Blog

What poker can teach us about relationships

Every poker room has one: the player who folds hand after hand, waiting for cards so good that playing them requires no courage at all. Meanwhile the antes and blinds come around like rent, and his stack quietly shrinks whether he plays or not. He believes he is being careful. What he is actually doing is losing slowly, at a price he has chosen not to notice, in exchange for never having to risk losing quickly. I have met that player far more often across my desk than at any card table, explaining, reasonably and at length, why he was not yet in the game.

His reasons always sound like wisdom, and that is what makes them so hard to argue with. He is afraid of losing his freedom, and freedom is a real thing to value: the spontaneous trip, the career gamble, the life that answers to no one. He is afraid of choosing wrong, and choosing a spouse is the least reversible decision most of us ever make. He is afraid of repeating his parents’ mistakes — he sat at their table, he watched their marriage, and he swore his would be different or would not be at all. And he is afraid of being hurt, the plainest fear of the four. None of these fears is foolish. Each is a true fact about the game, quoted back as a reason never to sit down at it.

Let me concede what my profession taught me: some hesitation really is wisdom. I spent a career drafting wills and sitting with families — and with the wreckage of commitments made for the wrong reasons. The man who marries to escape loneliness has not paid an ante; he has made a desperate bet and asked another person to cover it. The couple who has a child to repair a failing marriage has done something worse — dealt a third player into a game they were already losing. Thoughtfulness about the largest commitment of a life is not fear. It is respect for the stakes.

But fear has a tell, and once you see it you cannot unsee it. Wisdom names its conditions. It can tell you what it is waiting for — debts paid down, a degree finished, a year of knowing this person in all four seasons — and when those conditions are met, it acts. Fear cannot do that. Ask fear what would finally satisfy it and the answer shifts: the savings are adequate now, but the job is not quite secure; the job is secure, but shouldn’t we travel first, while we still can? The goalposts move because moving them was always the point. Fear is not waiting for better cards. It is protecting itself from the one thing cards are for.

And the protection is not free, because life collects its ante whether you play or not. The years a man spends waiting for certainty are spent all the same — in the currency of youth, of fertility, of parents still living, of the good person across the table who eventually stops waiting to be chosen. A stack folded down to nothing looks exactly like a stack lost in one brave hand, except the brave hand at least had a chance to win. Only one of those two players ever held a winning pot.

I do not say this to shame the hesitant; the fears are usually guarding something worth examining rather than obeying. The fear of repeating a parent’s marriage, looked at honestly, is often the beginning of a better one — the people I watched build strong families out of broken ones were not the ones who avoided the table, but the ones who studied the hand they were raised in and played theirs deliberately. The fear of choosing wrong is answered not by waiting for a flawless person, who has not been born, but by watching how a real one handles conflict and disappointment. Even the fear of being hurt admits the truth it tries to hide: the hurt is possible precisely because the prize is real.

Here is the takeaway. If you have been standing at the edge of this game, do the honest inventory: write down what you are actually waiting for, in specific terms, and ask whether wisdom or fear wrote the list. If the items are real, meet them and set a date. If the list rewrites itself every time you approach it, name what is happening — and then do the thing fear least expects: pay the ante with your eyes open, accepting that some risk is not the obstacle to a family’s life but the price of admission to it. The player who waits endlessly for perfect cards waits forever. The cards were never going to be perfect. They only had to be worth playing.

As employees start requesting time off for Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s, it’s a good time for California employers to revisit the state’s unusual rules on vacation and paid time off (PTO). California does not require employers to offer paid vacation at all, but once an employer does, the benefit is treated as earned wages and is tightly regulated under Labor Code section 227.3 and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co. (1982).

This year’s update matters for one reason in particular: a new law signed on September 30, 2026 changes how employers can handle PTO advanced to employees who later quit, starting January 1, 2027 — right in the middle of the holiday season. Here are five vacation issues California employers should have on their radar this December.

1. “Use-it-or-lose-it” policies are still prohibited — and “PTO” or “unlimited” labels don’t change that.

Under California law, vacation vests as the employee works, so an employee cannot be required to forfeit vacation that has already been earned. A policy that wipes out unused balances on December 31 (or before the holidays) is unlawful.

Two common workarounds don’t avoid the rule:

• Combined PTO plans. The Labor Commissioner treats a PTO bank that can be used for any purpose — vacation, sick time, or personal days — as vacation. PTO vests daily, cannot be forfeited, and must be paid out at separation. (Standalone paid sick leave under Labor Code section 246 generally does not have to be paid out, but once sick time is folded into a general PTO bank, it is treated like vacation.)
• “Unlimited” vacation. In McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation, Inc. (2020), the Court of Appeal held that an informal “unlimited” policy that was not unlimited in practice was subject to section 227.3, and the employer owed vacation payouts. The court did not hold that truly unlimited policies are unlawful, but an unwritten or loosely administered policy is risky.

