Paul McClain       

Coming tomorrow: My End Times prediction. I've been reading too many sites to stay quiet on this.

In the wake of the recent Prophecy Conference in Southern California, two of the current experts in the subject of Biblical End Times Prophecy debated with each other concerning the validity of current apocalyptic predictions. They used as the basis of their argument the six signs of the end of the age that Jesus gave during his ministry.

Joe Hibbs, an evangelical pastor, stated that he is disillusioned with predictions of woe and impending doom.
"In Matthew 24, Jesus said there will be 'War and rumours of wars.' Yet, right now there are only wars. I'm going to need to hear some good, solid, liberal media-backed rumours before I go around wearing a black robe and shaking bells."
Before his opponent had time to comment on his confusion of the Black Death with the Apocalypse and his slight British inflection on the word "rumours," he continued.
"Furthermore, the Bible clearly states that there should be famines and earthquakes. But with the decline in the economy, more and more people have been eating at McDonalds (tm), an organization that can still provide nourishing and high calorie foods in these hard times. Also, Mt. Redoubt is the only geologically catastrophic event going on? Are you serious? I'm gonna need to see some freeways in San Diego collapsing and dubbed, screaming Japanese people running around before I start stockpiling extra toilet paper."

Thoroughly confused by Hibbs' enigmatic references to Y2K and Godzilla, Jennifer Rast gave her rebuttle while shifting her purple robe on her shoulders.
"You see Joseph, what you are doing is looking at Biblical signs and attempting to demonstrate a viable cause and effect relationship. True prophets of the end times, however, rely more on an approach that is similar to predicting the stock market crash or filling out March Madness brackets. Call it the 'Marc Faber' take on Revelation; if we continually forecast the end of the world, eventually it's going to happen and I will look like a genius!"

Hibbs remained firm with his closing statement, "Until lion-headed scorpions are more than the stuff of Resident Evil 6, my SIG 556 stays under my bed. I bet they would be pretty sweet though."

It has been a while. So there that is.
When I was teaching someone some basic poker strategy two weeks ago, I initially had trouble figuring out where to begin. There are so many things you can talk about such as position, betting, stack size, strategy etc. So where should someone start who is trying to learn the game and has no idea what a SB and BB are (and furthermore they never put it in on time in a live game. But I digress)?
1) Learn the Hold 'Em starting hand rankings.
To do this, you can go somewhere like here but I personally think a book is best. My personal favorite is David Sklansky's "Texas Hold 'Em for the Advanced Player," but Phil Gordon's "Little Green Book" and Dan Harrington's "Harrington On Hold 'Em Vol. 1" are good too. Go to B&N and read one or borrow it from me.
2) Unfortunately, picking your starting hand is about 1/100th of an actual poker game (although it's a great place to begin). So now what? I think the second step is a simple thought process that you should consider ever single hand (even when you've already folded and you're observing).
A. Think about what you have.
B. Think about what your opponent could have.
C. Think about what you can beat.

That's all. So simple. Yet time after time I see this occur:
1. Good player bets.
2. Bad player calls.
3. Good player shows down a good hand (say a flush).
4. Bad player says "Shoot, I didn't see that" and shows middle pair.

Or the even more frustrating:

1. Good player bets
2. Bad player says (or implies) "I think you're bluffing."
3. Bad player calls.
4. Good player shows some hand (that wins).
5. Bad player shows 9 high.

In the first scenario, the bad player is only thinking about what he has and not about what his opponent could have. He doesn't pay attention to the fact that the board could have straights, flushes, higher pairs, sets, two pair etc. The amateur player instead thinks "I have a pair of eights. That could win. Sweeeeet." While it's true that a pair of 8's could win, it is very unlikely to win in the face of so many other possibilities.
In the second scenario, the bad player does think about what he has and what his opponent could have. But if you have a 9 high (or even something like mid pair) you can't beat much at all. In other words, it's immaterial if you think your opponent has a bad hand. You can only beat a terrible hand. Fold and save yourself the money. I would also like to point out two more things about the second scenario.
1. As I've said before, a bluff is when someone bets with a hand that can ONLY win if his opponent folds. If I bet with a pair of two's, it is in no way a bluff if my opponent has a king high. It's the best hand.
2. Bad players think their opponents are bluffing all the time. They think poker is a game of bluffing. Notice that when bad players call good players, the bad player usually loses. Why? Good players rarely bluff around bad players. Why bother bluffing if the bad player is going to pay off your good hands?
So next time you play, think those 3 things I mentioned every hand. It will help you understand the game more, and you may even start winning.

