2013

There were a number of poker-related headlines late last week containing the above figure. Those headlines appeared over stories reporting on the swift, unceremonious end to the brief hope that an online poker bill would be attached to a $150 billion package covering the extension of the employee payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits, and Medicare-related items.

Initial reports surfaced about a week ago suggesting that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was going to attach the online poker legislation to the bill. Then, just a couple of days later, Reid squashed such thoughts in a comment to a reporter saying there’d be no such attachment.

Word filtered around subsequently indicating that to attach the online poker legislation would threaten the bill (which Reid supported). Julio Rodriguez reported for Card Player that Reid’s “last ditch effort” to include the online poker legislation “fell short when it became apparent that it could put the entire legislation in jeopardy.” Perhaps it did, or perhaps it didn’t. Apparently Reid tried to attach other provisions to the bill, too, but those were all rejected by fellow legislators and not included either.

To finish the story, the bill was voted upon on Friday without any sort of ideas about regulating and licensing online poker in the U.S. attached, and just over two-thirds of the House voted in favor (across party lines). It also passed the Senate 60-36, where the Democrats were mostly for and Republicans against.

Thus came the headlines, most of which dovetailed upon Howard Stutz’ report for the Las Vegas Review-Journal: “Online Poker seen folding its hand until 2013.” In addition to reporting on the non-inclusion of online poker in the federal bill, Stutz also alludes to Nevada having passed its own legislation last year and state regulators having further finalized regulations to ready the state to offer its own online gaming licenses. Stutz says 13 companies have applied for licenses thus far.

The “2013” Stutz included in his headline and lead paragraph -- and subsequently repeated every else you read the story being summarized (because, after all, we’re in an extensive echo chamber here) -- represents a gaming analyst’s speculation that no federal online poker bill will be brought up again during this election year, although the truth is that possibility remains only slightly less likely at present than it had been before. (In other words, still about the same long shot.)

There are other bills to which online poker legislation could get attached, but in truth few really know if or when such might be attempted. And as was the case last week when this talk suddenly arose for a couple of days before just as suddenly dying down, I don’t think there will be a lot of lead time if something along these lines were to occur.

In other words, “2013” is really not much more than a number here to represent a vague, calculated guess, because there’s a little less “2012” today than there was last week, and “2014” seems too far off to focus upon as a legitimate target for predictions.

All of which is to say I’m convinced no one is really sure of much of anything of substance when it comes to predicting what is going to happen on a federal level with regard to online gambling. Not with any real certainty, anyway.

What is easier to predict is that absent any real knowledge or information, we’ll keep repeating these numbers to each other.

Kid Poker Not Kidding Around

Many noticed the always forthright Daniel Negreanu made a short video blog this week in which he comments on various items, including the continued silence from those three Full Tilt Poker principals, Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson, and Ray Bitar.

I said something on Monday about how I thought we’d probably hear other pros comment on FTP in the wake of Matt Glantz’ thoughtful post concerning “The Silence of Full Tilt,” so it wasn’t too surprising to see Negreanu’s video come when it did.

I still think as I did a few days ago that such petitions aren’t that likely to encourage anyone from Full Tilt to step forward and suddenly start communicating anything of significance to the rest of us. But as I said on Monday, I support those who insist on making sure we all don’t just forget about the hundreds of millions of dollars of players’ funds that remain inaccessible more than 10 months after Black Friday.

The level of vitriol in Negreanu’s statements captured some notice, something I think PokerLawyer did a nice job addressing in her post from yesterday, titled “Targets.” I think most are familiar enough with the context to understand what inspired Negreanu’s comments -- and frustration -- but it’s also worth pointing out the relationship between words and actions as PokerLawyer does.

I do believe that Negreanu is dead on, though, when he points out how those responsible at FTP “have no respect for our community.” The damage they’ve done to poker’s place in the culture, generally speaking, goes well beyond the theft of players’ funds.

It’ll be curious to see how everything develops with regard to the Full Tilt Poker saga as we get closer to the one-year anniversary of Black Friday, assuming that nothing happens with regard to the still-pending Groupe Bernard Tapie deal and players are still without their funds.

Even if something does happen and the deal somehow gets done before then, the logistics of players getting paid -- particularly for American players for whom the DOJ would be involved in facilitating such payments -- will mean a lot of time will necessarily have to pass before anyone actually gets their money back.

But even that slight ray of hope is pretty dim at present. And so the many who played on Full Tilt Poker -- and even those who didn’t but who have strong feelings about the game and the way it is perceived (and often proscribed) by the larger culture -- will continue to be frustrated. And justifiably so.

