Tonight on Keep Flopping Aces on http://www.roundersradio.com/ at 6:00 PM PDT, Lou Krieger and I will be joined by my friend and former co-worker, poker blogger James Guill, aka Compncards. I first met James via Skype when I was the shadow editor for Poker News' daily tournament coverage of the World Series of Poker in 2008. James was one of many bloggers working on site, reporting on the tournaments, and was one of the few who did not mind having an editor or dealing with a woman which made him A-OK in my book.
Since then, James has written for dozens of poker sites on a variety of topics and has kept his finger on the pulse of what's going on in the poker world. One of his current gigs is writing for Poker Junkie and he has recently started a series on the top 20 most influential people in poker. It's an intriguing topic and one likely to provide as much disagreement as accord, because everyone has their own idea of who has influenced poker and who is merely famous for being famous.
I mentioned his series to Lou Krieger, my co-host on Keep Flopping Aces and my editor at Poker Player Newspaper, and he agreed that it is an interesting exercise trying to come up with a list of who has had the biggest influence on poker. Does someone qualify for merely winning the biggest WSOP Main Event ever (Jamie Gold), or is that confusing flash-in-the-pan with actual influence? And whose influence may have been for the worse (Russ Hamilton?) and not for the better.
Tonight, we will dissect each other's list and hopefully get some input from the listeners and the chat room. Come join us to weigh in with your own suggestions. I hope you join us!
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
New Co-Host on Keep Flopping Aces -- Me!
I’ve been a guest on Lou Krieger’s show Keep Flopping Aces a bunch of times and I know that every time I go on I’ll be wracked with nerves the day before and will have one moment on the show where I forget how to end a sentence. That fear of public speaking is real, even if you can’t see the audience, even if they’re busy playing ten tables while listening to you. Still, I never say no to Lou and not just because he’s my editor at Poker Player Newspaper and can wield the red pen of doom. No, it’s also because I love talking about poker.
So when Lou asked me if I’d like to be a permanent co-host on the show, I think the “Yes!” came out before his sentence was finished. I’ve been infatuated with poker for as long as I can remember. Playing poker is frustrating and exhilarating and tiring and intoxicating. It’s never the same experience twice and even when your flopped set gets you runner-runnered out of a tournament, there’s nothing you want to do but get back in the game.
I started writing about poker three years ago at PokerNews.com, taking the place of Amy Calistri as she was focusing on her job and, later, her book with Mike Matusow. It is interesting that Lou’s last co-host was the same Amy Calistri. Perhaps this means Matusow will be tapping me for the sequel to Check-Raising the Devil – Folding to Bambi. Or am I the only person who worries about his poker playing now that he’s mellow Mike?
My poker writing covered everything except for strategy. I wrote recaps, fluff pieces, interviews, bios, personal interest stories, news and legislation updates. But as someone fairly timid about plunking down large sums of money to play poker, usually sitting with the grandmas and the 2-4 limit games, I didn’t feel I was in any position to give poker advice. About all I was in a position to say was don’t forget to tip the waitress and if you can’t afford to call a limp from the small blind, you probably shouldn’t be playing.
That’s changed. Last year I tried my hand at the Aria $125 buy-in daily tournament. It has an ideal structure for me. You start with a deep stack, and blinds go up slowly and at a steady rate. If you don’t do anything stupid or rash, you can have a decent run. Patience and discipline is rewarded, wild aggression is not as necessary. In other words, it is an ideal set up for a mother of two who lacks the killer ‘shove early and often’ mentality of my much younger, male counterparts.
I won the tournament, an experience I wrote about for Poker Player. For someone with limited tournament experience, my Jerry Yang moment (I was the short stack for much of the time before final table) was a huge achievement. I was as giddy as a Norman Chad watching Patrik Antonius go all in. Then a couple weeks ago, I went back, and over the weekend had one deep run (my opponent’s rivered full house knocking me and my puny ace high flush to the rail), one final table (the aforementioned runner-runner suck out over my set) and a win against the largest field in any of the Aria’s daily tournaments.
So now, of course, I’m a poker expert.
Please come and join me and Lou every Thursday night at 9:00 pm Eastern at Rounder’s Radio. We will talk about everything and anything poker with different guests each week. Come into the chat room or call or DM us your questions at our new Twitter page, KeepFlppingAces. I’ll give you some great tournament advice. Lou may have, literally, written the book on poker – but with my two wins, I’m ready to pen a chapter or two.
So when Lou asked me if I’d like to be a permanent co-host on the show, I think the “Yes!” came out before his sentence was finished. I’ve been infatuated with poker for as long as I can remember. Playing poker is frustrating and exhilarating and tiring and intoxicating. It’s never the same experience twice and even when your flopped set gets you runner-runnered out of a tournament, there’s nothing you want to do but get back in the game.
I started writing about poker three years ago at PokerNews.com, taking the place of Amy Calistri as she was focusing on her job and, later, her book with Mike Matusow. It is interesting that Lou’s last co-host was the same Amy Calistri. Perhaps this means Matusow will be tapping me for the sequel to Check-Raising the Devil – Folding to Bambi. Or am I the only person who worries about his poker playing now that he’s mellow Mike?
My poker writing covered everything except for strategy. I wrote recaps, fluff pieces, interviews, bios, personal interest stories, news and legislation updates. But as someone fairly timid about plunking down large sums of money to play poker, usually sitting with the grandmas and the 2-4 limit games, I didn’t feel I was in any position to give poker advice. About all I was in a position to say was don’t forget to tip the waitress and if you can’t afford to call a limp from the small blind, you probably shouldn’t be playing.
That’s changed. Last year I tried my hand at the Aria $125 buy-in daily tournament. It has an ideal structure for me. You start with a deep stack, and blinds go up slowly and at a steady rate. If you don’t do anything stupid or rash, you can have a decent run. Patience and discipline is rewarded, wild aggression is not as necessary. In other words, it is an ideal set up for a mother of two who lacks the killer ‘shove early and often’ mentality of my much younger, male counterparts.
I won the tournament, an experience I wrote about for Poker Player. For someone with limited tournament experience, my Jerry Yang moment (I was the short stack for much of the time before final table) was a huge achievement. I was as giddy as a Norman Chad watching Patrik Antonius go all in. Then a couple weeks ago, I went back, and over the weekend had one deep run (my opponent’s rivered full house knocking me and my puny ace high flush to the rail), one final table (the aforementioned runner-runner suck out over my set) and a win against the largest field in any of the Aria’s daily tournaments.
