What do Leonardo da Vinci, Bruce Lee, and Steve Jobs have in common? Find out in my new free ebook, Personal Development for Polymaths.

This is the ebook I should have written a long time ago, when I refocused my blog on…well, personal development for polymaths. When everyone and their grandmother expects you to pick a niche, it can be hard to meet expectations and also feel like a complete human being.

So what is the aspiring polymath to do? Everything they want, but you have to be smart about it, and not just chase every shiny object.

Whether your interests include reading, writing, drawing, running, dancing, swimming, cooking, singing, gardening, or underwater basket weaving, this ebook will give you tips for getting the most from a world of infinite possibilities.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

- James Madison, Federalist No. 51

Akemi Gaines at Real Life Spirituality left a comment on Secrets Of The Millionaire Dropouts, saying she questioned whether democracy was the best form of government.

Back in 2000, I watched the Great American Think-Off debate, with the topic of “Is Democracy Fair?” (Ironically, this was just a few months before Florida had to recount its votes in the Bush-Gore election.) There were many questions posed with no easy answers, such as “If democracy isn’t fair, then what form of government is better?” and “How can you defend democracy, when Hitler came to power through democratic elections?”

In the end, the audience voted that democracy was fair. (See anything ironic about that?) If I recall correctly, the winner’s main argument was that while people are mostly apathetic, when things really get bad enough, they’ll vote for change. (Though apparently, they’re willing to let things get really really bad first.)

But while we might be able to agree that democracy is fair at least to some extent, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best way. Akemi pointed out some of the problems:

“History has shown democracy fails. In ancient Greece, it deteriorated to mob rule. In modern times, it has become a popularity contest, manipulated by the media. The French Revolution turned to a horrible blood bath and only a brilliant man who enthroned himself could end it.

This is because we cannot agree with what we don’t understand. So our intelligence limits our decision making (= vote). Think what might happen if a company (even a medium size one) is run by democracy. I am sure it will go out of business soon.

But then, when we entrust the pros who know better (sometimes called rulers, sometimes politicians), it creates a perfect ground to breed corruption. We are in a catch 22.”

The part about running a company by democracy reminded me of The Office, when Michael and Jim were both made co-regional managers of Dunder Mifflin’s Scranton branch. Of course, nothing got done because they were too busy trying to overpower each other. As Oscar sarcastically said,

“Look, it doesn’t take a genius to know that every organization thrives when it has two leaders. Go ahead, name a country that doesn’t have two presidents. A boat that set sail without two captains. Where would Catholicism be, without the popes?”

And that’s with just two decision makers. Yes, democracy is very inefficient by nature. Autocracy is very efficient, but then, you take your chances. Oligarchy is in the middle, but who decides who’s on top?

It’s a tall order to fill; a form of government that doesn’t rely on voter rationality, wants what’s best for everyone, enforces checks and balances on itself, and gets things done without red tape. Maybe Churchill had it right:

“Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Could the world’s greatest Taoist be a fuzzy, plump, lovable bear? Perhaps.

In Tao of Pooh, Benjamin Hoff uses characters from Winnie-the-Pooh to explain the principles of Taoism.

“While Eeyore frets …
… and Piglet hesitates
… and Rabbit calculates
… and Owl pontificates
…Pooh just is.
And that’s a clue to the secret wisdom of the Taoists.”

For those who aren’t sure what Taoism is, the story behind The Vinegar Tasters explains it well. This painting shows Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi (representing Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism) around a vat of vinegar, reacting to its taste.

Confucius finds the vinegar sour (people are degenerates and need rules to correct them), Buddha finds it bitter (life is full of pain and suffering), but Laozi is smiling (life is fundamentally good in its natural state, and nothing needs to be judged).

While this book is certainly a good read and a useful introduction to Taoism, I found myself constantly wondering how Taoism is supposed to apply to real life.

If you’re a bear without a care in the world, fine. But if you’re a human being, this kind of “hakuna matata” attitude strikes me as an incomplete life philosophy at best.

The book gives Thomas Edison as an example of someone who found success by modeling Pooh, which is where it really fell apart for me. Edison was a Rabbit/Owl, and absolutely not a Pooh.

So, this is meant to be a recommendation for the book, though it may not sound like it. If any Taoists out there want to show me the way, I’d like to hear from them.