If the goal is to keep balances from growing year after year, there are lawful options: a reasonable accrual cap (Point 2) or an annual cash-out of unused vacation, which the Labor Commissioner has recognized as permissible.

2. Reasonable caps — and holiday scheduling — are your management tools.

Employers may adopt a “no additional accrual” cap: once an employee’s balance reaches a set ceiling, no more vacation accrues until the employee uses some of it. The cap must be reasonable, and it must be clearly described in the written policy.

What counts as “reasonable”? There is no statutory number. The DLSE previously took the position that a cap of 1.75 times the annual accrual was appropriate, but it later withdrew that opinion. Many employers now set caps between 1.5 and 2 times annual accrual. The Labor Commissioner’s guidance also states that employees should have at least nine months after vacation accrues to use it before a cap takes effect. A cap equal to one year’s accrual will usually be treated as a disguised use-it-or-lose-it policy.

Employers also have more control over when vacation is taken than many realize. The Labor Commissioner recognizes that employers may decide when vacation can be used and how much can be taken at one time. That means an employer can generally:

• Set blackout periods during the busiest weeks of the holiday season;
• Limit the number of employees off at the same time; and
• Schedule a year-end closure and require employees to use accrued vacation during it, provided the policy is clear and employees receive reasonable advance notice.

3. Accrued vacation must be paid out when employment ends — including during seasonal furloughs.

Earned, unused vacation must be paid at the employee’s final rate of pay as part of the final paycheck under Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 227.3. Missing the deadline can trigger waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203 of up to 30 days of wages.

For restaurants, hotels, retailers, and other employers that adjust staffing after the holidays, the timing rule is a trap. In Hartstein v. Hyatt Corp. (9th Cir. 2023), the Ninth Circuit agreed with the Labor Commissioner that a temporary layoff or furlough without a specific return date within the normal pay period is a “discharge,” so all final wages — including accrued vacation — are due immediately. What the employer calls the separation doesn’t matter.

If you plan a January slowdown, either give employees a firm return date within the same pay period or be prepared to issue final pay, including vacation, on the day the furlough begins. (For more on getting final pay right, see our post, Key Issues Every California Employer Must Get Right When Terminating an Employee.)

4. Negative balances still cannot be deducted from final pay — but a new repayment option arrives January 1, 2027.

The holidays are when employees most often ask to borrow against vacation they haven’t earned yet. The Labor Commissioner treats advanced vacation as an advance of wages. If the employee leaves before earning it back, the employer cannot deduct the negative balance from the final paycheck. Self-help recovery from final wages is unlawful under Barnhill v. Robert Saunders & Co. (1981), and the deduction can also lead to waiting time penalties.

What’s new is that California’s “stay-or-pay” law now creates a narrow path to recover some advanced PTO. AB 692, enacted in 2025, generally bars employment contracts that require workers to repay money when their employment ends. On September 30, 2026, Governor Newsom signed AB 1697, which delayed AB 692 so it applies only to contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2027. AB 1697 also added an exception for repaying advanced PTO if all of the following conditions are met:

• The employee voluntarily separates (the exception does not apply when the employer ends the relationship);
• The repayment terms are clearly disclosed in writing, separate from the primary employment contract, at the time the employee requests the advance;
• The repayment obligation does not exceed 40 hours of PTO; and
• No interest accrues.

Two cautions. First, the exception permits a repayment obligation. It does not authorize an automatic deduction from final wages, so the Barnhill rule still applies and recovery must come through a voluntary repayment or a separate collection effort. Second, any repayment arrangement for advances above 40 hours, or one that doesn’t meet each condition, risks violating the stay-or-pay statute once it takes effect, with exposure of actual damages or $5,000 per worker (whichever is greater), plus attorney’s fees.

Practically, employers that allow vacation advances should update their advance-request form before January 1 so that any request made in the new year includes the separate written disclosure. Many employers will decide that simply capping advances at 40 hours is the cleanest approach.

5. Waiting periods are lawful; disguised “cliff vesting” is not.

Employers may adopt a waiting period at the start of employment during which no vacation is earned. California courts have upheld waiting periods of six months and even one year when the policy is clear. Owen v. Macy’s, Inc. (2009); Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc. (2017). An employee who leaves during a valid waiting period is not owed vacation pay.

