cause and effect

sometimes it can be pretty hard to tell cause and effect apart. and often this goes against the generally accepted view of society.

for example, 'white van man' is almost always a horrible driver, but are they horrible due to the driving every day, or does the job attract horrific drivers?

sometimes, it's even hard to tell after the event. time henman was a loser (he did well for a brit, but didn't really win anything of note). but was he a loser before he started playing, or did not winning make him a loser. please note this is a highly imperfect example but was the first thing i thought of with the tennis on the telly.

i also decided to play some pokers recently. been having awful sessions on stars after a good start this month and found myself $1.5k down in the mouth after 4 losing sessions in a row. my session yesterday involved 140 pairs preflop, and 3 sets on the flop. and i pretty much never fold pairs pre. so that was pretty horrific. but today made up for it and i had my best winning session in a while finishing over $1.5k up tonight. getting real tired after not sleeping much this week and had to stop before i lost all focus.

this was my favourite hand tonight. villain has $200, i cover:

little blind: posts small blind $1
massive blind: posts big blind $2

*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Jd 9d]
Donkey: folds
UTG+1: folds
poor villain: raises $4 to $6
Hero: raises $12 to $18
little blind: folds
massive blind: folds
poor villain: calls $12

*** FLOP *** [7h 2d Tc]
poor villain: checks
Hero: bets $22
poor villain: calls $22

*** TURN *** [7h 2d Tc] [7s]
poor villain: checks
Hero: checks

*** RIVER *** [7h 2d Tc 7s] [5d]
poor villain: checks
Hero: checks

*** SHOW DOWN ***
poor villain: shows [3s 2s] (two pair, Sevens and Deuces)
Hero: mucks hand
poor villain collected $80 from pot