So now, of course, I’m a poker expert.
Please come and join me and Lou every Thursday night at 9:00 pm Eastern at Rounder’s Radio. We will talk about everything and anything poker with different guests each week. Come into the chat room or call or DM us your questions at our new Twitter page, KeepFlppingAces. I’ll give you some great tournament advice. Lou may have, literally, written the book on poker – but with my two wins, I’m ready to pen a chapter or two.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
World Series of Poker 2011 Event Schedule Announced
This is the largest number of events in WSOP history, with buy-ins ranging from $500 to $50,000. "Something for everyone is the best way to describe the 2011 World Series of Poker schedule," said WSOP Tournament Director Jack Effel. "It's staggering to think that last year alone the WSOP hosted nine of the 17 largest tournaments in poker history. We had 44 events produce more than a $1 million prize pool, so we can't wait to get at it again and offer players at all levels the best poker action on the planet."
As is the custom, the first event will be the $500 Casino Employees tournament held at noon on May 31. But the first open event will be a new one -- a $25,000 heads-up event. Limited to just 256 players, this is will be the most expensive heads-up tournament in WSOP history. But the most expensive, and most prestigious, event will be the $50,000 Poker Players' Championship, which was won last year by Michael “the Grinder” Mizrachi. Last year, it was scheduled for the beginning of the series and was stopped and started at odd times. This year it's been given a better slot, near the end of the series, and the players won't have to wonder when they're due back in their seats!
Added to the schedule this year is a $2,500 10-game mix/six-handed event and a $5,000 pot-limit Omaha/six-handed event, while removed from the schedule is the $25,000 six-handed event. In all, there will be twelve championship events before the main event, including the return of the sometimes controversial Ladies championship. They also moved the start of the main event to July 7, so as to not interfere with Independence Day any more.
Another big change from years past will do away with the sight of half-dead, zombie-like players trying to prop open at least one eye to see their cards as the morning sun begins its ascent. There is now a civilized 10-level rule which provides that for all bracelet events (except the main event), no more than 10 levels will be played in a day. Also, registration for bracelet events will be open for twice as long as in previous years. The window will now close after four levels of play.
With a nod to the economy, and seeing how enormous the turnout was in the past, there will be a number of relatively low buy-in events offered again. This year, the WSOP has announced a "Weekend Warriors" program which will consist of a $1,500 event each Saturday in June and a $1,000 event every Sunday. In all, there will be five $1,000 events (not counting the Seniors and Ladies tourneys) and twenty $1,500 events.
The granddaddy of them all, the $10,000 main event, will begin on July 7 with one of four Day 1s. After Days 2A and 2B, there will be a day off and then players will play six more days until the final table, the November Nine, is reached on Tuesday, July 19. The final nine players will return to Las Vegas and compete for the bracelet on Nov. 5-7.
I'll be on Lou Krieger's show Keep Flopping Aces on Rounder's Radio this Thursday, January 27, to discuss the changes and the upcoming series.
Below is the complete schedule for the 2011 WSOP. It is not too early to plan your trip to Las Vegas. Pre-registration is available on-site at the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino or online at WSOP.com, beginning February 7.
2011 World Series of Poker Schedule
Event Date, Time Tournament Buy-in
1 May 31, noon Casino Employees Event no-limit hold 'em (two-day event) $500
2 May 31, 5 p.m. Heads-up no-limit hold 'em championship (four-day event) $25,000
3 June 1, noon Omaha high-low split eight-or-better (three-day event) $1,500
4 June 2, noon No-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $5,000
5 June 2, 5 p.m. Seven card stud (three-day event) $1,500
6 June 3, noon Limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,500
7 June 3, 5 p.m. Pot-limit hold 'em championship (three-day event) $10,000
8 June 4, noon No-limit hold 'em (two starting days, five-day event) $1,000
9 June 4, 5 p.m. 2-7 draw lowball no-limit (three-day event) $1,500
10 June 6, noon Six-handed no-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,500
11 June 6, 5 p.m. Omaha high-low split eight-or-better championship (three-day event) $10,000
12 June 7, noon. Triple chance no-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,500
13 June 8, noon No-limit hold 'em shootout (three-day event) $1,500
14 June 8, 5 p.m. Limit hold 'em (three-day event) $3,000
15 June 9, noon Pot-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,500
16 June 9, 5 p.m. 2-7 draw lowball championship (three-day event) $10,000
17 June 10, noon HORSE (three-day event) $1,500
18 June 11, noon No-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,500
19 June 11, 5 p.m. Six-handed limit hold 'em (three-day event) $2,500
20 June 12, noon No-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,000
21 June 12, 5 p.m. Seven card stud championship (three-day event) $10,000
22 June 13, noon Pot-limit Omaha (three-day event) $1,500
23 June 13, 5 p.m. Eight-game mix (limit hold 'em, Omaha high-low split, razz, seven card stud, seven card stud high-low, no-limit hold 'em, pot-limit Omaha, 2-7 triple draw; three-day event) $2,500
24 June 14, noon No-limit hold 'em shootout (three-day event) $5,000
25 June 14, 5 p.m. Seven card stud high-low (three-day event) $1,500
26 June 15, noon Six-handed no-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $2,500
27 June 15, 5 p.m. Limit hold 'em championship (three-day event) $10,000
28 June 16, noon No-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,500
29 June 16, 5 p.m. 10-game mix (no-limit hold 'em, razz, limit hold 'em, Badugi, seven card stud, 2-7 draw lowball, Omaha high-low split, pot-limit Omaha, 2-7 triple draw lowball and seven card stud high-low split eight-or-better; three-day event) $2,500
30 June 17, noon Seniors no-limit hold 'em championship (three-day event) $1,000
31 June 17, 5 p.m. Pot-limit Omaha (three-day event) $3,000
32 June 18, noon No-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,500
33 June 18, 5 p.m. Seven card stud high-low split eight-or-better championship (three-day event) $10,000
34 June 19, noon No-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,000
35 June 20, noon Six-handed pot-limit Omaha (three-day event) $5,000
36 June 21, noon No-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $2,500
37 June 21, 5 p.m. HORSE championship (three-day event) $10,000
38 June 22, noon No-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,500
39 June 22, 5 p.m. Pot-limit hold 'em/pot-limit Omaha (three-day event) $2,500
40 June 23, noon Six-handed no-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $5,000
41 June 24, noon Limit hold 'em shootout (three-day event) $1,500
42 June 24, 5 p.m. Pot-limit Omaha championship (three-day event) $10,000
43 June 25, noon No-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,500
44 June 25, 5 p.m. Razz (three-day event) $2,500
45 June 26, noon No-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,000
46 June 27, noon Six-handed no-limit hold 'em championship (three-day event) $10,000
47 June 27, 5 p.m. Omaha/Seven card stud high-low eight-or-better (four-day event) $2,500
48 June 28, noon No-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,500
49 June 28, 5 p.m. 2-7 triple draw lowball (limit; three-day event) $2,500
50 June 29, noon Triple Chance no-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $5,000
51 June 30, noon Pot-limit Omaha high-low split eight-or-better (three-day event) $1,500
52 June 30, 5 p.m. Mixed hold 'em (three-day event) $2,000
53 July 1, noon Ladies no-limit hold 'em championship (three-day event) $1,000
54 July 2, noon No-limit hold 'em (two starting days, five-day event) $1,000
55 July 2, 5 p.m. The Poker Players' Championship (five-day event) $50,000
56 July 2, noon No-limit hold 'em (three-day event) $1,500
57 July 5, 5 p.m. Pot-limit Omaha high-low split eight-or-better $5,000
58 July 7 - July 19 No-limit hold 'em main event $10,000
Monday, January 10, 2011
Jared Lee Loughner -- The Rapid Decline
I was startled when I saw the mugshot today of accused mass murderer Jared Lee Loughner. I knew he was 22 at the time of the shooting and had only seen his high school yearbook picture:
This is not one of those instances where after a suspect is named, those who knew him say, I never thought this could happen or this doesn't sound like the person I knew. No, this is, sadly, one of those cases where someone's alleged connection with a horrific shooting is met not with shock but with acceptance. A former classmate's emails about Loughner from last summer were reproduced in today's Washington Post.
