Jean-Robert Bellande -- Can he win this reality show?

I love one thing more than anything else -- reality TV.  Oh, you say, what about your husband, what about your children?  Hey, this is a family-wide obsession.  If Jeff Probst and I were both drowning and you could save both of us, my son would dive in, grab Jeff, pull him to safety, and start talking to him about  Boston Rob, Russell Hantz and Richard Hatch till someone came to drag my lifeless body out of the water.

I also happen to love poker.  Watching it, playing it, reading about it, writing about it.  It's a borderline obsession -- my resistance to watching the show 2 Months, 2 Million the only thing that's keeping me from starring in next week's episode of Intervention. 

So when these two worlds collide, to say I'm euphoric would be like saying Phil Hellmuth has a bit of an ego.

When Jean-Robert Bellande was on Survivor it was like eating a hot fudge sundae on top of a brownie on top of a birthday cake served on Clive Owen.   Jean-Robert provided many entertaining moments on the show, he was both calculating and clueless.  He thought his strategic wiles would carry him to the end, but his hubris led to a too-early exit.  Yet I enjoyed his character on the show.

In the years since, I've discovered by following his tweets that he wasn't playing a character -- that's him.  He doesn't take himself or what he does too seriously, yet he is very competitive.  He's had some tournament success and has made a splash with his brash talk and over-sized personality.  But he has no bracelet and no WPT wins.  Could that dry spell come to an end this year?

As I type this, Jean-Robert has been on a roller coaster of a Day 5 at the World Series of Poker Main Event.  He's already in the money, at least in the top 300, beating his prior best finish in the Main Event.  But, of course, like any poker player, he wants more.  I'm rooting for him to go all the way.  And, from the tweets I've seen, I'm not alone.

Well, Heck, Yes! -- FCC policy on swearing overturned

In a sign that we have finally embraced the first amendment, ratified 209 years ago, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the policy of the FCC to crack down on "vulgar" speech in live TV and radio broadcasts.  The ruling did not address the U.S. Supreme Court decision empowering the FCC to police the airwaves for objectionable content in general, but at least recognized the reality that swearing done spontaneously, that is out there for just a moment, is not so detrimental to society that the broadcasters need be punished for having it aired.  The court's ruling is a good first step in finding a balance between protecting the unwary public from expletives and preventing a chilling effect that will limit free expression.

This case arose as a result of a spate of instances as awards shows and other live events where a brief obscenity was uttered by a presenter or winner. In past years, performers such as Bono and Cher, and  others with last names, uttered fleeting expletives while on live broadcasts.  Bono has said the phrase "f---ing brilliant" at the 2003 Golden Globes and that was enough to rally the full power of the federal government to punish the broadcaster for airing such vulgarity.

Under rules implemented the next year, profanity referring to sex or excrement was deemed always indecent.  Broadcasters were fined for any use of any word or phrase that fell within this broad, generalized definition, even in just an unplanned and momentary manner.  This policy was brought up for review before the appeals court in a case brought by Fox and other networks. 

Speaking for the three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote, "The FCC’s policy violates the First Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here.”

"By prohibiting all 'patently offensive' references to sex, sexual organs and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what 'patently offensive' means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive," the appeals court wrote.

The opinion went on, "To place any discussion of these vast topics at the broadcaster's peril has the effect of promoting wide self-censorship of valuable material which should be completely protected under the First Amendment."

The panel determined that the existing policy, penalizing broadcasters and implementing fines for any suspect utterance was implemented inconsistently and in situations where the alleged harm was so small as to not outweigh the interests of free speech.

The panel noted that swear words were permitted in the broadcast of the movie Saving Private Ryan but not in a PBS miniseries -- leaving broadcasters in the doubt about what was permitted when.  As Judge Pooler wrote, "Under the current policy, broadcasters must choose between not airing or censoring controversial programs and risking massive fines or possibly even loss of their licenses, and it is not surprising which option they choose."  It was clear to the panel that the fear of the power of the FCC was affecting broadcast decisions detrimentally.  "Indeed, there is ample evidence in the record that the FCC's indecency policy has chilled protected speech."

Viewers of live, unscripted shows should realize that spontaneity comes with some risk and if they are worried about seeing or hearing something that might offend their senses, they can choose not to watch or listen.  But to penalize broadcasters for the actions of others, often made in the heat or excitement of the moment, will discourage broadcasting of these live events and will leave us with more prepackaged, rehearsed and unreal shows where there is little risk of anything surprising happening.

No one was seriously damaged by Bono's fleeting utterance of a curse word.  There was a real moment of joy and exuberance and there should be more of that aired.  There are hundreds of TV and radio channels and if you're worried about what you might hear on one in a "live" moment -- then change channels.  But let's trust that our country will survive a little cursing now and then more than we will the slow curtailment of our rights of free expression.

Latest article for Poker Player

Twitter has taken over the WSOP.  Everyone is sharing the up and down movements of their chip stacks, their bad beats (but, coincidentally, almost never their suckouts), and their great (but never ill-advised) bluffs.  This is a brave new world embraced by young (Annette Obrestad) and old (Doyle Brunson) alike.  You can follow along with the action from the comfort of your smart phone or your home computer, reading in 140 characters or fewer about Mike Matusow's early exit or Phil Hellmuth's theatrical entrance.

