Jeers to the Ocho!

It seems like just a little over a week ago that I was applauding ESPN's decision to show non-Hold 'Em events from the World Series of Poker. Well, now it's time for me to turn around and spit right in the Ocho's face.

Today I watched the Ladies Limit Hold 'Em event. Now, I'm not against a Girls Only tournament event. I guess maybe there's a snowball's chance that it helps attract women to the game, perhaps. On the other hand, it implies that men have some kind of advantage over women at card games, which is pretty stupid. So maybe the glass is half full, or the other one. I don't really care.

What bothers me is, well, complicated. Allow me to explain.

You see, this event is pretty low-level. It has the cheapest buy-in of the tournament ($1000), and the winner gets about $60,000. None of the women at the final table are particularly well-known players (though some were the wives of celebrities).

All of this would be fine, except that at the same time, about five yards from the final table, they were playing the Omaha Hi-Lo event. The buy-in is $2000; top prize is almost $140000; and Omaha Hi-Lo is tons more fun than boring old limit hold 'em.

Occasionally, during the Ladies event, they would break away to take a look at the Omaha event's final table. This is because, in keeping with the show's Girl Power! theme, one of the three remaining players was Annie Duke -- sister of Howard Lederer and one of the most famous players around. According to Binion's, in terms of cash earnings Annie is the most successful female player in the tournament's history, though she's never won a tournament (and the coveted bracelet that comes with it). Why wasn't Duke at the Ladies Event, you ask? In an interview, she said she thinks it's silly -- she's not afraid to play with the boys, and she can beat them. Awesome.

Also at the last table was Erik Seidel, who you might remember losing the World Series on the tape Matt Damon watches in Rounders. So, this was a pretty seriously awesome last table.

Sure enough, in an emotional finish, Annie Duke wins her first WSOP bracelet. But ESPN thought it would be a better idea to cover the big showdown between a nail technician, and a hair stylist. Neither of whom you've heard of. And the nail technician won! Great! I care!

OK, OK, so probably they can only have one camera-table or something. So they probably had to choose long in advance and chose the ladies event to attract a new demographic. Actually those are pretty good arguments. OK, you've convinced me. But I wish I could've watched Annie Duke win.

Let's all have a good laugh at Ann Coulter's expense

USA Today hired celebrity nutjob Ann Coulter to write a daily opinion column from the Democratic National Convention. Sadly, it was so incomprehensible and unfunny that they decided not to run it.

Brian Gallagher, editor of USA TODAY's editorial page...said the column had "basic weaknesses in clarity and readability that we found unacceptable."

HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAA!!!!! Ahem. Coulter, in a statement yesterday, countered:

"USA Today doesn't like my 'tone,' humor, sarcasm, etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them."

Did she just make an argument, and then shoot it down? Anyway, in USA Today's defense, Coulter's article really does make absolutely no sense. She talks a lot about the "free speech zone," aka "razor-wire lined protest pen," but doesn't seem to understand who it's for, nor the fact that nobody intends to use it.

Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall.

Ummm, no, Ann, they're putting the people who protest the DNC in the cage -- and even that wasn't mandatory. More confusing is Coulter's narcissistic insistence that Republican women are more attractive than Democrats.

Say what?

Listen, Ann -- and yes, I know you're reading this -- you're way off base. I mean, it's not like I was protesting the war because I don't want to see people die or something. You describe she-Democrats as "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons." I don't know what "pie wagon" means, but it sounds great, and I love every single other thing you mentioned. I even looked up "hirsute" just to make sure I like that too. And if "pie wagon" means she's going to bake me a delicious pie, then sign me up! No Republican has ever baked me a pie!!! How do you explain that, Ann Coulter? HMM??

Cheat the Vote! Part 1 in what we can only assume will be a series

Welcome to the Furdell.com countdown to the election! We'll be counting down the vast number of ways the administration intends to disenfranchise voters. And so it begins!

And where else should we start, but James & Andrew's begrudging hometown of Jacksonville, FL? Ooh, the swing state of swing states! What are those rascally Republicans up to this time?

Apparently, after a ceremony in which about 200 immigrants became naturalized citizens of Our Great and Free Country, the new citizens were asked to fill out voter registration cards. Oh, how nice! They're new citizens, so now they get to vote! All is right in the world!

Oh, wait two seconds: the party affiliation is already filled in. That's right, immigrants -- whose best interests are of course represented by the Bush administration -- were tricked into registering Republican. Brilliant.