Thinking About the Big One

Just listened to this week’s Two Plus Two Pokercast, good as always. This one (episode 209, dated 2/14/12) featured a lengthy interview with WSOP Communications Director Seth Palansky.

The interview comes in a couple of segments, the first one (lasting a little over a half-hour) being all about the 2012 WSOP kicking off in Vegas in late May and the second one (going for another 40 minutes) mainly focusing on the Circuit events that run year-round. The interview starts at about the 48-minute mark, if you’re curious to dial up the show and listen.

During that second segment there was discussion of the various logistical challenges that arise at WSOP-C events, as well as some talk of the controversy regarding the “staff appreciation” fee at these events that has received a lot of scrutiny of late. For more on the latter -- really a hidden fee that has added to players’ costs without increasing prize pools -- see Todd “Dan Druff” Witteles’ summary and update regarding what has happened in the past and where things stand at present.

For me one of the more intriguing parts of the interview came during the first segment when they were discussing the 2012 WSOP, in particular the $1 million buy-in no-limit hold’em event, a.k.a. Event No. 51, a.k.a. “The Big One.”

Early in the interview there was some general discussion of this year’s schedule and its record-breaking 61 bracelet events, and Palansky was asked about the various factors that are considered when the schedule is drawn up. Somewhere in there the $1 million event came up and Palansky kind of casually suggested it “will get a few dozen players at most.” But then later they talked some more about it, and I was intrigued by the additional hints Palansky dropped regarding the potential field size for the event.

Palansky noted how when the event was first announced the WSOP decided to add a caveat that at least 22 players needed to play in order for it to be an actual bracelet event. He explained on the show how that was the field size for Doyle Brunson’s first WSOP Main Event win (in 1976), which is why it was chosen as a minimum here.

It has already been announced that they’ll meet that goal, as at least that many have confirmed they’ll be playing. They actually capped the event at 48 players -- why they did, I’m not sure -- and when speaking of the cap Palansky said “I really don’t feel there’s any chance we don’t get there.” In other words, it sounds like we should expect 48 to play in the sucker, or something close to that number, anyway.

Palansky further added that more than 50% of those who play in the event will be amateurs or “non-poker players,” including people from the sports world, hedge fund managers, lottery winners, and Macau businessmen. The mysterious Andy Beal will be there, too, adding further intrigue. Also, when co-host Adam Schwartz suggested a line of 0.5 for the number of women playing, Palansky responded “I’ll take the over,” thus indicating at least one woman has indicated she’ll be playing, too.

All told, Palansky expects the event to raise $5 million for the One Drop Foundation charity. Recall how $111,111 of each entry will be going to the charity (here’s the fact sheet for the event), which means there would need to be at least 45 players for $5 million to be raised.

I was kind of amazed to hear that the WSOP really expects that many players to participate in the event. I believe Palansky, but am still kind of shaking my head about it.

When I appeared on “Keep Flopping Aces” last week, we discussed “The Big One” a bit and speculated about how big the field would be. One question that arose was whether or not it would sport the biggest first prize in poker history -- that is, would it exceed the $12 million first prize that Jamie Gold earned for winning the 2006 WSOP Main Event?

If 48 players actually play, that will create a total prize pool of $42,666,672. (Incidentally, there will be no additional juice taken from the prize pool for this event beyond what goes to One Drop.) The top 20% of players will be paid in this one, and according to the payout schedule if 48 play the top nine finishers will get paid, with the winner getting 43% of the prize pool. With 48 playing, that’ll be a cool $18,346,668.96!

If 25-29 players register, first place will be getting 48% of the prize pool, which means if 28 play, first place will earn just under $12 million ($11,946,668.16), while a 29-player field will be enough to break Gold’s record, with first getting $12,373,334.88.

When Lou Krieger asked me on the show to predict whether Gold’s record would be broken, I said I didn’t think it would. Even though we have known since December that at least 22 have said they would play, I couldn’t imagine too many more players would be winning to part with a million clams to participate. (Or could find enough backing to do so.)

But from what Palansky was saying on the podcast, it sounds as though Gold’s record is most certainly in jeopardy. The fact that the field will be containing a lot of “non-poker players” also indicates that the charity element more than anything is encouraging some to play poker for money that well exceeds what most poker pros would be willing to commit.

Indeed, I expect that regardless of what the total field size turns out to be, one would have to think there won’t be that many familiar faces among the bunch. Will still be a wild one to follow, though. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see the player who manages to grab that record-breaking first prize perhaps give a little more to One Drop when all is said and done.

The Challenge to Look at Ourselves

One reason why poker is such a fascinating game is the way it challenges us to look at ourselves. Relentlessly.

