How to make $10,000,000 in Two Weeks

At the moment, I am getting rather excited by something called the World Series of Poker, which is currently taking place in Las Vegas. (Where else?) It is a bit like the Olympics or the Wimbledon of the poker world but, unlike those events, anyone can take part. All you have to do is put in $10,000 of your own money (hmm) or win a place through one of an increasingly huge number of qualifying events. In 2003, a guy with the appropriate name of Chris Moneymaker qualified by this route and then ended up winning the whole thing.

This year there are more than 8,000 competitors and a quick bit of maths reveals that this results in a prize pool of $80 million, of which the winner will get about $10 million - very nice work if you can get it. However, this is not like the lottery - poker is largely a game of skill and so an incredible amount of talent as well as, admittedly, some luck is required in order to be successful. Nevertheless, there are a lot of amateur players, including myself, who have a burning ambition to one day play in the tournament, just for the sheer thrill of it.

This is the first WSOP since I started becoming interested in poker about a year ago, and I am already finding myself obsessively reading live updates. As well as the one on Cardplayer.com, there is a more entertaining but less thorough service provided by the Gutshot Club, who also run a card room in London. They have some extremely good players, one of whom came 14th in last year's event. I visited the Gutshot once to play a few hands but my money did not last long.

Naturally, the updates begin by focusing largely on the big names of poker and the celebrities who take part (and usually get eliminated within a few hours). However, as the tournament progresses over the fortnight, there is a strong chance that some new names will emerge. If I happen not to blog very much over this time then you'll know why.

Dial 1 for Democracy

Regular readers of my blog will know that I occasionally like to discuss important constitutional issues. Therefore, today I am going to write about Nikki's eviction from Big Brother on Friday night.

Many people were surprised that Nikki lost the vote. She had survived a couple of previous public votes and it seemed as though she was going to last until the final week. They have begun to wonder what she had done wrong in her last few days, in order to turn the nation against her. However, I think that this is not the right question to ask. In my opinion, the key to her eviction was the change of voting system. Instead of being up against a single fellow housemate, they had all been put up for eviction, except Jayne, as a punishment for her breaching the Big Brother rules, by discussing the outside world.

To understand why, it is necessary to think about how the housemates are likely to be perceived by the viewing public. Nikki seems to be regarded as irredeemably annoying by a minority, perhaps 20%, but as entertainingly endearing by the rest, say 80%. Now consider Imogen. Of those who have noticed her at all, perhaps 5% think that she at least provides some cute Welsh eye candy while 5% may be frustrated that she is incredibly boring and does nothing at all. The other 90% probably find her so uninteresting that they are completely indifferent to her fate. Indeed, apart from Nikki, and maybe also Pete, I would suggest that this is the profile of most of the housemates, neither loved nor loathed, but in some tedious place in between.

Now, let us put Nikki in a head-to-head eviction battle with any of her rivals. It is plain to see that Nikki would win easily as her fans would flock to vote for her opponent. But put her up against all of them and something odd happens. Now, the minority who dislike her vote her out while the vote of everyone else is split between the eleven others. It is possible that an election candidate who is preferred to every individual rival can be defeated when up against them all. Similarly, if viewers had been asked to vote for their most liked housemate, then I am also highly doubtful that she would have been evicted this week.

Mathematicians have used examples like this to argue that a pure form of democracy is impossible, because the person chosen depends, often quite heavily, upon the electoral system used, and arbitrary factors, such as the number of candidates also affect the outcome. I agree up to a point but I also think that some of the results produced by their models are preferable to others. For example, if you are a television producer, you surely do not want Nikki to be evicted if she is the most watchable person in the house. From Endemol's point of view, the voting system that they introduced was a big mistake.

In real elections, of course, the electorate vote for their favourite rather than their least favourite candidate. Therefore, if a 'first past the post' system is used, with multiple candidates, the result is the opposite of the Big Brother example. In other words, a person who is strongly disliked by a majority, but supported by even quite a small minority, can be elected. Many political theorists have commented on the 'tyranny of the majority' as a possible negative consequence of democracy. However, with a 'first past the post' system in place, a 'tyranny of the minority' becomes perfectly possible.

