This is actually happening: I’m linking the Daily Caller.

Apparently even the right wing is starting to clue in to the fact that Sheldon Adelson is a crazy old liche.

Let’s be real for a second:

Most of us remember the online poker boom.

It was NOT bad for cardrooms. It was NOT bad for casinos.

The only thing harmed by the poker boom, hypothetically, was the american tax base – if we could have kept all those transactions domestic and taxed, we could have bought pet ligers for everyone in the state of Montana.

But let’s accept, for the nonce, as it were, harrumph, that Adelson’s paranoid old man visions are true:

The right better not help him.

If you say you’re for small government, for states rights, and for individual liberty, you better get out of bed with this guy and on the legal poker clue train as soon as you can get to the ticket booth.

That IS a Tasty Burger

For my money, you cannot beat the Maryland Parkway In and Out when feeding the beast in Vegas.

Runners up include

Hash House A Go-Go

and

Lee’s Sandwiches (and Coffee, do not forget the coffee)

“Poker is Pain Management”

onlinepoker.net has an interesting roundup of tweets from a busy weekend in the poker world.

particularly loved Todd Brunson’s:

“The subjects that come up at poker table: tonight: terrorist, beastiality, cannibalism…. I hope homeland isn’t tuning in tonight.. Well I was winning all night so johnny chan called for a brand new set up and I lost every hand. But I retaliated. 2 vodkas and I got even.”

Check out the full list here.

SOAT

This may actually be the sickest thing I’ve seen on TV poker

You wanta keep red snapper or go for what’s in the box?

The Monty Hall problem is one of the most consistently counter-intuitive examples presented in game theory. It has stumped doctors, scientists, readers of Marilyn Vos-Savant, and countless students over the years.

The problem hinges on completeness of information.

The confusion happens because we are asked to arrive at the probability of something, and then offered a chance to revise our choice, with better information – but that information is presented in a counter-intuitive way.