If Loughner is indeed the shooter, we can look closer to home for clues -- to his backyard with the makeshift shrine and plastic skull, to his rambling, incoherent thoughts and beliefs, to his drug use and to his presently uncooperative parents. What we will find, ultimately, is that there is not one, easy explanation for such a horrific act of violence. We will peel away at the many aspects of his personality and experiences and discover that it took a perfect storm of things going wrong for him to pick up that gun and aim it at his fellow human beings. What is tragic is that the signs he was heading in that direction were apparently there, but no one knew what to do with them.
as well as another, more recent photo:
Those photos were significant just in how ordinary they were. The first image was of a curly-haired teenager, no different from any other kid you'd see bagging your groceries or hanging out in a skate park. The second, a normal, indistinguishable twenty-something.
This is what Jared Loughner looked like today:
This is the face of someone accused of killing six people, including a child. How he went from the youth above to the frighteningly crazy-eyed man in the bottom photo in just a few short years, will be a cautionary tale for all of us. Because the signs of his rapid and extreme change were all there. From his dropping out of high school, to run-ins at junior college, to a failed attempt to enlist in the draft, to authoring nonsensical yet vitriolic rants, he was a ticking timebomb.
Why he wasn't helped, how he slipped through our fingers, how he was allowed to plunge deeper into whatever strange thoughts possessed him is something we need to face. Immediately after the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the more than a dozen others, all the attention turned to the heated speech in our current political discord as having incited this shooting. But it seems much more likely that what motivated and propelled the shooter will be much more mundane and less newsworthy than a Sarah Palin target map or the ravings of Glenn Beck. It should be noted that Loughner's interest in the Congresswoman goes back to at least 2007 when he first saw her at a constituent meet-and-greet, a year before most of us had heard of Sarah Palin.
This is not one of those instances where after a suspect is named, those who knew him say, I never thought this could happen or this doesn't sound like the person I knew. No, this is, sadly, one of those cases where someone's alleged connection with a horrific shooting is met not with shock but with acceptance. A former classmate's emails about Loughner from last summer were reproduced in today's Washington Post.
June 1, the first day of class:Unfortunately, her emails, while prescient, did nothing to actually get Loughner whatever help he needed or protect the public from him before it was too late.
'One day down and nineteen to go. We do have one student in the class who was disruptive today, I'm not certain yet if he was on drugs (as one person surmised) or disturbed. He scares me a bit. The teacher tried to throw him out and he refused to go, so I talked to the teacher afterward. Hopefully he will be out of class very soon, and not come back with an automatic weapon.'
From June 10:
'As for me, Thursday means the end to week two of algebra class. It seems to be going by quickly, but then I do have three weeks to go so we'll see how I feel by then. Class isn't dull as we have a seriously disturbed student in the class, and they are trying to figure out how to get rid of him before he does something bad, but on the other hand, until he does something bad, you can't do anything about him. Needless to say, I sit by the door.'
From June 14:
'We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living cr** out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird. I sit by the door with my purse handy. If you see it on the news one night, know that I got out fast...'
If Loughner is indeed the shooter, we can look closer to home for clues -- to his backyard with the makeshift shrine and plastic skull, to his rambling, incoherent thoughts and beliefs, to his drug use and to his presently uncooperative parents. What we will find, ultimately, is that there is not one, easy explanation for such a horrific act of violence. We will peel away at the many aspects of his personality and experiences and discover that it took a perfect storm of things going wrong for him to pick up that gun and aim it at his fellow human beings. What is tragic is that the signs he was heading in that direction were apparently there, but no one knew what to do with them.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
2010 -- The Year in Poker
It's now an annual event, going on Lou Krieger's show Keep Flopping Aces on Rounder's Radio to go over the naughty and nice list in poker. This year was a bit more special because biliousbetil, one of the listeners in the chat room, wrote a poem for the occasion:
As we went through the list, two things stood out as themes for 2010. One, was the number of first-time WSOP bracelet winners who also fell in the category of the nice guys. Not to say those who still lack that fine piece of jewelry are naughty -- Tom Dwan, who came pretty close in one of $1,500 No Limit Hold'em events, finishing in second place, and the sole remaining member of the best who haven't won, Andy Bloch, both seem like cool guys. But having Michael Mizrachi, Gavin Smith, Phil Laak and Gus Hansen each pick up their first bracelet this year was good for them and good for the game.
The other consistent theme was just how much the government is at odds with the poker community, especially those in favor of online poker. Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts has tried unsuccessfully to get a bill legalizing and regulating online gambling through the House. Whether it's lack of clout or the inability to draft a bill that can withstand attack from the religious right, Frank has been able to get dozens of co-signers to the bill, but not able to get a house vote for the bill. At least his heart, if not the brain of his legislative drafting staff, is in the right place.
