Poker Coverage: Poker Legislation Poker Tournaments U.S. Poker Markets Sports Betting

Thumb_lee-watkinson-blog

Body Scanners

by Lee Watkinson |  Published: Nov 19, '10

Print-icon
 

I am starting to Twitter. I resisted, but, tomorrow I am having a $200 freeroll event on Full Tilt officially begining my Twittering. The password will be tweeted to my followers @Leewat tomorrow before the event. Get on board!
I am also now officially not the guy to go craziest with Ace-7 at a WSOP final table. I watched a lot of the final table on ESPN3 and thought it looked like a very tough and well played final table.
Unlike some of the bloggers on here I enjoy comments and ussually try to include something to spark a discussion. Cardplayer should not allow bloggers to turn of the comments for their blog, in my opinion.
People afraid of negative comments are probably the same types that are afraid of someone seeing an image of their body when they are screened at the airport. This is ridiculous, the only ones who should be concerned about a screener looking at a disassociated image of their body for the saftey of the flight are the very same religious extremists who are likely to attempt a suicide bombing, so good they wont fly. I don’t think the radiation is really an issue relative to everything else you will be exposed to while making your trip.

Lee Watkinson has accumulated nearly $4 million in tournament winnings over his career. His accomplishments include a World Series bracelet in the 2006 $10,000 pot-limit Omaha event and an eighth-place finish in the 2007 WSOP main event. Lee is a Full Tilt Pro and uses his poker winnings to help a chimpanzee rescue charity. Learn more about Lee at his website, www.leewatkinson.com.

 
Any views or opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the ownership or management of CardPlayer.com.
 

Comments

w1s3guy32
10 years ago

Hi Lee,
Healthy debate is good and the spirited the better but there's allot of people out there who get way out of line, where debate is no longer debate.

That can good too because it exposes the indidividual(s) despite hiding behind a online moniker and re-affirms conventioal wisdom and common-ground main-stream views. WHether you are liberal or conservative.

I consider the TSA thing to be a big invasion of privacy rooted in left-wing political correctness.

Profiling should be the standard and is not allowed to be used because according to the brilliant liberal progrssive thinkers, it discriminates.

This pure nonsense. Martha age 68 from Anytown, Wisconsin should be allowed to pass on through. 19 year old Muhammed from Yemen shouldn't be allowed near an airport.

My name is Bob Lusk @roguewire on Twitter.

I look forward to playing in your freeroll.

 
Reply
 

dare2
10 years ago

The TSA search is a quasi invasion of privacy but in these times an unfortunate necessity. Explosives today are compact so bringing down an airplane requires much less mass. My advice? Make the best of it. Choose the line with the cutest TSA agent and if the pat down goes well, request a cavity search.

 
Reply
 

LeeW
10 years ago

Tournament is Nov 21st 18:00.
And, yeah I agree that profiling should also used to make security screening more effective in addition to the scanners. We can't play dumb for political corectness in this case.

 
Reply
 

w1s3guy32
10 years ago

Thanks for the fun free roll Lee, I managed to min cash .20 cents.
Out in 214th/1500.

I was wondering about antes. There wasn't any.

120/240 25 ante would have un-nitted the nits.

Count me in your next one.

Bob

 
Reply
 

JohnnyOnTheSpot
10 years ago

"I consider the TSA thing to be a big invasion of privacy rooted in left-wing political correctness."

I love people who look for any dumb reason to blame the opposing party without looking at the full picture. Yes, you're right that the anti-profiling policies are leftist policies, but the security theater we see at airports now is right-wing. So, fine, the lefties are making a horrible right-wing policy slightly worse.

And yes, it is security theater. How many terrorists have they caught using all of these asinine policies? The policies are all reactionary -- they do nothing for actual prevention. We have a liquid bomber? Confiscate all liquids. Someone used a box cutter? No more razors. Crap, there was something in his shoe? Take off your shoes. Crotch bomb? Ugh, fine, full-body scans so we can see inside your underwear. None of those people were caught beforehand.

An argument can be made that these new annoyances are meant to be preventative and not actually meant to catch people. OK, fine, but we have no measurable way of figuring out whether it's working. Terrorist attacks occur so very rarely that having one attempt a year versus zero is not a large enough sample size to know if it's working. So, basically, we pile on searches, screenings, and inconveniences ad infinitum until our security checkpoints entirely violate us and waste hours of our time each time we want to get on a plane for the minuscule chance that one of us could be attempting to blow up a plane.