Remember, there's still two or three months until general elections, and about 400 different ways the Bush administration can disenfranchise the nation! Join us on a journey that can only end in postponing the vote indefinitely for security reasons! America, the beautiful, with ample waves of grain! Or something! I'm feeling so patriotic right now that I'm going to beat up a foreigner.

Just for Kimberly

If you can navigate the most god-awful site design on the web, you can view the trailer for the upcoming Fatty McFatFat: 2 Tonnes of Funny. Should be hilarious fun for the whole family.

Another hilarious idea I came up with: There should be a show in Vegas called "Just Siegfried!" For the first half-hour, Siegfried would do card tricks or something. Then he'd start crying a whole lot. Hey, it's better than Celine.

Props to the Ocho

It seems like only three months ago that I was complaining about the World Series of Poker -- specifically, about how the "championship" title goes to the jerk who wins the final no-limit hold 'em tourney, disregarding all the other forms of poker.

Well, apparently ESPN has heard my cries, and has been airing all kinds of other events, including pot-limit Omaha, 7-stud, draw lowball, and even razz (that's low-only 7-card stud to you).

As if that wasn't enough -- and it isn't -- ESPN also updates viewers on the WSOP leaderboard, which ranks players based on how many events they've placed in. That gives some credit to the real tournament champion -- the player who wins the most money or the most events. (Sadly, last year that player was Phil Hellmuth, the youngest and whiniest player to ever win the main event. Seriously, watching him lose is hilarious.)

Thanks, The Ocho. Next, get that leaderboard on your webpage! And how about live coverage? Sure, it's boring as hell to anyone who isn't really into poker, but at this point a lot of people are. Well, I'd watch it, anyway...

UPDATE!!!
Poker Douche Phil Hellmuth's page includes a helpful leaderboard that shows Howard "The Professor" Lederer at the top. Best of all, Hellmuth places at about 150th! HA.

One Last Blackjack Tip: Never Listen to Liaps (or, "Why We Split")

In a comment on my last post, Liaps writes:
You don't split 9s against an 8 or a 9...If the dealer shows 9 and I have 19, I'll take the push every time - let her have to pull a 20 or 21 to beat me, rather than vice versa.

What Liaps doesn't realize, of course, is that -- according to a little-known branch of academia called "math" -- 9 and 9 make 18, which is not so great against a dealer's presumed 19.

Hopefully nobody listens to Liaps's blackjack-related babble, but just in case some poor fool thinks he has the right idea, I'll once again explain how he's not playing with a full deck.

There's only one reason why we double down: because we are a huge favorite and want to double our wager. But there are two reasons to split.

1.) We our a huge favorite and want to double our wager.
2.) Our current hand is weak and could be improved by a split.

Reason #2 is, of course, why we split 9s against a dealer's 8 or 9. Liaps may scoff at reason #2, but it's why we split 8s no matter what.

Surely Liaps knows the easy-to-remember rule that one must always split aces and 8s. No doubt he follows that rule eagerly. But why does he split 8s against a dealer's 10? Assuming the dealer has another 10 underneath -- or even just a nine -- Liaps will probably lose double his bet. But I'll bet you he does it every time anyway.

The reason he's right to split 8s against a 10 is because 8 + 8, as it turns out, makes 16. Just as a 6 is the dealer's worst upcard and a 7 is the weakest "strong" card (see previous post), for the player a 16 is the worst possible hand and a 17 is when things start looking up. (Why is a 16 so awful? Because it has the same chance of losing as every hand lower than it, but it has less chance of improving.) A 16 is so weak -- and two 18s are so much stronger -- that we split eights regardless of the dealer's card.

By splitting 9s, we hope to improve from an 18 to two 19s. That's an improvement, so why not do it against a dealer's 10? Simply because 19 isn't all that much better than 18. Don't get me wrong, it's better -- but not by the magnitude that 18 is better than 16. We'd rather have a 19 than an 18 against an 8 or 9, but against a 7, 10, or A, we're better off standing.

There's one last point I'd like to make about basic strategy. Basic strategy was not devised by logicians; nobody reasoned out when you get a mathematical advantage from splitting 9s. Rather, basic strategy was devised by computer programs which played millions of different blackjack hands every conceivable way; thanks to these brave computers, we now know what blackjack responses have the best chances of winning (or saving) money. If you ever think you have a logical reason why some component of basic strategy is wrong, just remember: you're kidding yourself. You may think you're playing optimum blackjack, but you're just plain not.