Over the weekend I was watching "License to Wed" (go ahead and laugh, I enjoyed it) which may seem strange until I tell you that I, and not my wife, purchased our copy of "Sleepless in Seattle". My wife is still a little worried about the Meg Ryan thing and I'm glad--it keeps her on her toes. Anyway, I was watching the scene in which Mandy Moore is driving a car blindfolded and Jim, I mean John, Krasinski has to give her directions when it hit me. This car-driving scene definitively demonstrates the difference between men and women.
Allow me to enlighten you. Mandy Moore is in the front seat of the car, telling John Krasinski that the situation is a larger metaphor for trust in a relationship. She argues that, without the trust and communication in a simple car-driving experiment, how can they expect to forge ahead through the many difficult situations requiring mutual trust and commitment in marriage? Furthermore, she accuses Krasinski's fear and hesitance of being representative of his apprehension in their relationship, symbolizing his unreadiness to be bonded with her in holy matrimony.

To which Krasinski replies, "Holy shit, you are driving blindfolded."

I believe that in decision making, women tend to more emotional and analyze the larger picture for its long-term significance and value (not that this is at all bad). Men will never get past the fact that driving a car blindfolded is rationally dangerous.
Of course, you could argue that Krasinski's fear stemmed not from the fact that Mandy Moore was blindfolded, but that she is female. But I said that this article wouldn't create controversy.

