Episode 136: Jamie Kerstetter

18 thoughts on “Episode 136: Jamie Kerstetter”

1. Great episode guys. Jamie was an extremely well spoken and thoughtful guest.

   As a semi-regular player in an Adelson property, I’ve always found his staunch opposition to online poker ironic considering that many aspects of this poker room has are, compared to other places I’ve played, quite player-unfriendly. It’s possible that these aren’t things that are being decided at the casino-management level. However, it doesn’t seem to me like online poker in NJ has hurt traffic in the poker room at Borgata too much; I wonder if that’s simply because the Borgata treats players well in general and thus keeps people wanting to return? Anyway, I’ve found it amusing that online poker is supposedly the greatest opponent to traffic in his poker room when there’s scant evidence of interest in keeping players returning.

2. Andrew’s suggestion that Adelson is partly motivated by legacy makes a lot of sense. I see similar stuff with successful, aging (mostly male) clients late in life. I’m not sure if he’s trying to justify his own existence, or build a legacy of seeming to care for others, but it does explain what at first glance seems hypocritical.

   What I don’t like about the criticisms lobbed at Jamie (and similar female players with sponsorships) is the generalizations. “Women get this” and “men have to do that” type of stuff. Seems quite easy to consider Jamie as an individual and see that she’s worth her sponsorship. Simplifying it to gender vs. gender is not appropriate or smart.

   But if I were to play gender games, I would consider video production jobs with coaching sites. Seems to me, working for a video site is a primo gig for a pro to land, is much more available than online sponsorships, and is granted mostly to men.

   I try to follow the Angelo zen and not get involved in rude behavior at the table, but I also believe in self-regulation by players. If we don’t regulate the game ourselves, we’ll have no right to complain when heavy handed regulation is thrust upon us. Standing up, or at least speaking up, when players berate females (or novices) is where I break from Angelo. Of course, a feminist may not appreciate me coming to her defense, but I’d prefer that angst to that of not speaking up.

   • “What I don’t like about the criticisms lobbed at Jamie (and similar female players with sponsorships) is the generalizations. “Women get this” and “men have to do that” type of stuff. Seems quite easy to consider Jamie as an individual and see that she’s worth her sponsorship. Simplifying it to gender vs. gender is not appropriate or smart.”

     Not entirely sure I follow this. Might not Jamie’s gender have something to do with the question of whether she’s worth her sponsorship? This seems to be the crux of the debate: what sites should be looking for in a sponsored player, whether it’s fair to male players if females enjoy some advantage in this process, whether there are also advantages males enjoy in the process, whether it matters whether it’s fair, etc.

     “Of course, a feminist may not appreciate me coming to her defense, but I’d prefer that angst to that of not speaking up.”

     The whole concern about “feminists” getting angry at men who are just trying to be nice/polite has always seemed to me like a bogeyman/strawman argument used to demonize the concept of feminism. Intent matters here, and I’m sure it’s possible to invite ire by being especially creepy or patronizing about it, but I don’t think you need to be angst-ridden about anyone getting angry at you for telling some third party to stop being rude to that person.

     • It seems to me the criticism was based on her being a woman, as if all women are the same and unworthy. I would argue Jamie is worthy even if, as some seem to claim, most women are not. I prefer to evaluate individuals, not genders. Perhaps I don’t understand the debate.

       It was not my intention to backhand the feminists. In my limited experience they view these defenses as chivalrous and insulting, but as you suggested, my moral position on defending someone does not require their approval.

       Perhaps I spoke too loosely.

       • I don’t understand the argument to be “all women are unworthy of sponsorship” but rather something like “many women are sponsored at least in part because they are women and/or attractive, while equally or more talented male players are passed over.”

         “In my limited experience they view these defenses as chivalrous and insulting”

         Like I said, I think context and intent matter. Maybe there are a few people who are quick to get defensive about these things, but I don’t think it’s fair to paint anyone who identifies as a feminist with this brush. If you are saying crap like, “Don’t talk that way in front of a lady,” that’s pretty different from, “What you just said is really out of line” or “Damn dude, give it a rest.”

       • Perhaps piefarmer is pointing out that Jamie, in particular, is worthy of gender-neutral sponsorship?

         She’s well-spoken, smart, appealing, and friendly.

         There are other women who have gotten sponsorships that they would never have gotten if they weren’t women.