The risk comes when a policy looks like a waiting period but actually rewards the waiting period after the fact. The Labor Commissioner will treat a plan as a “subterfuge” if the first post-waiting-period grant is inflated to make up for the waiting period — for example, no vacation in year one, four weeks in year two, and two weeks in year three. In that situation, the Labor Commissioner treats the vacation as having been earned during year one, and employees who leave early are owed prorated vacation at their final rate.

The safer formulation is a clearly worded policy stating that no vacation is earned or accrues during the waiting period, followed by accrual that begins after the waiting period ends and does not “catch up” for the time already worked.

California’s vacation rules are stricter than federal law and those of most other states, and the holidays are when they get tested — advance requests, year-end balances, shutdowns, and post-season staffing changes all land at once. (Remember, too, that California does not require holiday pay or premium pay for working on a holiday, unless the employer’s own policy promises it.) A quick review of your vacation policy, cap language, and advance-request forms now can prevent costly wage claims in the new year. For a broader overview of these rules, see our earlier post, Navigating California’s Unique Vacation Laws.

The post California Vacation Laws for the Holidays: What Employers Need to Know (2026 Update) appeared first on California Employment Law Report.

What poker can teach us about relationships

The researchers will hand you a puzzle. In survey after survey, parents — especially parents of young children — report more daily stress and less moment-to-moment pleasure than people without children. The days are longer, the tempers shorter, the pleasures thinner and more frequently interrupted. And yet many of those same exhausted people describe their children as the greatest source of meaning in their lives. Both answers are honest. They are simply answers to different questions, and confusing the two questions has misled many people standing at the edge of the biggest decision of their lives.

The confusion is understandable, because pleasure and meaning are tallied on different scoreboards. Pleasure is measured hand by hand: Was this hour enjoyable? Was this evening relaxing? Parenthood loses a great many of those hands, and it is pointless to pretend otherwise. The diaper at midnight, the argument over homework, the vacation that becomes an expedition — any honest parent will concede the count. Meaning is measured over the whole game: What is your life about? What would you not trade away? On that scoreboard, the same parent who lost the evening wins going away, and knows it, and cannot explain it to anyone keeping the first scoreboard.

Poker players understand this arithmetic. A fine player can lose most of the hands in a session — folding, waiting, absorbing losses hour after hour — and leave the table a winner, because the hands he won were the ones that mattered and the pot he built was worth more than the antes that drained away. Judge him by any single hour and he looks like a loser. Judge him by the night, and the year, and the story is reversed. Parenthood is the extreme version of that session. The daily antes are real, relentless, and mostly unglamorous. The pot is something else entirely: a person, becoming himself in front of you, who loves you with a completeness you did nothing to deserve and can do nothing to purchase.

That last part is the heart of the paradox, so let me say it plainly: what the ante buys cannot be bought any other way. There is no market where meaning of this kind is sold separately. You cannot hire it, inherit it, or win it. The chance to love someone more than yourself and be loved back in the currency of trust; the chance to shape a life — to be the voice a grown man still hears when he decides who to be; the chance to see the world made new through a child’s eyes, the first snowfall and the first lost tooth arriving with the force of revelation — all of it is available at one price, and the price is the daily one, paid in stress and sleeplessness and surrendered pleasures. The paradox dissolves once you see that the two columns were never measuring the same thing.

I saw the final tally of this paradox at the end of my cases, in the rooms where a life gets summed up. People reviewing their years with a lawyer — signing the documents, deciding what goes to whom — do not talk about their pleasant afternoons. They talk about their children: the ones they are proud of, the ones they worry over still, the ones they hope to see before the end. In hospital corridors and at more bedsides than I can count, I never once heard a dying person ask for their portfolio. They asked for their kids. Whatever the daily ledger said, the lifetime ledger was not close.

An honest caution belongs here: meaning is not a synonym for happiness, and no one should be sold parenthood as a pleasure strategy; the paradox is a description, not an advertisement. There are hard seasons when the meaning itself runs quiet and all a parent can feel is the cost. The research tells us most parents, given the whole of it to judge, judge the bargain worth making — and that the question to ask beforehand is not “will this make my days more pleasant?” but “is this the meaning I want my life to carry?”

Here is the takeaway. If you are a parent in the thick of the expensive years, learn to keep the right scoreboard. On the days when the daily count is all loss — no sleep, no peace, no minute that was yours — resist grading your life by that column. Ask instead the whole-game question: what in my life would I trade this for? Most parents find the answer arrives quickly. And if you are deciding whether to become a parent, decide on the meaning column, with your eyes open about the pleasure column. The highest ante at the family table buys the one thing money, leisure, and freedom cannot. Most of us who paid it would pay it again.