As far as Grammar Nazis go, I’m about as lenient as they get. I don’t have a problem with incomplete sentences (“Apology accepted.”), split infinitives (“to boldly go”), ending a sentence with a preposition (“Give them what they asked for.”), or pronoun disagreement (“Somebody left their book.”).

I just don’t think that the way we use English, particularly spoken English, can be completely prescribed by arbitrary rules that were written hundreds of years ago. As language evolves, sometimes the rules need to change. Which is why I don’t have a problem with ”a whole nother,” a phrase that drives many people crazy, but is really no different from ”abso-freakin-lutely.”

Yes, it’s OK to break some rules. But there are other rules that are there for a reason, and breaking them annoys the bejesus out of anyone with the slightest appreciation for the English language. Here are some of the best ways to have the Grammar Nazis knocking at your door.

1. I could care less

This is my number one pet peeve because it’s so common, and so obviously the opposite of the intended meaning. When someone says “I could care less,” I wonder, “Well, why don’t you?”

If they could care less, that means that they do care to some extent. What they want to say is “I couldn’t care less,” meaning that they don’t care at all.

Come to think of it, no one seems to have trouble with “I couldn’t be happier” or “I couldn’t agree more.” Why?

2. Literally

On second thought, this is my biggest pet peeve.

Maybe someone wants to say “My mind is exploding with new ideas,” but they think this figure of speech isn’t strong enough. They decide that they need to embellish a little, or you won’t take them seriously. So instead, they say “My mind is literally exploding with new ideas.”

Well, if their mind is literally exploding, you should call 911. But chances are, they meant that their mind was exploding in a figurative sense. This meaning would have been perfectly clear without saying “figuratively,” but for some reason they decided to clarify their thoughts by adding a word meaning the exact opposite.

On those rare occasions where the word is used correctly, it’s often useless. If someone says “It literally changed my life,” that’s correct, but they could have simply said “It changed my life” with no loss of clarity.

It’s only necessary to say “literally” when your statement is likely to be misinterpreted as a figure of speech. My difficulty in coming up with a reasonable example suggests how rarely this happens, but for example, “Girls like that are a dime a dozen. Literally – I’ve never seen mail-order bride prices this low!”

3. Apostrophes

Apostrophes are not garnishes whose use is limited only by your imagination. They are used in contractions and possessives, not for plurals, and not whenever you want to spice up a sentence.

“Its about time you got you’re apostrophe’s right, dont ya’ think?”

4. Could of, would of, should of

“Could’ve” is a contraction of “could have.” Unfortunately, “could’ve” sounds like “could of,” and that’s how a lot of people write it. Maybe they could’ve, would’ve, should’ve learned some grammar.

5. Different than

The correct phrase is “different from.” Doesn’t ”I’m different than you” sound like fingernails on the blackboard? There’s a difference between “than” and “from.” You would never say “I’m taller from you,” would you?

6. Homophones

Homophones are words that are pronounced the same, but which have different meanings. They are usually spelled differently (which technically makes them heterographs), which allows the potential to pick the wrong word.

Suppose someone says, “They’re too experiments really peaked my interest. Eye thought they wood have a huge affect on me, but they barely phased me.” The words they were looking for were “their,” “two,” “piqued,” “I,” “would,” “effect,” and “fazed.”

You don’t notice when you here it, but you sure do when you sea it. So take just a split second to decide between then/than, principle/principal, complimentary/complementary, discreet/discreet, to/too/two, there/their/they’re, right/write/rite, and all the other words that sound the same, but aren’t.

7. I vs. me

This one is controversial because the correct usage sometimes violates our instincts, as in “He’s taller than I.” It’s grammatically correct, but it sounds weird. I guess we’re all so used to hearing everyone say it wrong, including ourselves.

So people say “He’s taller than me” because it sounds right, and even some grammarians will look the other way. (BTW, it’s much easier to see what’s right when you add the missing verb at the end – “He’s taller than I am” vs. “He’s taller than me is.”)

What I can’t stand though, is when people hypercorrect their overusage of “me” by using “I” when “me” is actually the right word, resulting in ridiculous sentences like “Tom’s coming to the movie with Fred and I.”

While their intentions are good, there’s no need to use bad grammar and look pompous at the same time. “I” is a subject, and “me” is an object. Tom isn’t coming to the movie with I, he’s coming with me.

