The Truth About A Canadian-Style Health Care System

Interesting article.

Real Clear Politics' Poll Analysis

Real Clear Politics has prepared this analysis of both national and state presidential polling.

When I conclude my battleground state polling analysis, I will summarize my conclusions as well as discuss D.J. Drummond's and Real Clear Politics' conclusions.

Why Not Polygamy?

First, a disclaimer. I voted on November 2nd in the state of Ohio. I abstained on the gay marriage amendment for a variety of reasons and, quite frankly, I do not care very much one way or the other about gay marriage.

Nonetheless, there is an aspect of this issue that I find quite illogical.

If gay marriage, then why not polygamy?

Are not the principal reasons given in opposition to gay marriage the same reasons that would be used to oppose legalized polygamy?

Marriage has been defined throughout the Western world as a union between one man and one woman. The requirement that the union involve people of opposite genders is only one of the defining criteria. The other is that the union involve a total of two and only two people.

Both criteria are supported by religious tradition, legal tradition and cultural tradition. In fact, polygamy has more religious support than gay marriage.

It seems that the reason why gay marriage has attracted such support while almost none exists for polygamy is that the gay (marriage) lobby is much more powerful than the polygamy lobby and the former has captured the very attentive ear of the Democratic Party.

Should civil liberties be determined by special interest pressure politics? I hope we can agree not. Thus, gay marriage advocates should explain in a logical manner why gay marriage should be made legal while polygamy should not ... or they had better start protesting on behalf polygamy as well ... or, at the very least, they should admit that they are hypocrites and not the human rights advocates that they are pretending to be.

Five Card Stud: Introduction and General Principles

Introduction

Five Card Stud once was the most popular form of poker. After a period of massive decline, it has made a small but significant resurgence via internet cardrooms. Royal Vegas Poker, other Prima Poker Network cardrooms, Ladbrokes Poker and Paradise Poker each offer the game. At Royal Vegas Poker, there are games offered at a wide varierty of limits and one or more game is usually going at the $5.00-$10.00 limit or higher. Understanding why the game lost favor can enlighten the player to proper play at this form of poker and allow that player to derive healthy profits now that the game is re-born on the Internet.

Five Card Stud is the simplest form of poker among conventional poker games. The game is guided by many principles that have few, if any, exceptions. Thus, it is fairly easy for a player to play Five Card Stud very well. That simplicity explains why it is no longer a major form of poker and has been surpassed by more complex games such as Hold ‘Em and Seven Card Stud.

In poker, making better decisions than the opponents is the source of a skilled player’s profits. If all players are playing the game well, then the game lacks the sufficient skill differential among the players for any one of them to overcome the rake and generate a profit.

As almost all players eventually learned to play Five Card Stud well, the games ceased showing a profit and, consequently, disappeared. If a player did not learn to play well, then he quickly lost his money and, whether due to lack of money or lack of enjoyment from losing so often and so quickly, never returned to the game. Hold 'Em is a game with a great deal of complex skill. Yet, the short term luck factor is large enough that poor players can win for extended periods. This is not so at Five Card Stud. The short term fluctuations that are the frequent complaint of good Hold 'Em players is actually their friend: it gives the "fish" an opportunity to occasionally win and maintains a steady flow of those "fish" into the games. Five Card Stud lacks many of these poor players because they learn to play well due to the relative simplicity of the skill needed at Five Card Stud or they lose so much money, so quickly that they move to another game. However, if a skilled player can find a Five Card Stud game with one or more "fish", then that game can be more profitable with less fluctuations than any other form of limit poker, except possibly Five Card Draw.

Five Card Stud is the Tic-Tac-Toe of poker. Again, it is a game with a great deal of skill but those skills are not complex. Both Tic-Tac-Toe and chess are games with a high element of skill in the sense that neither game has any luck: each game is 100% skill and 0% luck. However, not many people would consider Tic-Tac-Toe as skillful a game as chess because the skills required to play chess well are much more complex than the skills required to play Tic-Tac-Toe well. In fact, there are extremely simple skills that will allow a person to play Tic-Tac-Toe perfectly. The balance of skill versus luck is equal in these games but the complexity of those skills is very different.

