Episode 42: Faraz Jaka

16 thoughts on “Episode 42: Faraz Jaka”

1. In the ethics question, I was slightly surprised that you didn’t give Hero a harder time for his reluctance to show his bluff – if he flips over 8 hi straight away as he is supposed to, then the problem never arises. As you mentioned with respect to Villain’s reluctance to show, it feeds back to the material from the Tommy Angelo book (iirc) about not being afraid to show a bluff.

   Relatedly, I have long wondered whether the rules about who shows first should be flipped. Is there any good reason beyond custom why the bettor shows first? After all, you can bet with anything, but you have to have something to call. It would eliminate this sort of game of hand flipping chicken (which reached its peak a few years ago when some European player ‘bluff called’ Roland De Wolfe, let him muck his hand unshown, and then claimed the pot with the worse hand).

   I was also a bit surprised that Nate seemed fairly relaxed about hands between regs where the river goes bet-call-‘NH’-muck-muck: I thought showdown was an important check against collusion especially in games with a high degree of regular players.

   In the interview, the mention of Kerouac & Buddhism got sidetracked by Faraz’s reading (un)habits (:eek:), but I was hoping you might expand? I’m vaguely aware of his links to Gary Snyder, who’s translations I have read some of, but I hated On The Road very very much. How similar to On The Road is his more Buddhist influenced stuff, and which if any would you recommend?

   • Unfortunately Hero isn’t exactly “supposed to”. By convention – a convention I very much dislike – it’s widely acceptable for him to admit to a bluff or declare a broad category of hand without showing. I wish dealers were better about just instructing a player to turn cards over, but this sort of thing is common enough that I don’t think Hero is violating a rule by simply declaring “you win”, though you’re right that TA does not approve for other reasons.

     As for the bettor showing first, there seems to be a sense of justice, like “I had the balls to call you, I want to see your hand.” I’m struggling to articulate it, but it makes sense to me. In fact that reason you give – you have to have a hand to call, but can bet with anything – seems to me like more of a reason for the bettor to show, as there is less information about what he has.

     I’ll let Nate comment on your third point, but the fact that anyone at the table can ask to see the hands that went to showdown does serve as some check against collusion even if the hands aren’t automatically shown.

     What did you hate about On the Road? The writing style is similar in “Dharma Bums”, but the pace and plot somewhat different. It’s even more autobiographical, about his own exploration of Buddhism. There’s an early scene where he is invited to summit a mountain and has some trepidation about it, but is told that the trick is not to fall off. This is what reminded me of it, when Faraz was talking about focusing on goal vs process (envision yourself at the top vs just focus on not falling off with every step you take and you’ll get there eventually). I haven’t read “Wake Up”, but as I understand it it’s Kerouac’s retelling of the life of the Buddha. Dharma Bums and On the Road are the only Kerouac I’ve read, and FWIW I liked On the Road, so I’m not necessarily recommending DB to you. I suppose Kerouac is a very American writer, and the road trip a very American phenomenon. You’d be in the ocean if you tried to do it!

     • Good question. I read On The Road long enough ago that little remains in my memory beyond the hating of it. I think I found it a bit narcissistic, but that could be a misremembering. I guess I’ll try to take a look at Dharma Burns in a shop some time, rather than buying it sight unseen.

       We definitely have some appreciation of the road trip in the UK, although the sheer size of the US is a bit hard to fathom, I think.

   • Ian–

     Great comment as usual.

     Short answer, which I should have emphasized: Hero did several things wrong; Villain did several things wrong; but Villain should get the pot.

     I do think it’s a problem if too many hands are getting awarded without anything being shown. But I don’t think there’s any problem with the occasional quick, courteous “you win” / [muck] / [muck] / next hand.

     FWIW Kerouac is yet another example of my aesthetic sense differing from Andrew’s…

2. As ever, a great podcast, and a fascinating hand discussion, albeit with a tantalising unsolved mystery at the end of it. I guess the fact that it’s so difficult to work out what Faraz could possibly have had here is illustrative of why he’s a great player.

   Can I ask – who were the band in the music used between segments? I really liked it, and it was reminiscent of the British band Lucky Soul. (And if you already mentioned it in the podcast then my apologies for not listening attentively enough!)