Business is like the game of Poker

Ask a professional poker player what the first few hands of a session are for and he will give you an answer that sounds like a confession: he is not really trying to win them. He is buying information. He plays a small pot to see who is timid, who is bluffing, who protects his blinds and who gives them away. The chips he risks early are not a gamble; they are an expense — the cheapest education in the room. The amateur believes every hand is a verdict on his talent; the professional knows the early hands are a purchase, decided in advance.

That is the correct frame for the first stage of any business, and it changes everything about how the money should be spent. Treat the ante as tuition. A tuition payment is not judged by whether it makes you rich; it is judged by whether you learned what you paid to learn. The founder who grasps this stops asking the first stage to prove he was right — a demand that makes him hide bad news, massage results, and defend a theory long after the table has refuted it. Instead he asks the first stage a better question: where, exactly, am I wrong? Because he is wrong somewhere. Every plan is. The only choices are whether he finds out at the price of a first shipment or at the price of a warehouse.

The titans’ early hands read like coursework once you know to look. Knight’s first shipments taught him that runners would pay for a better shoe long before any retailer believed it — a fact no survey could have sold him, learned for the price of one order of Tigers. Blakely’s mill visits taught her that expertise was a gate, not a verdict, and that the way through it ran around the experts. Each lesson arrived attached to a modest bill, and each one rewrote the next bet. That is tuition working as intended: small payments, specific knowledge, immediate application — the opposite of the founder who spends two years and six figures discovering everything that was wrong.

But tuition only teaches if it is paid with your eyes open, and eyes open is a discipline, not a mood. Before the money goes in, write three things down. First, what this ante costs — the whole, honest figure, in dollars and in months. Second, what it could teach: the specific unknowns this hand exists to resolve. Will customers pay this price? Will this supplier perform? Does this neighborhood buy what I am building? Third, what you will do if it is lost — decided in advance, in calm, for the moment when you will be neither. One page holds all three. It is the least impressive document in business and the one whose absence I have seen cost the most.

The reason for the page is what happens to players who skip it. A man who has not defined his loss in advance does not experience losing it as information; he experiences it as a theft that must be recovered. So he doubles the next bet to win it back, then doubles again, and one hand’s tuition becomes a stack-destroying chase. Casinos are built on that man. Lenders retire on him. In my years of practice I reviewed the wreckage of ventures that did not die of a bad idea. They died of an undefined loss, chased by good people who had never decided in advance what they would do when the first hand went wrong.

Notice the freedom on the other side of the page. The player who knows his cost, his questions, and his exit can play the hand in front of him with something close to relaxation. He is not negotiating with himself mid-crisis, and his judgment stays his own — the asset the whole exercise exists to protect, because the ante buys information, but judgment, exercised over many hands, is what turns information into a business.

Here is the takeaway. Before you pay your next first bet — a shipment, a prototype, a single lot, a pilot customer — take one page and write the three lines: what it costs, what it is meant to teach, and what you will do if it is lost. Then pay the ante and study the hand like a student who has paid for the lesson and intends to get it. The goal of the first stage is not to prove you were right. It is to find out where you were wrong while finding out is still cheap. Every titan in this book paid that tuition. The ones we never heard of paid the same money and refused the lesson — which is the only way an ante is ever truly wasted.

What poker can teach us about relationships

Every parent has heard the number, usually from a magazine or a well-meaning relative: the United States Department of Agriculture, in its last major estimate, calculated that a middle-income couple would spend more than two hundred thousand dollars raising a child born in 2015 through age seventeen — and that figure leaves out college entirely, and prices have climbed since. It is a sobering sum. It is also, as any parent past the first year can tell you, the smallest part of the price. If money were the whole ante for a child, parenthood would be a purchase. It is not. It is a payment made in currencies no bank tracks, collected daily, for decades.

The first currency is sleep. New parents walk through the early years in a fog that no coffee fully lifts: the two o’clock feeding, the four o’clock crying, the five o’clock certainty that morning has already arrived. Ask a parent of a newborn what they would pay for one unbroken night and the answer comes fast — the two hundred thousand would start to look like a bargain. The sleep debt is eventually repaid, but slowly, in installments across years, and some of it simply becomes the new normal of a life lived slightly tired and entirely rearranged.

The second currency is freedom, and it goes quietly, so quietly that parents often cannot name the day it left. The spontaneous weekend trip. The late dinner that becomes a later night. The career gamble — the risky new job, the move across the country — that seemed exciting when the only mouth it fed was your own. All of it must now be weighed against school calendars, fevers, babysitters, and a small person whose claim on your hours is total and, somehow, mostly joyful to honor. Your time stops belonging to you in the way it once did. That is not a complaint. It is an accounting.