Further Blackjack help: Memorizing Dem Tables

James helped us pick out the best game, so now we have to figure out what to do once we get there. The best way to go about that, alas, is rote memorization.

If you have the time, you'll have no problem memorizing blackjack basic strategy. There's only three tables to memorize: one for when you have two of the same card; one for when you have an ace; and one for all other situations. Most of the time, basic strategy makes sense, but sometimes it may seem to defy logic. Read on for a helpful tip that'll make the memorization a little easier.

First things first: unless you want to be as fanatical gamblers as my brother and myself, just focus on this strategy, which covers Las Vegas 6-deck strip blackjack. That's the game we're likely to play most often. If you do want to get fanatical about it, maybe take a look at downtown Vegas 1-deck, which has a few slight but important variations. Once you've mostly memorized a strategy, hone your skills with this basic strategy trainer, a blackjack simulator that will tell you when your move varies from basic strategy.

I know what you're thinking: "this looks like work, and it's going to suck all the fun out of gambling." Well, that could be true for you. For me, memorizing and applying basic strategy applies a level of challenge to an otherwise pointless card game. (If you're really good, maybe I'll get into card counting later. It's easier to learn than you think, but moderately difficult to apply in a crowded casino, and also less useful than people say. Sounds like fun, right?)

All of that said, here is the emm-neumonic device I use to memorize basic strategy.

Grouping the Dealer's Upcards

You can see from the tables that our response is always contingent on both the cards we hold, and the card we see the dealer holds. If you can break the dealer's possible upcards into groups, you'll have an easier time remembering the correct strategy.

2: A group all it's own. We'll call it "medium-weak."
3-6: The weak group. 5 and 6 make up a "weakest" subgroup; 3 is slightly less weak than 4, but not much.
7-A: The strong group. Like the weak group, it's a spectrum; A is strongest, 7 is weakest.

That all sounds intuitive, but if you think of the cards this way it can really help you memorize those tables. Take a look: within each table, a dealer's 5 or 6 requires the exact same response; a 4 requires a slightly different response; and a 3 requires a slightly different response from the 4. They're all pretty similar, and on close calls you only need to remember where on the spectrum of weakness the dealer's upcard lies.

The same goes for the strong group. A dealer's ten or ace, besides a couple of easy-to-remember surrenders and double downs, are identical; and the dealer's nine is extremely similar to those. 8 is similar to 9, and 7 is similar to 8.

Let's apply these concepts is to the question of when you should double down with a soft hand (a hand that includes an ace). First, remember that you'll never double down (or hit) with a soft 19 or better, and you'll split with a soft 12 (that's two aces, ya see). So you just need to remember what to do with a soft 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.

Sounds hard, right? Wrong, stupid! We can break those six instances into three easy groups, from weakest to strongest: 13/14, 15/16, and 17/18. Next, memorize this simple fact: we only split soft hands against cards in the weak group.

So, with our weakest soft group -- 13/14 -- we'll only split against the "weakest" subgroup of dealer cards, 5 & 6. With a slightly stronger 15/16, we can add a dealer's 4; and with the stronger-still 17/18, we can add the dealer's 3. And that's all there is to it!

Once again, I know what you're thinking: "Great, so I just memorized what to do in about 3 different situations. Fantastic. Only twelve million to go." Well, you're wrong again! You've actually memorized what to do in 44 different situations. Furthermore, you've memorized the entire difficult part of the second table. The other 36 moves can be summed up in two rules:
* Always hit with a soft 17 or lower;
* Hit with a soft 18 against a dealer's 9, 10, or A.

Oops! Now you've memorized 1/3 of blackjack basic strategy. Thanks to me, you now have no excuse not to memorize the other two tables. Just do it the Andrew way: break them up into groups.

I feel so much safer!

"Today, because America and our coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we're helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer."
--Your Doofus President, Yesterday morning

Yes, Saddam was a bad guy. There are reasons why it's a good thing that he no longer leads his own country. But why in the world is Bush trying to convince us we're safer, of all things?

Let's see: we dismantled a government that, as it turns out, had no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever, nor the means to produce same; and that, as it turns out, had no connection to our actual enemies. So in other words, they posed no threat to us. And in the process, we've lost any international credibility we may have once had; we've stretched our armed forces to the limit; and best of all, we've further pissed off the already-problematic terrorist contingent. In fact, our government is now telling us that terrorists plan to kill us for voting. Great. I feel so safe now. Good thing Saddam isn't in power anymore, because that was really keeping me up at night.

