The Cash or the Crown?

Which is more important in poker tournaments, the trophy or the prize money?

During the final table of the WPT Deepstacks LA, commentators Owais Ahmed and Tristan Wade got into a brief debate over which is more valuable, winning a first place trophy or winning the most money possible, with Owais speculating that some people might be willing to take a little less money if it meant getting the crown, and Tristan insisting that money rules the day, and he could always go buy a trophy if he really wanted one.

This is a debate that has been knocked back and forth at least since the poker boom, with conventional wisdom being that any “real” poker player is only in it for the money, and should have as a goal to make as much as possible, with no consideration to accolades (one might argue that any “real” poker player who’s only after cash wouldn’t play tournaments at all, but that’s another debate). 

On the other side of the debate are more skeptical types who suggest that when push comes to shove, many of these “real” poker players deeply covet the prestige that comes with bracelets and trophies, and value them much higher than the monetary reward.

The Trophy vs. The $$$$

I think that in the real world, the two concepts are completely inseparable. The first place trophy only has significance because of the financial win it represents. If I win a WSOP bracelet, that has meaning because people know that hundreds of opponents invested their own (or sometimes, someone else’s) hard earned cash to get that title, and were highly motivated to stop me from winning it. I highly doubt that anyone would display their World Series of Online Play Money Poker championship bracelet with any particular level of pride. Conversely, if I tell someone that I won a poker trophy but someone else got more money because we made a deal before hand, that person would probably get the sense that despite my owning the hardware, I didn’t really win the tournament at all, and just kind of bought a meaningless title that I didn’t actually earn.

The Experiment

Fortunately, as a philosopher, I can design a thought experiment that truly brings this question to light. The experiment goes as follows:

You are a fairly strong professional poker player. Strong enough that you have made a decent living for yourself although your bankroll fluctuates considerably, and you have the respect of your peers. You receive an invitation to play in a poker tournament that purports to feature the nine best players in the world (including yourself). There is no entry fee and no prize money, but the winner will be declared World Poker Champion, and the event will be televised on broadcast TV in prime time, so that if you win, even casual fans of the game will know you as the poker champion of the world.

Later that day, you receive an invitation to a private home poker game. It will be a sit n go with only one prize, a million dollars for first place. Since the other players in the game are wealthy hobbyists who want to test their mettle against a pro, there is no entry fee for this game either. However, this game takes place on the same day as the World Championship and you cannot play both. Which would you choose?

I submit that many tournament pros would probably go for the World Championship trophy, even though no money is up for grabs. I believe this for two reasons. 1) A successful tournament pro can always make more money, and while the overlay is infinite, winning the million dollars in the money game is not guaranteed. 2) The opportunity value of being World Champion is probably worth more than a million dollars in sponsorships, invitations to profitable games and tournaments, and other general perks.

I also think that the money vs. fame debate is not absolute. If you are a mid stakes grinder who has never made more than $50,000 a year playing poker (but has never lost money in a year of poker), the money game is a no brainer. Not only could it potentially change your life, but at your level, it’s probably more profitable if people don’t know your name, style of play, or amount of skill. On the other hand, if you’re Daniel Negreanu or Antonio Esfandiari, you’d probably be at that World Championship table before your wealthy friend could get out the worlds “million dollar freeroll.” 

You can also see how your perspective on this issue can change not only from player-to-player, but can also fluctuate for an individual player depending on where they are in their poker career.

Fortunately, most of us will probably never have to make this choice. We’ll keep playing for first place because that’s where all the money is, and happily take the trophy/bracelet/ring that goes with it, and whatever other perks of poker fame that hardware brings.

Have a different take? Let me know in the comments.

WPT Deepstacks Los Angeles Main Event

On Tuesday, I finished 2nd in the WPT Deepstacks Los Angeles Main Event. The event took place at my "home casino," the Bicycle Casino ("The Bike") in Bell Gardens. Starting with a short stack of 300,000 in chips (effective M less than 3, fewer than 8BB), I managed to get heads up with a 4 to 1 chip lead. But heads up matches can be fickle, and four coolers in fairly rapid succession later (KJ vs AJ, KJ vs KQ, rivered Broadway straight vs. rivered backdoor flush, and A7 vs. A8), I was shaking the hand of the champion James Gorham. While he got lucky in the end, James is a great player, who manhandled me when I was the chip leader on Day 2, and who had entered the Final Table with the chip lead himself. Here’s my analysis of the event.

The Game

While I entered the event with by far the shortest stack, I was fairly confident. (Don’t believe me? Check out my pre-game interview) I actually think that short stack play is the strongest part of my tournament game (owing to my having had so many over the years, I imagine), and I knew that if I could find a few cards early and steal a couple of pots or win that first double up before getting low in chips, I’d have as good a chance as anybody.

That’s exactly what happened. Although I lost a round of blinds almost immediately, I managed to pass through with pocket sevens, and then doubled when my KT held up against 88. After that I was off to the races. While I was hitting some flops, I was fortunate enough to be up against players who didn’t really want to fight. James, because he was the chip leader, and was happy to let everyone else go to war while he picked his spots and picked up a few chips here and there, and everyone else because they were either ABC players who were only going to play real hands, or because they were waiting for the short stacks to bust so they could move up the ladder.

Of course, putting me at a table full of tight players is like dropping a piranha in a goldfish tank, and I went to town, opening, calling, and raising with a wide range of hands and rapidly building my stack. I think the commentators at first thought I was just a maniac (Tristan Wade at one point saying “Craig just cares what he has, he doesn’t care what anybody else might have, he’s got a good hand and he’s going with it,” which is patently ridiculous), but as the match proceeded I think they recognized there was some method to my style of play. As the players fell, my confidence grew, and although when we got 3 handed, Prash several times advocated for a deal, I wasn’t having it.

Heads Up

After James eliminated Prash and we were heads up, we did make a deal, taking 70K each from the prize pool and playing for the rest of the cash and the trophy. It seemed like a logical move, since we were almost dead even in chips at that point and James was the strongest player at the table, and it worked out after I hit that rash of coolers.

