I’ve watched the world series of poker for years now. the last time I actually played poker in a casino, derrick and I were trying to either blow our money/ exponentially grow our money in ’06. it could’ve been ’09 or ’95. I’m losing the linear hold time has had on me. the reason I watch the wsop is primarily not skill development related. besides, it’s edited. the course of poker can’t be captured in an hour. it’s called a war of attrition for a reason. they constantly talk about the ability to switch gears, because the shifting landscape occurs between the camera worthy hands. this year, I had a particular interest in the growing number of women competing in this tournament. I was certain that this was gonna be the year a woman won the wsop. in truth, I was probably invested in this outcome more than just observing the flow of things. unfortunately, two women who made it into the top 15 out of over 6,000 did not reach their goal of making the final table. should they have? in my opinion, yes. why didn’t they? I don’t know. I have a theory, though. it has to do with the patriarchy. on day 3 or 5, or something like that, a dude named koroknai went all in. meaning, he put all his money into the hand. everyone after him folded, except for one- gail baumann. he did not notice this, so assuming that he already won, threw his cards into the muck (where discarded cards go). baumann was holding a pair of kings and the flop hadn’t been dealt (if these terms are confusing, thankfully we have the internet). this was likely to be a winning hand. unfortunately, the dude who determines the penalties for these things decided that koroknai should only serve a one round penalty (being unable to play for a round. weak!) instead of being knocked out of the tournament for super fucking up during a tournament where all players are expected to follow the rigidity of these rules to a T. because of this, koroknai remained in the tournament and that ruling threw gail baumann off her game (at the time of this, she was one of the top 5 chip stacks). this week, I watched as koroknai knocked out both gail baumann and elizabeth hille. is any of this connected, or am I reaching? I am allowed my wacky opinions. and I believe the patriarchy wants the money (for lack of a better word) of women, but is threatened by their power. I believe if gail baumann and elizabeth hille made it to the final table, one of them would have won. I believe if koroknai was eliminated on day 3 or 5, both women would have made the final table. I’m certain many pros would disagree with this. I know their poker logic would be stronger than mine. my questions are what realm does this logic spring from? what is this logic in service to? what are the factors which determine the ebb and flow of this game? over time, one recognizes it isn’t strictly numbers or luck. players understand all minutia matter. every hand rotation contributes to the arc. so where does this narrative fit into the evolution of poker as a reflection of society? I am not proving a point. I am introducing a lens not offered by norman chad. koroknai is a bystander. the situation reveals the system more than the parts. there is a change being fought. there is a world whose identity is in flux. the final table next week will be a throwback to a time we no longer live in. why is that? as the kids say, #I’mjustsayin’
this is the final preview poem from the book. thank you for taking the time to read the previous two. thank you for taking the time to read this one. take care of yourselves out there.
of course I’m voting for romney! psyche! do I look like a pterodactyl? unfortunately for me, there are an uncomfortable amount of people I know who will be voting for romney. thankfully, I’ve successfully convinced my mother otherwise. this isn’t true, it’s just a segway. americans of asian descent are quite the toss up. I’m shocked that I don’t receive more ads targeting my priorities. actually, I’m not. ain’t no candidate gonna be like, “we need to dead this cars planes bullshit, ‘cuz we gonna teleport by the time my term is up.” I have yet to hear a candidate say, “there’s too much space out there for us to be fighting amongst ourselves. the story of the incans is not an isolated incident.” this is probably for the best. who the fuck would become a phone zombie for a paycheck after that? I immediately retract that statement, because I watch enough television to know better. my parents are perfect targets for the way politicians currently talk. they weren’t raised understanding the speech n’ debate model which plagues our political conversations. they are susceptible to volume. they are swayed by singular focus. context is the future. you’ve heard how everything’s connected for like a million years now. we are beginning an age of mass understanding regarding this thought. my parents (sisters would chime in at this point, “your parents?”) and I talk about context. they have already taught me so much in my life, it’s time I don’t waste all they’ve invested in me only on gaining glory. I wonder how often I will use the word “glory,” this year? until it sinks in. the mass of information coming at me requires a certain amount of repetition to stem the tide. constant reminder applies to more than I thought it would have at this point. constantly remind that this isn’t about parties. constantly remind that sensitivity is power. constantly remind to floss my teeth. I’m praying it leads to me doing more than voting once every four years. we’ll need to continue this later. I’ve got to go teach knives as metaphor. or do I?