Then there is patience, which is tested not in dramatic moments but a thousand ordinary times a week: the milk poured deliberately onto the floor, the question asked for the fortieth time, the shoes that cannot be found by the only person who took them off. And there is worry, the currency with the longest term of all. It begins the day the child arrives — is he breathing, is she eating, is that fever the serious kind — and parents of grown children will tell you, with a rueful smile, that it never fully ends. It merely changes addresses: from the crib to the driver’s seat to the apartment in another state where the phone goes unanswered one beat too long.

The deepest currency is vulnerability, and there is no way to soften the description. To love a child is to hand the world a piece of your heart and watch it walk around outside your body — across streets, onto playing fields, into cars driven by other people’s teenagers, eventually out the front door for good. Every parent has made the same quiet bargain: a permanently enlarged capacity for joy, purchased with a permanently enlarged capacity for fear. No one told us the exchange rate at the hospital. We would not have believed it anyway.

I spent a career helping families count costs — estates settled, assets tallied, obligations itemized — and I learned that the most consequential entries are the ones that never appear on a statement. That is why I think the honest count matters. The couple who counts only the dollars will be blindsided by the real price, and an ante that surprises you breeds resentment; you start to feel the game cheated you, when in fact you simply never read the stakes. The couple who counts the sleep, the freedom, the worry, and the vulnerability — and pays with eyes open — has made a commitment instead of a miscalculation. The chips are the same. The spirit in which they are pushed forward is entirely different.

None of this is an argument against paying. It is an argument for paying honestly, the way a good player sizes a bet before he makes it: knowing the full amount, in every currency, and deciding the hand is worth it anyway. Parents have been making that decision for as long as there have been families.

Here is the takeaway. If you are weighing whether to have a child, or another child, do the full accounting together — not just the budget, but the sleep, the freedom, the patience, the worry, and the open heart. Say the real prices out loud to each other. Then decide, and if you decide to play, pay without keeping a resentful ledger. The two hundred thousand dollars is the line item everyone quotes. It is the rest of the price — and the willingness to pay it knowingly — that makes someone a parent.

Business is like the game of Poker

Every beginning poker player makes the same discovery, usually on his first night: the ante is not the bet. It is a small, fixed chip — the price of being dealt in — and it bears no resemblance to the stack sitting behind it. The player who confuses the two, who shoves his whole stack into the center before the first card is dealt, is not bold. He is finished by the end of the hand either way: he won a pot he never needed to risk everything to win, or he is walking to his car. The professionals size the first chip so that losing it is an inconvenience. Amateurs size it so that losing it is an obituary.

The founders in this book, examined closely, were professionals about this. Phil Knight’s story sounds daring — an invented company, shoes in the trunk of a Plymouth, a business run on nerve. But look at the structure underneath the nerve. Knight kept his job. He worked as an accountant, and later taught accounting, while Blue Ribbon Sports was becoming Nike in his evenings and on his weekends. His salary paid his rent; his ante bought him information. If the shoe business had folded in year two, Knight would have lost a few thousand dollars and some evenings — painful, educational, survivable. He was never one bad shipment away from ruin — which is why he could play his hand with a clear head for the decades the game required.

Sara Blakely structured hers the same way with even less margin for error. Her ante was five thousand dollars of savings, accumulated selling fax machines dollar by dollar. What she did not do is the point. She did not borrow against a house she didn’t have or sign notes she could not repay. She wrote much of her own patent because an attorney’s fee would have swollen the ante past what she could afford to lose. She kept selling fax machines while Spanx was in its cradle. Her whole downside was capped at savings she could rebuild; no debt collector was ever going to enter her story, even if every mill had said no.

This gives us the rule, and it is worth stating flatly: pay only what you can afford to lose, because the ante buys the right to see a hand — nothing more. It does not buy success. It does not buy the river card. It buys cards, information, and the right to make the next decision with your eyes open. A bet sized for that purpose is an investment in education. A bet sized beyond it converts every ordinary setback — and early ventures are made of setbacks — into an emergency. Rent money is not ante money. The mortgage is not ante money. A founder who stakes them has not shown courage; he has shown he cannot tell a business from a slot machine.

In my own years in real estate I watched the two species of developer the way you watch two species of poker player. The ones who lasted sized every first project to the loss they could absorb — one lot, one house, tuition money — and were still at the table thirty years later, compounding what the small hands had taught them. The ones who vanished, vanished the same way: their first real bet was the biggest they could assemble, leveraged to the roofbeams, so that one turn of the market — a rate rise, a slow season, a single defaulting buyer — did not wound them but ended them.