The bad luck at the end was disappointing, but I took solace in three points. A) I lost to the odds on favorite coming in, and I felt I had outplayed him, losing only because of some unfortunate situations that would have defeated almost any player B) I had to get lucky to get there, as does any player. I entered the tournament late, an idea I’ve been toying with for a while. When I arrived, one of my opponents jokingly admonished me for not saying hello to everyone when I joined the table. “I won’t be here long,” I joked. Although the reverse psychology on the poker gods worked, five hands in, it seemed like my words might be prophetic. I was all in and covered against two other players, holding Ac 5d, on a board reading Qc Jc 8c, up against Qh Jd and 9s Th. The beautiful 4c popped up on the river, and I tripled up and, much like with the final table, never looked back, running my stack up to a Day 1 Chip Lead of 417K. C) I had entered the final table with the short stack, and while I was confident, I knew all the confidence in the world wouldn’t have helped me if I didn’t get a little bit of luck early, and having to exit the final table after five minutes with all my friends and family watching on line would have really sucked.

The Commentary

I learned from social media that Tristan Wade had been a bit hard on me in the commentary, and I love that my boys had my back, firing back at Tristan on Twitter. I feel like he just didn’t understand my game at first, and came around at the end. After the game, he offered me some very gracious, positive, and congratulatory tweets on Twitter, so as far as I’m concerned, we’re good.

One of Tristan’s biggest issues with me was that I was playing a little too passively against James Gorham, entering pots against him with weak hands and checking them down, passing up opportunities to steal pots on the river when James appeared weak. What Tristan couldn’t have known was that I had played with James all day on Day 2, and he had tossed me around like a rag doll, whittling my stack down so much that at one point I thought I might not even cash, which would have been a disaster, although I know I’m far from the first chip leader to have this happen to. A large part of James’ success against me came from calling down river bluffs, and I only managed to get back into the game when I caught a nut flush against his jack high flush on a board where a fourth diamond hit the river and got him to pay off a big bet.

From this experience I felt strongly that James would call me fairly light on the river even when taking weak lines, which is why I challenged him on the river fewer times than I would one of the other players. I think this strategy bore fruit late in the match, when I got James to call off a large river bet with only a pair of threes on a K K 2 9 5 board with me holding K5. In general, I know Tristan was “calling it like he sees it,” and he didn’t know me as a player at all before this match. Still, thanks again to my brother and friends for having my back.

Jokes about my love of clubs (the suit, not the partying venue) aside, I thought Owais’ commentary and insight was quite good. A couple of times his analysis of what I was planning or thinking was right on. At one point, he accused me of Hollywooding (which, while I’m not against in principle, I generally don’t do) but after a couple of minutes, revised his analysis and suspected I was playing a leveling game in my head with Prash, which is exactly what was happening.

The Tell

Owais observed that he thought I had a tell, which was that when I merely announced a big river bet, I was strong, whereas when I put the chips out, I was bluffing. Although I could see it might look this way on T.V., I don’t think this is the case. Typically, if I just announce a bet, I will always put the chips out eventually. I’ll wait ten seconds or so to see if I get an instant response, and if my opponent tanks, I’ll bring out the chips. Most of my announced river value bets were either snap called or insta folded, so there was no need to bring out the chips. You’ll see there’s one hand, were I was bluffing, where Owais insisted I brought the chips out, proving his theory, and Tristan wasn’t so sure I had. This was one of those situations where I announced, James went into the tank, and when I saw he wasn’t going to act right away, I counted out the stack. Nevertheless, now that this “tell” is out there, I’ll probably play with it in case any of my future opponents watched the stream (or read this blog).

Conclusion

All in all, it was a great experience, and knowing all my friends and family were watching and cheering me on was the best part (after, you know, all that money). If you have any questions about the match, post them in the comments and I'll be happy to answer if I can. Looking forward to the next one!

800 Things Wrong with "In Time"

I recently saw the movie “In Time” starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried. It wasn’t the worst movie I’ve ever seen, but it was far from the best. It was way too long, especially for a movie about two people who essentially become Sci Fi Robin Hoods/Bonnie and Clyde. Also, the conceit of the film does not seem to have been thought all the way through. The concept is sort of a modern day “Logan’s Run.” Everyone is genetically engineered to stop aging at 25. The catch is, you then have a year to live. You can “earn” more time the same way people earn money in our world, but you also have to pay for everything with your time, so a sudden jump in your rent can literally cost you your life. A cup of coffee costs a few minutes, whereas a night in a nice hotel might cost you a whole month or more. People are confined by toll booths to different “time zones,” where the people in the ghetto rarely have more than a day in the bank (actually, on a clock genetically built into their arms) and people in the highest zone (New Greenwich) are essentially immortal, with hundreds or even millions of years to spend according to their whims. When Will Salas (Timberlake) is suddenly gifted 100 years by a suicidal New Greenwich citizen, he decides to use his new time to go on a crusade and collapse the system from the top on down.

This is kind of a clever idea, and an obvious allegory for the vicious class system that are own nation enjoys, but as I said, all the details don’t seem to have been worked out. To wit, I present the 800 (and by 800, I mean five) plot holes in “In Time.” SPOILERS AHEAD!

1. Short Timers

The stride in which people in this society take having hours or minutes to live is completely unbelievable. Sure, it’s all they’ve ever known, but this is essentially like watching yourself bleed to death and thinking “oh, it’s cool, I’ll figure something out.” In this world, the ghetto is littered with people who “time out.”  What’s important to understand is that there’s no way to protect your time. Anyone can take time from anyone else simply by grabbing their arm. The person can resist, of course, but if you’re strong enough, they can’t stop you. Yet there is only one small gang that ever goes around stealing time. In reality, if you had five minutes to live, you’d grab the next person you saw and beg, threaten or beat them in order to get a few more minutes. Yet in this ghetto where everyone has less than a day to live, there is virtually no violence. It’s implied, but we never see it, despite the fact that it should be happening ALL THE TIME.

