is. I was chip leader sitting at a table in late position with Queen-10 offsuit. The player under the gun went all in for under 25% of my chips. Now, considering that there's a pink chip up for grabs, and that at this stage in the season anything that would help me to get one over on Tom Grassick would be to my advantage, I'm not sure why this particular individual was shocked when I made the call and flipped over my mediocre hand. He flipped over his big slick (that's Ace-King for all you non-poker playing readers out there.) The flop came nothing, but then I spiked my ten on the turn.

Traditionally, this would be considered a bad call. But the pink chip was the deciding factor. If it wasn't for the pink chip, I would've let him have the blinds. When you add the fact that -- had I lost -- I would've been left with a healthy 75% of my stack, it all of a sudden became an easy call to make. Unfortunately, my opponent didn't see it that way and went on a mini Phil Hellmuth sort of rampage. "Why the hell did you call with *that*?" He then continued to grumble about amateur players spiking cards before shambling away from the table to go report his loss. Sorry, bud, but my 35% odds of winning against your big slick were still great odds when you factor in the pink chip.

I really enjoy the casual atmosphere at the WPPT, but the game is just far too easy. It's not challenging enough, and it's pretty obvious that I'm not a terrible player. I'll play the remainder of the season (with the goal of obtaining position on the leaderboard as points leader), but I'll likely tone it down for the next season. Most of the games are in North Vancouver, which is a bit out of the way from work and where I live. The games then last until midnight or so, which sometimes puts a nice dent into my sleep schedule if I need to be up at 6 or 7 the following morning. Then you look at pure cost: a night out at the pub playing poker costs $20 or more, so doing this five nights a week costs me over $100.

Which brings me to my next point: gambling addiction. It's a serious problem and should be taken seriously. Anyone who has known me for any period of time knows that I have a strong aversion of addictive activities. Smoking, drinking, drugs, it doesn't matter -- I just don't do it. In fact, anyone who even remotely suggests that I engage in any (of what I would characterize as 'aversive') activity knows that I get quite upset about it. If you want me to lose my temper in very short order, just suggest that I have some liquor. I dare you.

However, because I'm aware of the possibility for any gambling activity to become addictive, I've taken several steps to make sure it isn't so. Shannon's well informed of any trip I take to the casino. I put a strict budget limit on any visit and I don't exceed it. I'm very public about my gambling and frequently mention it in my journal with plenty of details. If I don't have the means to gamble (that is to say, if the store has been having a bad month) then I don't do it. I don't play games with a high house edge (slot machines, video poker with a poor payout, etc.) And, lastly, I'm one cheap bastard of a gambler. I don't look for the high stakes games, but I look for the cheapest way possible to gamble. If I can play video poker for a penny a hand, I'll do it. Blackjack for a dollar? Sign me up. For me, gambling isn't a way to make money, it's a form of entertainment.

The American Psychiatric Association defines a problem gambler as someone who meets at least five of any of the following criteria:

1. Gambling occupies the person's thoughts frequently.
2. Larger or more frequent wagers are required to experience the same "rush" of gambling.
3. Irritability or other withdrawal symptoms surface when the person hasn't gambled for a period of time.
4. Gambling improves the person's mood or serves as an 'escape' from day-to-day problems.
5. The person chases gambling losses with more gambling.
6. Frequent lying about the extent of gambling activity occurs.
7. Attempts to reduce the amount or frequency of gambling fails.
8. The person is compelled to break the law in order to earn money for the purpose of gambling.
9. Gambling interferes with personal or business relationships.
10. Financial assistance from friends or family is required as a 'bailout' for gambling losses.
11. The person has a norepinephrine deficiency in their body.