But opposing efforts to legalize online gambling for the past many years has been Nevada Senator Harry Reid. That was until this election year when his ass was saved by a combination of a loony Republican opponent and massive campaign contributions from MGM and Harrah's (now Caesar's). Suddenly, miraculously, Reid did a 180 and became a champion of the rights of poker players to play online. As long as they did so on a site owned and operated by MGM or Harrah's or one of the other brick and mortar casinos that supported his campaign. But, Reid, despite having a majority in the Senate, a Democrat in the White House, and the perfect bill within which to put this bill -- failed.
He could have pushed harder. He could have dug in his heels. He could have stressed how online gambling would add millions in tax revenues which are desperately needed right now. He could have been a leader and stood tall and did what he said he wanted to. Instead, he was a typical politician. Pretending to try to pay back the people who paid for his seat, while in reality doing nothing.
There were other people and stories that shaped 2010. One involved the continuing controversy about the existence of Ladies' Events, such as the annual one at the WSOP. This year Shaun Deeb followed in the high-heeled footsteps of Rafe Furst by playing the women's tournament in drag, embarrassing himself and making a mockery of attempts to welcome more women to the poker tables.
Women were shut out of bracelets in this year's WSOP, with their only win in the Ladies' Event. They were chided by wunderkind Annette Obrestad who memorably told ESPN that "women suck at poker." Notwithstanding, outside of the WSOP, women made some major strides, taking down a number of big tournaments throughout the year. In March, Annie Duke won NBC's National Heads-Up Tournament. The next month, Vanessa Selbst won the NAPT Mohegan Sun Main Event and Liv Boeree won the EPT San Remo. Obrestad put either her quote or her gender into question by winning the EPT London Heads-Up NLHE event in September.
Selbst came back in November to win her second major of the year, the Partouche Poker Tour in Cannes. In December, Leo Margets, the last woman standing in the 2009 WSOP, won first place in the Full Tilt Poker Masters Series at the Grand Casino in Costa Brava, Barcelona. Vanessa Rousso went into the WPT Five Diamond World Poker Classic final table as the chip leader, but fell in third place
On a less positive note, there was a rash of articles about WSOP event winners selling, hocking or auctioning off their bracelets. Some, like T.J. Cloutier and Paul "Eskimo" Clark, were doing it out of financial need. Recent main event winner Peter Eastgate put his up for auction because he was leaving poker and wanted to use it to raise money for charity. Under either circumstances, I think it is an unfortunate decision. The WSOP bracelet is the pinnacle of success for a tournament poker player. Even with so many events per year, it is still that piece of hardware that signifies that you have made it. You have left an indelible mark on poker and will be in the record books as long as people remember what books are.
The bracelet means something and it shouldn't be something that you can buy; it should be earned. It should belong to the person who, through a magical combination of luck and skill, outplayed and outlasted everyone else at the most prestigious poker tournament in the world. In the movie world, the Oscar is their gold standard, the award that has the most significance with the public as identifying the holder as special and unique. Since the 1950's, the Motion Picture Academy has tied ownership of the statute to the award recipient and required that anyone who wants to sell it must first make it available to the Academy for the price of $1. I think the WSOP should institute a similar legal requirement.
So here's the complete naughty and nice list for 2010:
Naughty:
John Racener, whose third DUI arrest completely obliterated all that he had accomplished on the felt this year.
Shaun Deeb, for his "Tootsie" turn at the WSOP Ladies' Event. It wasn't original and it proved nothing other than the fact that he is in serious need of a bra.
WSOP bracelet sellers, for trivializing a significant accomplishment.
The State of Washington, for losing its rep as a forward-thinking state when its Supreme Court ruled in favor of its online poker.
Harry Reid, for being a weasel, a wuss, and a phony.
Nice:
Michael Mizrachi, for giving us a great ride as he tried for the WSOP trifecta, and bringing along his entertaining family to share the experience with all of us.
Phil Laak, for his stamina, his resilience, and his sense of humor.
First-time bracelet winners, for making us feel sorry for MIT and Harvard educated, but bracelet-less, Andy Bloch.
Matt Affleck, for playing great poker, losing excruciatingly, yet accepting it with grace.
New Hall of Fame members Dan Harrington and Erik Seidel, for representing poker with grace and class and skill.
Check out my articles from the past year over at Poker Player Newspaper. And Happy New Year!
Twas the night before FTOPS, And all thru the house
Not a freeroll was running, no use for the mouse.That being the first, and possibly last, poem ever written for me, I was particularly tickled. Less so after someone posted a link to my Facebook page and the illusion of a twenty-something hottie was replaced by the cold reality that I am, in fact, much older than the World Series of Poker.
The grinders were nestled all tucked in their beds,
While visions of Shari Geller danced in their heads.
As we went through the list, two things stood out as themes for 2010. One, was the number of first-time WSOP bracelet winners who also fell in the category of the nice guys. Not to say those who still lack that fine piece of jewelry are naughty -- Tom Dwan, who came pretty close in one of $1,500 No Limit Hold'em events, finishing in second place, and the sole remaining member of the best who haven't won, Andy Bloch, both seem like cool guys. But having Michael Mizrachi, Gavin Smith, Phil Laak and Gus Hansen each pick up their first bracelet this year was good for them and good for the game.
The other consistent theme was just how much the government is at odds with the poker community, especially those in favor of online poker. Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts has tried unsuccessfully to get a bill legalizing and regulating online gambling through the House. Whether it's lack of clout or the inability to draft a bill that can withstand attack from the religious right, Frank has been able to get dozens of co-signers to the bill, but not able to get a house vote for the bill. At least his heart, if not the brain of his legislative drafting staff, is in the right place.
But opposing efforts to legalize online gambling for the past many years has been Nevada Senator Harry Reid. That was until this election year when his ass was saved by a combination of a loony Republican opponent and massive campaign contributions from MGM and Harrah's (now Caesar's). Suddenly, miraculously, Reid did a 180 and became a champion of the rights of poker players to play online. As long as they did so on a site owned and operated by MGM or Harrah's or one of the other brick and mortar casinos that supported his campaign. But, Reid, despite having a majority in the Senate, a Democrat in the White House, and the perfect bill within which to put this bill -- failed.