Honorable mentions

This post is long enough already, but I didn’t want to finish without giving a quick nod to some of my other favorites: “I’m going to lay down,” “Everything’s going good,” “Think different,” “Nip it in the butt,” “Let’s try and do it,” “I have less apples than you,” and “I entered my PIN number at the ATM machine.”

What else you would add to this list? And what is the role of Grammar Nazis in today’s society?

Photo by kenposan

What’s better than a free ebook? How about nine free ebooks?

Head on over to the Free Personal Development Give-Away, courtesy of Diggy at Upgrade Reality, where you can download any of the following for free:

• YOU V2.0 (by Dirk de Bruin)
• Peace, Love, Connection (by Tess Marshall)
• Unleash Your Maximum Potential (by Vincent Tan)
• The Super-Charged Guide to Smart Living (by Jeff Nickles)
• The Book of Wisdom (by Anastasiya Goers)
• 500 Simple Ways to Celebrate and Enjoy Life (by Marelisa Fabrega)
• Why We’re Failing the 4-Hour Workweek (by Hunter Nuttall)
• How To Build Reputation With Your Blog (by Dragos Roua)
• Successful Blogging in 12 Simple Steps (by Annabel Candy)

I haven’t read any of these (other than my own of course), but judging from the authors and topics, I’m sure you can find something here to your liking. Did I mention that they’re free?

I was driving home from work on Friday when I got the text:

cnn.com
pokerstars execs indicted
domains seized by fbi


I didn’t believe it at first. But I checked the news and sure enough, the day that online poker players had always feared was finally upon us. The government had shut down the three biggest online poker sites, effectively ending online poker in the U.S.

While online poker is perfectly legal in most countries, it has been a gray area in the U.S. since 2006, when the SAFE Port Act was passed. It was mainly about port security, but an online gambling measure was added at the last minute. It essentially said, “Well, we don’t know if online poker is legal, but if it’s not, then it’s illegal for banks to process transactions for poker sites.”

Some poker sites stopped accepting U.S. customers altogether. Others were willing to let them play, but the problem was how to get money into their accounts. Since most payment processors didn’t want to get involved in this legal gray area, the poker sites had to find people who would. And they figured that as long as they were forced to do something a little bit illegal, they might as well do something a lot illegal.

That amounted to bank fraud and money laundering. The funny thing is that that’s really all this is about. No federal court has ever ruled that online poker is illegal.

I can’t really defend money laundering, but the government could just fine the individuals responsible instead of shutting down the whole industry. Really, the same government that couldn’t be bothered to prosecute the perpetrators of the financial meltdown has decided that they’re not going to let people play cards?

Looking at the tables on PokerStars, I see players from Russia, Chile, Argentina, Taiwan, Canada, China, Australia, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Israel, United Kingdom, Germany, Greece, New Zealand, Mexico, Ukraine, Costa Rica, Colombia, Brazil, Serbia, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Estonia, Denmark, South Korea, Norway, Honduras, Paraguay…basically the whole world, except the United States.

Why don’t we have the same rights as people in these countries? What happened to the land of the free? Regardless of whether you happen to like poker, this is not a good precedent. Millions of people have lost a beloved hobby, and some people have lost their dream job.

What’s the point of trampling on this harmless pastime? The government couldn’t stop alcohol, and they can’t stop poker either. They’re just going to push it underground, missing the opportunity to regulate and tax it.

I’m going to go to work tomorrow (if software development is still legal), punch my time card and make a living without poker. Yes, I’ll survive, but the roses will smell a little less sweet, knowing I’ve lost this shot at the American Dream.

In Want to Get Rich? Be (Moderately) Happy, Laura Rowley talks about some studies that have revealed surprising downsides to extreme happiness.

What? Surely this is heresy! Supreme happiness is the holy grail that we spend our whole lives looking for. You can never have too much of it, right?

Well, let’s just see.

People were asked to rate themselves on a happiness scale of 1 to 10. The perfect 10s had the most self-confidence, energy, close friends, and time spent dating. That’s not unexpected. Everyone likes happy people. Also, research showed that the 10s were likely to misremember things for the better, to recall being happier in retrospect than they actually reported at the time. This makes it easier for them to see the best in people.