         • This is true; I think Jaime is qualified regardless of gender (although my opinion doesn’t count on this issue). I was trying to make a very broad point, and basically failed.

3. I struggle with how to handle sexism at the table.

   I feel especially bad for the dealers who are stuck there and expected to be nice.

   I was recently at a table with a guy who was hitting on the dealer non-stop. She handled it gracefully basically by making fun of him but in a light kind of way. But, he just did not stop. I hate the thought that I’m passively contributing to the problem but at the same time it seems strange and awkward to make something out of it. The dealer was keeping things light and low-key — if I involve myself it would very likely turn the mood sour.

   I’ve had similar situations when lightly racist, sexist, or homophobic things are said. It is awkward to bring up the issue but I feel wrong passively accepting what’s been said. When no one says anything it is easy to assume that everyone agrees with what’s being said.

   Any thoughts?

4. Thanks for reviewing my hand. One point – you had the pot amount on the turn wrong, was $820 (and flop would be $220), so that changes the calling odds, but I don’t think it changes your analysis much. Thanks for the insights, especially re: having a plan for the river when calling.

   Re: the discussion of ante cash games, I agree that the hold-up is the time it takes to collect the antes. This is a problem I have with live tournaments – I hate that antes cut into the hands / hour (always someone the dealer has to remind & always one or two hands per hour where there is some sort of count / question on were the antes right) – maybe solution for both of these is to do a dealer ante like in stud – much quicker when one person puts it in & doesn’t change blinds like adding a 3rd blind does. Plus, in cash less incentive for someone to leave to avoid paying the ante when it’s the button.

5. I really don’t understand the objection to how poker sites give their sponsorships. The idea that they would hire promotional spokespeople based on some strict meritocratic ranking of playing ability is basically a complete misunderstanding of *why* firms hire spokespeople. These are free market businesses trying to enhance their bottom line and grow their industry. One basic marketing strategy is to analyze your untapped potential customer base and then hire someone who fits that profile to pitch your product. This is like marketing 101.

   This mistake, I think, is two-fold. First, many poker players perceive sponsorship to be akin to a PGA tour card: a hard-earned reward that entitles the bearer to a set of benefits. But this is precisely wrong in the context of poker sponsorships.

   A second mistake is to compare the sponsorships to things like Michael Jordan selling Coke or Peyton Manning selling anything. In these cases, it often *is* the best player(s) selling the product. But the product is *not* often related to what they are good at, because the thing they are good at is related to the target affinity group, not the product for sale. Coke hires Michael Jordan because they want to sell Coke (the product) to basketball fans (the untapped target group). If the NBA wants to sell basketball to an untapped market (say, a foreign market X), they are just as likely, if not more likely, to hire a lesser foreign-born player from X as they are a superstar American. So if Coke wanted to appeal to poker players, of course they’d like to get Phil Ivey. But if Pokerstars wants to appeal to women, they are going to pick a woman rather than the greatest poker player they can find.

   • “The idea that they would hire promotional spokespeople based on some strict meritocratic ranking of playing ability is basically a complete misunderstanding of *why* firms hire spokespeople.”

     Amen. These male pros who complain, and think they have more merit as player are ignoring the merit in other areas related to the job. I’m not sure any job is a true meritocracy, but even under that assumption, the wide definition of what constitutes merit for this role would render these complaints incorrect.

6. “So, first, hello to whatever animal is making that noise.” LOL!

7. I agree with Matt: Great episode guys. Jamie was an extremely well-spoken and interesting guest.

   I also agree that antes in cash games – even small ones – would make nine-handed live poker more fun and interesting. My favorite solution is to use a three-blind structure. Instead of doubling the size of the big blind, just add a small blind. If you were playing $10 – $25 game, just add a $5 small blind. That extra $5 seems inconsequential, but from my experience, it creates a lot more action — more multi-way pots with players finding reasons to play more hands out of position. You might be surprised at the impact a $2 small blind has on a $5 – $10 NL game. The extra blind should never be on the button, though.