2. The Casino

In one of the most ridiculous scenes in the movie, Timberlake faces off against Vincent Karnheiser (Pete Campbell to you Mad Men fans) in a high stakes no limit hold’em poker game. The actual hand is as ridiculous as you would expect from a poker movie scene. On a board of Q 5 6 J, Pete, holding top set, bets FIFTY YEARS, and Timberlake, who’s never had more than a day before in his life, calls with 4 8 offsuit! Naturally, a 7 comes and Timberlake wins a huge pot, but this isn’t the craziest part of the scene. The craziest part is that on the river, Pete essentially puts Timberlake all in. Timberlake calls, by putting his clock in a reader and letting it tick down to nothing. Of course, when it actually hits zeroes, he’s dead and there’s no coming back, so he’s relying on Pete to show the losing hand and for the computer to register it before he checks out, which naturally, is exactly what happens. If this were real, no casino would want players dying at the tables. Just like our world, you would exchange your time for chips and then play with those chips, so that going all in wouldn’t FUCKING KILL YOU.

3. The Time Zones

All that’s separating the ghetto from the next class of time owners is a toll plaza. No tanks, no phalanx of armed men with guns, the only way they can stop you from moving up in the world is by charging you an excessive amount of time to cross into the next zone. There’s nothing stopping you from rushing the barrier, as evidenced when it is crashed through in the middle of the movie with no consequences. In a world like this, it would take exactly two seconds for the time disadvantaged, who are nastier and outnumber the time rich, to revolt, charge the higher zones and take all their time.

 

4. The Security

One of the most unlikely things about this scenario is how easy it is to take someone’s time. Essentially, it’s like having every dollar you own taped to your body. If this were really how the world worked, someone would very quickly find a way to lock time, so no one could take it against your will. At the very least, someone would invent some goddamn armored sleeves so no one could grab your arm and “clean your clock” (from the movie, yes, very clever) in your sleep.

5. The Bus

This one was my biggest pet peeve about the movie. In the first major plot point of the film, Timberlake’s mom, played by Olivia “Thirteen” Wilde, is getting ready to take the bus home to celebrate her 50^th birthday with her son. However, she is shocked to learn that the bus fare has jumped from one hour to two, and mom has only left herself 90 minutes to get home. The charmingly sympathetic bus driver’s advice is, “you’d better run” and she does, only to fall seconds short of connecting with Timberlake in time for him to give her some life saving minutes. The two bitter ironies of this moment are 1) Timberlake has just been gifted 100 years, 50 of which he was probably all set to transfer over to mom and 2) Mom gave Timberlake 30 of her minutes that morning so he could have a nice lunch (which, idiot, maybe make him a fucking sandwich?).

But wait a minute. The cost of bus fare is TWO HOURS? This makes no sense at all. First of all, the standard of this currency is completely out of wack. A nice cup of coffee costs 4 minutes, a nice lunch costs 30 minutes, and a ride on the bus costs TWO HOURS?? Any moron who would take the bus in this kind of economy deserves to die. The second issue is that the bus fare has jumped from one hour to two overnight. This type of inflation is absolutely ludicrous. It’s explained that the rich intentionally jack up the prices of everything so that the lower classes will keep dying, because “for a few to be immortal, many must die” although why this is is never really explained. But doubling overnight? Even if such a thing could happen without an immediate revolution, you can be sure the proposed rate change would have been on the news for weeks, and there’s no way she wouldn’t have known about it. But she doesn’t seem terribly surprised, and neither do any of the passengers who have just been gouged for double the normal bus fare. I mean, why would you spend more time to ride the bus than it would take to get there on foot? You’re all 25! Get a bike!

I’m sure there are 795 more things wrong with this movie (I didn’t even get into the whole “timekeepers” concept), but my time is finite too, so I’m going to end this rant here. Good try, but I think the screenwriter should have spent a little more in time figuring out how this would all actually work.

WSOP: Lessons Learned

I participated in my first World Series of Poker this year. It was a great experience, and one I hope to repeat. I didn’t cash, unfortunately. I survived about five hours in Event #32, $1500 NL Hold’em, and I came tantalizingly close to winning a Main Event seat, finishing 8th in a 100 player Super Satellite that gave away 3 seats.  I also learned a few lessons which I will take with me if I’m fortunate enough to go again next year.

Lesson 1: Don’t Play Hold’em

Well, I wouldn’t ignore hold’em entirely, but if I can only play one bracelet even next year, I’ll probably opt for seven card stud or Omaha. Unlike about 95% of today’s poker playing community, I can play all the major poker games. Given that at my buy in level, I can face 3,000 people in a no limit hold’em event or 300 in a stud event where half the people probably don’t know what they are doing, I think the choice is clear. Also, the structure of the low buy in events, short chips – long rounds, probably favors a limit game, as opposed to typical tournament structures, where blinds rise so rapidly that it’s extremely difficult to amass enough chips to stay ahead of them and cash with fixed betting limits (although I’ve done this in limit hold'em too.)

Lesson 2: Don’t Play Cash Games

While many cash game specialists salivate at the idea of all the juicy cash action that happens during the WSOP, I can play cash games at home (well, not at HOME, thanks DOJ, but in Los Angeles). The WSOP is a poker tournament Mecca, and there’s just no time to waste playing cash games, especially since the juiciest games are no limit hold’em, and NLHE cash games are not really my specialty.

Lesson 3: Don’t Leave the Rio

After busting out of my bracelet event, I raced over to Caesars to see if I could get into a tournament. I ended up playing a $100 buy in with a deep stack, short rounds, and not many players, and my head was not really in it. There was no need for this. Events are running constantly and every day at the Rio. At any time, I was at most a few hours away from a super satellite, a bracelet event, a single table satellite, a deep stack tournament or some other type of daily non-bracelet tournament. These tournaments were all stocked with players, many of whom were not particularly gifted. There’s no reason to leave the Rio. No reason at all.

Lesson 4: Stay at the Rio

A corollary to this idea is to be sure to get a room at the Rio. I naturally assumed that the Rio would be all booked up, and that rooms would be at a premium. The truth was just the opposite. If you could present a registration ticket to a WSOP event, the rooms were probably the cheapest casino hotel rooms in Vegas. Considering the Rio is a bit off the strip, being able to stay there is a big advantage. You can bet I’ll be doing that next year.

Although the series is still going on as I write this, I think I’ve taken my shot for this year. My next poker adventure will probably be at the Legends of Poker at the Bicycle Casino in August. With any luck, I’ll generate lots of blog material there.

Marvel Super Heroes Poker Party!