Against a person with the rudimentary skills to play Tic-Tac-Toe, the game could not be played for profit and certainly would be played at a loss if there was a rake. The games always would result in a tie with the house taking a small cut and the players receiving their pushed bets less the rake in return. Both players are guaranteed to lose money. However, if a player could find an opponent who does not play Tic-Tac-Toe well, then the game could be played for significant profit as the skillful player would at least tie each game and occasionally win a game.

So it is with Five Card Stud. As in any form of poker, if the opponents play poorly, the game can be played for profit. Five Card Stud does make an appearance at several Internet poker rooms and, fortunately, these games contain many players who play the game quite poorly. Therefore, they are profitable. Whether the poor play is due to the paucity of literature on the game due to its unpopularity, to today’s generation having grown up with other games and never learning how to play Five Card Stud properly or for some other reason, the games online are quite good.

General Principles

The following principles assume a limit game with a moderate ante structure such as a $0.25 ante in a $2.00-$4.00 game and further assume that there has been a raise on 2nd Street by a higher upcard than the bring-in's upcard.

Most of the examples and discussion refer to heads-up encounters. Many pots, particularly on 5th Street, are heads-up and proper play in multi-ways pots is not much different from proper play when heads-up. One reason is that Five Card Stud is not a drawing game. In multi-ways pots, drawing hands gain value. Thus, much of the strategy adjustments in other games such as Hold ‘Em and Seven Card Stud for multi-ways pots is based on switching the emphasis to hands which can make big hands, such as flush and straight draws, from the high cards and pairs that dominate short-handed and heads-up play. In Five Card Stud, high cards and pairs remain strong in multi-ways pots as, even in those situations, flush and straight draws cannot be profitably played.

Also, many of the principles and examples assume that the opponent plays reasonably well. Many of the opponents in the profitable online games do not play well. After all, that poor play is why those games are profitable. Thus, Principle #2 and Principle #3 discussed below often can be violated against those types of opponents. Nonetheless, the guidelines are meant to teach proper play against opponents who are playing properly. Deviations from the principles can be made when appropriate.

Principle #1: A player should not voluntarily put money in the pot if he cannot beat his opponent's board unless the player is bluffing

This is not merely a general principle but a rule with very rare exceptions. On 4th Street, it may be correct to call a bet on a draw, but it is never correct on earlier streets. Also, even on 4th Street, it is rarely correct to pay to draw. Five Card Stud is not a game for chasers. Flushes, straights and stronger hands are rare. One pair is the typical winning hand and one high pair often is a monster hand. A player can hold the nuts with a mere high or medium pair. Because of the few cards dealt to the players, it is difficult for the trailing hand to catch-up.

Principle #2: A player should not call if his hole card does not help him

The reason for this principle is that since the opponent can see the player’s board and has bet into the player, then the opponent must be able to beat the player’s board.

Ex. Player has: (9)-K-4 Opponent has: (?)-J-T

Player checks and opponent bets. Opponent’s bet says “I can beat king-high.” Thus, he is announcing a king, ace, ten or jack in the hole. Player can beat none of these hands as his hole card does not help his hand. The player should fold.

Ex. Player has: (Q)-K-4 Opponent has: (?)-J-T

Player checks and opponent bets. Arguably the queen helps the player’s hand as the opponent’s bet could mean that he thinks he can beat player’s king-high with a better king-high. In that case, the queen gives the player the best king-high. Nonetheless, with three kings, four aces, three tens and three jacks, there is only a 3/13 chance that the player’s king-high is ahead and, even then, he is not ahead by much. The player should fold.