   As for the PLO hand, I’m not an expert, but my feeling about having AcKc7h8h is that at no point in the hand am I ever fist-pumping, but at the same time, at no point until the river would I consider folding. 
With our stack size, it might be one of the worse hands I call a raise with on the button. I think folding a potential nut hand, with backdoor straight and flush re-draw potential would be a mistake. If we were very deep stacked, I think this turn is perfect for potting because we could threaten a full-pot raise on the turn and an additional full-pot bet on the river. Here, however, it would be burning money to raise the turn with no pair in position with our draw. I would fold the river, but if we were live-game deep-stacked, I might consider a King river to be a great hand with which to put our opponent to the test with a raise because we block top set while credibly representing QT, the only hand with which he is likely to look us up (with a raise!).

8. Nate – could you expand upon your comment tying the Infinite Jest’s ‘parabolic’ quality and rereading? I’m not sure I really got it.

   There are a few topics in the book that relate to parabolas (off the top of my head, tennis lob shots, and the Eschaton game), but I always took it to be more fundamentally a reference to the arc of the plot. You’re a maths grad, right? – so one definition of a parabola is the arc of points equidistant from a point and a line, and I read it to be a reference to two events in the book that are fundamental to the story, but that are absent from the book itself: that is, we follow the novel along a path that is fundamentally shaped, but never touches, two key events. (As I type this, it occurs to me that in that case perhaps ‘elliptical’ might be a better description, why should one be a point and one a line?)

   It’s a great book and no doubt very illuminating on a reread, for all that I fully agree with your comments about rereading (life is short, but books are many). One conclusion I came to is that a lot of the cult of Infinite Jest and internet speculation seems to focus on detective work trying to work out exactly what’s going on and the minutiae of how the plot plays out, but seems to ignore some of the more perhaps emotionally driven themes – specifically to do with addictiion, and irony and authenticity, which personally I found the compelling aspects of the book. I seem to recall an interview with DFW where he said that there are 4(5? 6?) general ideas percolating through the book, of which perhaps 3 have been identified/discussed (the numbers will be wrong). That’s sort of tragic to think about.

   • Ian: I think I either misspoke or enunciated poorly. If I said that IJ is “parabolic,” I have no idea at all what I meant by that. Sorry!

     That said, your reflections on the matter are quite interesting!

     • Actually I think he’s blaming you for my poorly worded ramblings. Among other things, in my attempt to sound clever, I called the book’s structure “parabolic” when “annular” would have been more apt. I was referring mostly to the fact that, because the beginning of the book takes place chronologically after the end of the book, and after completing the book you are now better equipped to make sense of the beginning, there is some desire to immediately begin re-reading as soon as you finish (particularly given the rather abrupt ending). Of course there are many references to annulation, annular structures, etc throughout the book, some more explicit than others.

       Edit: Just realized I wrote the second half of this comment to Ian rather than Nate. Just wanted to clarify who the “you” is.

       That said, I do think parabolas and parabolic structures play a bigger role in the book than you give them credit for. Most significantly, there’s all the AA talk of recovery after hitting rock bottom, which is paralleled by all the talk of crashing/declining after reaching the top of your field.

       If you’re thinking of the same DFW comment I am, he referred to 4 “little projects” and congratulated the author of an undergraduate thesis for nailing “1.5” of them. See chager’s post at http://infinitesummer.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=410 (and also other posts in that thread, for discussion of parabolas/annuli/limits and other mathematical concepts in the book.

     • Whoops, you’re right – I went back and almost all the comments I was responding to were yours, Andrew. Sorry for the confusion. I’m sure you’re right about the parabolicity, err, parabolicness, I just drew a blank when I was typing up my comment. And thanks for the link – given what I wrote above, it’s probably not surprising that I’m quite sympathetic to the idea that the 4 ‘projects’ are perhaps more to do with trying to do something with the book, to bring about realisations in the reader.

9. When I was a member of TPE I found Jamie K’s vids the best for me. Very concise and sensible and yet engaging. I have all of her stuff downloaded. However when she went on Twitch I just couldnt watch it. She seemed to use it more for socializing and casual chat.
   She has not developed an on camera persona yet IMO. I hope she can do better.
   On the other extreme is your Big Dog and Elky types whose persona comes exploding at you. So at least she is not at that spectrum on the scale.
   As far as hoping for a more humane environment I agree but I found as a person of color, Racist, Sexists, and Homophobes should be attacked and challenged in a more aggressive manner. As one who has been attacked as being sensitive and aligned with Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan, when I do, I reserve the right to check raise your punk ass in the manner I see fit.
   I can joke and put down with the best but these Cretins should never be left off the hook.
   Being NICE just doesnt cut it.

Comments are closed.