What about the people who were happy but not too happy? The 7s and 8s did the best in terms of grades, class attendance, conscientiousness, income, education, and career. The idea is that moderately happy people receive a lot of benefits from their happiness, but they also harbor a touch of dissatisfaction that pushes them to strive for more. This may be a bit surprising, but it makes sense. If everything is perfect, you get comfortable and stop trying so hard.

It turns out that there’s an even bigger downside to excessive happiness: death. The extremely happy don’t live as long as the moderately happy.

Even the researchers were shocked by this one. They speculate that the reason may be because the super happy don’t pay enough attention to illness, or they don’t recognize the danger of the risks they take. Also, sustained euphoria takes its toll on the body, just like chronic stress. And because people aren’t genetically programmed to be extremely happy all the time, some people turn to drugs as happiness boosters.

University of Illinois psychology professor Ed Diener said, “Happiness, like spirituality, is partially a private pursuit, defined by individuals based on their personal values. Be wary when people tell you to live for the moment, to strive for an exciting life, or that you ought to be happier. Chasing super-happiness is a mistake that can lead you astray and be self-defeating.”

Yes, there’s always a downside to having too much of a good thing, even happiness.

Photo by JasonRogers

Here’s an interesting article about the advantage of dual identities. (Thanks, @introvertzone!)

Vladimir Nabokov is best known as the author of Lolita and other works of fiction. But he had a dual identity as a lepidopterist. He frequently described his life pleasures as “the two most intense known to man: writing and butterfly hunting.”

The article is about what Stephen Jay Gould called “the paradox of intellectual promiscuity.” Nabokov had proven himself as a writer, and he couldn’t have gone wrong by sticking with that. So did his interest in butterflies have a positive, negative, or neutral effect on him?

Some possibilities:

• He wasted all this time on butterflies instead of writing another Lolita.
• Don’t worry, he didn’t waste too much time on butterflies.
• Lolita was great only because he studied butterflies.
• His work on butterflies was more important than his fiction. Lolita was the time waster.

To Nabokov, these two fields weren’t even all that different. They were just two puzzles he solved in the same way, using his deep passion for detail and precision.

His crazy hypothesis about the migration of a particular group of butterflies didn’t earn him much credit as a scientist in his lifetime, but modern technology recently proved him right. So in this case, we can score a win for lepidoptery and intellectual promiscuity, though more than 30 years after Nabokov’s death.

I think the right answer can only be decided on a case by case basis. I don’t know if there’s any hard and fast rule as to whether we should be chasing our butterflies.

“How much math do you really need in everyday life? Ask yourself that — and also the next 10 people you meet, say, your plumber, your lawyer, your grocer, your mechanic, your physician or even a math teacher. Unlike literature, history, politics and music, math has little relevance to everyday life.”

This quote is from G.V. Ramanathan’s article How much math do we really need? While I somewhat agreed with most of the article, that last sentence instantly struck me as perhaps the dumbest thing I had read in the month of October.

True, the average person doesn’t need much math in everyday life. Everyone needs some, and people in certain jobs need a lot, but most people need so little that they don’t even realize they’re using math.

But notice what happens when you take his question — “How much _____ do you really need in everyday life?” — and fill in any of the other subjects he mentioned. The answer in every case is still “almost none.” Really, how often have you turned to Shakespeare or Beethoven to get yourself out of a jam?

Of course, that doesn’t mean that these subjects are worthless. Despite the limitations on their practical value, they’re still part of being a civilized human being, and worth studying for their own sake.

But math, in addition to being a worthy subject from a purely academic perspective, is a basic life skill (at least lower level math). Not being able to balance your checking account is about as stupid as not being able to find Florida on a map. Yet someone would be ridiculed for the latter while getting a pass on the former, simply by using the excuse “I’m terrible at math.”

In all fairness, math majors, teachers, etc. probably tend to overstate its importance. I have to admit that it’s entirely possible to get by just fine without having ever learned the multiplication tables. But I can’t think of another school subject where ignorance has more potential to hurt you.

Show me someone who thinks they can win at blackjack without counting cards, who thinks they can afford a mortgage ten times their annual income, and who doesn’t know the difference between itemizing their deductions and taking the standard deduction. I think it’s a pretty safe bet that they can’t pass a 7th grade math test.