Below is my latest article for Poker Player newspaper on the topic of Tweeting at the WSOP. 

http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/back-issues/pp100705S.pdf

WSOP Main Event Starts Today

For poker players, today is the grown-up version of Christmas, your birthday, last day of school, and your first trip to Disneyland all rolled into one. It's a day full of excitement and anticipation and hope for good things to come. Today, you start out even with everyone else and you, technically, have the same shot as anyone else. Of course, as in Animal Farm, and life, some are more equal that others and it is highly unlikely that Joe and Jane Schmo will be coming back in November for the final table. But as Darvin Moon will tell you, it's not out of the question!

There are, of course, a number of players to follow at the Main Event proceeds. Since, in my last article, I predicted an end to Daniel Negreanu's two-year bracelet shut out, I will of course be following him to see if I'm still right. I'd love to see Erik Seidel add the big one to his already impressive collection of bracelets. I can't explain why, but I'm a sucker for Mike Matusow and would love to see him at the final table again. And, those of us who are Tom Dwan fans -- a group that has probably grown during this WSOP -- would like to see him get his first bracelet this year, especially in the daddy of all tournaments.

But my attention will be directed, in particular, to Day 1B and one player you haven't yet heard of. His name is Donnie Vann and he traveled across the country from Jacksonville, Florida just to make his dream of playing in the World Series of Poker come true. Donnie won his seat in a $150 satellite at his local casino. But it is not because of the distance he's traveled or how he earned his seat that I'll be following Donnie. It's because of what a terrific guy and inspiration he is. You see, while some poker players complain about bad luck, Donnie has had more than his share of bad luck in the past. Because, as a result of an accident when he was a teenager, Donnie is a quadriplegic.

But Donnie doesn't complain and, instead, has the most positive outlook on life I've ever heard. I had the chance to interview Donnie for Poker Player Newspaper and will post the link when the article is up. Until then, good luck to Donnie and everyone else who is hoping to make their WSOP Main Event dream come true.

Sending Good Karma to Daniel Negreanu

Way back in 2008, I was writing for PokerNews.com doing, among other things, event recaps during the World Series of Poker. I was assigned the $2,000 Limit Hold'em event which Daniel Negreanu won. I wrote the following first paragraph:

Daniel Negreanu went into the final table of this event the most experienced player in the field by far. For six of the other players, this was their first time at a WSOP final table. Negreanu not only had three prior WSOP wins, but had won this event before, back in 2004. So, despite not starting the day in the chip leader, it was not a surprise when Negreanu emerged as the winner of the 2008 WSOP $2,000 Limit Hold'em event. Negreanu won every hand in heads up play to earn the victory, his fourth WSOP bracelet and the first-place prize money of $204,874.

That has been on the front page of Daniel's MySpace ever since. It has been, I'll admit, something that has tickled me. I'm a huge fan of Negreanu's and I was glad that it was my voice that told the story of his most recent bracelet. I liked having my name on his page -- especially since it was spelled correctly, something that happens less frequently than Negreanu is spelled right. It's all about "a's" and "e's" -- I'll discuss that some other time.

So this is, I fear, how the curse worked. I apparently was a little too glad to be quoted and even remotely, tangentially associated with Negreanu’s bracelet, because as he proceeded to make deep runs in 2008 and 2009, I found myself having decidedly mixed feelings about it. While I think he's a terrific player and certainly wanted him to do well, I knew that when he won his next bracelet mine would be replaced by some other writer's recap.

Now you might think this is silly. But have you followed Negreanu the last two years? He’s had some good runs yet somehow fell short. Fellow Canadian Scott Montgomery won a bracelet this year and Negreanu still hasn't -- now that's what I call silly.

So last week I was on Keep Flopping Aces with Lou Krieger (on Rounder’s Radio) and I mentioned the curse and how I was lifting it. Honestly, part of me expected to read about a Negreanu bracelet the next morning. Well, it’s been a week and still nothing. Perhaps by putting it in writing that will be the final step in erasing it for good. I hope so, I’d like to see him win another. I look forward to reading the recap.

Gavin Smith Wins First WSOP Bracelet

I'll admit it. I have a bit of a crush on Gavin Smith. Others can drool over Patrik Antonius, but not me. I'll take the mischievous, twinkle in the portly poker player's eyes over the chiseled good looks of the Greek god. But then, this could be practicality speaking. As a middle-aged mother of two, at least with Gavin I have a shot. My husband promises he wouldn't stand in the way. But, as usual, I digress.

I had Gavin as my pick going into this World Series of Poker to take down his first bracelet. When I mentioned that in the ESPN chat room, let's just say no one was jumping on the Gavin band wagon. Of the list of "best who hasn't won" Gavin, they said, was not holding down the top spot. Andy Bloch -- he of the MIT and Harvard Law pedigree -- he was the next to get his first. Or Tom "Durrrr" Dwan, the online phenom who already had a pretty good run. But Gavin? Sure, he may have been WPT player of the year in the past -- but that's not the WSOP.