Taking a cue from my lovely wife, I am going to list my top ten rock albums here. She did 15 but she's much more of an over-achiever than I am. In fact, these might not even be my true top ten but they will be awfully close at least. Rules: "Greatest Hits" albums don't count (no Madeline, not even Pumpkins Rotten Apples) and the same band cannot have multiple albums in the top ten (not even Vs. or In Rainbows. Or Siamese Dream. I'd better stop). Now, without further ado:
1. Pearl Jam Ten: This truly is the greatest rock album of all time. The production and flow of the album are amazing and Ten is chock full of hits. "Once" might be the best opening track ever and "Even Flow" is my second favorite Pearl Jam song. Then you have the classics "Alive," "Jeremy" and "Black" along with the lesser-known yet very kickass "Why Go" (McCready at his finest). Some of the best cuts from the album, however, are song near the end of the album that people don't know such as "Ocean," "Deep" and "Release" (which, as the last track, has an excellent tie-in to the beginning of the album--I love that). Note: Madeline and Jonathan C. argue that Yield is actually better, so those of you who like to be wrong should check that out too.
2. Nirvana Nevermind: I know, I know. The top of my list is a bit grunge heavy. But I love grunge. I was weaned on this album and no, I don't like it merely because it opens with "Smells Like Teen Spirit" (another candidate for amazing album openers). In fact, I am a far bigger fan of "Breed," "Lithium," "Come As You Are," "In Bloom," "Drain You" and even "Polly" (as long as you don't listen to the lyrics and realize what the song is about). "Something In the Way" is also a candidate for best final track (and some would argue best track on the album). Now that I think about it, if it weren't for my love of Pearl Jam you might be able to find this album sneaking to the top of the list.
3. Muse Absolution: Many people would argue that this isn't even Muse's best album (and they might be right). But I have to put this at the top of my list because I like Every. Single. Song. I still argue that "Stockholm Syndrome" is the best track--it definitely is the most rockinest--but other people would clamor for "Endlessly," "Time is Running Out," "Hysteria," and every other cut on the album. If Muse produces another album, they might even move to a tie for my favorite band. I can't believe I just said that.
4. Radiohead O.K. Computer: I probably spend 25% of the time I'm listening to Radiohead trying to figure out which one is my favorite album. I guess that I'm going to have to go with this one because I feel that it is the most complete as a whole (with In Rainbows, The Bends, Hail to the Thief, Kid A and Pablo Honey in a close tie for all the places after it not necessarily in that order). "Paranoid Android" is my favorite track because I think it best mirrors the concept of the total album but "Let Down," "Lucky," "Electioneering" (surprise!), "Airbag" and "Karma Police" are awesome along with all the others. Can some filmmaker please please use "Exit Music (For a Film)" at the end of their film? I would die.
5. Smashing Pumpkins Zeitgeist:I told you the top ten would be grunge-filled. This was another really tough decision between this, Siamese Dream, Adore (my wife's choice), and I would argue Mellon Chollie II. Even as I mention them I am questioning my choice, but I am going to stick with it because of the combination of heavy guitar and soaring melodies, screaming riffs and gentle strings. Best cuts: "Doomsday Clock," "Bleeding the Orchid," "That's the Way," and "Tarantula" "Tarantula" "Tarantula." I love that song. I am going to listen to it on repeat on my way home today.
6. The Beatles The Beatles (White Album): This was a really tough decision. And I can't believe The Beatles, the rock and roll band on which I cut my teeth, are so far down on my list. I know it's easy to say this album is good because it has so many songs (as opposed to my close second Revolver) but "Happiness is a Warm Gun" is my all-time favorite Beatles track with "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" a very close second. "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill" and "Why Don't We Do it in the Road" are also sentimental favorites (I learned more from these songs than all of 7th grade).
7. Weezer Weezer (Blue): Oh Rivers, I am so sorry you are so far down on my list. Perhaps if Make Believe and Red hadn't been total crap you would have been higher. Anyway, I will say it now and not stand for any argument: "The World Has Turned and Left Me Here" is the absolute best Weezer song, period. "Only in Dreams" is veeeery close, but not quite numero uno. Possibly the most singable alongable album ever made. Did you know spellcheck doesn't catch either of those words?
8. The Shins Chutes Too Narrow: You could hit the pause button after "Kissing the Lipless" and you would have heard the best Shins music right there. But that would be a huge mistake because then you would miss "Fighting in a Sack" (I don't know any of the words but I still sing along at the top of my voice), "Saint Simon" ("Mercy's eyes are blue") and "Pink Bullets" among others. Too good to pass up.
9. Death Cab for Cutie Transatlanticism: The only crossover hit from my list to Madeline's. I know every word to every track and every track is great. My only beef with this album is the fact that Death Cab uses their best musical lines as bridges that only occur once in the song. Find a hook and murder it fellas! "Expo '86" and "We Looked Like Giants" come to mind in this category, and they happen to be my favorite cuts.
10. Incubus Crow Left of the Murder: There are about 20 albums that could go here, but I have to have some Incubus in my top ten. This album took about 5-6 listens for me to like it (besides the ever catchy and overplayed "Megalomaniac" which, despite being overplayed, is still an awesome song) but it was worth it in the end. The reason this beat out the other Incubus stuff is because other albums have some good songs, but I like every song on this one. Especially "Sick, Sad Little World" (my favorite), "Agoraphobia," "Talk Show on Mute" and the title track. An intricate yet grindingly powerful album. Loooove it.

Feel free to totally disagree with all my selections (except Pearl Jam because I am right) and post a few of your own. You might even inspire me to change my selections in the future. I might do a 5 album addendum to this if so inspired but it's too long right now as it is.

"Even flow, thoughts arrive like butterflies. Oh he don't know, so he chases them away-yeah."

