Don't fear poker risks - evaluate them

"I can't believe you called," said my opponent shaking his head. "I just can't believe you called."

We were playing Texas Hold'em at the Rio in Las Vegas during the World Series of Poker. But this wasn't a tournament - it was a cash game in the hotel's small poker room off the slot-filled lobby. I had the jack and nine of hearts and bet $15 pre-flop. Three players called. When three hearts fell on the flop (the king and two low cards), I'd made my flush. But I wanted to end the hand quickly in case anyone had a higher heart. I didn't want an opponent to top me if a heart dropped on the turn or river.

So I bet $100. Two players folded, one took me all in and had me covered. I'd started the hand with just over $450 and had about $350 in chips left in front of me. I considered the possibilities:

-- My opponent has the ace or queen of hearts and another heart for a better flush. Unlikely but a scary possibility.

-- He has two hearts but neither is as high as my jack so he's trailing me. If he has this, he'll want to end the hand before another heart falls, thinking I may have one high heart. Quite possible, but based on his agitated body language and pre-flop play, not likely.

-- He has a high heart, probably the ace, and has two chances to hit a high or nut flush. More likely.

-- He's bluffing and has nothing. Remotely possible.

I have a friend who thinks poker is all luck, but this is where it becomes a skill game. My gut tells me he's either got the nut flush draw or has hit a lower flush than mine. If his flush is lower, I'll win. If he's on a draw with the ace, I'm about a 2:1 favorite. I later checked CardPlayer.com's poker odds calculator (http://bit.ly/RAvLe) and found my odds of winning were 71 percent.

So I call. He shows the ace of hearts and a blank. Neither the turn nor river is a heart; I pull in a pot in excess of $900. I ask him why he's so incredulous that I called. "You risked your whole stack!" he blurts out.

I did, but it was a risk that made sense. A few years ago when I was a risk-averse novice, I probably would have folded. But now I don't fear risks. I evaluate them. And this is a good way to approach the game. If you believe the odds are in your favor, go for the big win, because there's nothing like paying for your trip to Vegas by taking a hefty pot at the poker table.

Michael Shapiro is a freelance writer and author of "A Sense of Place." E-mail: 96hours@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @shapirowrites

View the original article here

Public Companies Must Disclose Cyber-Liability Risks

By Rene Siemens and David Beck, Attorneys, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

If you thought you did not need cyber insurance before, Uncle Sam may cause you to think otherwise.  On October 13, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Division of Corporation Finance issued guidance on disclosure obligations relating to cyber security risks and incidents.  The guidance, which is based on existing disclosure requirements and is effective immediately, emphasizes the need for SEC registrants to provide "timely, comprehensive, and accurate information about [cyber] risks and events that a reasonable investor would consider important to an investment decision."

The required disclosures highlighted by the SEC include:

1)    Risk factors relating to a potential cyber incident, including known or threatened attacks;

2)    Costs or other consequences associated with known cyber incidents or the risk of potential incidents, where such costs represent a material event, through disclosure in the Management Discussion and Analysis section of the registrant's annual report;

3)    Cyber incidents that materially affect a registrant's products, services, or relationships with customers and suppliers;

4)    Material legal proceedings involving cyber incidents; and

5)    Any material impact of cyber security, both pre- and post-incident, on the registrant's financial statements.

Failure to make the above disclosures could subject registrants to various consequences, including SEC enforcement actions or lawsuits brought by shareholders.

The new SEC guidance provides yet another reason for companies that handle sensitive information to insure themselves against data security and privacy claims.  Indeed, the SEC expressly notes insurance coverage as one of the relevant factors to be considered in assessing a company's potential cyber liability risk.  In recent years, a large market has evolved for insurance that is specifically designed to cover these risks - marketed under names like "privacy breach insurance," "network security insurance," and "cyber-liability insurance."  This insurance provides both first and third-party coverage for loss associated with a cyber security incident, and includes coverage for costs such as restoring damaged data, responding to regulatory investigations, defense and indemnification against lawsuits arising out of cyber incidents, and loss of revenue for business interruption caused by a data security breach.  While traditional insurance may cover some of these risks too, this new coverage should be seriously considered by any company-whether a registrant with the SEC or not-handling sensitive information.