He could have pushed harder. He could have dug in his heels. He could have stressed how online gambling would add millions in tax revenues which are desperately needed right now. He could have been a leader and stood tall and did what he said he wanted to. Instead, he was a typical politician. Pretending to try to pay back the people who paid for his seat, while in reality doing nothing.
 |
| Shaun "Tootsie" Deeb |
Women were shut out of bracelets in this year's WSOP, with their only win in the Ladies' Event. They were chided by wunderkind Annette Obrestad who memorably told ESPN that "women suck at poker." Notwithstanding, outside of the WSOP, women made some major strides, taking down a number of big tournaments throughout the year. In March, Annie Duke won NBC's National Heads-Up Tournament. The next month, Vanessa Selbst won the NAPT Mohegan Sun Main Event and Liv Boeree won the EPT San Remo. Obrestad put either her quote or her gender into question by winning the EPT London Heads-Up NLHE event in September.
Selbst came back in November to win her second major of the year, the Partouche Poker Tour in Cannes. In December, Leo Margets, the last woman standing in the 2009 WSOP, won first place in the Full Tilt Poker Masters Series at the Grand Casino in Costa Brava, Barcelona. Vanessa Rousso went into the WPT Five Diamond World Poker Classic final table as the chip leader, but fell in third place
On a less positive note, there was a rash of articles about WSOP event winners selling, hocking or auctioning off their bracelets. Some, like T.J. Cloutier and Paul "Eskimo" Clark, were doing it out of financial need. Recent main event winner Peter Eastgate put his up for auction because he was leaving poker and wanted to use it to raise money for charity. Under either circumstances, I think it is an unfortunate decision. The WSOP bracelet is the pinnacle of success for a tournament poker player. Even with so many events per year, it is still that piece of hardware that signifies that you have made it. You have left an indelible mark on poker and will be in the record books as long as people remember what books are.
The bracelet means something and it shouldn't be something that you can buy; it should be earned. It should belong to the person who, through a magical combination of luck and skill, outplayed and outlasted everyone else at the most prestigious poker tournament in the world. In the movie world, the Oscar is their gold standard, the award that has the most significance with the public as identifying the holder as special and unique. Since the 1950's, the Motion Picture Academy has tied ownership of the statute to the award recipient and required that anyone who wants to sell it must first make it available to the Academy for the price of $1. I think the WSOP should institute a similar legal requirement.
So here's the complete naughty and nice list for 2010:
Naughty:
John Racener, whose third DUI arrest completely obliterated all that he had accomplished on the felt this year.
Shaun Deeb, for his "Tootsie" turn at the WSOP Ladies' Event. It wasn't original and it proved nothing other than the fact that he is in serious need of a bra.
WSOP bracelet sellers, for trivializing a significant accomplishment.
The State of Washington, for losing its rep as a forward-thinking state when its Supreme Court ruled in favor of its online poker.
Harry Reid, for being a weasel, a wuss, and a phony.
Nice:
Michael Mizrachi, for giving us a great ride as he tried for the WSOP trifecta, and bringing along his entertaining family to share the experience with all of us.
Phil Laak, for his stamina, his resilience, and his sense of humor.
First-time bracelet winners, for making us feel sorry for MIT and Harvard educated, but bracelet-less, Andy Bloch.
Matt Affleck, for playing great poker, losing excruciatingly, yet accepting it with grace.
New Hall of Fame members Dan Harrington and Erik Seidel, for representing poker with grace and class and skill.
Check out my articles from the past year over at Poker Player Newspaper. And Happy New Year!
Friday, November 12, 2010
How to Improve the WSOP Main Event Final Table Ratings
The ratings are in and they're not good. Viewership for the 2010 World Series of Poker (WSOP) Main Event final table fell 30% this year to 1.563 million from the 2.2 million viewers who watched last year. There were two significant differences between this year and last that may have contributed to this decline. ESPN pushed back its airing of the final table to 10:00 pm EST from 9:00 pm and poker superstar Phil Ivey was not at this year's final table.
But neither of those differences tells the entire story of why ratings are not only down, but so low for what is the biggest event of the year for poker. Considering poker's popularity and wide-range appeal, its 0.6 rating in the key 18-to-49 demographic is particularly disappointing.
ESPN put all its eggs in the Main Event basket this year, broadcasting weeks and weeks worth of episodes of the Main Event, adding hours to its coverage, and bringing the final table on air within hours of its completion. In past years, most of the final nine were unknown. With so many entrants and just one or two tables covered, it was unlikely that anyone who made it to the end would have been seen during the earlier broadcast. Yet this year many of the final nine had their odyssey followed by the TV cameras by the luck of the featured table draw or, in one player's case, by virtue of his celebrity.
Michael Mizrachi was the big story from this year's WSOP and he was featured throughout the months-long telecast, first as one of four brothers doing the impossible by all cashing in the Main Event and then later as he marched toward trying to accomplish the improbable -- winning the $50K Players' Championship, the Main Event and the Player of the Year (which he would have shared with Frank Kassela) in the same year. Mizrachi is more than TV friendly with his outgoing personality, strong table presence and adorable wife. His inclusion in the November Nine should have more than made up for the absence of Phil Ivey this year.
In addition to Mizrachi, many of the other players who made it to November were already well familiar to the TV audience. Fililppo Candio had more than his share of face time in the early coverage. From his post-win celebration that cost him a penalty round, to his singing, to his unorthodox play, he was a regular fixture in the early coverage. He was first spotted on Day 3 when his pocket kings cracked an opponent's pocket aces on the river and he went from dejected to bursting with Mediterranean elation. At the beginning of Day 4 coverage, ESPN's Lon McEachern pointed out Candio, whom he called "the excitable Italian," as among the chip leaders as they headed to the money and he was at the featured table for Day 5 coverage.
Also seen on Day 5 was Soi Nguyen going from all in to fourth in chips when his full house beat his opponent's rivered flush and Jonathan Duhamel seeing his stack shrink to just fifteen big blinds. As each of the November Nine moved closer to their date with destiny, they had more face time on ESPN which meant more opportunities to help them connect with viewers. But this great oppportunity was apparently squandered as the viewers did not appear invested enough in the players they'd been following for so long to turn out on November 9 to watch them.
So where exactly did ESPN go wrong?
The Announcers
Lon McEachern and Norman Chad have been covering the WSOP since 2003. Lon is an admitted novice when it comes to poker; he is an announcer and nothing more. Norm is supposed to provide the color commentary and expertise since he at least knows what beats what without having to refer to a cheat sheet, but he is far from an expert commentator. However, the bigger problem is not in their collective lack of expertise in the sport they are covering, but in the tone of their coverage.