I find it difficult to regard any system in which a minority can come to power, with a desire to control and oppress the majority, by whom they are hated and feared, as democratic, and this, for me, is the fundamental flaw of the 'first past the post' system. Nor do I regard proportional representation to be the solution. PR can allow often quite unpleasant fringe parties to hold the balance of power, and hence wield disproportionate influence, a fact used by the Nazis to their benefit, and to the world's great cost, in 1930s Germany.

My preferred alternative is some sort of transferable vote system, of which the simplest is the Single Transferable Vote, in which voters are asked to indicate a second choice on their ballot papers. If their preferred candidate is eliminated, their vote passes to this reserve option, with the consequence that the victor must at least not be despised by the majority of the population. A similar system is used in the French presidential election, except that, rather than chooing a second choice, electors vote again in a run-off contest, between the two candidates who poll the most votes in the first election. The advantage of this method was strikingly demonstrated in 2002, when Jean-Marie Le Pen caused a shock by coming second in the initial vote and was then soundly thrashed by Chirac in the deciding contest.

So there you go. From reality television to mathematics to political theory. I can only hope that, in future parliamentary debates about electoral reform, the benefits of STV will receive more appreciation. Then Nikki will not have been lost to Big Brother in vain.

Some Tennis Players are More Equal than Others

I know this is a few days late but I want to talk about Wimbledon. Congratulations to Amelie Mauresmo who was awarded £625,000 for winning the women's singles, and to Roger Federer who won £655,000 for his fourth consecutive victory in the men's event. But the disparity between the levels of prize money is rather curious. It may seem quite small but, in many ways, that makes it even more difficult to explain. It is as though the All England Club is trying to make a point, to administer a slap in the face to women's tennis. I therefore find myself in support of Tony Blair's recent statement, calling for equality.

One of the arguments used to justify the difference is the supposed commercial superiority of men's tennis - that it is easier to sell. This is misleading because it is events in which both men and women take part that sell best of all. Indeed, the ATP, which runs men's tennis, is trying to introduce more events involving women for precisely this reason. In any case, the argument is ultimately a morally abhorrent one. For a shopkeeper in a racist neighbourhood, it may indeed be more commercially sound not to employ any black or Asian staff, but no-one would consider this to be acceptable behaviour.

The second reason given is something of an old chestnut, the fact that women play three set matches at Wimbledon, compared to five sets for the men. This is true but somewhat bogus. For one thing, many of the top female players, such as Venus Williams, have said that they are prepared to play five set matches if asked to do so. In addition, the fact that they play shorter matches does not mean that women have to spend less time training so, overall, they put in just as many hours as the men. Also, to qualify for Wimbledon, players have to acquire ranking points by competing in many less well-known tournaments, in which both men and women play over three sets.

For the clinching argument, however, I want to draw an analogy with disability rights. Just as employers and service providers are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people, the All England Club should be willing to make adjustments for female players, to allow for physical difference between the sexes. I hope that, one day, this principle will become 'obvious' and it will become second-nature for people to think in this way and Wimbledon can, and should, do a lot to make a contribution towards this cultural shift.

Historically, the tournament has forever been associated with strawberries-and-cream-eating toffs and so is continually looking for ways to present a more modern image. A roof will be installed on Centre Court over the next few years and, this year, the outfits worn by umpires and ball boys and girls were redesigned by Ralph Lauren, to much publicity. Unfortunately, however, on the equal pay issue, Wimbledon remains firmly rooted in the nineteenth century.

Two for the Price of One

Sorry I haven't posted here for a little while. I have decided to split my blog into two. This one will continue with my political commentary on current events and general ramblings about the world, while the other one is called 'Help! Im Turning Normal' and deals with more personal matters. I won't say any more about it. Instead, go and read it!