I see that my last few posts may not have been the most entertaining pieces I have ever posted, so I thought I’d liven things up a bit with something more fun. Here then, is my assessment of your favorite Marvel superheroes and how they would be likely to perform at your Thursday night poker game.

For those unfamiliar with poker, poker players are classically analyzed on two dimensions, tight vs. loose and passive vs. aggressive, where tighter players tend to play fewer hands and give up on them more quickly than loose players, and aggressive players tend towards betting and raising rather than just checking and calling. 

Extremely tight-passive players are called rocks. They rarely win much but rarely lose much either. Loose passive players are called calling stations. They play too many hands and can spew a ton of money in an evening. Tight aggressive players have good hand selection and play the hands they do play very well. This has long been considered the most effective style, although a good loose aggressive style, involving playing a wide range of hands very well, has also proven highly effective in recent years, especially in no limit hold’em. A player who is too loose aggressive is called a maniac. So, without further ado:

Marvel Super Heroes Poker Party!

Captain America: Rock

Steve Rogers would be your classic tight passive player. He probably prefers not to gamble and is mostly there for the camaraderie. He knows which cards are sensible to play and he’s going to stick to that plan. You probably won’t get him off the best hand too often, but you’ll always know when he has it, so you don’t have too much to fear from him.

Iron Man: Loose Aggressive

Tony Stark, on the other hand, is a guy you’re going to have to watch. He’s got plenty of money and he hates to lose. Get into a pot with him and you’re going to have to grab the table and hold on for dear life. Don’t call his raise unless you’re prepared to play for all your chips.

 Thor: Maniac

The God of Thunder is just at the game for a good time. He’s happy to throw chips around with reckless abandon, and is definitely going to hang around to the river to see who wins. Don’t be afraid to call him down with only a moderately strong hand; its 50-50 he’ll give your money back at the end of the night anyway.

 Spider Man: Tight Aggressive

You know how the best players can read their opponents and pick up subtle signals that tell them when their opponents are strong and when they are weak? This guy has a freaking SPIDER SENSE. No way you’re fooling Webhead into thinking you’re sitting on a busted flush when you’re holding quads.

The Hulk: Are You Kidding?

Getting into a poker game with the Hulk is not advisable. You can probably bluff Bruce Banner without a problem, but don’t show the bluff. You don’t want to make him angry.

Stay tuned for DC Super Heroes Poker Party!

Disgracing the Ace

A few months ago I wrote a blog to sing the praises of a new poker show on NBC, Face the Ace. Now, having seen several episodes of the show, I am writing to apologize.

The show appealed to me because I expected to see some everyman poker players, and some fun stories. I have seen neither. Frankly, my favorite part of the show is guessing the pro from his/her introduction, in which I'm batting 1000.

The parade of cocky 20 (and 30 and 40) somethings that I feared quickly arrived. Typically the level of cockiness varied inversely with the level of success, which was nice. However, the coversations between the pros and the amateurs is unbearable. Either it's blatant hero worship or blatant self-promotion. I found myself fast forwarding through as much of the chatter as possible.

There's little interesting about the matches. It seems the two players trade pots until the amateur decides he has a pre-flop hand good enough to go all in with, and if the pro has any ace, king or pair, he figures "what the hell, there's a big game developing at the Bellagio" and calls.

Steven Schirripa, whose "timid mouse inside a fearsome lion's body" act worked brilliantly in the Sopranos, is clearly suffering in his role as host. He is obviously not comfortable without a script to work from, and it shows. Often, his contributions are of the "So what do you think?" and "So what's gong on here?" variety. Not exactly what I'm looking for in a host. Ali Nejad's appearances to announce blind raises is a rather random intrusion as well.

Finally, way too many of the contestants are quitting after the first win. In addition to being a mathematically atrocious choice, it doesn't make for very good television.

Anyway, the public was right, I was wrong. Sorry about this one.

Facing the Ace

There is a new poker show on NBC called Face the Ace. The premise is simple. A qualifier from FullTilt Poker is selected to compete against up to 3 professional players. If they beat the first player, they win $40,000. If they beat the 2nd player, they get $200,000, and the third player is worth a cool million. The player can walk away at any time, but if he loses to any of the three players he gets nothing. When I initially heard about this show, I thought it would not interest me, and I was going to let it go by. But, TiVo being easy to use, I figured I'd give it a shot.

}

I loved it. The main reason I loved it was because of the competitors. When I heard they were taking qualifiers from Full Tilt, I expected the usual parade of 20-something hotshots. Young guns barely old enough to shave talking about how no one can stand against their awesome aggression and how they've got the game of poker all figured out. You know who I'm talking about.

For one thing, it's impossible to root for these people (unless, I suppose, you happen to be one). For another you will find that the best poker players in the long term tend to be humble (look at Phil Ivey, Allen Cunningham, Doyle Brunson), so it's very difficult to believe that most of these younger players are not the beneficiaries of short term luck who will fade into obscurity the moment the odds tilt against them, therefore it's very hard to hear them expound on how they have mastered the game of poker. This being the case, I had no interest in seeing whether any of these people could win a million dollars, if these are the people who competed.

}

They weren't. Just the opposite.

}

The first player, Jonathan Nygaard, was a war veteran from Pennsylvania. The second, Don Topel, was a truck driver from Illinois. Both were over 30, baseball fans, and overweight. OH MY GOD! JUST LIKE REAL POKER PLAYERS!!!

}

If you walk into any casino anywhere in the world (and I've been in more than a few), these are the people you will see. Not a horde of brash 21 year olds in backwards caps and sunglasses staring overconfidently over huge stacks of chips, but middle Americans, husbands and fathers, a few wives and mothers, doctors, firemen, lawyers and janitors, senior citizens and yes, a few hopeful young kids in the mix. One of the great things about live poker is the way it puts people from widely disparate walks of life together. Another great thing about poker is that not everyone at the table is an overconfident douchebag, and that the people that are often end up going home relieved of their chip stacks.

}

Anyway, the first exciting thing about Face the Ace was that it had real people competing, people I would actually like to see win a million dollars. But the reality didn't stop there. Nygaard, clearly uncomfortable on television, had the misfortune to select Phil Ivey, who may be poker's next world champion, as his heads up opponent. From there, he showed the world just what real poker is like:

}

On the very first hand, Nygard got pocket Aces and limped to Ivey's A8. Ivey bet out, Nygaard check-raised, bet the safe flop, and took the pot. On the second hand, Ivey got rags and had to muck pre-flop. On the third hand, Nygaard got Queens, he limped, Ivey raised, Nygaard check-raised again, and Ivey moved in with A4. Nygaard insta-called and won the match.