There is a paradox here that timid people miss: sizing the ante down makes you braver, not weaker. A player whose loss is survivable plays his winners hard and reads the table honestly. A player whose loss is ruin plays scared — he folds hands he should play, chases hands he should fold, and negotiates every decision with his fear instead of his judgment. The titans were not fearless. They had arranged, in advance, for fear to have nothing legitimate to say.

Here is the takeaway. Before your next venture, write down the largest loss you could take without changing how your family lives — not the largest sum you can raise, which is a different and far more dangerous number. That figure, and no other, is your ante ceiling. Structure the bet to fit under it: keep the job, use savings rather than unpayable debt, cut the first stage until it fits. Then pay it without drama. You are not betting your stack. You are buying a seat and a look at the cards — and a player who can afford his ante can afford to stay in the game long enough for the game to pay him back.

The lessons we can learn from the game of Poker

Most games are played one hand against the table, but every so often poker reminds you what a partnership looks like: two players who have quietly agreed to play the evening as one stack. Watch such a pair and you will notice something. They never seem to surprise each other. They have talked beforehand about how aggressive to be, how much of the stake is in play, when to call it a night. The agreement is invisible, but it is the whole secret — because two people sharing one game without ever discussing how they intend to play it will spend the night making moves the other cannot understand, and resenting each other for it. Marriage in retirement is that partnership, played for keeps, and it runs on exactly the same secret.

Here is the situation nobody warns couples about. Retirement does not change one player’s game; it changes both, at the same time, and usually in different directions. One spouse retires while the other is still working. One has spent decades at an office while the other has built a full life at home — friends, routines, a household that runs a certain way. One has been dreaming for years about travel; the other has been dreaming about finally staying put near the grandchildren. Then the working life ends, and the house that belonged to one person during the daylight hours belongs to two people, all day, every day. Each partner arrives at this new game carrying a retirement they have been imagining for years. The trouble is that the two imagined retirements are rarely the same one — and neither partner has ever said theirs out loud.

In my years of practice, and in the years since among friends, the couples who navigated this change best all did one thing in common. They treated retirement as a joint project. They talked openly about what each of them wanted, negotiated their time and their space, made plans together — and just as deliberately kept separate interests, separate friendships, and parts of life that were theirs alone. They did not assume that love had already settled these questions. They understood that a marriage, like any long partnership, needs a new deal when the game changes, and that the deal is far easier to strike at the start than after a year of quiet frustration has done its work.

The conversation they had is not mysterious, and it is not long. It comes down to a handful of honest questions. What does each of us want a typical week to look like? What do we want to do together, and what do we want to do separately? Where do we want to live — this house, this town, somewhere else entirely? How will we make decisions about money now that the paycheck has stopped and the stack no longer refills? And the question underneath all the others: what is each of us worried about? Ask that last one and then really listen, because the answer — fear of being a burden, of boredom, of outliving the money, of losing the identity the job supplied — is usually the thing that has been driving the small arguments about nothing.

Two features of the new deal deserve emphasis. First, separate is not a warning sign. A marriage in which two people spend every hour together usually strains not from too much love but from too little air; the partners who keep their own friendships, pursuits, and mornings tend to bring more back to the shared table, not less. Second, the deal is a draft, not a contract carved in stone. Health changes, grandchildren arrive, interests shift, and the couple that revisits its agreement once a year — kindly, on purpose, over a good dinner — never has to renegotiate it in anger. The partners are not opponents at this table. They are the only two players in the world playing this particular hand together.

Here is the takeaway. This month, schedule the conversation like you mean it: one evening, no phones, nowhere to rush off to. Each of you writes down your answers to the five questions — the week, the together and apart, the place, the money, the worry — and then reads them aloud to the other, without interrupting. Write down the three agreements you reach and put a date one year out to read them again. That is the new deal, struck early, while the striking is easy. The couples who play this game well are not the ones who never disagree. They are the ones who dealt each other in from the very first hand.

The lessons we can learn from the game of Poker

Every poker player knows the dead stretch. Hand after hand of cards not worth playing, the early excitement long gone, the stack seeping away a little at a time to the blinds. It is the loneliest part of the game, and it is where amateurs do the most damage — not because the cards are cruel, but because of what they conclude from them. One kind of player decides the game was a mistake and walks away from a table he was beating an hour before. Another starts playing recklessly, forcing action that isn’t there, trying to make something happen. The professional does neither. He knows a cold stretch is built into the structure of the game. It tells him nothing about his skill and nothing about how the night will end. It simply tells him where he is — and that the correct response is patience plus discipline, not a verdict.