When we play poker we are forced to acknowledge that others’ perceptions of us actually have significance. Voluntarily or otherwise, we make impressions. We communicate ideas about who we are to others by our play, our demeanor, our talk, and in countless other ways. These ideas may provide genuine indicators of who we are. Or they might not, as we purposely or even unintentionally give off false signals to our opponents.

In any event, we know others are looking at us and trying to figure us out. And whether or not we try to deceive them, we are made to think about (1) who we really are, (2) who we are perceived to be, and (3) the relationship between the reality and the image.

In other words, it is a most self-conscious thing to play poker. And to play poker seriously is to be willing to accept the game’s challenge to look at ourselves. Relentlessly. As Anthony Holden smartly noted in Big Deal (1990), “Whether he likes it or not, a man’s character is stripped bare at the poker table; if the other players read him better than he does, he has only himself to blame. Unless he is both able and prepared to see himself as others do, flaws and all, he will be a loser in cards, as in life.”

Yesterday the poker pro Jason Somerville published a post to his blog titled “Real Talk” which begins with a simple, direct statement: “I’m a poker player.” Somerville then proceeds to share with his readers in a more detailed way another truth about himself, namely, that he is also a gay man.

Those of us who’ve watched Somerville play poker over the past few years and witnessed him amass over $1.7 million in tourney winnings, including picking up his first WSOP bracelet last summer in a $1,000 NLHE event, all knew about the first statement. That is, we all knew he was a poker player. And an above-average one at that.

I’ve covered Somerville in a few WSOP events, the most memorable probably being Event No. 35 from 2010, the $10,000 Heads-Up No-Limit Hold’em Championship in which he made it to the semifinals before finally losing to the eventual champ, Ayaz Mahmood, in a well-contested match. That event stands out for me as including what might have been the longest day-slash-night-slash-day of blogging I’ve ever experienced, with my partner Tim Duckworth and I going for 18 hours or something while covering the event’s last three rounds (and still not finishing!).

Few if any of us, however, were aware of the other revelation Somerville makes in the post about his sexual orientation. As he points out, other than Vanessa Selbst, he himself has never met a single openly gay professional player. He also mentions how, at present, “no man who is a well-known pro in poker is open about it.” And so there’s something noteworthy in his having decided to share this information about himself.

Finding the situation somewhat “archaic” while also professing a desire to be open about who he is and perhaps close the gap between reality and image a bit about himself, Somerville tells his story in a thoughtful, well-considered, and even inspiring post. It’s a personal statement written with goals and intentions that are in part wholly specific to Somerville. But it’s also obviously a public statement, too, written with a constructive purpose to help others as well as to affect the culture of poker in a positive way.

A few thoughts came to my mind when I read Somerville’s post, including some that are in fact on the personal side. I’ve had friends who’ve gone through similar trials to the ones Somerville describes in his post, and even once found myself involved in helping a friend discover a way to make his story known to a wider community. I’ll keep those thoughts to myself, though, and instead just share some other, more general ideas Somerville’s post inspired.

One was how poker resembles other sports, where the subject of sexual orientation continues to be avoided and/or treated in an “archaic” fashion (to use Somerville’s term). The number of men who play professional sports who have come out as gay is very small, and as far as I’m aware the few who have (at least here in the U.S.) all waited until after their careers were over to do so. Just take a look at this ESPN story from not that long ago about former NBA player Don Amaechi’s post-career coming out to get an idea of how mightily the professional sports world struggles with the issue.

As is the case with football or basketball or other sports, the culture of poker has long been especially male-dominated -- or, one might say, chauvinistic or sexist or outright intolerant of those failing to recognize it as a “man’s game” in which all of the traditional ideas of masculinity mustn’t be challenged. So all the forces to keep talk of male homosexuality out of other sports are in place in poker, too, perhaps even more so.

But poker is different from other sports, too, as Somerville notes early on in his post when he characterizes the game as especially inviting to all types and the poker community as being inclusive to just about all comers. “It doesn’t matter if you’re white, black, Christian, Jewish, a woman, physically disabled, a foreigner, a felon, or smell terrible, we’ll make room for you at the not-necessarily-proverbial table and let you play,” writes Somerville. Thus is Somerville hopeful that poker will be able to handle and accommodate another type of diversity, too.

And there’s that other thing about poker, what I was mentioning at the beginning about the way the game forces us to look at ourselves and become aware of how others look at us, too. That relentless challenge the game offers. Which can be difficult, but which I think most of us who play the game realize is worth the effort. And from which often comes rewards that go beyond the money we might win.