}

Ivey's play couldn't have been more understandable. He was check-raised two out of three hands and naturally assumed his opponent had decided on a strategy of being hyper aggressive and attacking all of Ivey's raises. Ivey decided to take a stand early with his ace. The reality of course, is that Nygaard had the unlikely good fortune to actually have been dealt monsters on those two hands, and so he won the match. If he had not been dealt aces on hand one, it's likely things would have gone very differently.

}

Then, $40,000 in hand, Nygaard shockingly chose to drop and take the money. Considering that he already had beaten the best player on the panel and in short order, this choice was pretty surprising (and mathematically wrong; given the volatility of heads up play, it would be a mistake to pass on 5-to-1 odds against any opponent). It was unclear whether Nygaard chose to quit because he didnt realize how uncomfortable he would be on television (he covered his mouth frequently and gave slow, halting answers to host Steven Schirripa's questions), or he didn't realize how having $40,000 in hand would feel, but either way, it was a very real moment.

}

Don Topel managed to get past his first two opponents, Erick Lindgren and Howard Lederer, in similarly natural poker ways (the critical hand in the first match came when Lindgren made a move with a suited ace and Topel called with a bigger suited ace, Lingren hit his kicker on the turn but Topel made his flush on the river; the critical hand in the second match came when Topel got it all in pre-flop with KK against Lederer's AQ suited), with the result that Topel had the opportunity to go for a million dollar game, which he decided to do (some will say he was greedy, but again, this is the mathematically correct choice). That game will be played out on the next show.

}

I'll be watching, and rooting for Don, a likeable guy who wants to buy his mother and sister a home and who took the Schirripa (not entirely comfortable in the host role yet, it seems) ribbing about his weight with good humor. This really is a poker show that almost anyone can enjoy.

}

Naturally, the first episode of Face the Ace finished last in the ratings in its time slot.

The Curse of Good Cards

Played in a tournament at Hollywood Park today. The first one in a month or so. I kind of hate Hollywood Park and the rounds were only 25 minutes which is awful, despite the "deep" starting stack of 6000 chips, but it was cheap and at the right time. I was doing terrifically until I had the misfortune to start picking up hands.

For the first 9 rounds I never got a hand better than A7 (well, I got AJ one time but I folded it pre-flop to an all-in). Not a single pair, not an A9 or AT. Despite this, I managed to build up a stack of over 30,000. Some hands:

Early on, blinds are 50-100. I pick up 2c4c in middle position. A couple of people limp and I call. I'm a firm believer in trying to flop wheels or wheel draws when you can do it cheaply, as the benefits when it happens and your opponent pairs the ace can be massive. Anyway, it got down to the button who made it like 1000 to go. Everyone folded to me. It will be argued that making such a large call early in a tournament is poor strategy, but the size of his bet and his position made me feel strongly that he was just stealing and that I could take the pot away from him. The flop came down 5 3 8 of mixed suits. He bet out another 1100 after I checked. I considered a check raise, but I liked my hand enough now that I was willing to see a turn. Gin, an Ace. I check and he checked behind. the river was a blank, I bet 2500 and he called, surprisingly, with KK.

A few hands later, I had Q9 and limped. The same player raised to 600 and it was folded to me again. I would often fold in this situation but I knew this player was both tilting and looking to come after me, and that he was likely to move the rest of his chips in on any flop, so if I hit one, I'd clean him up. The flop came K J T. Bingo! I checked. As predicted, he moved in, and I instacalled. He showed me T7. Looked great. Turn, T, River, T and the dealer shipped him the pot. I wish I could say that flopping a huge straight, getting called all in by a pair and losing was something that has not happened to me many, many times.

I got my revenge a few hands later when I found QT of spades. I limped, a player to my left called, the tilter raised, and we both called. The flop came 2 3 4 all spades. I checked, the next guy checked, and the tilter dutifully moved in. I called and he showed pocket sixes, no spade. a 2 on the turn had me ready to blow my top, but fortunately he blanked the river.

It went on like this, with me getting to see flops and turns cheaply, hitting and then spanking a slowplayer, until the table broke. At my next table, very little happened. Then, I got moved to table one, and the worst thing that could possibly have happened to me happened: I started to get cards.

The first, AQ, worked out fine. I raised, and got no callers. The next good hand, AK, worked out okay too. There was a min raise to 3200, a reraise to 5500, I went all-in, the re-raiser went into the tank but then folded.

That's when things started to get hairy. A few hands later, the same guy who had reraised made it 5500 to go again. I looked down at AQ. I flat called. The Big Blind then moved in for 10K more. I had about 40K at this point and we still had 50 or so players to go until the money. If the original raiser calls or raises I have an easy fold. But he folded. So now it's a quarter of my stack to win an increase of more than 50 percent of my stack against a guy who can have a really huge range, given that he was last to act and short. So I call and naturally he has AK, and makes a flush.

The very next hand, lo and behold, pocket Kings! This is perfect, I think. I'll move in with a massive overbet and someone with a bare ace or two big cards or a medium pair will call thinking Im on tilt. I pushed and the same re-raiser from the earlier hand curses and finally calls with AQ. According to plan. However I forgot to account for the A on the flop. No miracle K came to save me and I was out. Let's hope next tournament I don't get any good cards.

The Ten Most Significant World Series of Poker Final Tables

In honor of the 40th Anniversary of the World Series of Poker this year, I'm taking a moment to give my take on the Top 10 Most Significant WSOP Final Tables:

10. 1995: Winner: Dan Harrington Number of Players: 273

This year is notable for two reasons. One, the winner, Dan Harrington, went on to make two more final tables (and he had already made one before) and to write some of the best known books on tournament Texas hold'em, Harrington on Hold'em, where he talks about, among other things, his thought processes in tricking Howard Goldfarb to bluff all-in against him on the final hand when Harrington held top pair. And two, it featured the presence of Barbara Enright, the first, and to date only, woman to make the final table.