Retirement deals almost everyone a version of that stretch, usually a few months in. The retirement party is a memory. The big trip has been taken, the garage is organized, the golf game has been played often enough that Tuesday golf feels like Tuesday. And a strange flatness settles over the days — restlessness without a target, a low hum of is this all there is? You have more free time than you have ever had in your adult life, and somehow the days feel longer, not fuller. Worse, the feeling comes with guilt attached: you got what you spent forty years working toward, so what right have you to feel flat about it?

The gerontologist Robert Atchley had a name for this, and the name alone is a relief: disenchantment. It is the second of the phases he found many retirees passing through, between the honeymoon and the building of a new life, and it is so common that its arrival should be treated as expected weather. Notice what it is made of. It is not the return of a desire for your old job — sit with that idea honestly and most disenchanted retirees find they do not actually want the alarm clock, the commute, and the boss back. What they miss is what the job quietly provided underneath the paycheck: a structure for the day, people who expected them, a reason the morning mattered. The job carried all of that without asking. Retirement asks you to build it yourself, and the flat stretch is simply the gap between the old structure coming down and the new one going up.

The strain often shows up at home first, and that is worth naming too. Two people who spent their working decades apart from eight to six are suddenly sharing the same rooms all day, every day. One spouse’s long-established territory — the kitchen, the household’s rhythms, the quiet house — now has a full-time occupant with opinions. Small frictions that forty years of evenings never produced start appearing by the second month. Couples sometimes read this as a late-arriving problem with the marriage. Far more often, it is two good people adjusting to a genuinely new arrangement with no plan for it. That is a phase talking, not a verdict on forty years.

So treat the disenchantment the way the professional treats the dead stretch: as information, and as a signal to start building. The cure for this phase is not to wait for the feeling to lift — feelings follow structure more often than they lead it. The cure is the next phase, reorientation, and it begins with small construction. Put one standing commitment on the calendar that other people count on: a volunteer shift, a class, a regular morning with a friend. Give one day a week a shape and protect it. Try things at low stakes, the way you would test a new table with small bets, and keep what deals you a reason to get up. The retirees I watched come through this season were never the ones who waited to feel motivated. They were the ones who built a little scaffolding while they still felt flat — and discovered the feeling had quietly changed somewhere along the way.

Here is the takeaway. If the flat stretch has found you, write these four words at the top of a sheet of paper: phase, not failure. Then, this week, build one piece of structure — one recurring commitment, on one morning, that someone besides you would notice if you skipped. That is all. You do not have to fix retirement in a week. You only have to start the construction the phase is asking for. The deck turns for the player who stays at the table and plays the stretch correctly — and it will turn for you.

Complain about the cards for a living and you will go broke on schedule.

Every poker room has one. He gets his two cards, looks at them the way a man looks at a parking ticket, and begins the evening’s narration. Bad luck. Cold deck. The fellow across the table gets aces twice an hour and our friend can’t buy a pair. Some of it is even true, which is what makes it useless. Because here is the first hard fact of the game: nobody at the table picked his cards. Not the winner, not the loser, not you. The deal is the deal. It is not fair in the sense of being equal. It is simply what happened, and the only part of it that belongs to you is what you do next.

Watch the good players and you’ll notice they spend almost no energy on the injustice of a hand. The cards are information, not a verdict. A strong hand in early position is a different problem than the same hand on the button, and a weak hand is not automatically a worthless one — it’s a hand that asks a different question. Sometimes the right play is to push. Sometimes it’s to wait, to see a cheap flop, to let the table show you something. Sometimes the best play you’ll make all night is folding seven-deuce for the fortieth time without it costing you a dime of dignity. The hand doesn’t decide. The player does, inside limits the hand sets. That’s not a consolation prize. That’s the entire game.

Position teaches the same lesson from the other side. You don’t choose where you sit relative to the button, either — not hand by hand. Speak early and you play the whole street half blind, guessing at what six other men are holding. Speak last and the table has told you half its story before you commit a chip. Smart players don’t curse their seat. They adjust to it. Tighten up early, open up late, and understand that the same two cards are worth different money depending on nothing more than where you’re sitting when they arrive.

And then there’s the matter of the man across the table — the one who, in your running account of the evening, keeps getting the cards you were supposed to get. Every player has felt the heat of that. You can spend a whole night watching another man’s stack grow and mentally redealing his hands into your lap, and all it will buy you is a shorter night and an emptier pocket. His cards are not your business. They were never going to be your cards. The deck doesn’t owe you his run, and envy is the one bet at a poker table that has never once paid out.

The players who last understand this in their stomachs: you are not being graded against the best hand at the table. You’re being measured on what you did with yours.

It turns out a traveling master once made the same point with money instead of cards.