I have heard that the three topics you are not supposed to mention in casual, social conversations are religion, politics and bathroom stuff. When I perused (one of the 14,000 most misused words in the English language) my recent posts I discovered that I have already written on all three of these topics. Fortunately, I do not consider this blog to be either casual or social, which brings me to my topic for today:
How the U.S. Can Achieve World Domination:
I was playing Medieval Total War II the other day and, as I watched my orange Moorish empire sweep up the Iberian Peninsula and across North Africa into the Middle East, I mused about how the U.S. is no longer considered the world's dominant force (oh for the simplicity of the atomic bomb. . .).
Then it hit me. What do I do in MTW2 when my people are unhappy and rebellious, I'm 6k florins in the hole and the dadgum Pope keeps bitching at me ex cathedra (used incorrectly because it sounds cool. Yes I did just want to say "bitching at me ex cathedra")? I summon up a huge army, attack the nearest capital, kill the inhabitants and loot the city! So easy.
Now of course you are saying, "Paul, this is the nuclear age. Your plan would merely lead to a holocaust and worldwide radiation!"
To which I would reply, "Siiiiiiiiiick" and then break out my copy of Fallout 3 to practice.
The only problem with the U.S.'s recent attempts for world domination is we gathered the troops (check), moved into enemy territory (check), killed the inhabitants (check) and forgot to loot their countries! Inexcusable! To paraphrase Slavoj Zizek, I'm fine with war for oil, but where the hell is my oil?
Any pasty white guy who plays RTS games (if you don't know what that means you're not a pasty white guy) knows that if you don't loot the other city, then you're still going to be in the florins red. What was the point of your attack? To provide peace and a democratic constitutional republic (no, the U.S. is not a democracy) to a nation in need of a liberator? This is world domination we're talking about, not Bono.
So President Obama, if you want to be the leader of a U.S. that is a world power, you need to start nuking some shiznat.
Calling up Jack Bauer couldn't hurt either.

Fact: With the secularization of Western civilization fewer and fewer people are identifying with the Christian church. While I'm sure the recession has led to some foxhole conversions, I feel like people need to know what has been going on for the past two thousand years. Qualification: What you are about to read is meant to be satire, not sanctimonious criticism. 
33ish A.D. - Some holy rollers get revved up and decide to talk about Jesus to Asia Minor. The Roman Empire has some different ideas, but groups of Christians end up meeting in houses, reading the Scriptures and arguing if dreidels and latkes are still OK.
100s. Some old fellas with big beards get together and decide on the canon. They throw out The Shepherd of Hermas because it is long (and who wants a heretical book in the Bible if it's long and boring) and decide to keep Revelation because of its potential for illustrated Bibles. They end their meeting by making the rule that the final test for canon vs. non-canon is if the book is endorsed by the early church fathers (them). Conveeeeeenient. 
312. Constantine is playing Medieval Total War 2 and he discovers that if you have a huge army you can be the head of the church. Fortunately, he also had a vision that he would be the head of the church so the priests decided it was OK. 
312-1517: Catholicism. Oh for the days when burning people at the stake was still PC. 
October 31, 1517: A German monk has a few too many pints and ends up putting 95 theses on a church door. The Pope refuses to recognize it because it's not in Latin and the Lutheran church is formed. The British druids read it and decide to start Halloween on that day and build a Henge of stone. This Henge becomes the biggest darn Henge in the world. 
1600's-1700's: Different preachers start traveling around and spreading Methodism. Unfortunately, when John Wesley came to America he lost the methods and everyone has been confused about what they believe ever since. During this period the Mennonites also formed so everyone would mix them up with the Amish. 
1800's: People decide that the coolest thing to do is have a retro-church movement and see whose church can be most like the church in Acts. The only loophole in their plan is that they forget that the world has changed a tiny bit in the previous 1800 years. 
1900's: Westerners decide to let non-white people into church only to discover that Jesus wasn't white! Then they try to let gay people into church, only to discover that this breaks one or two itsy-bitsy rules in the Bible. You know, like all of the Old Testament laws and most of Corinthians. 
2000's: The Muslims decide that they will blow up Americans since Americans are Christians. If only they would come over here and discover their mistake. 
So sure, the church has problems even though the Bible clearly states, "All people in the Christian church are perfect." Either that or, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." I forget. 