9. 1972: Winner: Amarillo Slim Preston Number of Players: 8

Notable Line: Slim: "It feels better in!"

The second main event ever, what makes this one notable is how it ended. Back in 1972, poker was a game of smokey backrooms, and unlike today, no one was interested in becoming a celebrity, save one: Amarillo Slim Preston. When it reached the final three, Doyle Brunson simply took his money and withdrew, an option not available today, and Puggy Pearson dumped to Slim to avoid the spotlight. Slim made the most of the win though, and by appearing on programs like the Tonight Show, became the first poker celebrity and helped to improve the game's image, decades before the poker boom.

8. 1998: Winner: Scotty Nguyen Number of Players: 350

Notable Line: "You call, gonna be all over baby!"

What's memorable about 1998 is it was one of the most watched finals before the poker boom. Scotty's goading comment to runner up Kevin McBride, causing him to go all in when he could only play the board, is one of the enduring memories of older poker fans, and Scotty remains one of the most well-known and top pros in the game today.

7. 2001: Winner: Carlos Mortenson Number of Players: 613

Two years before Chris Moneymaker and hole card cameras put the WSOP on the map was a final table that ESPN would drool at the prospect of televising today. In addition to eventual champion and future WPT main event champion Carlos Mortensen, the final six featured two time 2nd place finisher Dewey Tomko, former champion and all time bracelet holder Phil Hellmuth, two time final tablist and well-known poker celebrity Mike Matusow and popular player and commentator Phil Gordon. Even more amazingly, probably the most recognizable face in poker today, Daniel Negreanu, just missed the final table, finishing 11th.

6. 1977 Winner: Doyle Brunson Number of Players: 34

1977 represented Doyle's second consecutive WSOP victory, putting him in rarified company with Johnny Moss, Stu Ungar and Johnny Chan. Amazingly, Doyle won both with the same hand, 10-2. Would Doyle have the same legendary status as the Godfather of Poker and the author of poker's bible, Super/System, if he had not won two in a row? Who knows?

5. 2000 Winner: Chris Ferguson Number of Players: 512

Famous Line: T.J. Cloutier: "You didn't learn THAT in my book!"

When the 2000 World Series came around, T.J. Cloutier was widely recognized as the strongest tournament player in the game, and was favored to win it all. He might have, too, had not the dominated Ferguson spiked a nine on the river to suck out on Cloutier on the final hand. Also notable was the final table presence of Harper's Magazine reporter Jim McManus, who entered the tournament while researching a story on women and poker and went on to make the final table. McManus' story, which later became the book Positively Fifth Street, may have been one of the early contributors to the poker boom.

4. 1987 Winner: Johnny Chan Number of Players: 152

In addition to being the series that introduced the world to Johnny Chan,who would go on to win two series in a row and almost three, this final table featured some impressive future poker stars, including Dan Harrington, who would go on to be the most successful WSOP main event player of all time with four total final tables and a win, including two final tables in the post boom era, and Howard Lederer, a frequently seen face on the poker tour.

3. 1989 Winner: Phil Hellmuth Jr. Number of Players: 178

The final table that should have cemented Johnny Chan's legend as the greatest of all time instead gave birth to a new legend. When Hellmuth's pocket nines held up on the final hand, thwarting Chan's bid for a third consecutive championship, Hellmuth became the youngest champion ever, and went on to create a new dimension of self-branding in poker.

2. 1988 Winner: Johnny Chan Number of Players: 167

One of the major contributors to the poker boom was the movie Rounders, staring Edward Norton and Matt Damon, possibly the best poker movie ever made. The WSOP main event featured was this one, specifically, Chan trapping Erik Seidel for all his chips on the final hand. Chan and Seidel both went on to achieve great poker success, and became the first poker celebrities since Amarillo Slim.

1. 2003 Winner: Chris Moneymaker Number of Players: 839

Notable Line: Sammy Farha: "I could make a crazy call on you."

Of course, the series that gave birth to the poker boom was the 34th series in 2003. Due to hole card camera technology, viewers at home could see and understand every bit of action, resulting in the most comprehensive coverage ESPN had ever given to the WSOP. This enabled a growing faction of poker fans to see that anyone, even an accountant from Tennesse, could achieve poker fame and fortune, and poker has been growing ever since.

If you liked this, you might like my Ten Most Influential Mainstream Comic Books in History. Then again, you might not.

Why is Theory Different from Practice?

Many poker players deep in their hearts believe that they are stronger players than their results would indicate. Now, poker "experts" will mockingly chalk this up to an excess of ego or some fundamental misunderstanding of the game, but in fact it is much more complicated than this. We find the same misattribution in chess, where rated players will often overestimate their "strength" as being several hundred points higher than their rating, attributing the differential to some flaw in the rating system.

There is a good reason for this, having nothing to do with ego or misunderstanding of the game. Many poker players, probably even the majority of regular players, understand basic concepts like hand selection, pot odds and opponent playing styles quite well. However, when they get into a game, something strange happens. They start making calls that they know they shouldn't, they play hands that they would laugh off as garbage in any kind of poker forum analysis, they find themselves mechanically pushing chips into the pot on a draw even though they know the odds are against them.

Again, lest we feel this is merely a poker phenomenon, remember that the same thing happens in chess. Players capable of sparkling post-game analysis find themselves in tournament games falling into the basest of traps, making the most fundamental of blunders and even forgetting elements of basic theory.

I'm sure this same phenomenon occurs across many fields, from acting to golf to surgery (hopefully a problem with that last skill is weeded out in the medical school stage). So what is it? Is it merely the pressure of "playing for keeps?"

Put simply, the answer is yes. When an individual is put in a stressful situation, which we can define as a situation in which the outcome matters, the fight or flight response occurs. Adrenaline floods the system, the brain chemistry changes, one becomes, quite literally, a different person. Some of the physiological stress responses include:

Tunnel vision

Hearing loss

Accelerated reflexes

Accelerated heart and lung action

Tunnel vision and accelerated reflexes may be great for escaping predators or even driving towards a basketball hoop, but they suck for seeing a four move mating trap that capturing that knight will get you into, or deciding whether it's correct to draw at that nut flush draw to win a $4000 pot.