Instinctively most of us know it is good to look at ourselves and think about who we are. That’s something poker forces us to do. As has Somerville’s post.

Recommended Reading for Poker Writers

Over the last couple of weeks, Barry Carter has offered a number of posts on his blog regarding the current state of poker media, including a series of a half-dozen posts presented under the heading of “Advice to New Poker Writers.” The posts contain numerous good tips to those hoping to break into the relatively small world of poker writing.

As I imagine there are a decent number who come around here to read my posts who are writers themselves -- including some with ideas about perhaps getting involved in poker writing, too -- I thought it worthwhile to point you to his posts.

Drawing on his six years of experience with poker writing -- including co-authoring The Mental Game of Poker (2011) with Jared Tendler -- Carter discusses various topics in the series, including “the state of the industry” (not a lot of work, but tons to write about), taking the initiative, finding topics, ideas about where to place one’s writing, and networking. Good advice throughout, and in fact, a lot of it should be of value not just to would-be poker writers but to anyone looking to be a freelancer, regardless of one’s subject area of preference and/or expertise.

The one entry in the series that resonated the most with me was the one in which Carter recommends to those wanting to get into poker writing that they start their own personal blogs.

Carter explains how it is possible to “create an impressive portfolio of work and learn a great deal at the same time” by keeping a blog -- both great points, in my opinion. (Indeed, he’s kind of describing how I got into poker writing via Hard-Boiled Poker.)

Numerous other benefits of keeping a personal blog are mentioned, and I concur with all of the points Carter makes. I’m not going to summarize them, though -- if you’re curious, go read for yourself.

Keeping this blog has proven especially rewarding for me in a number of ways. In truth, when I started writing Hard-Boiled Poker I had no thoughts of using the blog to help me find other work writing about poker, although it ended up playing a role in doing just that. Rather, I primarily began HBP for two reasons: (1) to see if writing about poker might help me become a better player, and (2) to give myself a creative outlet.

While I do believe the first purpose was achieved to some extent given how writing about the game forced me to try to think more clearly about decisions I made when I played, the second purpose also helped me improve -- as a writer. Ask anyone who has regularly kept a blog for more than a few months and most will likely tell you that they’ve learned something -- perhaps quite a lot -- about how to become better at communicating their ideas.

So I keep at it. And like Carter I’d encourage anyone else with ideas of becoming a full-time writer (about poker or anything else) to do the same. That is, keep a personal blog or at least follow some routine which encourages to write, maybe even every day. A journal or diary is fine, although by publishing to a blog you remain mindful of writing for an audience, which helps you continue to try to communicate clearly and effectively.

And keep reading, too. Because reading how others deliver their ideas can help you figure out how to deliver yours, too. Not to mention give you ideas of things to write about... sort of like Carter’s posts gave me the idea for something to write about today.

A Glantz-ing Blow: Making Noise About Full Tilt’s Silence

Over the weekend, pro player Matt Glantz published another somewhat provocative post on his blog, this one titled “The Silence of Full Tilt.”

Glantz has kind of stepped forward over the last few weeks as one of the few high-stakes pros willing to speak out on various issues of significance to the poker community. Besides writing posts himself over on his blog, he’s also inviting others to write guest posts, with Matt Savage, David Bach, and Dan O’Brien among those who have taken him up on the offer.

In his most recent post, Glantz discusses the “black hole of silence” that has mostly characterized Full Tilt Poker over the 10 months that have passed since Black Friday, then petitions players and others associated with FTP -- some of whom he considers friends -- to come forward and finally begin communicating to the many players who still await the return of their funds.

“Friendships aside, I feel it would be disingenuous to defend the persons involved any longer,” writes Glantz. “At this point, there is nothing short of full disclosure regarding player funds that would change this opinion.”

Glantz goes on to outline how the lack of “concrete guidance” from Full Tilt Poker for players still hoping (perhaps in vain) for their money has made a bad situation much, much worse. He acknowledges that while most of those with information to share are likely withholding such on the advice of legal counsel, he nonetheless hopes that someone will consider “breaking ranks” and step forward to give players some idea what to expect going forward.

I recently mentioned how I like and appreciate players like Glantz and others who are willing to speak their minds where many will not. And while I also appreciate the message Glantz is conveying in his recent post -- and share the frustration he expresses, too -- it feels like we’ve reached a point in the Full Tilt saga where any “breaking ranks” by anyone of consequence is highly unlikely.

I remember in the week or two following Black Friday talking with friends who knew a little more about Full Tilt’s situation than I did already telling me that the site was in deep, deep trouble. I was willing to cut FTP some slack at first -- this was even before PokerStars had successfully cashed out U.S. players -- and like many took that initial promise from Full Tilt of a May 15th statement at face value.