(This was originally a response to a comment on my previous Q6 but it was so long I decided to post it here).
Good sir.
I. It is true that I focused primarily on how you bet your hands and not hand quantity (and quality). I also concur that the terms tight and loose are used far too often. The part of "style" which these terms modify, however, is precisely the number of hands played. Of course, the HA is de facto a loose player and the passive player also tends to be loose (mostly due to inexperience). The widest variation is between tight, aggressive (think Dan Harrington and Phil Gordon) and loose, aggressive (think Gus Hansen and Mike Matusow). Yet, in my column I chose to ignore the tight/loose side of the equation for now.
II. You are correct that I should have qualified at the beginning of the column: all of these styles are meaningless against bad opponents. In fact, against the typical loose, passive play of low stakes online and home games, I tend to play a very straight forward game of getting in cheap and betting for value. The presupposition of my article, therefore, is that you are up against opponents with a least a medium amount of experience and knowledge of the game (i.e. don't call a raise of 4x the BB with 83 off-suit).
III. I highly disagree with you on the inexperienced all-in play. I have seen hundreds of pre-river all-ins from bad players, especially holding 2 face cards or 2 suited cards pre-flops or with top pair post-flop. I too used to be perfectly willing to push all my chips in the middle with KJs, which is what makes playing high pairs aggressively so profitable for the experienced aggressive player who is getting his chips in 4-1. (You may recall that the first tourney I won I took Drew Curle's AA in with KJs and sucked out a straight. Horrifying.)
IV. You are absolutely correct that the good player does not have a single style. A good player instead knows the styles and attempts to create an image and then exploit people's interpretation of this image later in the game. The most important thing is to know when to change gears when the situation demands it (i.e. adding antes in a multi-level tournament or getting no respect for your pre-flop raises). Finally, knowledge of the styles can help you assess a situation. I have had very profitable sessions playing all 3 styles (yes even passive). Mathematically, however, the aggressive styles cater to the experienced player who can read opponents and add deception to his/her game with continuation bets, multiple bullet bluffs, semi-bluffs etc. If you took a poll regarding my style, I think you would be surprised to see how people disagree about me regarding me style with respect to both APHA and TL. Which is exactly what I want.

First, for David: If you want to be an animal, you should be an armadillo, sloth or opossum, all of which sleep for at least 80% of each day.