I will confess that gambling does occupy my thoughts frequently, and I'll watch a poker show whenever I get the chance (High Stakes Poker is one of my favourite.) However, I certainly do not make larger or more frequent wagers. If anything, my wagers become smaller and *less* frequent depending on where I am and how the odds are. I don't get moody when I haven't gambled for a while, but I will confess that gambling does make me relax. It's fun and it's entertaining. I absolutely don't chase my losses, and I enter the casino having considered the money in my pocket 'dead money' already (i.e. if I lose it, it's no big deal, but winning on it is a pleasant bonus.) I've never lied about my gambling activities, in fact, I've kept them out in the open as much as possible. Reducing the frequency of gambling is no problem for me, and sometimes I won't even notice until weeks go by without a visit to the casino. I don't break the law for the purposes of obtaining money to gamble. Gambling has never interfered with any relationship: personal, business, or otherwise. I have never asked for a gambling loan after having already lost money to gambling. Finally, since I'm not a doctor, I can't speak to whether or not I have a norepinephrine deficiency, but for the sake of argument, let's just say "yes" to this one.

This means I qualify for three out of the eleven criteria for being a "problem gambler." Two points of which are on shaky ground; I have no idea if I'm norepinephrine deficient or not, and just because gambling helps me to relax doesn't mean that it's addictive. Not withstanding the fact that you need five of these criteria to qualify, I think I'm pretty far from being a "problem gambler."

With that being said, when you take into consideration that the World Pub Poker Tour costs me in excess of $100 per week, and my gambling budget is typically less than one quarter of that amount, what's the larger problem? Perhaps I have a "pub addiction" that needs to be taken care of.

I don't mind using the term "gambling", but the reality of poker is that it's a game of skill with some luck elements mixed in. How else do you think that the professional poker players are able to stay in business? Johnny Chan, Phil Hellmuth, Daniel Negreanu, and Doyle Brunson all commonly make final tables in major poker tournaments. If it were pure gambling (a game of luck), then that wouldn't be the case. You don't see any professional Craps players, now do you?

After my performance at the WPPT, I think it makes sense to focus more on the serious types of poker playing. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any aspirations to become a professional poker player, but I do think it's time to kick my game up a notch. I'm not going to abandon the WPPT, nor am I going to begin spending copious amounts of money at the local casino. I simply believe that improving my game isn't going to come through playing at the local pub, but in a far more formalized atmosphere.

Speaking of improvements, I've decided this week to throw away my SuperCard Lite that I've been using on my Nintendo DS. The original plan for the SuperCard Lite was to load it up full of GBA roms (that is, of games that I already owned) so that it was easier to play what I want on the road. Seriously, it's just far more convenient to load up a micro-SD card than to carry around a bag of GBA cartridges. Besides, then it allows me to keep my games brand new and sealed -- and everyone knows I'm just an asshole when it comes to keeping my stuff sealed ;)

The SuperCard Lite was god awful. Some people *cough*Brian*cough* like to say that I was "expecting too much" from the cart, but the reality is, all I wanted to do was play the games I had legitimately purchased. Unfortunately, since the SuperCard Lite has no battery backup, it requires you to patch the GBA roms so that it can be interrupted with a key sequence that will then prompt it to dump your save game to the micro-SD card. This is all well and good, until it *begins to affect rom performance*. Yes, that's right, it slows the game down. Final Fantasy VI was so slow as to be unplayable: the fastest battle setting acted like the slowest in reality.

I tried everything I could to fix this issue to no avail. The only option I had left was to locate a similar device that would actually save GBA saves on the fly without any patching. It turns out that such a device exists: the M3 Lite. The M3 Lite runs completely unpatched roms and automatically saves without any further intervention from the player. As a bonus, the micro-SD slot is on the side of the cartridge, which means it's not exposed to the outside of the cartidge (which, in the case of the SuperCard Lite, meant that any little bump would cause it to freeze up.)

I thought we were living in the 21st century. Is that too much to ask?

This journal entry has rambled on long enough. I managed to snag Shannon and I two tickets to the 12:15am (ugh, getting up tomorrow will be a challenge) showing of "300". It should be awesome. If I make a journal entry about it, then you *know* it was awesome. Adios!