Assuming that the opponent only will bet with an ace, ten or jack in the hole, six players paid a $0.25 ante, a $1.00 bring-in bettor who folded, a $2.00 completion and a $2.00 call and a resulting pot size of $5.25 before the 3rd Street bet. With that bet, the player is receiving odds of 4.25:1 on his call. Against an ace-high hand, the player has 12 outs to a better hand with odds of 2.83:1. Against a pair of jacks or tens, the player has 6 outs with odds of 6.67:1. Assuming the opponent would play each possible hand in the same manner, he will hold an ace-high 40% of the time and a pair 60% of the time. Therefore, the player’s required pot odds to call is 4.48:1. Also, some of the time that the player improves, so will his opponent. The player needs more than 4.48:1 to compensate for this possibility. The player should fold.

Ex. Player has: (A)-K-4 Opponent has: (?)-J-T

Player checks and opponents bets. In this case, the player’s correct play may be to bet, but for this example, a check is assumed. The ace in the hole adds enough value to the hand that it can call or even raise. In the preceding example, the player could only beat one legitimate hand being bet by the opponent, king-high, and that hand was not a likely hand for the opponent to bet. In this example, the player can beat the additional hand of ace-high. This hand is much more likely to be bet by the opponent and, consequently, a much likelier holding. This possibility creates a reasonable chance that the player is ahead and if he is not, then he has six outs to the nuts. The hand can be continued.

Principle #3: A player should not bet if his hole card or the card that was just dealt does not help him and the player bet the previous round

The reason for this principle is similar to the previous reasoning. If the opponent called a bet on the previous round, then he must be able to beat the player’s board. So, the player should not bet unless he has something better than what he is showing.

In the cases when the just dealt card improves the player’s hand, it may have improved to something that beats what the opponent had the previous round when he could beat the player’s board. In other words, the opponent can beat what the player had before, but perhaps not what the player now has, so the player should bet the hand that may now be best.

Battleground State Poll Analysis: Part Three - Rasmussen and Survey USA

Part Three (read Part One and Part Two here) of my battleground state poll analysis continues with the final polls conducted by Rasmussen Reports (RR) and Survey USA (SUSA).

These two firms utilize automated telephone polling. In other words, they do not use human telephone interviewers.

The battleground states selected for this study are Iowa, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. All results are listed with the support of President George W. Bush first and the support of Senator John F. Kerry second.

Florida:
Results: 52-47
RR: 50-47
SUSA: 49-48

Iowa
Results: 50-49
RR: n/a
SUSA: 47-50

Michigan
Results: 48-51
RR: 46-50
SUSA: 47-50

Minnesota
Results: 48-51
RR: 47-48
SUSA: n/a

New Hampshire
Results: 49-50
RR: n/a
SUSA: n/a

New Mexico
Results: 50-49
RR: 48-44
SUSA: n/a

Ohio
Results: 51-49
RR: 50-46
SUSA: 49-47

Pennsylvania
Results: 49-51
RR: 47-49
SUSA: 48-49

Wisconsin
Results: 49-50
RR: n/a
SUSA: n/a

Predicted Winner
RR had a record of 6-0-0 and SUSA had a record of 4-1-0. Advantage RR.

Average Error In Spread
RR had an average error of 1.7 points. SUSA had an average error of 1.8 points. No advantage.

Bias Toward Each Candidate
RR underestimated Bush's support by an average of 1.7 points and underestimated Kerry's support by an average of 2.3 points. SUSA underestimated Bush's support by an average of 2.0 points and underestimated Kerry's support by an average of 0.6 points. Thus, RR had a pro-Bush bias of 0.6 points and SUSA had a pro-Kerry bias of 1.4 points. Advantage RR.

Conclusion

Although this analysis contains a fair amount of rounding (and rounding of rounded numbers) and is based on state vote totals that are subject to change as absentee ballots are counted and other revisions are made, both firms scored well. However, RR has the advantage due to predicting all of the correct winners and a slightly lower bias toward a candidate. Nonetheless, SUSA's results are solid as well.

Polipundit's Analysis of State Polls

D.J. Drummond of Polipundit has authored this analysis of the various polling firms and their state polling.

I will comment at some later time, probably following completion of my analysis of battleground state poll.