In procuring cyber insurance, it is important to note that one size does not fit all.  Every insurance company has its own unique policy forms, terms, and exclusions.  Therefore, it is important to consult with an attorney or other professional familiar with the coverages available and the needs of your business so as to ensure that you do not purchase coverages that you do not need or are inadequate.

Pillsbury offers an cyber insurance policy review program-Data Security Plus-to provide our clients with the critical assistance they need to obtain "state-of-the-art" coverage for data security and privacy breaches.  Our team brings market knowledge, up-to-date understanding of evolving insurance case law, and effective advocacy to bear during the placement process to alert you to critical deficiencies in the policy forms you are offered and to negotiate improvements to coverage, including drafting and negotiating manuscripted policy wordings and modifying policies to address recent legal developments.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.

View the original article here

French cardinal warns gay marriage law risks violence

French Archbishop of Paris Cardinal Andre Vingt-trois carries a cross in the gardens of the Montmartre's Sacre Coeur Basilica during the annual Good Friday ''Stations of the Cross'' procession in Paris March 29, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Charles Platiau

By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

PARIS | Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:14am EDT

PARIS (Reuters) - France's top Catholic bishop warned the government on Tuesday that legalization of same-sex marriage risked inciting violence at a time the country had more pressing economic and social problems to tackle.

Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois told a meeting of French bishops the planned marriage reform, which the government has speeded up amid mounting pressure from opponents, was a sign that society had lost its capacity to integrate different views.

Protests against the law, led by lay groups mostly backed by the Catholic Church, have become more agitated in recent days as noisy opponents rally outside the Senate and National Assembly and harass politicians supporting the reform.

Vingt-Trois, the archbishop of Paris, said the difference between the sexes was a basic human trait and denying it by legalizing marriage and adoption for homosexuals would weaken society's ability to manage its differences peacefully.

"This is the way a violent society develops," he told the spring meeting of the French bishops' conference. "Society has lost its capacity of integration and especially its ability to blend differences in a common project."

The Socialist-led government, whose popularity has plummeted amid economic woes and a tax fraud scandal, is expected to pass the law next week to make France the 13th country to allow gays to tie the knot. Uruguay legalized gay marriage last week.

SIGNAL SOCIAL REFORM

The government decided on Monday that the law, one of the most important social reforms since France ended the death penalty in 1981, would be passed weeks earlier than planned and with a limited debate in its second reading.

Vingt-Trois accused the government of rushing the law through parliament without sufficient public debate.

"Forcing it through can simplify things for a while," he said. "To avoid paralyzing political life when there are grave economic and social decisions to take, it would have been more reasonable and simple to not have started this process."

Opponents of gay marriage have staged three large protests in Paris, with over half a million demonstrators at their height. The last one in March ended in scuffles with police.

Since then, smaller groups have staged flash protests around Paris. Some 70 people were arrested on Monday after trying to set up a protest camp outside the National Assembly.

Others have harassed pro-reform politicians by noisily protesting outside their homes at daybreak or stalking them. Some held up a high-speed train due to bring government supporters from a conference in Nantes to Paris.

Rhetoric has heated up as well, with opponents accusing President Francois Hollande of being a dictator. "Hollande wants blood and he'll get it," protest leader Frijide Barjot declared in comments she later admitted "went a bit far."

Government leaders have accused the protesters of turning radical and criticized the increasingly frequent presence of aggressive far-right nationalist and traditionalist Catholic fringe groups at the otherwise peaceful protests.

All main religious groups in France, with the exception of the Buddhists, have spoken out against marriage reform.

Vingt-Trois said the main protest marches, attended by average citizens concerned about the reform's long-term effects, did not reflect the "religious, retrograde and homophobe mania" that some of their more vocal critics ascribed to them.

Same-sex nuptials are legal in 12 countries -- Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden and Uruguay -- as well as in some parts of Mexico, Brazil and the United States.

Several other countries, including Britain, are planning to legalize it in the near future.

(Editing by Mark John)

View the original article here