Main Topic: Playing Styles in Texas Hold 'Em
Generally, poker players use four terms in discussing playing style.
1) Tight: Plays fewer hands.
2) Loose: Plays more hands.
3) Aggressive: Bets and raises more.
4) Passive: Checks and calls more.
Today I want to ignore the first two terms entirely and expand the second two terms to three possible approaches/images one can use at the poker table: passive, aggressive and hyper-aggressive.
Note: I am going to use "he" and "she" at random so I don't have to put "he/she" every time.
A. Passive: Generally, the passive player checks and calls more than he bets and raises. Not many experienced players use this approach. Why? Simple mathematics. When I call someone's bet, here are the ways I can win the hand:
1. My hand is better than my opponent's hand.
2. I outdraw my opponent (pre-river).
When I bet, here are the ways I can win the hand:
1. My hand is better than my opponent's hand.
2. I outdraw my opponent.
3. My opponent folds.
Of course, there are situations in which my opponent will not fold which are:
a. The pot mandates a call.
b. My opponent is a pay station who calls anything.
In general, however, the added chance that my opponent will fold make betting and raising better than checking and folding (remember we are talking overall style, so this excludes plays like slowplaying, calling with the correct odds etc.).
Conclusion: The only time an experienced player uses this style is when she is a super-reader playing against a hyper-aggressive opponent.
B. Aggressive: So now the problem is, when do I play aggressive and when do I play hyper-aggressive (these are styles so I don't need adverbs here English people)?
The upside of playing aggressive is I get a better read on my opponent with pre-flop chop bets and raises (i.e. information/position plays) that define my opponent's hand. This works well in tournaments with slow levels are at a regular game in which you know your opponents. Doyle Brunson said that in poker, you should constantly attempt to force your opponent into a decision for his chips. When you play aggressive poker, you force mistakes. For the more inquiring minds, I would define aggressive as a player who raises when entering first pre-flop, raises 4-1 pre-flop when there have been previous callers, continuation bets at least 40-60% out of position and 60-80% from position. This style works especially well against opponents of lesser playing skill and experience.
C. Hyper-Aggressive: One of the interesting features of this style is that is has emerged only in the past five years or so. My theory for this is that the rise in professional and good poker players necessitates a more volatile style that obfuscates positional reads and hand quality. The hyper-aggressive player comes in 95% pre-flop with a raise, continuation bets 80-100% out of position and 95-100% from position. This player has no qualms with re-raising with rags and senses weakness from lesser opponents. As the saying goes, the best defense is crazy-ass offense. If I will raise three off the button with 58s and AK, how will my opponent have any idea what I have? The major advantage of this style is that it forces your opponent to make decisions before the flop and after the flop, turn and river. The best part is, because you bet like crazy, your opponent can't tell if you're holding the rags or nuts. The major downside of this style is that you will have huge swings in your stack size because you raise if your opponent checks to you with 7 high or top set. The goal of hyper-aggressive play, therefore, is to blind out your opponent so when they show down the nuts it hardly dents your stack or to frustrate him until he attacks you and you show down a better hand. This style is really fun but . . .
WARNING: Hyper-aggressive play only works against skilled or timid opponents. I have played at tables with people who will call off their entire stack with any two cards. In that situation, you want to shift to aggressive play and value bet over and over and over.

Question and Answer:

Avid reader Matt from Danada, Illinois asked this week:
"Do you ever play hands blind? Tips/advice?"
I have never played a hand blind. If I were in a situation in which the pot odds necessitated a call, I might consider playing that round of betting blind. The only time I have seen a blind raise work is when Ellis Powers did it to put his opponent on tilt and then took his stack when Powers' opponent made a tilted re-raise. When my opponent raises blind, I like to purposefully look at my cards and then call or re-raise. This makes it look like my hand is good and, when it is, my opponent might not believe me and I'll take her stack. I might also play a hand blind if there were a side bet involved that gave me positive equity, but I've never had someone give me that offer.

Cheers.

This is a tenuous time in the history of the U.S. The government is still raging with battles over loans. The Dow is nearing its lowest level in ten years, there are threats in New York from Pakistan and more big-business economic troubles than I can count on my abacus. I believe, therefore, that it is time for the middle American to put down the remote, turn off the Colbert re-runs and take a stand (or sit). Which is exactly what I am going to do right now regarding the male/female toilet seat debate.
If I had a yogurt covered pretzel for every time I have heard a lady say, "Put down the toilet seat," I would be a type 2 diabetic. Yet, in the home I tend to agree with these ladies because of the fact that the spray from flushed toilet covers approximately a six foot radius. In the workplace, however, this becomes a different topic altogether because the there are no lids on the toilet. Be flexible ladies. Grab a piece of toilet paper and put the lid down yourself. Do you even realize what happens when you complain enough about keeping the seat down?! I am going to have to break this as gently as possible.

Guys will urinate with the seat down.

According to my scientific calculations, the spray from a 6'0" male's stream hits the water with a velocity of 30 m/s, causing the spray to spread for up to a 3 meter radius. Furthermore, from the age of two to eighteen, a male's aim improves approximately 15%, which translates to 4 cm. It's a guessing game out there ladies. I'm not even going to go into night-time forays into the water closet. Factoring in outside variables such as wind, sense of balance and singing aloud, the certainty of any urine actually staying in the toilet becomes about 23%.
Conclusion: Ladies, stop complaining about the lid. You want it up. 

When I ran a query on discussing the detrimental effects of males washing their hands, my data showed that the divorce rate in the U.S. would increase to 3/4 households. Some things are best kept secret guys.