Is it even remotely possible for Bush to be re-elected at this point? And if so, does that mean everybody has lost their minds?

Six-Panel Movies Presents...Rocky III

Due to creative differences, Carl Weathers refused to reprise his role of Apollo Creed. As such I have replaced him with live-action anime girl Apollo Smile.

You can't have reality, without racism

Hey, check this out! If you look and sing like a member of the Partridge Family, you can try out for VH1's new reality show. So in other words, white folks only, please.

I'm not saying it's a travesty or anything, I just think it's funny. It seems like reality shows tend to have a racist undercurrent. In the first episode of Joe Schmo 2, an otherwise-inferior sequel that spoofs Bachelor/Bachelorette type shows, all non-white contestants are immediately eliminated by the bachelor and bachelorette. SpikeTV knows what it's talking about; on those kinds of shows, blacks never even seem to be semi-finalists, let alone winners.

Joe Millionaire? Twice white, twice picks white girls. The Bachelor and his female counterpart? Over the course of seven seasons, they've always been white, and always picked white mates. Average Joe and Average Joe Hawaii? The white women twice weed out the fat black guys before the fat white guys (and then end up dumping the fatties altogether in favor of better-looking guys, but that's a whole other issue).

So, white people are just attracted to other white people, right? Well, maybe -- but on the other hand, we know reality TV is largely fixed. Evan, the first Joe Millionaire, claimed that the show's producers convinced him to pick Zora to win, for example. And non-whites don't fare too well in non-relationship reality shows, either.

Survivor, the one that started it all, has the best track record: one out of the eight survivors has been black. (In the more recent All-Stars series, two out of the 18 contestants were non-white, and neither made it to the finals.)

In four seasons, The Amazing Race has never had a winning non-white team (blacks are so lazy!). Don't expect their fifth season to be much different, as only one of the eleven teams is black.

Big Brother? White, white, white, white. Big Brother 5 has a 1:13 chance of being black. Good luck, Marvin the Mortician from Conway, SC. It ain't gonna happen.

I know what you're thinking: American Idol. Three seasons, two black winners. Well, ya got me. But if that show didn't have phone-in voting, things would be different. Believe me, the producers are not happy with the results. They'd love to make another From Justin To Kelly, but a romantic comedy about an interracial same-sex couple is just too...too...what's the phrase I'm looking for? Worth seeing?

Earth's Most Reprehensible Movies

A lot of movies are bad. This we know. But there are only a few that I out-and-out despise. Here...are their stories.

1. Bridget Jones's Diary
In this film, Ren?e Zellweger -- who reportedly gained 5,000 lbs for the role -- must choose between boring, charmless Colin Firth, and fun, charismatic Hugh Grant. Naturally she picks Colin Firth.

In my sarcastically favorite scene, Colin Firth, as Mark Darcy, ruins Bridget's dinner party by taking Hugh Grant out into the street and sucker-punching him twice. It didn't seem particularly called for. Afterwards, when Bridget asks Mark why he's acting like a maniac, he replies: "I see I've been laboring under a misapprehension!" Oh, no you didn't!

The fact that anyone finds Colin Firth attractive in the first place is a mystery to me. The fact that some fatty would latch onto him instead of Hugh Grant, even though he clearly has no redeeming qualities is infuriating. And the fact that the aforementioned scene is scored by The Weather Girls' It's Raining Men makes this film Truly Reprehensible.

2. Moulin Rouge!
I don't think I can count the horrors perpetrated by this movie on one hand. First and foremost, it has no single take longer than three seconds. If you think I'm exaggerating, play the Moulin Rouge! Cut Game: every time the camera cuts, yell "Cut!" I've tried, and it actually can't be done.

As if that wasn't enough, it's a musical. Not a musical with original numbers, mind you; its a musical that appropriates pop hits of the 70s and 80s, and changes their words to make them stupider.

Unfortunately I'm unable to watch this movie in its entirety. The last time I tried, I blacked out for a week, and then the murders started again. Pity, those young women were so innocent. Their blood is on Baz Luhrmann's hands.

3. Charlie's Angels
It should come as no surprise, based on this film's source material, that it is blatantly and horribly sexist. It did surprise me, however, that it managed to disguise itself as a "girl power" movie, and actually tricked a lot of women into applauding its ethics.