The point here is that poker players and chess players whose results do not match up with their perceived ability should not beat themselves up for "just screwing up" when the pressure is on. The pressure makes a real, physiological difference.

So how does one overcome such a problem, a problem seen in all walks of life? (Take for example, the issue of romance. It's a common trope that the guys who do the best with women are the ones that are "cool," that "don't seem to care" whether they get the girl or not. It's not so much that they don't care as that they don't let that caring change their brain chemistry the way other very eligible but less successful bachelors might.) One way is to find areas that your brain does not perceive as stressful and try to excel at those. The problem with this is that if your brain doesn't perceive obtaining a particular result as a stressful undertaking, it probably isn't that important to you.

The other is to simply put yourself in these situations over and over again until they become so common that your brain no longer percieves them as stressful. How many situations will be required will be different for each person, but this, in large part I think, is the true "benefit of experience."

Alcohol and/or drugs may be an option too, but the action of these on the brain is unpredictable and may not have the desired effect. Also the threats of addiction and health problems are probably not a worthwhile exchange for the positive benefits.

So what are the useful applications of this analysis?

The first is that practice (in the sense of preparation for a meaningful activity, not in the sense of its application, as in the title of this post) is most effective if something is really at stake: The trick is finding a form of practice that has this characteristic while still being classifiable as "practice." This may mean a chess tournament among friends where the prize is a week of possession of a coveted item, such as a jointly owned plasma television, or a weekly poker tournament where players earn points based on their finish and at the end of the year, the highest point winner is put into the WSOP main event (20 players putting in $10 a week for 50 weeks will produce the $10,000 required. $10 is hardly prohibitive but the reward is tangible).

The second is an understanding of the meaning of experience. Performing badly when you know you could do better is not a personal failing, not a fault of character or intelligence. It is simply a lack of the amount of experience needed to train your brain not to shift into "stress mode."

Hope that makes you feel better.

Shuffle Up and Deal!

The 2008 World Series of Poker Main Event is underway, and the tenure of "Ambassador of Poker" Jerry Yang, who as far as I can tell did not do a thing for or with poker during his reign, is almost over. A friend and I have a gentleman's wager, a "last longer" bet for which name player will go deepest in the tournament.

My Team:

Men Nguyen
Phil Hellmuth
Chris Ferguson
Phil Ivey
Mike Matusow

His Team:

Greg Raymer
Johnny Chan
Allen Cunningham
Daniel Negreanu
Gus Hansen

I've taken an early lead as Raymer and Negreanu both made swift exits, but anything can happen. That's poker!

Will the WSOP Ever Be the Same?

In a stunning move of corporate greed, Harrah's Entertainment has decided to reformat the main event of the World Series of Poker so that the final table, determined in July, will not be played out until November. This is almost universally thought of as a terrible decision by the players, except for the celebrity pros of course, who stand to benefit tremendously from the hype and the publicity, especially if they are chosen to coach one of the final table participants.

There are a ton of reasons why this is a bad idea. One that concerns me the most is the safety of the participants. With millions of dollars on the line, who is to say that some unscrupulous type might not pay someone to make one or more of his opponents "disappear?" It sounds dramatic, but things like this happen in other countries all the time, eliminating the competition, as it were, with a lot less money at stake.

Here are the main reasons why this idea is a disaster and how Harrah's addresses them.

1. Harrah's is getting the "float" from all the entry fee money while waiting for the main event to finish.

Harrahs: The money will be put into an interest-bearing account and the full amount of that account will be distributed to the players when the time comes.

2. The players may have only been able to afford one trip to Vegas this year.

Harrahs: All players will receive ninth place money once the final table is set. In addition, sponsorship deals made in the interim are likely.

3. The players' safety may be at risk.

Harrahs: Each of the players at the final table will be followed closely by television cameras and documentarians up until the final. This close scrutiny should protect them from harm.

4. The players may collude.

Harrahs: See above. Also, Harrah's will take every anti-collusion step they deem possible and effective.

5. A player may die in the intervening months.

Harrahs: A player could just as easily die in the day between the final table being set and the final table commencing under the current format.

I still don't like it, but the chances of my being at the final table of the WSOP this year are negligible, so I guess I'll just sit back and see what happens.

Why Not Backgammon?

Why isn't backgammon televised? I can understand why chess is not televised, or is televised rarely. The strategy of chess is fascinating and there are even some interesting personalities. However, chess, like poker before hole card cams, is basically unwatchable. A half hour or more can go without anything happening at all (this happens in soccer too, but at least there are a lot of people running around to distract viewers). In addition, the players are generally immobile and quiet, which is not good television. Plus, the finer points of the game are difficult for the average viewer to grasp.


Backgammon is a different story. Many of today's poker pros, like Gus Hansen and Paul Magriel, are top backgammon players. Backgammon can also be played for huge sums of money, and the amount of money at stake can even change with the strategic application of the doubling cube. Also, backgammon is highly accessible, as a brief primer on the rules can make it easy to understand for everybody. Additionally, there is constant action, one player or another is always on move, and while finding the correct move can be difficult, the options are usually somewhat limited. Finally, backgammon can be played online, both for money and for free, so people can watch the action and then jump in themselves.

I am only a casual backgammon player, but I'm ready for the World Backgammon Tour. Steve Lipscomb, are you listening?

Harrington

I'm halfway through Volume 1 of Dan Harrington's latest book, Harrington on Cash Games, so I thought it would be a good time for a preliminary review.

Dan Harrington is one ofthe great tournament hold'em players of all time. He won the World Series of Poker championship in 1995 and has made the final four not once but twice since then, navigating huge fields to do so. His Harrington on Hold'em series changed the way people think about tournament poker. In fact, a week after I finished them, this happened.

Naturally, I was excited to pick up these volumes, since my no limit hold'em cash game has been a bit lacking compared to no limit tournaments or other forms of poker. While I'd still recommend getting the book, I must say that halfway through I am a bit disappointed.

My main issue is the way Harrington conceptualizes no limit cash game players. He essentially says that everyone at the table should have at least 100 big blinds worth of chips at all times, since anyone can rebuy whenever they want, so there's no reason anyone should have less than this unless they are specifically playing a short stack strategy.