What people forgot is that Gavin is a savant when it comes to limit hold'em and he's not too shabby in the no limit either. The FullTilt pro knows what he's doing at the table. Like many great players, he has sabotaged himself at times or lost the killer instinct when it counted. But the ability has always been there.

As he said after the win, "I seem to be pretty good at screwing things up. In the past, I sometimes went out and got drunk or hung out. But this year, I decided to come in and try to play my best the whole time." There's never been a question about his raw talent. When Gavin is on, he's on.

He's aggressive, yet so affable that he can easily knock down his opponent's defenses. I remember one of my favorite Gavin moments when, during a WSOP Circuit event, he famously remarked, “I’m sorry for the bad beat that I’m about to give you.” He is disarming in every sense of the word.

So Event #44, $2,500 mixed hold'em, was right up his alley. Of course, not only did he have the smarts and skill to win, but his attitude was good. "The last three days everything just clicked. I played well and things went well and everything clicked at the right time."

Aided by the support of his many friends and fans, and with a determination to not let this opportunity slip away, Gavin took and kept control of the final table. But how could he lose, he had me in his corner. Well, not literally in his corner, I was railing from up above the final table, hanging over the balcony. I told everyone in earshot he'd win and then, risking jinxing it, I shook his hand during one of the breaks, told him I had predicted he'd win a week earlier. He promised to make me look smart.

And he did. The Canadian with the ready smile, who seems to enjoy life just a little bit more than the rest of us, has reason to smile even bigger. He now has his first WSOP bracelet. Congrats Gavin!

Meg Whitman v. Jerry Brown -- Who Has a Plan to Fix California?

I recently compared Republican nominee for Governor Meg Whitman's campaign website and that of her Democrat counterpart Jerry Brown.  Perhaps it's a superficial way to judge competing candidates.  But maybe not.  Because the differences were startling and demonstrate why one candidate has a plan to fix California and the other hasn't a clue.

Meg Whitman is not hiding her agenda behind obfuscations or clever slogans.  She's not running on platitudes or soundbites.  Her website contains a detailed plan for dealing with the many substantial problems that face the Golden State.  As the businesswoman she is, she has taken a seemingly insurmountable mountain of problems and broken them down into smaller, more manageable components.  She is a realist and knows that not everything that is wrong with California can be fixed right away.  So she has focused on three major areas that would be the focus of her first four years.

Her goal, if elected, would be: 1) to create good jobs in California, 2) to cut unnecessary government spending, and 3) to fix the K-12 public education system.  Three areas that, if addressed properly, could help turn the state around.  Meg Whitman wants the voters to know what she plans to do if elected Governor.  So she prepared  policy manual that is on her website, available for download, and also offered to be mailed to voters. 

Knowing her background, it is not surprising that Meg Whitman would take such a straight-forward, detailed approach to tackling the issues facing California.  She has an undergraduate degree in Economics from Princeton University and a Harvard MBA.  She went on to become one of the top CEOs in the nation, leading eBay to grow from a company with just $4.7 million in revenues and 30 employees to an international phenomenon with nearly $8 billion in revenues and 15,000 employees worldwide.  Meg Whitman knows how to lead, how to inspire, and how to get things done.  She has a track record of success upon which she can be judged.

All of this -- her education, background, experience, and her specific, detailed plans for a new California are all there on her campaign website. 

By contrast, Jerry Brown's campaign website offers some random thoughts by the former Governor Moonbeam.  Brown shares that. "Even though I am California's 'top cop,' 2 of my tires were stolen.  No matter.  I got 2 new ones and am rolling again."  Amusing, possibly, but what does that say about his plans for California?  He also discusses his birthday yesterday and mentions that he's planning a "Recession Reception."  So, while Meg Whitman is planning how to fix California's economy, Brown is planning on celebrating the recession?  That is more than disconcerting.

Jerry Brown's message seems to be -- I already know where the employee parking is in Sacramento, so vote for me.  He has nothing to say to potential voters about what he sees as the biggest issues facing California or what he will do to address them.  Brown is not even pretending to offer any solution to any of the myriad problems that have run this state into the ground.  Instead, he's riding on name recognition -- and the greater number of registered Democrats in the state -- to carry him to victory.  But if he wins -- California loses.  It will be another tax and spend administration, another four years of catering to the government employee unions, another four years of putting the burden of keeping this state afloat on the backs of just a few.

The two candidates will face off in many debates as the election draws closer and that will benefit Brown.  Because, TV is a whole different medium than print and he can charm and beguile all while saying nothing of substance.  That is why it is imperative for voters to read what the candidates have to say about what they will do -- don't rely just on TV commercials or the limited information provided during a time-restricted and strictly choreographed debate. 

If ever there was a year not to vote party line, but to research the candidates and vote on who has the best plan to make changes that will benefit the state -- this is the year.   California needs a governor who offers real solutions to real problems.  California needs Meg Whitman.