With fight fixing claims and personalities like Mike Tyson, boxing has gotten a bad name over the years. However, The Contender (a new reality show from NBC) is attempting to put class back into boxing. The program shows that not all boxers are the crazed-Tyson types, but are good natured men who are fighting to provide a better life for their family.

When I was on the University of Michigan’s boxing team I found out firsthand about the boxer stereotype. It was almost comical watching some people’s faces at job fairs as they would read over my resume. They started out being impressed as they looked through my job experience (or at least I like to believe), only to frown and be put off when they got to the section which disclosed being on the boxing team. When I got one of these frowners, I immediately started defending boxing and the fighters on the team. I had many similar experiences when a new acquaintance found out I was on the team.

Due to a few fighters, there are many preconceived notions as to what a boxer is. I have had an opportunity to meet and work with a few professional and golden glove champion boxers. All of them are true gentleman outside the ring and I admire how The Contender is portraying them as such. By displaying how deeply these men love their family, how they have intelligence, and how they are grounded, it is attempting to break many of the stereotypes our society has.

After listening to Jon “Maddog” Hall give a speech on open source in emerging countries, I thought about a point that he touched on that was very interesting. In the future, the current model of closed sourced proprietary software will not work. Because of open source software, business models will have to change.

Before we look at the future, we need to look at the past. Back in the 1960’s all software was essentially open. It was developed by small software houses creating very specific software tailored to the customer’s needs. The customer kept the source code, and could make changes to it as needed. It was not until the 1980’s and the development of micro-computers when software companies started packaging general software that all customers might be able to use. Because the software was not for any specific customer, they closed the source to protect trade secrets and other IP. This practice of general software has continued to the present day. The problem with this current closed-source model is that if a customer wants a specific change, a bug fix, a new feature, or a new language, it is very difficult to get closed source software companies to make the changes in a cost effective and timely manner. Most of the time, it’s not in their “best business interest” to make the change. So customers have no option to get the change they need.

Now bring in open source software. If a customer uses open source software they have the freedom to make a change if they want. They have the freedom to get a timely bug fix, to support a obscure language, or tailor the software to their specific needs. To hire a developer may cost them money, but they have the business option to do so. Most of the time, it is far cheaper to hire a developer to tailor open source software to their needs then to buy the proprietary software in the first place. Now the customer has software that does exactly what they want.

I believe that open source software will continue to get better and better to rival anything that Microsoft puts out (arguably already does). Why would customers want to pay exorbitant amounts of money for sub par in-flexible software. I believe that as more and more customers move to using open source software, that the software model will move back to the one that existed in the 1960’s. Customers will hire software houses to take open source code, and tailor it to their specific needs at a fraction of the cost. They can keep the changes and update the code base as needed. The current closed-source software model will not be able to exist.

How can one person see only the good in an individual, and then someone else can look at that same individual and see only the bad? I would argue that the person seeing the good is looking for everything good in their life, while the person who sees the bad is looking for everything that can harm them in their life. A person finds what they’re looking for. All the subtle aspects of a person are amplified when they are being looked for.

I believe this applies to all facets of life, from family, to work, to society. For example, in a good marriage gone bad, I believe that the couples will slowly transition from seeing all the good in their spouse, to only seeing the aspects that bother them. They will no longer see the attempts to appease the other, or if they do, they no longer put stock in those actions. Impromptu flowers from a husband make one wife suspicious of some wrong-doing, while another wife sees them as a thoughtful gesture.

So am I saying that all a person has to do is look for happiness in their life and they will find it? I would say “yes”! However, it may not be that simple. There is usually a deep-rooted reasoning behind what an individual looks for. If a person has been hurt or abused in the past, they will be looking for indicators of the hurt in their life, so they know what to avoid. However by doing so, they will miss all of the happiness in their life.

Consider what has increased productivity more, email or instant messaging. While email has done away w/ paper memos and snail mail, I would argue that it has decreased productivity because it is so effective. Now we get information overload with the shear ease of getting added to the CC line. The greatest abuse of a company’s time is employees trying to wade through their inbox. Over the past five-years we have progressed to this information overload. Remember the days when getting an email was so infrequent that it was possible to still get a “You got mail.” sound byte or a pop-up. I know I did away w/ those mail indicators years ago.

Now consider the benefits of getting instant information via the telephone call. It was targeted at one individual who could actually help, and there was not the delay of an employee getting to an email in the inbox ocean. Instant messaging improved on the idea of the telephone by increasing the number of conversations that could happen simultaneously, while also saving time on looking up a number and dialing. I know that instant messaging has reduced the number of telephone calls I receive to virtually zero, and allowed me to get targeted questions w/o bothering other people on the CC list. While instant messaging still has drawback of chatty friends, in a pure business environment, it is the greatest productivity innovation in the past 30 years.