   • Glad you enjoyed it. There was a mix-up in getting the music files to Sean, so I encouraged him to use some of his own music. This is from a band called Palmyra of which he is a member. There’s more at http://palmyra.bandcamp.com/. I quite liked it as well, and I edited the post to include this info (he hadn’t given it to me last night).

3. Great strategy discussion as usual. This one has me scratching my head as well. I think I agree with folding, mostly based on the premise that (other than your somewhat-weak flop bet you showed nothing but strength the entire hand) and he has no reason to think that you are an exceptional player capable of folding a fairly strong hand on the river. I’m a bit surprised that I didn’t hear 88 and a backdoored 77 mentioned as possibilities. Do you think there is no way get plays them in this manner? I think he may feel that with 88 he is overrepping his hand on the turn if he were to c/r.

4. I don’t agree with Nate in the opening discussion about the winner mucking his hand. You show your hand or you don’t win the pot. Every poker player knows this, including the guy who mucked the winner. The dealer handled it correctly. If someone is going to waste time by not showing his hand he doesn’t deserve the pot. However, I’m not a fan of a guy saying ‘you win’ but not immediately showing his hand.

5. @Eric:

   Incorrect, as Nate addressed this with the (correct) observation that anytime any opponent folds, you (as the winner) are entitled to the pot without showing your cards. At showdown, villain bet, hero called. This means that hero shows first. Hero then says “you win” which (here is the tricky part) could plausibly interpreted as a verbal mucking/folding of his hands (like when someone verbally says “I fold”–that is binding). How can it be that a verbal “you win” is not a concession of the pot, yet (in response to someone doing this) sliding your cards toward the dealer (then, combined with dealer error) is? That result is patently wrong.

   • Except he didn’t fold. He turned his cards over. The old man is the only one who folded. I don’t know anyone who plays poker who isn’t aware of the requirement to table your cards.

     • Eric–

       Thanks for commenting. I certainly think this is a tricky situation, but I’m also confident the old guy should get the pot. A few thoughts:

       (1) Re: “You show your hand or you don’t win the pot. Every poker player knows this…” There are lots of situations where you don’t need to show a hand to win–most obviously when the hand doesn’t go to showdown, but also in many cases when the hand does go to showdown (see the “you win” / both muck scenario Ian mentions above).

       (2) Re: “If someone is going to waste time by not showing his hand he doesn’t deserve the pot.” Certainly he made a mistake, but not all mistakes are punishable by losing the pot.

       (3) Even since we recorded this episode, this thread has popped up: http://goo.gl/iHaoMv . It’s a different situation but still important for illustrating these principles. (As always, “RR” is the guy to listen to.)

6. When a guy threatens violence to another when he himself committed errors I don’t have any sympathy. He also should be 86’d from the joint and not allowed to return until further notice.

7. I really like Faraz. Never heard of him before I saw his play against Andrew in Vegas. Now I am inspired by his outlook on life. This is why Thinking Poker’s approach is so valuable. He reminds me a lot of myself. If he can do it, I can do it.

8. Very interesting hand discussion. I was knocked out in a somewhat similar situation in the last live tournament I played (flopped straight, and villain had a back door flush draw and an open ender, the flush arrived on the river). Details of this, and the tourney itself – my local casino’s somewha wild Monday tourney – are in the live poker forum of TPE, a site I joined two months ago because of Andrew’s regular promotion. (I agree with Nate, in this episode the sales pitch was particularly impressive!)

   I’d love to get comments there from Andrew or any fellow Thinking Poker fan/TPE member on how to play this tournament, the only one near me for miles and miles! All and any advice very welcome.

   Keep up the great work, Andrew and Nate and welcome aboard Sean. Your band’s music is good.

9. To be clear, the old man saw me flip up my hand. It’s not as though he were staring off into the distance while I flipped my hand up and dealer mucked his. Not sure if that’s how you pictured it or not, Nate, or if it matters.

10. In case you’re wondering about the downloading and listening habits of some of your listeners, I probably downloaded (through my Podcast Addict app) this particular podcast within 2-3 days that it became available, and just now got around to listening to it. And no, I won’t have much use for Faraz’s app.

Comments are closed.