There's such a thing as cost/benefit. I for one am willing to say that the cost of hundreds of thousands of hours and our privacy/civil liberties isn't worth the missing a terrorist or two.

Terrorists often fail (as evidenced by the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber), and it's only rarely that they succeed on a scale like 9/11. We can't let one incident of success rule our lives. That's supremely stupid, and if you can't see how us subjecting ourselves to privacy violations and unwarranted fear means the terrorists have won, I'm sorry, but you're very short sighted and don't have a grasp of the big picture.

 
Reply
 

zerofan
10 years ago

GLad you are not a wimp like Dusty who no longer allows comments. I guess he doesnt want to hear that nobody believes all of his self promotion.

I agree with you about screening ( I am ok with it if it makes me safe in the skies)

 
Reply
 

gangles
10 years ago

I don't have anything productive to add to the body scanners discussion, but your A7 comment was hilarious.

 
Reply
 

JohnnyOnTheSpot
10 years ago

"if anyone has an issue with the TSA. DON'T FLY. pure and simple. Flying is a privilege, not a right."

Also, don't drive, because that's a privilege (including buses, taxis, and so on. If your job decides that you need to take trips overseas to conferences, cross your fingers that there's a boat that can get you there. Good point. There are viable alternatives to flying. It's not like airports have a monopoly on speedy and/or overseas travel. What's more, just pull a Negreanu and hire a private jet. No one's stopping you from plunking down $18K for a plane ticket (except maybe your bank account). Stop whining.

/sarcasm.

 
Reply
 

swallsjr
10 years ago

Anyone willing to trade a little bit of freedom for a little bit of safety deserves neither and will lose both.

 
Reply
 

JohnnyOnTheSpot
10 years ago

Hear hear.

 
Reply
 

LeeW
10 years ago

So you are against all screening? Just laissez-faire?

 
Reply
 

LeeW
10 years ago

You are giving up a little bit of freedom when you go through any security.

 
Reply
 

LeeW
10 years ago

You have twisted the words of the great Benjamin Franklin. The true quote is...."They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Which is a lot different. We all give up a lot of little freedoms every day, that dosen't mean we deserve neither feedom nor safety. The key word is essential which you conveniaently omitted.

 
Reply
 

LeeW
10 years ago

"The Way to see by Faith, is to shut the Eye of Reason:
The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle." Also a Franklin quote since you fancy his wisdom.

 
Reply
 

JohnnyOnTheSpot
10 years ago

Lee, I like you, but I think you're wrong about how Franklin intended his quote. From what I know of the Founding Fathers and their principles, privacy certainly is an essential liberty, as is the right not to be searched or to have things seized without cause (which is why that's in the Constitution -- Fourth Amendment).

And yes, this truly is a "little" and "temporary" safety. For one, terrorists still get on planes if they want to. There's no way to screen for all forms of weapons or bombs, just the obvious ones. So, what we're essentially doing is making them be more creative and less obvious with their weapons, which hurts everyone.

And aside from that, the security is almost entirely pointless. Sure, terrorist attacks suck, but you're 50 times more likely to get struck by lightning than be the victim of a terrorist attack. And that was in 2000, BEFORE the TSA's idiotic safety procedures were in place.

(Source: http://tinyurl.com/3xz4wgk)

So, if you're for the TSA's entire idiotic display of Security Theater, then I suppose it's worth your time and the continuous addition of privacy violations to go from a 1-in-25 million chance to a 1-in-...I don't know, 75 million chance?

Hurry, go buy a lottery ticket.

I agree that some basic security should be in place, but there is a line where the cost/benefit ratio is break-even, and it was crossed very shortly after 9/11 -- and yet the TSA still is running in opposite direction at full speed. It's time to snap back to that line.

 
 

JohnnyOnTheSpot
10 years ago

Read this article. This is a brilliant example of reasonable, effective security at one of -- if not THE -- highest-risk airports in the world: http://tinyurl.com/y9ne7tn

They have much, much higher risks there, but much "less" security, it's just more effective and more logical. You can't stamp out terrorism by trying to find ways to ban or check every single possibility for malice, since there are infinite possibilities for malice. The truly effective method is to focus on a broader, more fundamental aspect of terrorists. Israel seems to understand this -- it's mainly behavior, not possessions, that gives terrorists away.