Norm puts out more effort in trying to come up with a joke than in analyzing the play around the table. He acts as if he is on the ESPN Classic show Cheap Seats (the sports version of Mystery Science Theatre) where the announcers do a comic riff off of some old sports footage. A little humor is fine, but the repetitive shtick of Norman Chad has cheapened the show into nothing more than a backdrop for his "ragin' Cajun" or "rambling wreck" jokes or another opportunity to work in one of his cutesy phrases. We've been collectivel "whamboozled" into buying him as an announcer when he brings "squadoosh" to the telecast. Lon, doing his best courtesy chuckle a la Ed McMahon, adds absolutely nothing to the broadcast.
Anyone who watched the ESPN3 live stream of the final table heard the commentators actually talk about position and chip stack and momentum. It wasn't a Comedy Store routine, it was a sports broadcast. That's what is missing from the ESPN. The announcers need to take the game seriously, be knowledgeable and enthusiastic, and know how to build and sustain tension. They need to add to, not detract from, what they are showing. And they need to respect the game and approach it like any other sport. Instead, they treat it like a joke, then are surprised when viewers don't take it seriously enough to tune in.
The production
The pacing of the show fails to tell a linear story and fails to build momentum. It is choppy and unfocused. It would be as if on Saturdays the college gameday telecast had one play from each of the NCAA football games that were being played that day. Over here they gained five yards, over there they punted, over there we have an interception and now back over here we have a touchdown. Hard to get excited without seeing the play in context.
Here's some extremely telling perspective on what the televised WSOP looks like to the home audience. This recreational poker player was told by someone who had seen the final table live that he wouldn't believe this one hand when it aired. This was in reference to the stunning hand in which Matthew Jarvis went from a coin flip, nines versus ace-queen, was behind after two queens came on the flop, went ahead after a nine on the turn, then was knocked out when an ace came on the river. As someone in the Penn & Teller Theatre during that hand, I can tell you that the audience reacted as if they'd seen a a train wreck with nuclear cargo on board.
On TV, this hand for the ages paled. He actually wrote, "I guess they didn't air that hand." The TV viewer went on to summarize what watching the WSOP final table was like from his perspective. "That's what they do with the broadcast. All in - player eliminated. All in - wow, player survived. All in - player eliminated. All in - wow, player survived. And now, a little human interest story. All in - we have a new champion. Great poker. I learned a lot." And that was the review of a poker fan.
There should be summaries of missing hands, if only to say, someone lost a third of their stack here, or someone picked up some chips there. Without numbering the hands and putting a clock in the corner to show how long action has been going on (two other good ideas), the viewers are left in the dark. Hands just happen out of nowhere and without any context of what happened previously.
We need less jumping around from table to table, and less interrupting the action to give us some irrelevant back story. We don't pause the action of a Laker's game to discuss Ron Artest's tough childhood neighborhood or update Derek Fisher's daughter's health. During the game, the broadcast is focused on the action.
The marketing
When the WSOP first announced the development of the November Nine idea, it was sold as a way to build interest in the players. And after the first year failed to do much to expand their reach beyond poker media, it was said that next year more would be done. Well, it's been two "next years" since then and still no one outside of the regular viewers of the WSOP on ESPN knew who was at the final table. I wrote two years ago that they should use this time to get the players on the Ellen show, teaching her poker, get on Letterman showing him stupid human tricks with poker chips, get on any of the myriad talk shows that seem to need guests like the rest of us need air. I even went so far to suggest the entire November Nine should be locked up in the Big Brother house.
You have to expose the public to something for them to learn to like it. If the WSOP stays hidden away two hours a week on ESPN, and the members of the final table do not get their faces out there, they will never expand interest into who wins. And that is crazy considering there is so much money at stake. The November Nine need to spend less time with the poker media, who is preaching to the choir and not reaching any new potential viewers, and try to get on The View or Wendy Williams.
Finally, leading up to the final table, ESPN could broadcast a episode that spotlights each of the nine, stringing together whatever they have of their hands during the earlier rounds. Have them discuss the linear story, how they went from 30,000 in chips to where they sit today -- tell a story. Then when they sit around the felt for the final time the audience will know how they got there, feel invested in the outcome, and be watching carefully for how they do.
The WSOP final table will never be treated like a sport so long as it requires any delay and will always be hampered by the necessity of showing hole cards. Without that, it could be aired live. Perhaps if the players where stashed in a hermetically sealed chamber buried deep underground in Burbank, California, and there was no risk of information being relayed to them, we could do that. But barring that, there are steps that can be taken to make the broadcast more professional, more exciting, and more accessible.
But neither of those differences tells the entire story of why ratings are not only down, but so low for what is the biggest event of the year for poker. Considering poker's popularity and wide-range appeal, its 0.6 rating in the key 18-to-49 demographic is particularly disappointing.
ESPN put all its eggs in the Main Event basket this year, broadcasting weeks and weeks worth of episodes of the Main Event, adding hours to its coverage, and bringing the final table on air within hours of its completion. In past years, most of the final nine were unknown. With so many entrants and just one or two tables covered, it was unlikely that anyone who made it to the end would have been seen during the earlier broadcast. Yet this year many of the final nine had their odyssey followed by the TV cameras by the luck of the featured table draw or, in one player's case, by virtue of his celebrity.
Michael Mizrachi was the big story from this year's WSOP and he was featured throughout the months-long telecast, first as one of four brothers doing the impossible by all cashing in the Main Event and then later as he marched toward trying to accomplish the improbable -- winning the $50K Players' Championship, the Main Event and the Player of the Year (which he would have shared with Frank Kassela) in the same year. Mizrachi is more than TV friendly with his outgoing personality, strong table presence and adorable wife. His inclusion in the November Nine should have more than made up for the absence of Phil Ivey this year.
In addition to Mizrachi, many of the other players who made it to November were already well familiar to the TV audience. Fililppo Candio had more than his share of face time in the early coverage. From his post-win celebration that cost him a penalty round, to his singing, to his unorthodox play, he was a regular fixture in the early coverage. He was first spotted on Day 3 when his pocket kings cracked an opponent's pocket aces on the river and he went from dejected to bursting with Mediterranean elation. At the beginning of Day 4 coverage, ESPN's Lon McEachern pointed out Candio, whom he called "the excitable Italian," as among the chip leaders as they headed to the money and he was at the featured table for Day 5 coverage.
Also seen on Day 5 was Soi Nguyen going from all in to fourth in chips when his full house beat his opponent's rivered flush and Jonathan Duhamel seeing his stack shrink to just fifteen big blinds. As each of the November Nine moved closer to their date with destiny, they had more face time on ESPN which meant more opportunities to help them connect with viewers. But this great oppportunity was apparently squandered as the viewers did not appear invested enough in the players they'd been following for so long to turn out on November 9 to watch them.