You don’t actually need the quadratic formula or the Pythagorean theorem to figure out how much retirement income you’ll need, or whether paying off your mortgage is a good idea, or whether paying 24% credit card interest is a wise investment. But someone who learns how to solve problems in the classroom grows up better able to solve problems in the real world.

I’m not saying that mathematical illiteracy is our biggest problem, or that America’s educational system will be its downfall, or that everyone needs to take math after high school. But can we agree that any self-respecting adult should have better math skills than a dog?

“Dave the Math Dog” was once a guest on the Late Show with David Letterman. Dave the dog was asked to figure out the square root of 36, and answered with 6 taps of his paw. Dave the human was unable to verify the answer until he was given a calculator. (The dog is probably explained by the Clever Hans effect, but still…)

Photo by Mykl Roventine

“You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em
Know when to walk away, and know when to run
You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table
There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done”

- Kenny Rogers, “The Gambler”

In the Old West, poker was a game played mostly by drunk gun-toting cowboys just itching to say their favorite stock phrase – “Them’s fightin’ words!” Its image improved only slightly over the next century, as it was still considered no better than the other vices so popular in the seedy underbellies of gambling towns.

Things changed with the use of hole cams in televised poker (which made it fun to watch), the invention of online poker (which made it fun to play), and the 2003 World Series of Poker win by amateur Chris Moneymaker (which gave hope to everyone that they too could beat the game).

Poker is now popular enough to be shown on ESPN, where online poker sites are advertised despite being illegal the U.S. (OK, technically they advertise their legal play money .net sister sites, but can’t we all see through that? BTW, consult an attorney regarding the legality of online poker in your country – this post is fictional and for entertainment purposes only.)

The number of World Series of Poker entrants has grown from dozens to thousands, millions of people play online, and James Bond is now playing poker instead of baccarat (the change was made in the film version of Casino Royale). And yet, I have to wonder if any of this would have happened, had five card draw and seven card stud not been supplanted by Texas hold’em.

What’s so great about hold’em? Mainly the use of community cards. Instead of everyone playing a separate game at the same table, they’re trying to outplay each other at the same game. It’s a totally different feel, and people seem to love it.

I’ve been playing less than two months, so I’m just scratching the surface. But it’s clear to me that poker is far from a game of pure luck. It’s about strategy, psychology, self-control, risk assessment, and making decisions under pressure with limited information.

Crandell Addington, founder of the World Series of Poker, says skills he learned through poker helped him succeed in the business world as CEO of Phoenix Biotechnology. He said, “I’ve been trying to get someone’s attention about this for years. Poker is a microcosm for life.”

So what life lessons does poker have for us?

1. Pick your best game.

There’s no one game called “poker.” Poker is a family of closely related games, but even slight variations can produce vast differences.

For example, limit and no-limit Texas hold’em differ only in the betting structure, yet they are completely different games. Limit is more analytical, no-limit is more psychological. It’s very unusual for someone to be world class at both of them because they require completely different skills. Likewise, tournaments are different from cash games, heads-up play is different from full or short-handed tables, etc.

One of the most important decisions you make in any game is whether to play. Be sure you make the right choice here. My no-limit friends make fun of me for playing eight limit tables simultaneously, but my response is always the same – I’ll switch games if and when I find one that works better for me.

Are you in a career that’s the right game for you?

2. Keep your bad beat stories to yourself.

They say that opinions are like bad beat stories. Everyone’s got one, and no one wants to hear it.

A bad beat is when you have a hand that is heavily favored to win, which ends up losing. Bad beats are inevitable, but they can be hard to deal with when you lose a lot of money, especially to someone who made a mistake and just got lucky.

Here’s an example from limit hold’em that happened to me. (Sorry if you’re not familiar with hold’em jargon, but it would take too long to explain.) With pocket aces, I re-raise the opener before the flop, and he calls. The flop is A-rag-rag rainbow, I bet my top set, and get called by the initial opener. The turn and river look good, so I keep betting, and keep getting called. I have the best possible hand…almost. There is technically a possible A-5 straight out there, but he’d have to have 4-2 to fill it.

So I’m thinking, “OK, the straight would have me beat, but there’s no way this guy raised before the flop with 4-2.” But sure enough, he raised before the flop with 4-2. The river fills his unlikely straight and beats my three aces. His bad move paid off only because of miracle cards.