Of course, there are many reasons why someone would have less than this. Unlike Dan Harrington, some people have financial considerations and can't afford to continually rebuy not only when they go broke, but whenever they dip below their starting stack. Others come to play their buy-in and that's it.

Furthermore, in Los Angeles where I play, most of the no limit games I play are capped buy-in, which means that it is mandatory that all players start with around 40 big blinds.

What all this means is that I'm not sure how much the information applies to the non-pro, unless the online no limit game is radically different from the one I play, since I rarely play NL cash games online. While I recognize and appreciate the need for deepstack cash game advice, I'm not sure that deepstack high bankroll pros are the main audience for the book, and if they are, there's no need to waste 50 pages explaining concepts like pot odds, implied odds, calculating outs and bluffs.

I like the way the book is constructed, with detailed hand analysis and problems to check your work, and I still have high hopes for the rest of the Volume and part 2. My only hope is at some point the book addresses the games that have plenty of stack sizes anywhere from less than 10 to greater than 300 which I commonly play in.

Hail Caesars!

I was in Las Vegas last weekend with my main goal being to play as many poker tourn-aments as possible. I stumbled upon the Caesars Palace Poker Room and I'm glad I did. Hidden in an alcove between the PURE nightclub and the sports book, this room is one of the best kept secrets in Las Vegas. The room is huge, probably the biggest one in Las Vegas. It is ornately decorated with comfortable chairs for lounging throughout the room. A doorway leads to a separate poker room which is just as spacious as the main room.

The tournaments match the decor. Professionally run, their structure is the best I've ever seen outside of a WSOP tournament or WPT main event. 40 minute rounds with 10,000 in chips at best, 30 minutes with 4000 in chips at worst. On top of this, they offer a second chance jackpot where if you are still in the room playing a cash game an hour after the tournament ends, you get a bonus. I actually won it to the tune of $400 and it really made a difference in my trip. Anyway, if you love poker tournaments or poker in general and you are in Vegas, you need to check out the Caesar's Palace Poker room.

Tournament Room

Oh, as for my results, 4 Caesar's Palace tournaments: 1 final table, once final two tables. 1 Venetian Tournament: no cash, 1 Monte Carlo tournament: 1st place.

Jerry, Where Art Thou?

It's been nearly six months since Jerry Yang won the World Series of Poker.



Since then, there's been no sign of him. Sure, he hasn't had any big tournament success since then, but Jamie Gold didn't have any major cashes in his first six months and it seems like his name and face were everywhere.

Now, of course, circumstances were a bit different. Gold was involved in a massive lawsuit involving the right to his winnings. But this did not affect the fact that Gold has appeared on numerous televised poker programs featuring celebrity pros, such as Poker After Dark and High Stakes Poker, while Yang is nowhere to be seen. A Google search of Yang turns up mostly links to the guy who owns Yahoo:

Yahoo Champion----------Poker Champion

So where is Yang? Is it simply too soon? I don't think so. The word was that Yang was going to be an "Ambassador of Poker." He was going to usher in a new era of poker that would wash clean the stain of Gold's lawsuit-tainted victory.

But I think maybe people like the taint. They like their poker champions with a little edge. Either that, or maybe the poker boom is finally coming to a head. With U.S. restrictions on Internet poker and nearly five years since Chris Moneymaker's historic victory, maybe the bloom is off the poker rose.

Time will tell. In the meantime, I'm playing in a tournament next week.

Poker Guide for Tourists

If you're planning to play live poker, you should expect to find different types of players at different types of games. Of course, every game will have their share of nice guys and jerks, but certain types seem to gravitate more to some games than others. To wit:

7 card Stud: This game tends to consist of elderly players waiting to die.

Omaha: Omaha seems to attract the most wretched refuse of poker playing society. Omaha players always seem to be looking for a fight, whether it's with other players or the dealer, and often display some of the sourest pusses you've ever seen. A fun tactic Omaha players seem to enjoy is lying to the dealer about the strength of their hand. Omaha hands are already the toughest in poker to read, plus the dealer has to make sure that the pot is split properly, which if there are side pots and quartering, can be extremely difficult to do correctly, so for a player to announce they have a straight or a nut low when they know they don't really adds to the fun. And of course, the players will not hesitate to berate the dealer mercilessly if he/she makes any mistake.

Limit Hold'em: I've actually found limit players to be among the most pleasant of poker players. Life or death (by way of your entire stack) does not hinge on the turn of every card, so it's a much more relaxed atmosphere. These players are much happier to chat with you and enjoy playing the game.

No Limit: This game, being the most popular, attracts the biggest mix of players. There are some very nice players in the NL game, and some miserable SOBs as well. Many NL players want you to think they are professionals (generally the ones who really aren't) and a lot of them look around as if they are waiting for a bigger game, especially if they've just lost a huge pot in this one. On the other hand, this game also has players who very quietly and patiently collect everyone's chips.

Tournament: I find that a lot of tournament players have something to prove. That is, they want everyone to know that they're not the dead money at the table, somebody else is. This can be characterized by wild, inappropriate aggression or a lot of big table talk. Tournaments are also where you will find the most Internet wizards, skinny kids who are barely old enough to shave and calculate every move seemingly perfectly as they push chips into the pot and build their stacks, mostly unfazed by the occasional, inevitable bad beat.

High Stakes

If any of you out there are poker fans (if there is anyone out there) you owe it to yourself to check out High Stakes Poker. I had a previous post that explained why:

http://craigshappyplace.blogspot.com/2006/07/tournament-poker-is-for-sissies.html

This season, season 4, the players came up with a brilliant innovation that should have the producers kissing their collective feet. Unlike the usual prop bets that no one outside of the game can appreciate, they came up with an ingenious one that drove the action like crazy. It was this: Anyone who wins with "The Hammer" (7-2) gets $500 from each player.



The most brilliant thing about this is that the amount won from each player was less than one big blind, but every player is willing to put thousands at risk in order to win the prop. Think of an arrangement in your $5/$10 game where everyone has to pay you eight bucks if you win with 7-2, so every player ends up risking $200 or $300 in order to collect a $60 or $70 bounty.

I also enjoyed when Phil Hellmuth says "Mike, explain to the viewers at home what it means to 'buy the button,'" when it was clear that Phil didn't know and there were probably about a hundred thousand "viewers at home" who knew exactly what was going on.