So where exactly did ESPN go wrong?
The Announcers
Lon McEachern and Norman Chad have been covering the WSOP since 2003. Lon is an admitted novice when it comes to poker; he is an announcer and nothing more. Norm is supposed to provide the color commentary and expertise since he at least knows what beats what without having to refer to a cheat sheet, but he is far from an expert commentator. However, the bigger problem is not in their collective lack of expertise in the sport they are covering, but in the tone of their coverage.
Norm puts out more effort in trying to come up with a joke than in analyzing the play around the table. He acts as if he is on the ESPN Classic show Cheap Seats (the sports version of Mystery Science Theatre) where the announcers do a comic riff off of some old sports footage. A little humor is fine, but the repetitive shtick of Norman Chad has cheapened the show into nothing more than a backdrop for his "ragin' Cajun" or "rambling wreck" jokes or another opportunity to work in one of his cutesy phrases. We've been collectivel "whamboozled" into buying him as an announcer when he brings "squadoosh" to the telecast. Lon, doing his best courtesy chuckle a la Ed McMahon, adds absolutely nothing to the broadcast.
Anyone who watched the ESPN3 live stream of the final table heard the commentators actually talk about position and chip stack and momentum. It wasn't a Comedy Store routine, it was a sports broadcast. That's what is missing from the ESPN. The announcers need to take the game seriously, be knowledgeable and enthusiastic, and know how to build and sustain tension. They need to add to, not detract from, what they are showing. And they need to respect the game and approach it like any other sport. Instead, they treat it like a joke, then are surprised when viewers don't take it seriously enough to tune in.
The production
The pacing of the show fails to tell a linear story and fails to build momentum. It is choppy and unfocused. It would be as if on Saturdays the college gameday telecast had one play from each of the NCAA football games that were being played that day. Over here they gained five yards, over there they punted, over there we have an interception and now back over here we have a touchdown. Hard to get excited without seeing the play in context.
Here's some extremely telling perspective on what the televised WSOP looks like to the home audience. This recreational poker player was told by someone who had seen the final table live that he wouldn't believe this one hand when it aired. This was in reference to the stunning hand in which Matthew Jarvis went from a coin flip, nines versus ace-queen, was behind after two queens came on the flop, went ahead after a nine on the turn, then was knocked out when an ace came on the river. As someone in the Penn & Teller Theatre during that hand, I can tell you that the audience reacted as if they'd seen a a train wreck with nuclear cargo on board.
On TV, this hand for the ages paled. He actually wrote, "I guess they didn't air that hand." The TV viewer went on to summarize what watching the WSOP final table was like from his perspective. "That's what they do with the broadcast. All in - player eliminated. All in - wow, player survived. All in - player eliminated. All in - wow, player survived. And now, a little human interest story. All in - we have a new champion. Great poker. I learned a lot." And that was the review of a poker fan.
There should be summaries of missing hands, if only to say, someone lost a third of their stack here, or someone picked up some chips there. Without numbering the hands and putting a clock in the corner to show how long action has been going on (two other good ideas), the viewers are left in the dark. Hands just happen out of nowhere and without any context of what happened previously.
We need less jumping around from table to table, and less interrupting the action to give us some irrelevant back story. We don't pause the action of a Laker's game to discuss Ron Artest's tough childhood neighborhood or update Derek Fisher's daughter's health. During the game, the broadcast is focused on the action.
The marketing
When the WSOP first announced the development of the November Nine idea, it was sold as a way to build interest in the players. And after the first year failed to do much to expand their reach beyond poker media, it was said that next year more would be done. Well, it's been two "next years" since then and still no one outside of the regular viewers of the WSOP on ESPN knew who was at the final table. I wrote two years ago that they should use this time to get the players on the Ellen show, teaching her poker, get on Letterman showing him stupid human tricks with poker chips, get on any of the myriad talk shows that seem to need guests like the rest of us need air. I even went so far to suggest the entire November Nine should be locked up in the Big Brother house.
You have to expose the public to something for them to learn to like it. If the WSOP stays hidden away two hours a week on ESPN, and the members of the final table do not get their faces out there, they will never expand interest into who wins. And that is crazy considering there is so much money at stake. The November Nine need to spend less time with the poker media, who is preaching to the choir and not reaching any new potential viewers, and try to get on The View or Wendy Williams.
Finally, leading up to the final table, ESPN could broadcast a episode that spotlights each of the nine, stringing together whatever they have of their hands during the earlier rounds. Have them discuss the linear story, how they went from 30,000 in chips to where they sit today -- tell a story. Then when they sit around the felt for the final time the audience will know how they got there, feel invested in the outcome, and be watching carefully for how they do.
The WSOP final table will never be treated like a sport so long as it requires any delay and will always be hampered by the necessity of showing hole cards. Without that, it could be aired live. Perhaps if the players where stashed in a hermetically sealed chamber buried deep underground in Burbank, California, and there was no risk of information being relayed to them, we could do that. But barring that, there are steps that can be taken to make the broadcast more professional, more exciting, and more accessible.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
The WSOP Main Event Final Table -- So How's My Predicting
I could have gone back and edited my last blog post, change my predictions, and look like a genius today. The final two? Well, that's easy. Jonathan Duhamel, the overwhelming chip leader going into the final table, and savvy John Racener. But, in the interest of honesty -- and since I couldn't edit the podcast with Lou Krieger where I made my fearless, and now feckless, prognostication -- let me say, you win some, you lose some.
Here's where I was right. Soi Nguyen, the only true amateur at the table and one of the smallest chipstacks, did leave first. Matthew Jarvis also did not make a deep run, as I predicted, but was dealt a cruel hand to be his last. Jason Senti lasted longer than he should have considering how exceedingly shortstacked he was, and I thought he might move up a couple slots because he is a pretty good player. Okay, so far, so good.
Then we get to John Dolan. The Allen Cunningham doppelganger let me down in a big way. He went from second in chips to out in sixth place. Sure, his play cost him some seven million dollars give or take, but he cost me my poker handicapping reputation (which I didn't have and now won't). He won four of the first sixteen hands and I -- I mean, he -- was looking good. Then in all started to unravel. He (pun alert) "flushed" about 13 million chips down the toilet when he tangled with Joseph Cheong. Dolan had pocket jacks in a hand that Cheong had reraised preflop. Dolan slow-played his over pair on a ten-high flop, checked again when a queen came on the turn, but a third jack on the river got his attention. Unfortunately, it also completed a runner-runner nut flush for Cheong.