Let's toss aside, for a moment, the idiotic slow-motion explosions and Matrix-ripoff fight scenes. We can forget, for now, that the director insists you call him McG. What upsets me here is that three women, who apparently have enormous physical strength and superhuman intellects, can't get out of a situation without using their boobs. Girl power!

4. In & Out
You there! McG wants his coffee! Bring those script changes to McG, for he is your glorious master!

Oh, excuse me. I have a rich fantasy life. Anyway, you might or might not remember this film in which the usually-pretty-good Kevin Kline plays a high school English teacher whose former student wins an Oscar for portraying a gay soldier; said student names Kline in his acceptance speech as a gay role model. Since Kline's character is in fact engaged to Joan Cusack and is in fact not gay, this causes an uproar.

So why is this film reprehensible? Okay, I admit 1997 was a few years before we coined the term "metrosexual." But even then, I knew there was something wrong with this movie. You see, everyone assumes Kline's character is gay because he's slightly effeminate; for example, he dresses well and enjoys music that isn't classic rock. Throughout the movie, you should be thinking "these people must be completely retarded." Oh, until the end that is, when it turns out he is gay. Because you're either macho, or you like dicks.

Marlon Brando: Worm Smorgasbord

Two days before Brando died, the New York Post ran this article about how he was broke and hiding his Oscars from bill collectors. I like to think that if I received $3.7 million for two weeks work, I could stretch it out at least until two days before I'm dead.

That's right, I'm picking on a dead guy.

Say it proud: "I Surrender"

Frequent Furdell commentor and Asian gambler Pup recently wrote:

"Once again, I must say. Surrender = Dumb"

Those of you less familiar with the game of blackjack may not know what the hell Pup is talking about. Allow me to rebuff him and illuminate your soul with gambling knowledge, all at once.

Sure, you know how to hit and stand. You've even heard of people doubling down and splitting, and that sounded fun. But has anyone ever taken you aside to describe the most glorious play of all -- the blackjack move known only as "Surrender"?

It's so easy to do. First, look at your cards in abject horror. Then, look back at the dealer and say, "Surrender," or "I surrender," or "Send my ass to a POW camp, because I'm just about to surrender all over this mofo." The dealer will raise an eyebrow; everybody else at the table will either be confused or will mock you; and you'll get half your money back.

Those of us who enjoy to surrender are often ridiculed by our strictly hit-or-stand peers. Well, I'm here to tell you that those peers are retarded -- and here's five excellent reasons why.

1. First and foremost, when used properly, surrender is a move that will increase your long-term odds. I've noticed that these same peers who mock us for the surrender, also mock the dealer for even offering Insurance (the 2-1 sucker bet that pays off when the dealer's ace is part of a blackjack). So, it's stupid to take a sucker bet -- but it's also stupid to make a move that saves you money? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

2. When you surrender, the dealer often has to yell "Surrender!" to the pit boss. The only other time those guys talk to each other is when someone cashes a large amount of money, or when someone colors up their chips. These people need to communicate more often.

3. If you're thinking that surrender is a move for people who don't want to gamble, well, the gamble happens when you sit down at the blackjack table and put money in front of yourself. Making bad decisions just makes you a stupider gambler, not a bigger one.

Think about it this way: a big gambler bets on long shots, to be sure. But he also gets paid off enough to justify those long bets. If you bet $100 on a 10-1 shot, but the payoff was 20-1, well, you're probably going to lose, so that's a big gamble -- but you're definitely making a good bet. That makes you a pretty smart gambler. Most people still probably wouldn't take that bet, because betting that much money to win that seldom is scary, but that's where gamble comes into it.

And if you want a game with poorer odds than blackjack, by all means, the casino is chock-full of 'em. You don't have to play blackjack poorly; you can play Let It Ride well!

4. Here's the Furdell.com Surrender Guarantee: When you surrender, you will strike up a conversation with the busty tourist to your left. She's never seen anyone surrender before, nor has she even heard of that move. And she desperately needs the tutorial that only your hard body can give her.

5 You only have to do it in four easy-to-remember situations. They are: when you hold a fifteen against the dealer's 10; or when you hold a 16 against the dealer's 9, 10, or ace. And that's it! Compare that to doubling down, which you have to do in a staggering thirty-nine different situations, and you'll see that Surrender is the best move of them all!

I hope this stops the Surrender controversy once and for all. This has been Andrew Furdell, gambling genius. Until next time, I'll see you at third base.