The hand is from Season 3, Episode 12, and it features poker professionals Phil Ivey and Brad Booth (yes, the same Brad Booth who used some psychology and game theory in Poker After Dark).

Some background on the hand: Booth had appeared on High Stakes Poker before. This time he bought in for a cool million dollars, hoping to intimidate opponents with a big stack. This is one of Phil Ivey’s first hands on High Stakes Poker and he bought in for about 300,000.

Here’s how the hand went down. Keep reading for my analysis.

Youtube video: High Stakes Poker Brad Booth vs Phil Ivey

The pre-flop betting

The hand started routinely with a raise to $1,800. Brad Booth then re-raised to $5,800 with his weak hand of 2-4 spades, perhaps in an attempt to steal the pot.

But it was not a good time to try because Phil Ivey woke up with pocket kings. Ivey played his hand strongly and re-raised to $14,000.

The action folded around the table to Booth. While contemplating the decision, Booth asked Ivey how many chips he had. He was likely trying to get a read on Ivey and also deciding if the hand was worth pursuing.

Upon hearing Ivey had $300,000, Booth made the call because he stood to win a lot of money with the right kind of flop (in other words, he figured he had good implied pot odds).

On the flop

The flop comes 3-7-6 with two diamonds, missing both Booth and Ivey.

With no ace on the board, Ivey figures his kings are the best hand and he bets out $23,000, about 2/3 of the pot. Ivey probably wants to win the hand right there. He certainly doesn’t want Booth to catch up with a flush or straight draw.

It would seem that Booth would fold here. The flop was not good for him, and he’s seen Ivey represent a strong hand–with a big pre-flop re-raise and a continuation bet on the flop.

And this is where the hand gets crazy. Booth, with only a four high, announces that he’s all-in! He really is putting Phil Ivey all-in. He lays down three cash bricks, each one hundred thousand dollars, right on the table.

Ivey is completely caught off-guard by the bet. His face at 2:15-2:19 is priceless. He’s thinking, what the heck does Booth have?

Ivey understandably takes some time to figure out whether to call. He’s probably mulling over what Booth might have. Here are a few possibilities:

–Three-of-a-kind of 3s, 6s, or 7s: It’s possible Booth raised pre-flop with a low pair like 3s, 6s, or 7s, and he got lucky enough to his a set. Against one of these hands Ivey is a huge underdog, with only about a 13 percent chance of winning.

–An ace high-flush draw: An aggressive player could have raised with ace-queen, ace-jack, or ace-ten suited diamonds on the flop. But this is not a very strong hand even with the favorable flop. Ivey’s kings would still be a favorite with over a 56 percent chance of winning, which would give him the right odds to call $250,000 for a pot of $300,000. Still a gutsy call but one that Ivey might make.

–A pair of aces: This is another hand that could worry Ivey. Booth was fearless in the pre-flop betting and could have represented a strong pair. He also raised big here to possibly price out draws if Ivey were chasing. Against aces Ivey would have just a 13 percent chance of winning.

–A pair of jacks or queens: Ivey might also be putting Booth on a strong pair like queens or jacks. Booth’s pre-flop betting would be consistent with these hands. Ivey would be a huge favorite–over 90 percent–to these hands. He’d be in great position to double up, and it’s tempting to call.

It’s pretty much impossible to put Booth on the hand he actually has. After all, he’s betting $300,000 on a 4 high to win a $55,000 pot. Sure, betting is the only way he can win the hand. But there’s no need to chase this hand. He can pick a better spot, with a better hand, to play a big pot.

In the end, Ivey releases his hand and folds. I read somewhere that he was putting putting Booth on pocket aces, a reasonable rationale.

It’s debated whether Booth was being smart or reckless, but the commentator seems to believe it was a great move. He says that Booth played the hand for two reasons: “One, he doesn’t think Phil Ivey can call him with a pair of queens, kings, or aces. And two, he is advertising. He is showing that he is totally unpredictable and he expects this $300,000 bet here to pay dividends in the future.”

What do you think: was Booth’s all-in bet genius or stupid?

I was intrigued for a couple of reasons. The appeal started with the rate. The savings yield was very competitive and even slightly higher than ING Direct. As of this writing, Discover Bank offers a 1.35% APY versus ING Direct’s 1.10%.

And then there was the name. The bank is associated with Discover Financial Services, and it brought to mind the good customer service and great website usability of the Discover credit card.

The high rate and the good reputation were strong reasons. I was sold on the account…almost.

Before I opened an account, I decided to look at the fees. It was there I saw what looked like a red flag.