But as we know, the statement on 5/15/11 was the first of several empty promises serving to delay ever really communicating anything of substance. They were working “tirelessly,” dealing with “numerous hurdles and challenges,” and would “update our US players when [they had] more specific information to provide.”

Looking back, we can see how that last bit was kinda sorta truthful. They never did have more specific information to provide, and so they never did update us further.

Oh, there were a few more messages, but those stopped once the site was shut down in late June. And when the U.S. Department of Justice amended its civil complaint in September to add numerous new allegations against FTP -- as well as some names -- we all pretty much knew then that we were essentially drawing dead when it came to receiving any “concrete guidance” from the site.

So I don’t really think Glantz’ post will have much influence on the “friends at FTP” to whom it is addressed. But it will likely energize other, non-Full Tilt Poker folks -- including other high-stakes pros -- to start speaking out. Which again probably won’t have any tangible effect on what happens next, but will perhaps help prevent complacency from settling in among the players. And complacency, as we know, can easily lead to acceptance.

And that’s a good thing, I think. Because it would be unfortunate if the ultimate response to the “silence of Full Tilt” was to be silent in return.

Onilne Gaming in the U.S.: Reservations from the Reservations

I watched that hearing yesterday of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, titled “What’s at Stake for the Tribes.” You might recall this is the second such hearing for that committee, following an earlier one back in November.

If you’re curious you can read the testimony from yesterday and view the hearing yourself over on the committee’s web page, although if you happen to dial up the video skip to about the 44-minute mark because for some reason the actual hearing doesn’t start until there.

With that opinion from the Department of Justice first made public in late December indicating an altered position regarding the Federal Wire Act, the tribes and those representing their interests are now viewing the prospect of online gambling in the U.S. as not just a possibility but likely. And, as I cracked after the first hearing, there appear to be a lot of reservations coming from the reservations when it comes to the possibility of legally-sanctioned online gaming coming to the U.S.

In fact, now there appears to be more explicit fretting over negative consequences for the tribes should individual states start moving forward with offering online gaming. Such appeared to be the sentiment being expressed by some of the witnesses yesterday, anyway.

I. Nelson Rose, the gambling law professor, was there as a witness and his testimony -- outlining his speculative view of what will be happening as we move forward with states lining up to pass legislation, establish regulations, issue licenses, and start offering online gaming (either intrastate or with other states as a “consortium”) -- seemed to me as though it probably mostly confirmed the tribes’ fears that their significant gaming revenues were going to be in danger.

Meanwhile, Patrick Fleming, an attorney who is serving as the Litigation Support Director for the Poker Players Alliance, appeared to be trying assuage such fears, suggesting instead how online gaming need not necessarily eat into the profitability of the tribes’ brick-and-mortar casinos. Fleming also made an effort to distinguish poker from other casino games, but I’m not sure how significant that argument really was in this context.

In the end, the hearing again seemed to demonstrate how discussions about online gaming on Capitol Hill have tended to veer away from being marked by moral objections to gambling, generally speaking, and are becoming more focused on practical questions regarding (1) how it is all going to work, and (2) who is going to benefit financially.

As I mentioned yesterday, I was a guest last night on the poker podcast “Keep Flopping Aces” with Lou Krieger and Shari Geller, and we did spend some of the hour talking about the prospects for online poker in the U.S. both on the state and federal levels.

When asked by Lou to predict whether or not we’d see any online poker in the U.S. in 2012, I had to say I didn’t think so. While things are moving on the state level -- having progressed the most in Nevada -- it still feels to me like logistical concerns may require significant time to pass before anyone is actually playing online poker in the U.S.

And as far as the idea of an interstate “consortium” goes, I can’t help but think the feds won’t stand idly by and allow that to happen without some sort of meddling that’ll at least delay such a development if not prevent it altogether. (I could be way off-base in thinking that way, but I guess I’m still mired in a believe-it-when-I-see-it mode for a lot of this.)

Meanwhile, I suppose there always exists the possibility of some surprise addendum to a federal bill to allow for online poker. In fact, there was some of that talk coming out of the rumor mill yet again this week -- i.e., that Harry Reid was again primed to try to do just that by adding an online poker bill to an upcoming payroll tax bill. I might have accounted for that possibility when answering Lou’s request to make a prediction, but I feel like there are so many variables affecting the prospects of a federal bill succeeding that it is hard for any of us amateur prognosticators to foresee that turn of events.