Here’s another example, this time a bad beat reversal. I flopped an ace-high flush, a nearly unbeatable hand. Unfortunately for me, the turn gave someone a full house. Unfortunately for them, the river gave me a straight flush. Their chat comment said it all: “nooooooo!”

Now, there is apparently an unwritten rule in poker that says when you suffer a bad beat, you should carry it around with you for the rest of your life and talk about it to everyone within earshot. Or you can choose to explode right then, a la Phil Hellmuth, “the poker brat.” In a typical game, he’ll say something like this more than once:

“You’re an idiot. What kind of idiot calls a $20,000 bet with queen-ten? I would never do something that stupid, that’s why I have eleven bracelets. But you internet kids, my advanced strategies don’t work on you because you’re too dumb to know any better. Maybe for you this is just poker, but for me it’s my whole life.”

Yeah, no one likes taking a bad beat (getting fired, divorced, etc.), but how is going on tilt going to help you? And especially if a bad beat comes from a lucky mistake someone made, their bad play helps you in the long run. Vent respectably if you must, but then let it go and get your game back on.

3. We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.

This Randy Pausch quote from “The Last Lecture” is as true in life as it is in poker.

Do you spend too much time wishing you could change your cards?

4. Nothing is certain. Play anyway.

The best possible starting hand is A-A. It has about an 85% chance of beating a random hand. A clear favorite, yes, but far from a guaranteed win, and that’s against just one opponent. The vast majority of the time, you’ll have less than A-A, and more than one opponent. But you can’t be overly intimidated by anything that could possibly beat you. You can’t win if you don’t play.

Are you missing out on anything because you’re afraid to take a chance?

5. Play your best bets.

The worst possible starting hand is 7-2 offsuit – the two lowest unpaired cards that can’t form a straight or a flush. Even if you’re lucky enough to flop two pair with 7-2, it might not be enough. You could possibly flop a monster hand, but it’s not worth paying for that shot in the dark. Dump it, and a better opportunity is just around the corner.

Are you investing too much in a 7-2 offsuit job or relationship?

6. Your biggest losses come when you have the second best hand.

It’s easy to fold when you have nothing. But the hands that you just can’t get away from, the ones that make you keep throwing in chips while drawing dead, are the ones that are almost good enough. The king-high flush. The ace with a weak kicker. The low end of the straight. These are the hands that cost you big time.

It’s like with a job that’s almost secure enough, an insurance policy that offers almost enough coverage, or a crippling balloon payment that will almost certainly never come due. Know where you’re weak, and tread carefully.

7. The best hand is not necessarily the most profitable.

Flopping quads to your pocket aces may give you a nice feeling, but it does you no good if everyone instafolds. Only once have I been able to get good money into the pot after flopping quads. I had pocket 4s in the small blind, and the flop was A-4-4. I slow played it, and fortunately someone liked the ace enough to bet. The ace was important to them, and therefore it was important to me.

People don’t care how much you want them to stick around; they only care about their own motivations. Because everyone is listening to the same radio station: WII-FM (what’s in it for me?). The biggest mistake people make when trying to do any kind of persuading is not understanding the difference between features and benefits.

8. It’s hard to be your own coach.

You could be making lots of mistakes without knowing it, and you won’t necessarily get better through practice alone.

I’ve found that playing limit 5 card draw has improved my limit hold’em game because it let me observe myself better. The simpler and faster paced 5 card draw let me see more clearly the consequences of position, aggression, bluffing, etc., most of which transfers to hold’em. And watching no-limit hold’em on TV has obviously helped me in that game.

Are you blind to certain problems that may be obvious to an outsider? Can a life coach help you see yourself in a new way?

9. All you need is a chip and a chair.

This poker aphorism reminds us that a miracle comeback can always happen. Anyone, anyplace, anytime.

It may have originated at the 1982 World Series of Poker main event. Jack Strauss pushed in all his chips on a bluff, got called, and lost everything. As he got up to leave, he discovered a $500 chip under his cocktail napkin. Had he actually said the words “all-in” on his last bet, he would have had to surrender this chip. But because he didn’t, he was allowed to continue playing. Two days later, he went home with a bracelet and $520,000.

Luck comes and goes, but good players win in the long run. If you’re down but not out, there’s always another chip somewhere.

Photo by Ross Elliott