The stupidest fee ever

Here’s a list of Discover Bank online savings account fees:

One fee stood out to me and it’s marked above–the Account Closure fee of $20 within 90 days of opening.

From a consumer perspective, it puzzled me. I’ve never heard of a bank that charges to close an account, let alone an online one that doesn’t have the overhead of a physical bank. This definitely seems like a sneaky and annoying fee.

It also struck me as a bad signal from a game theory perspective. A bank that has a high rate and a good reputation should not need a closing fee to keep me as a customer. It’s customer service should do that job. The account closure fee was like the bank saying, “Trust us, you’ll love our services. But by the way, if you don’t love our services, we’ll charge you to leave.”

This is reinforced by the 90 day lock-in period. A small period of 15 or 30 days might be understandable to discourage rate-chasers that keep moving their money around to find the highest rate. A 90 day period seems excessive. I am not going to try an untested savings account for a 90-day period, particularly in a market with so many banks that don’t charge closing fees.

If Discover Bank ever wants my business, it will eliminate this account closure fee.

And it would also help to improve its customer service–Discover Bank is getting a lot of /bad reviews.

Handbag companies were not happy to see reality star Snooki on Jersey Shore vomit in their handbags and defile their brands.

And so, they fought back in an interesting way. Via NBCPhiladelphia:

Well, it ends up that fashion powerhouses like Gucci and Coach have been allegedly sending the “Jersey Shore” train wreck [Snooki] expensive designer bags.

The kicker: Coach is not sending [Snooki] Coach bags. They’re sending her Gucci bags, and any other competing designer product they can put into her Guido-grabbing hands.

Who knew the strategies of Game Theory would come so naturally to the fashionistas who think a $5,000-price tag for a handbag is a reasonable marketing move?

It’s funny how each company is fighting by trying to destroy the competitor. The logic is something like “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

On closer analysis, the game is not good for the companies. The brand war is a type of Prisoner’s dilemma.

The best outcome is if no one sent Snooki a handbag. Yet each company is motivated to send a competitor’s handbag–regardless of what the other does–and so each sends a handbag as a dominant strategy. Ultimately both pay for handbags and both brands get shown negatively on TV.

In spite of the clever strategies, the losers of this “unbranding game” are the companies. The clear winner is Snooki. Ironic, isn’t it?

The hand is from Season 6, Episode 49, and here’s a clip where the hand gets interesting on the river:

Youtube video: Poker After Dark hand at 7:52

The action is ultimately between Brad Booth and Erick Lindgren. Booth made trip fours on the river and made a sizable bet.

Lindgren faces a decision of what to do. He had flopped top pair of jacks and was ahead most of the hand. He was deciding whether to fold or call the big bet. Based on the betting in the hand, Lindgren believed he was facing either a straight, trip fours, or a pure bluff. Lindgren was thinking, “Does Booth have the goods or is he bluffing?”

Lindgren contemplates the decision out loud, and Booth comes up with an interesting offer.

Erick Lindgren: Yukon Brad. You do bluff a lot…If you show me one card, I’ll probably call it. Show me one card.

Brad Booth: places his card on the table Pick one card! Point to a card!

Erick Lindgren: You have a five and a six [making a straight] in your hand. Show me that card right there!

Brad Booth: shows the King of diamonds

Erick Lindgren: Alright, you win. makes the call.

Brad Booth: flips over king, happy Lindgren picked wrong card. I so knew he was picking this one.

While Booth was enjoying his victory and Lindgren analyzing his loss, other players started chiming in with their analyses:

Antonio Esfandiari: Do you know what a genius he is? [Booth] knew he wasn’t going to get paid off, so he took a fifty-fifty shot of getting paid off, and it went from like twenty percent to fifty percent.

…

Brad Booth: But it’s more than fifty-fifty because I think more than 70 percent of the time he’s going to pick the one here [to his right] … because he’s right handed. Generally if you’re right handed you pick the thing on the right.

I’m not sure Booth is correct about the right-handed psychology, but I do think Booth used a fun strategy of surprise. Booth was acting overly strong on the river which is what made Lindgren suspicious. When he offered to show a card, it was even more suspicious–why show a card that ruins your chance of a payout? Lindgren suspected all this acting meant Booth was weak so he called.

Quite the display of strategy, I think. Though notably the commentator was less enthused, saying “Brad [Booth] just gave us a glimpse of pure genius or dumb luck, still not sure which of the two.”

Youtube video: speed camera lottery

There are similar ideas for recycling and getting people to take the stairs instead of escalators at The Fun Theory website, a viral marketing campaign by Volkswagen.

Hat tip: Gamepocalypse now