I was reflecting on Lou’s question again today, and thinking how in fact there still are a lot of months to go here in 2012. Still, with all of the various political forces in play -- Indian gaming being just one of them -- it continues to seem like the odds are mighty slim that online poker could be legally offered anywhere in the U.S. before the year is out.

Heels Heartbreak and Pats Parallels

Earlier this week I wrote a little about that wild, weird Super Bowl XLVI, ending the post with a statement about how since I didn’t necessarily care whether the Patriots or Giants won, I was thus able “to enjoy the strategic thinking and execution without all the associated anxiety and stress that stems from having a strong rooting interest.”

Last night’s UNC-Duke basketball game -- in some ways uncannily similar, actually, to how the Pats-Giants game went -- proved that concluding point. Most painfully.

As a longtime Heels fan -- and, necessarily, Blue Devils hater -- it was most upsetting to see UNC enjoy a 10-point lead over Duke with just over two minutes left, then watch everything go terribly wrong over the final stretch to lose the game 85-84.

I say the game was similar because just like the Super Bowl, the winning team (Duke/NYG) led for almost the entire first half, with the losing team (UNC/NE) grabbing the lead just before halftime. Then the losing team came out hot to start the second half to build a significant lead, the Heels going up by as much as 13 and New England by eight, maintaining the advantage all of the way to the very end before giving up the lead amid a dramatic sequence of events.

And in both cases, the losing team (UNC/NE) made mistakes and the winning team (Duke/NYG) made big plays to help decide the outcome.

After Duke had attempted more than 30 three-point shots leading up to that conclusion (making about a third of them), the game had come down to a situation in which there was no possible way the Blue Devils could come back without trying -- and making -- a few more threes. And somehow UNC let them do exactly that.

Duke made a three three-pointers in the last two-plus minutes, with UNC fouling them on one by Seth Curry to make it a four-point play. And the only three-pointer they missed during that stretch the Heels’ Tyler Zeller unfortunately tapped into the basket to give Duke two points.

Of course, one big difference between the games was the fact that New England purposely let the Giants make the go-ahead score at the end so as to preserve time on the clock to try to score themselves. UNC didn’t exactly let Duke score the winning basket -- the last of those three-pointers -- as the clock expired last night, but it kind of felt that way to a Heels fan watching Tyler Zeller inexplicably give Austin Rivers a few feet of space to allow him to launch his winning shot uncontested.

As I say, I’m emotionally invested here, so I’m not going to claim to be seeing all of this as clearly as I might otherwise. But there was something exquisitely painful about losing to Duke at home in such a way -- again, not unlike Tom Brady and the Pats getting that chance at some revenge against Eli Manning and the Giants after the heartbreak of losing to them in Super Bowl XLIV to ruin their perfect season, then losing again... and in a similarly heartbreaking way, too.

I keep thinking about that Super Bowl XLVI, especially the way it played out with New England letting the Giants’ Ahmad Bradshaw score that go-ahead touchdown despite his own apparent efforts to avoid doing so.

The game began with NE winning the coin toss, then deferring, giving the Giants the ball to start the game so as to get it to start the second half. And it kind of ended the same way, with NE deferring, too, giving the Giants the score so as to get the ball back.

I’ve been hearing some commentators offering criticism about the ending, for instance ESPN writer Tim Keown in a column titled “Unworthy End to Super Bowl XLVI.” Like others, Keown is complaining that even though it was correct for New England to concede the touchdown, he believes it was “not a proud or particularly dignified way to decide the Super Bowl.”

I think Keown and others making this complaint are failing to appreciate how the strange turn of events at the end of Super Bowl XLVI helped demonstrate how football is in fact a strategically-interesting game, perhaps more so than some other sports. That is to say, I didn’t think that ending detracted one bit from the Super Bowl and in fact made it all the more interesting.

Keown describes what happened at the end of Super Bowl XLVI as “a true sports anomaly,” claiming how “there is no other situation in American sports in which a team would make a similar strategic decision.” He recognizes and lists some “loose parallels in other sports,” but maintains that nowhere else is there an equivalent situation “that call[s] for a team to relinquish its lead at the end of a game as a means of facilitating a comeback win.”

We poker players are very familiar with the concept of giving up something now in order to give ourselves a chance to win later, such as in a tournament where we might even have to fold what we think is a better hand in order to keep some chips with which to try to mount a comeback and win. I explored that idea some earlier this week in a “Community Cards” column over at Epic Poker, “Poker-Like Plotting at Super Bowl XLVI.”

Sure, poker isn’t really a sport, but it has a lot in common with many sports, particularly on the strategic-level. And here I think it might help make what was happening at the end of the Pats-Giants game a little more understandable -- and not so “unworthy.”