 
 

LeeW
10 years ago

I agree with following the Israel type security and have even blogged abou that before.
I just don't see the big deal about the body scanners. After those screeners have seen 100's of fat women and less well endowed men they aren't even going to bat an eye, who cares, they aren't even going to know who they are looking at.
People are worried about abuses of these images. I think we can afford to wait and see if anything happens, what are we risking really?

 
Reply
 

texasroadgambler
10 years ago

Johnny and Lee:

That is an interesting article on the link that you provided Johnny.

However, I find it ironic that the Israeli "solution" might easily be defeated by a skilled poker player.

It seems to me that the Israelis are searching for physical "tells". How easily a skilled poker player could neutralize their search.

Then of course there is the possiblility that the terrorist has had access to some psychoactive drug that masks the physical signs that the Israelis are using for their primary alerts.

What say you to this?

 
 

JohnnyOnTheSpot
10 years ago

TRG, I think you missed a few key points in the article:

1) Despite having a higher terrorist-per-capita than the U.S., they've had no incidents at their airports since instituting this system aside from the accidental handgun mentioned.

2) The process they use focuses on behavioral tells, but doesn't rely on them. As mentioned, they still do luggage/carryon checks. They also do a more cursory body check (without the groping).

3) The stress and nervousness of someone about to commit a major act of violence against others (and sometimes themselves, in the case of suicide bombers) is much harder to control under pressure. So much so that it's not even close to analogous to, say, minimizing tells when making a big bluff for your tournament life heads up at the WSOP main event. Even in the most extreme poker situation, the difference is vast.

4) As far as drugs are concerned, you're saying you don't think that the people looking for behavioral tells would be able to tell that someone is sedated or otherwise on drugs and are not acting normally? It's surprisingly easy to tell. Either someone is acting nervous or they're acting very out of it -- either way, something is amiss.

 
 

LeeW
10 years ago

I don't think that tells are the main part of the Israel security...I think research and due diligence are.

 
 

JohnnyOnTheSpot
10 years ago

Behavioral tells are the main part of the internal security, but you're right that the point the article makes at the very end regarding the most important step being intelligence is entirely correct. Intelligence (research) is fairly indisputably the most important security measure, but that's ongoing and off-site. The individual, on-site security focuses on behaviors, with privacy violations/searches minimized.

 
 

JaxFull
10 years ago

@bmpek

"Danny Boy's" horrible play prolly isn't so horrible -- it does seem to enrich him. To put it another way: how many $17,500 plane tickets have you bought this week?

 
Reply
 

JohnnyOnTheSpot
10 years ago

Another superb article on the topic, for those interested: http://tinyurl.com/2vs7moh

 
Reply
 

texasroadgambler
10 years ago

Johnny:

While I agree that the Israelis have been very successful with their strategy, I must disagree that such a strategy is even practical in the U.S. If you compare the daily air passenger traffic in the U.S. to Israel, you will instantly see the impracticality of attempting to use their strategy here.

As for detecting nervousness on the part of terrorists, did anyone detect nervous mannerisms from Richard Reid the shoe bomber? Did anyone detect nervousness from the Christmas underwear bomber? The point being that dedicated ideologues behave as sociopaths, and are therfore immune to the ordinary emotions such as fear that might give away persons with a sense of moral responsibility.

As for the issue of drugs resulting in detectable behavior, I refer you to the use of beta blockers that are very effective in defeating polygraph examinations. Their use is undetectable execpt by blood analysis.

 
Reply
 

JaxFull
10 years ago

@texasroadgambler

The point being that dedicated ideologues behave as sociopaths, and are therfore immune to the ordinary emotions such as fear that might give away persons with a sense of moral responsibility.

-------------

Aha. So that's why I'm no good at poker. I'm not a sociopath!

 
Reply
 

texasroadgambler
10 years ago

Too funny, Jax. There is perhaps an element of high stakes poker that might exhibit some sociopathic tendencies.

Fortunately, most players seem to be able to "switch off" that inclination when they depart the poker tables.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

 
Reply
 

JaxFull
10 years ago

U 2

 
 

b_durr
10 years ago

WHY IS LEE WATKINSON BLOGGING? DOES HE PLAY POKER?

 
Reply
 
 
Newsletterbanner Twitterbanner Fbbanner