“Never be content.” It’s simple, but has a deep meaning for myself. Many of us get in a comfort zone that we do not want to leave. Just look around your office, your home, or society, and you’ll see that many people are content with where they are, or what they have achieved. So many are happy to rest on their laurels. Once a person is content, they cease to grow as a person.

I think there are a number of reasons a persons becomes content. The biggest reason is a fear of taking that next step in reaching the next level. They are scared to take a leap and the possibility of failing that comes with it. One of my favorite quotes is from Micheal Jordan:

I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed.

A person learns the most from failures. All great success have failed in their life. For example, Donald Trump’s brush with bankruptcy, or Richard Branson’s attempts at launching Virgin Cola. If you never fail, you will never succeed.

I feel that deciding to not to be content is the biggest step an individual can make towards success. Dan Kennedy wrote:

Every successful achievement begins with a decision. Most unsuccessful lives are conspicuously absent of decision.

Never being content reminds me everyday that I need to make decision and is what keeps pushing me just beyond what I think I can handle.

While it is a lot easier to put someone on tilt in no-limit, it’s much harder to do so in a limit game just because most hands are not as large. However, there are still ways I’ve found to do so. My favorite one works on most people, but it is difficult to pull off because it requires a couple hands, and the right situation (note: I’ve found this to work on no-limit as well).

It is a two hand process:

1.) Make a spectacle of bad behavior in a hand.

The first step is to bluff, get a fold, and then show your hand. It has to be in the correct situation though. First you have to bluff out someone in a limit game, which is not always easy, but it can be done. Now comes the part of showing your hand, but two requirements have to be met before you show your hand.

a.) The player has to think about it for a bit before throwing it away. This ensure that they do have something, and you’ll know that they’re most likely throwing away the winning hand. Also, you want them thinking about your play, and what you have given how you’ve played the hand. You want this to be an emotional decision for them. Showing a garbage hand will not have the same effect on a person if they have garbage as well. It also helps if the table makes a big deal of it as well. This will make them want to get revenge for their damaged ego.

b.) It has to be right for your table image. If you are getting large-size pots to begin with and people are folding because they’re scared of you, then there is no reason to give them doubt that you don’t have the best hand. Let them keep folding winning hands, and let you keep getting nice-sized pots. If most of the pots are rather small, you might want to encourage people to stay in pots with you to make them larger. In other words, it’s not worth putting one person on tilt if it will ruin your chances of getting money from the rest of the table.

Now, unless they are seasoned veterans, they are going to want to make sure that you don’t pull that on them again. Hopefully their pride is damaged as well. Pride is a huge factor in people going on tilt.

2.) Quickly beat them again.

While they are still emotional over their last fold, a second beat is needed. This needs to be a hand that looks exactly the same as before. You need to bet exactly the same, and similar cards need to be shown. It needs to look like you are making the same type of claim just as you claimed in hand 1. For example, if two queens were up in hand 1, and you were bluffing that you had the 3rd queen, then in hand 2, you should have what would be comparable to the third queen. You want them thinking that they have you pegged on a bluff only to find out that they misread you again. This is a very good way of trapping someone in no-limit as well.

Now they should be on an emotional roller coaster. They’ll be questioning their ability to read players, and will feel totally outplayed. I’ve only seen a couple players that didn’t go on tilt to some degree and most players will have self-destructed by now. I know I personally had this done on me and watched myself blowup just a few hands later.

1.) Beyond the 120 Year Diet : How to Double Your Vital Years by Roy Walford M.D.: This is a fascinating book on increasing your lifespan by going on a Calorie Reduced Optimal Nutrition diet (CRON diet). Dr. Walford was able to greatly increase the average lifespan of mammals by reducing the calorie consumption. The CRON diet had the benefits of reduction of heart disease, cancer, and many other fatal diseases. I have been considering doing this diet, but dropping to 1500-2000 calories a day would not be easy.

2.) Super System: A course in Power Poker by Doyle Brunson: I should say that I’m re-reading this book. In my first reading, I just skimmed over the non-hold’em sections of the book. I’m going back through and reading the other sections. I wish I had paid closer attention to Mike Caro’s section on draw poker. I think his advice on reading people is invaluable. I think it’s even better then his book on Poker Tells.

3.) Journey of Souls: Case Studies of Life Between Lives by Michael Newton: This book is about human’s after-life journey. I can’t say that I have bought into this whole concept of an afterlife, but it is interesting what Dr. Newton’s patients describe the afterlife under hypnosis. While I still struggle with believing that there is anything after we die, I do think that if there is something, it will be more like Dr. Newton’s description as opposed to what the church tells us (which I won’t get into so not to offend anyone).