I suppose poker could also help me come to grips with that collapse by my Tar Heels last night against Duke. When I woke up today and remembered what happened, it really did feel a lot like remembering having lost big in a session of poker the night before. A session in which I might have experienced some bad luck but mostly played poorly in order to ensure my loss and add to the bad feelings about how it all went.

But I’m going to refrain from studying that game any further. Hurts too much.

By the way, if you want to hear me talk about other things -- i.e., all poker-related and most assuredly not about the UNC-Duke game -- I’m going to be a guest tonight on the “Keep Flopping Aces” podcast hosted by Lou Krieger and Shari Geller. The show goes from 9-10 p.m. Eastern time and can be heard live on Rounder’s Radio. And if you miss the live show you can always grab the archived podcast (look for 2-9-12).

Nikolay Evdakov (1964-2012)

Sad news yesterday regarding the passing of the Russian poker pro Nikolay Evdakov who leaves us at the much-too-young age of 47.

Evdakov came on the radar for most poker players and those who follow poker back in 2008 when he set a new record for cashes at the World Series of Poker, making the money an astonishing 10 times. That was the first year I had the chance to report from the WSOP, and so became quite familiar with him early on as he always seemed to be sitting with chips once the cash bubble burst.

His highest finish in 2008 was 12th in the $10,000 Pot-Limit Hold'em Championship, his first cash of that year’s Series. He’d made the final two tables a couple more times, and the final three or four tables most of the other times he cashed in 2008.

In 2009 Evdakov followed up with six more cashes at the WSOP, again making it down to the last couple of tables most times before falling. He was a prominent figure at the WSOP over the last couple of years, too. He final tabled the $10K Seven-Card Stud Championship in 2010, finishing fourth. And last summer he made a deep run in the $25,000 NLH Heads-Up Championship where he made it to the quarterfinals before losing to Eric Froehlich.

Hendon Mob lists Evdakov as having amassed over $1.15 million worth of cashes in his career, with the earliest listed being 2006. They have him as 15th on the all-time money list for Russian players.

As I say, Evdakov was a player with whom I became familiar pretty quickly that first summer I reported from the WSOP for PokerNews. When I heard about his passing yesterday, I couldn’t help but think somewhat grimly about how the news jarred with the most prominent characteristic I could think to assign to him, namely his ability to survive in tournaments.

I remember the nickname “cockroach” starting to come up now and again to refer to Evdakov, a reference to his repeatedly continuing to last in events while others fell around him. I have no idea where the tag originated, but I’m pretty sure it started that summer of 2008. And when it was used -- by reporters and players alike -- it was certainly meant in a complimentary way. The guy just couldn’t be knocked out, if often seemed.

Besides being an accomplished tourney player who was adept at many different games, Evdakov was also well liked both by players and the media, particularly the Russian reporters. Indeed, I believe he started and/or helped run the CGM website (a poker news site and forum) where the announcement of his passing was first posted.

In fact, my only other significant memory of Evdakov relates to his friendliness and special relationship with poker media. I had the chance in 2009 to help cover the European Poker Tour Kyiv event, the only one ever held in the Ukraine, which unsurprisingly attracted a number of Russian players and media. Evdakov, I recall, participated in many of the tourneys in Kyiv, including the High Roller in which only three played and Shaun Deeb won.

I remember playing in the media tournament and at one point near the end of the event Evkdakov coming around with a video camera to shoot some footage. I think he was mainly shooting the Russian guys who normally reported on him all of the time, and there were a lot of grins and laughter during the entire time he was there.

We were down to six-handed. Simon Young of PokerStars was there playing, too, and I remember Evdakov aiming the camera at him at which point Simon took the opportunity to deliver a hilarious speech in which he explained how he’d paid €20,000 to enter our tourney (which I believe was the buy-in for the High Roller). And, said Simon, he was ready to challenge Evdakov next, which inspired a lot more laughter.

I never saw that video Evdakov shot. I remember looking for it, but struggling to decipher where to go on CGM or other Russian-language sites where I thought it might turn up. That whole experience was a special one for me, not least because I somehow managed to luckbox my way into winning the sucker. And Evdakov’s cameo just made it that much more entertaining and memorable.

I didn’t know Evdakov, but like I say my memories of him are all good ones. And from the messages players have been sharing regarding having competed with him it is clear he was a valued member of the poker community and will be missed.

Subject:Poker Signs Off

After about nine months and a little over 70 articles, the investigative news site Subject:Poker has decided to call it quits.