He never got anything going and only won a couple small pots, mostly slowly chipping away before letting Jonathan Duhamel finish him off when the now short-stacked Dolan pushed queen-five suited against Duhamel's pocket fours and the board blanked. My first place finisher was out in sixth place.
I did not expect Candio to do as well as fourth and he probably wouldn't have had Mizrachi not made that ill-timed move with pocket threes. If you're new to poker, let me tell you pocket threes is not a powerhouse. If your a poker expert who was this close to player of the year after winning a prestigious bracelet earlier in the year, let me tell you pocket threes is not worth pushing with. Even against someone you think is gunshy. Even against someone who just lost half their stack. Even against someone you know is holding pocket twos (okay, maybe then, but only then). If you ever see pocket threes again, run as fast as you can in the opposite direction. They may be the only hand worse than pocket jacks. But Mizrachi decided to make a move with those threes and paid the price with a disappointing fifth place finish.
But aside from my not being able to pick a poker winner, what I'll remember most from that night were the sick, sick hands that dispatched many of the players. Matthew Jarvis moved all in with pocket nines, Michael Mizrachi calls with a suited ace-queen. The flop a decisive queen-eight-queen. Mizrachi has the hand locked up, right? Jarvis is on life support. Until a miraculous nine fall on the turn. I gasped, everyone collectively gasped and for a moment I thought oxygen masks would fall down from the ceiling. Then the river. An ace!! I turned to the people around me -- did they see what I saw? Aliens landed, Big Foot attacked, Lindsey Lohan made a good career move. I wasn't sure I still had a pulse.
Here's the hand if you haven't seen it yet. Even if you have, it's like a car accident, you can't not look:
That was the theme for much of the final table. In another hand that tested how sturdy my heart is, Jason Senti had battled back from his position as a super short stack to see two players out before him. He was all in against Joseph Cheong, with ace-king against Cheong's pocket tens. The flop seemed emphatic (where have I seen that before?) with king-king-queen. A set of kings should be good. A set should hold up. Cheong has just two outs, a ten to make a full house. Until the turn comes a jack. Now Cheong has four additional outs, any nine will give him a straight for the win. The audience again loudly acknowledged the sweat, and then the unthinkable happened again. A nine of the river turned the loser into a winner and sent another player to the rail.
There were other sick hands. Senti earlier had chipped up against Cheong by catching running cards to make a flush after he was way behind after the flop. Racener doubling through Duhamel when he went heads up way, way behind, ace-queen versus ace-king, and hit the queen on the flop. All I could think was, live poker is so rigged.
So congrats to the winner -- you didn't do what I thought you would do and use your huge chip stack to try, unsuccessfully, to bully the table. And thanks to John Racener for making half my top two prediction come true.
Here's where I was right. Soi Nguyen, the only true amateur at the table and one of the smallest chipstacks, did leave first. Matthew Jarvis also did not make a deep run, as I predicted, but was dealt a cruel hand to be his last. Jason Senti lasted longer than he should have considering how exceedingly shortstacked he was, and I thought he might move up a couple slots because he is a pretty good player. Okay, so far, so good.
Then we get to John Dolan. The Allen Cunningham doppelganger let me down in a big way. He went from second in chips to out in sixth place. Sure, his play cost him some seven million dollars give or take, but he cost me my poker handicapping reputation (which I didn't have and now won't). He won four of the first sixteen hands and I -- I mean, he -- was looking good. Then in all started to unravel. He (pun alert) "flushed" about 13 million chips down the toilet when he tangled with Joseph Cheong. Dolan had pocket jacks in a hand that Cheong had reraised preflop. Dolan slow-played his over pair on a ten-high flop, checked again when a queen came on the turn, but a third jack on the river got his attention. Unfortunately, it also completed a runner-runner nut flush for Cheong.
He never got anything going and only won a couple small pots, mostly slowly chipping away before letting Jonathan Duhamel finish him off when the now short-stacked Dolan pushed queen-five suited against Duhamel's pocket fours and the board blanked. My first place finisher was out in sixth place.
I did not expect Candio to do as well as fourth and he probably wouldn't have had Mizrachi not made that ill-timed move with pocket threes. If you're new to poker, let me tell you pocket threes is not a powerhouse. If your a poker expert who was this close to player of the year after winning a prestigious bracelet earlier in the year, let me tell you pocket threes is not worth pushing with. Even against someone you think is gunshy. Even against someone who just lost half their stack. Even against someone you know is holding pocket twos (okay, maybe then, but only then). If you ever see pocket threes again, run as fast as you can in the opposite direction. They may be the only hand worse than pocket jacks. But Mizrachi decided to make a move with those threes and paid the price with a disappointing fifth place finish.
But aside from my not being able to pick a poker winner, what I'll remember most from that night were the sick, sick hands that dispatched many of the players. Matthew Jarvis moved all in with pocket nines, Michael Mizrachi calls with a suited ace-queen. The flop a decisive queen-eight-queen. Mizrachi has the hand locked up, right? Jarvis is on life support. Until a miraculous nine fall on the turn. I gasped, everyone collectively gasped and for a moment I thought oxygen masks would fall down from the ceiling. Then the river. An ace!! I turned to the people around me -- did they see what I saw? Aliens landed, Big Foot attacked, Lindsey Lohan made a good career move. I wasn't sure I still had a pulse.
Here's the hand if you haven't seen it yet. Even if you have, it's like a car accident, you can't not look:
That was the theme for much of the final table. In another hand that tested how sturdy my heart is, Jason Senti had battled back from his position as a super short stack to see two players out before him. He was all in against Joseph Cheong, with ace-king against Cheong's pocket tens. The flop seemed emphatic (where have I seen that before?) with king-king-queen. A set of kings should be good. A set should hold up. Cheong has just two outs, a ten to make a full house. Until the turn comes a jack. Now Cheong has four additional outs, any nine will give him a straight for the win. The audience again loudly acknowledged the sweat, and then the unthinkable happened again. A nine of the river turned the loser into a winner and sent another player to the rail.
There were other sick hands. Senti earlier had chipped up against Cheong by catching running cards to make a flush after he was way behind after the flop. Racener doubling through Duhamel when he went heads up way, way behind, ace-queen versus ace-king, and hit the queen on the flop. All I could think was, live poker is so rigged.
So congrats to the winner -- you didn't do what I thought you would do and use your huge chip stack to try, unsuccessfully, to bully the table. And thanks to John Racener for making half my top two prediction come true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)