What is next on my booklist:

1.) Monogamy by Adam Phillips: This is a contrarian view on why society subscribes to monogamy. I’m not sure how my wife will take me reading the book, but I am looking forward to reading some of Adam Phillips’ work. I have heard that he is extremely witty in his aphorisms and decadence.

2.) The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham: Now that I am going to Business School, I’m trying to get to all the business classics. I am also trying to develop my own investing strategy. Right now, I lean towards growth stocks, so I am hoping this book will give me some value stock perspective.

I just got back from a bachelor party at Lake Charles, in which I spent some time in the poker rooms. I am reflecting on how many tells I was able to pick up just by paying attention. For instance, in a 3-6-12 game, one of the guy across the table “accidentally” tries betting $12 on the turn. Just as Mike Caro teaches, I saw right through this attempt at feigning strength and re-raised him when I had nothing. The other 2 players in the hand fold as soon as they see the re-raise. Our “strong” guy across the table promptly folds as well. While this seems about as elementary as it gets, I was surprised how much I was seeing it at the table.

IMHO, seeing weakness at a table is the most important read you can have on a person. It will let you know when your 2nd button pairs are good, or let you know when you can buy a pot.

Doing it the entire night, I only got burned on it once and it was myself showing weakness which was my downfall. I had pocket 9’s and the board showed 2, 4, 8, J, J. The only other player still in (probably the best player at the table) raised $6 on the river. I was a little puzzled that he wouldn’t have raised the full $12 if he had tripped Jacks. So I put him on two pair, Jacks over 8’s. His showing weakness by not betting $12 caused me to reraise him, but I only raised $6. He hesitently called. He flipped up a Jack-5 and won the pot. He was thinking he was weak because of a weak kicker. Which I totally missed. Had I bet the full $12, he would had most likely folded it.

While there are a lot of other tells I saw, I concentrated on weaknes. By focusing on this, I ended up w/ a pretty nice $400 return for 5 hours work.

At some point late in every in a poker tournament there is a hand that will push you over the top to put you in position to win the tournament, or else folding it to hang in there for a higher finishing place. Last night in a small tournament I got this hand. While I was 2nd in chips, the chip leader had a commanding lead. The two other players were on their way out.

I was big blind and managed to get an 8-8 in my pocket. The chip leader was to my right in the small blind. The two other players, who were just holding on, folded there hands. The chip leader bet half of my stack. While he liked being a bully, I knew that he wouldn’t bet that much unless he had something decent. If he had paired something in his pocket he would not have hesitated to go all in right there. I put him on 2 over cards against my 8-8. I realized that this was the decision hand for me in this tournament. If I had read him right, I would have a 50/50 shot of winning the hand. So I pushed my stack in and got called. He flipped over his cards and I saw that I had the correct read. He had an A-10 suited. The flop came a rainbow 4-7-9. Then the turn came a 3. I was feeling pretty good since I had an >88% chance of winning (he had 6 outs w/ just the river to go). Then on the river came a 10, and I realized my day was over. Five quick hands later, the other two players fell.

While I could have hung in there for a better finish (and more money), I don’t like playing for 2nd place. My general tournament strategy is mitigating risk early on and play high probability hands to stay somewhere in the middle chip count. Then when there starts getting fewer players start playing w/ a higher risk margin. Eventually I’ll get to the decision hand where I will either take the chip lead and be a heavy favorite to win the tournament, or else I’ll go down trying. If I have a 50/50 chance to win the tournament, I’ll take it every time. I’ve played some tournaments where I had to outdraw a flush when I was only holding trips w/ just the river to go. That time, the 20% chance worked out for me as I went on to win the tournament.

Update

Just after I finished this blog, I happened to go over to Daniel Negreanu website Full Contact Poker and read his article 2004 Borgata Poker Open - Part III where he describes a similar situation:

As for me, I don’t think I would have won this event when I was younger. When David was pounding me like an anvil, it would have been easy for me to give up and take a shot at playing a marginal hand in a big pot.

I guess I am still considered raw since I take shots at marginal hands for a big pot. There’s something to be said for the experience of the 2004 player of the year.

Just returning from Mardi Gras on Bourbon Street I found myself wondering if the girls flashing is a zero-sum game?

Does the amount of respect the girl loses for herself outweigh the enjoyment of the crowd? I would say that the amount of respect loss is proportional to the number of people watching. I know that it was not as exciting to see a girl flash if you knew that she was doing it all the time, or that it meant nothing to her (eg Her flashing was not causing her to lose respect for herself anymore).

Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoyed watching girls flash. :) But then again I still felt proud of a girl when she did not succumb to the pressure, nor used plastic beads to rationalize it because she truly did not want to.