Before a long journey, he called three of his servants and handed over his capital — not equally, because he knew his men. To one he gave five talents, a fortune. To another, two. To the last, one — and even one talent was years of a working man’s wages, so nobody at that table was truly empty-handed. The distribution wasn’t equal. It was matched, the story says, to each man’s ability. Different stacks. Different hands. One instruction implied: play.

The five-talent man put his to work and doubled it. The two-talent man did the same — doubled his, too, which is to say he finished with less money than the first man and the same perfect record. The one-talent man dug a hole and buried his. Safe. Untouched. Exactly one talent, returned with the dirt still on it.

When the master settled accounts, the five-talent man heard the words every player wants to hear: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” And then the two-talent man stepped up with his smaller result — and heard the same words. Not similar words. The same. Word for word. He had less to work with and produced less, and the praise didn’t shrink by a single syllable, because he was never being compared to the man beside him. He was being asked one question: what did you do with what you were given?

The buried talent, meanwhile, got no praise at all — not because the hand was small, but because it was never played.

Somebody will always be dealt more than you: more money, more health, more chances, a better seat. That’s the deal, and it isn’t changing. The question that follows you home from every table is the only one that was ever really being asked. Not what were you holding compared to him. What did you do with the hand in front of you?

Play that one. It’s yours.

Download your free copy of Dealt In.

The lessons we can learn from the game of Poker

Sit down at a poker table you have never played before and the first thing an experienced player does is locate himself. What stage is this game in? Who is playing loose, who is tired, how deep are the stacks, how much night is left? He asks because the right move depends on where you are in the game. The player who cannot tell the early hands from the late ones will make early mistakes at the end and late mistakes at the beginning, and he will not understand why the table keeps beating him. He is not a bad player. He is a lost one, and lost is a curable condition — if he has a map.

Retirement has a map. The gerontologist Robert Atchley spent decades studying how people actually move through retirement, and he described a series of phases that many retirees pass through on the way from the last working day to a settled new life. Not everyone experiences all of them. They do not always arrive in the same order, and a person can circle back through one he thought he had finished. But the map is worth knowing for the same reason the poker player studies the room: once you can name where you are, the feelings that seemed like verdicts turn out to be locations — and locations can be moved through.

The first phase Atchley called the honeymoon, and it feels the way it sounds. Retirement begins as a long vacation: the trips postponed for a decade finally taken, the mornings finally unscheduled, the projects around the house finally finished, the freedom savored one slow cup of coffee at a time. This phase is genuinely wonderful, and nothing in this book will ask you to apologize for enjoying it. Rest earned over forty years is not a character flaw. But notice what a honeymoon is: a celebration at the start of something, not the something itself. Savor it — and know that it is the first phase, not the destination.

For many people, the honeymoon fades into the second phase: disenchantment. The vacation activities lose their flavor, because a vacation only sparkles when it is a break from something, and now there is nothing for them to be a break from. Restlessness sets in. Some people feel bored, flat, even a little depressed, and then guilty about feeling it — wasn’t this what they wanted? Marriages can feel the strain here too, as two people who spent their daylight hours apart for decades find themselves together all day, every day. Hear this plainly: disenchantment is a documented phase of retirement, not a report card on yours. It is not evidence that retiring was a mistake. It is a signal — the new game’s way of telling you the old structure is gone and a new one has not been built yet.

The third phase is the answer to the signal: reorientation. This is where the retiree stops drifting and starts choosing. People take stock of their time, their money, their health, and their interests, and begin making deliberate decisions about what the days are for — volunteering, part-time work, new learning, deeper involvement with family and community. It is less glamorous than the honeymoon and less comfortable than drifting, and it is where retirement is actually won. The player has stopped waiting for the table to entertain him and started playing his own game.

The last phase Atchley called routine — not in the dull sense, but in the settled one. The retiree has built a rhythm of days that feels stable and meaningful: people he sees, things he does, a shape to the week that fits the life he actually wants. The new game has become familiar, and he is playing it well. And if life deals a change — a move, a loss, a turn in health — he may find himself back in an earlier phase for a while. That is not failure either. It is the map working the second time around, and the road is easier to travel once you have seen it before.

Here is the takeaway. Write down the four phases — honeymoon, disenchantment, reorientation, routine — and honestly name the one you are in, or the one you can see coming. Then write a single sentence about what that phase asks of you: if you are in the honeymoon, it asks you to enjoy it without mistaking it for the whole trip; if you are disenchanted, it asks you to build, not to blame; if you are reorienting, it asks for one deliberate choice at a time. A player who knows where he is in the game can play the hand in front of him. So can a retiree who knows his phase.