Started in May 2011 as a conscious response to an apparent void created by other poker news sites, S:P presented itself as an independent outlet dedicated to reporting on items of interest to the poker community without bias. As noted in an early post announcing the site’s launch, S:P accepted no advertising from “gambling institutions and their affiliates” so as to eliminate even the perception of influence when reporting on those institutions. That post also explained how its founders, Thomas Bakker and Noah Stephens-Davidowitz, had “no expectation of profit from this site, nor do any of our reporters, nor do any of us have other affiliations that might taint our motivations” when reporting for S:P.

From the start, the site’s motto was “Poker News Done Right,” an obvious jab at other poker news sites that had failed to report on certain scandals, Black Friday-related matters, or other items of significance in poker or had reported on those items in ways that were tainted by various motivations (such as the desire to retain particular advertisers) or at least perceived to have been influenced so.

The site gained a lot of attention during its brief run thanks to several “breaking” stories about the Black Friday indictment and civil complaint, a few articles related to the small U.S.-facing sites that remained after the big ones left, Full Tilt Poker’s spectacular fall to go offline entirely and become subject to additional allegations by the DOJ, reports about the efforts by FTP to find a buyer including the eventual emergence of Groupe Bernard Tapie, as well as other items including occasional interviews with and profiles of prominent figures in the stories on which they were reporting.

Contacts with various “insiders” -- particularly within Full Tilt Poker and even the Department of Justice -- allowed S:P to report certain stories that other sites could not, although in many cases those articles had to be filed with the sources either listed as “anonymous” or without particular reference.

A recent report on “Chris Ferguson’s Secret FTP Bank Accounts and Threats to GBT Deal,” for example, reported a number of provocative statements without much indication of how they had been verified other than to refer obliquely to “multiple sources” confirming items or “one source, whom we believe to be credible” adding information.

Occasionally the site would report on items that caused some to wonder about its self-professed lack of agenda or bias. And every once in a while there would appear posts that raised questions about journalistic ethics, such as last September when the site reported that “‘DOJ Plans Action Against Merge.’”

The headline of that article appeared as a quote, although no attribution was offered in the article which began “Subject:Poker has recently been told....” The story reported that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland was about to seize assets of payment processors Merge had been using to serve U.S. customers. The report severely affected the traffic at most Merge sites, which in turn had other consequences throughout the industry (including upon other poker media). When no action followed by the DOJ -- a possibility accounted for in the article -- some speculated that the mere appearance of the article might have had some significance in affecting the DOJ’s plans.

Another story from late July reporting “FTP’s Financial Relationship With Two Pros” similarly raised eyebrows by its inclusion of information learned after gaining “access to [Phil] Ivey’s and [David] Benyamine’s account history on Full Tilt’s internal systems.” Among what was reported there, we were told Ivey had borrowed money from FTP a total of 18 times for more than $10 million, about half of which he had paid back. (We have learned in recent days that several other pros -- not all FTP-affiliated -- allegedly borrowed significant sums from the site as well.)

Such stories provide a couple of examples of how Subject:Poker sometimes itself became “poker news” during its brief run -- i.e., while reporting on the news occasionally also being part of the story. In fact, the site rarely reported “poker news” stories that were not somehow “exclusive” thanks to having special access to individuals with information other sites lacked. Thus a lot of the stories often provoked commentary and response both about the content of the articles and about the methods by which that content was obtained and provided.

As a result, the site enjoyed considerable influence, although in the end I think those involved might have found running S:P overly stressful and/or unrewarding (not just financially speaking) to continue. I’m just speculating here, but that is a sense I got from hearing Noah Stephens-Davidowitz interviewed a few times and reading some of his frequent posts as “NoahSD” on Two Plus Two.

As noted in their “Goodbye” post, Stephens-Davidowitz and fellow founder Thomas Bakker are starting a poker security consulting company, which may well be a good fit for them. Indeed, I believe it was after doing similar security-related consulting work for an online poker company that the idea for the S:P site initially arose.

I’ll admit I was always a little cynical both about S:P’s claims to objectivity and that “Poker News Done Right” motto. With or without advertisers’ pressure (real or perceived), it is hard for anyone to report on anything without at least some bias, particularly when reporting on the types of stories S:P chose to pursue. And while I don’t disagree with the complaint that many poker news outlets -- often primarily for financial reasons -- haven’t reported as thoroughly as one might wish on certain stories (especially Black Friday-related), I also wouldn’t dismiss such sites as entirely without value or suggest they don’t “do poker news right” from time to time.

That said, S:P’s decision to step aside is worth noting, especially among those of us who find poker news relevant and/or interesting. As is the site’s unique contribution to our understanding of what exactly is happening with regard to the current legal machinations and other items of importance in the poker world, especially online poker.