The Great Garry Gates

When you have a friend playing in the World Series of Poker Main Event, a $10,000 buy-in tournament considered the most prestigious event in all of poker, you don’t expect your friend to make the final table.

I mean thousands play the sucker. These days, to make the final table means making enough correct decisions and being lucky (and avoiding being unlucky) enough times to survive seven long days of poker -- more than 70 hours of actual play.

Like most years, I knew a few dozen folks playing the Main this time around, and among them could count several good friends. A few were still in there after three or four days. One of them -- Andrew Brokos -- even got all the way to the end of Day 5 (again!) before bowing out.

When Day 7 started with 35 players left from the 8,569-player starting field, I still had one buddy in there. And after another crazy, long, dramatic day and night of poker he’s still part of the story as one of the nine with a chance at the $10 million first prize.

Garry Gates has made the final table of the World Series of Poker Main Event. My friend is one of the final nine. No shinola.

As a poker fan, I’ve followed the World Series of Poker for many years. When I started writing this blog in 2006, the WSOP was a frequent topic about which I couldn’t help but write, including that summer when the Main Event drew 8,773 entrants, the most in its storied history. (This year they nearly eclipsed that mark; next year, I think they will.)

Soon I unwittingly began what would become a full-blown second career as a freelance writer focusing on poker, and during the 2007 WSOP I was writing articles and doing some work from afar for PokerNews to assist them as they provided live updates for the first time. The following summer I was in Las Vegas and reporting on the WSOP myself with the PN team.

Since I was writing every day here on Hard-Boiled Poker and the blog therefore serves as kind of an obsessively-detailed diary recording all of these events, I can read about everything I experienced during the 2008 WSOP. For the entry posted May 28, 2008 and in the midst of several posts mentioning people I was meeting for the first time who would become some of my closest friends, I note how I first met “Garry Gates, PokerNews’ Tournament Reporting Manager and cool guy.”

Garry led the team again the following year 2009, then some time after that moved over to work with PokerStars where I once again had the chance to collaborate with him in various ways. He’s had a couple of positions within PokerStars since then, both as an events manager and as Senior Consultant of Player Affairs, which means we’ve been able to work together many times since that day we first met.

Garry is a cool guy, incredibly friendly and outgoing. Back in ’08 he made things very easy for me as I made what was frankly an abrupt and unusual transition from teaching and writing at home to tournament reporting.

Ask anyone who was part of that group back then, Garry was a tremendous leader, supporting us in numerous ways at every turn. There was one moment in particular during 2009 when I remember Garry having my back when a certain poker player apparently objected to something I had written -- not for PokerNews, but here on my personal blog. I didn’t tell the story until many years later, and when I did I didn’t mention Garry by name, though he was the one who made it clear to me I had zero to be concerned about with regard to the situation.

Here is the post, the title of which gives you a clue regarding the identity of the player involved: “That Time I Learned That Jesus Didn’t Love Me.”

I remember thinking then how much better Garry was as a “boss” than were those in the administration at the school where I taught full-time (and would eventually leave primarily because of that unpleasant work environment). I didn’t always know there whether those above me would support me if the need ever arose, but with Garry there was never any doubt.

I use scare quotes around the word “boss” because Garry very deliberately minimized the idea that he was “managing” us -- rather, it was the reporting he managed, and he did it well. (In fact, Garry exerted significant and positive influence over how tournament reporting would be done going forward.)

As I say, Garry has remained a great friend and colleague ever since. I’ve written about before how those experiences reporting on tournaments can be especially formative. Even working a single event with someone can create a meaningful relationship that lasts well beyond the few days you spend with each other. In my book Poker & Pop Culture, I have a very long list of people I thank in the acknowledgments (Garry included) who helped inspire my interest in poker. I listed a lot of those whom I’ve worked over the years, because those experiences meant a lot to me and I continue to appreciate having had them.

Garry has always been a serious poker player, even if he has only played part-time since having (like me) gotten himself into the “industry” in a full-time way. I remember how in 2011 he played in several WSOP events, and even made a deep run in the Main to finish 173rd.

I specifically recall talking to Garry after he busted that year and what he said to me when reflecting on the experience. The best part about it, he said, was getting to share the fun and excitement with others. It really was as much about everyone else as it was about himself. (Garry cashed two more times in the Main Event in 2015 and 2017.)

You might’ve heard about how Garry was at the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas when the horrific shooting took place where 58 died and more than 800 were injured. Six months later Garry opened up to Lance Bradley about it for a piece titled “Garry Gates: One of the Lucky Ones.”

I messaged Garry afterwards, and he let me know he was doing okay. I remember thinking then how Garry was the sort of person who was likely better equipped to handle such a trauma, given the way he instinctively focuses so much on others’ welfare. You learn that in the interview with Lance. For Garry, letting family and friends know that he was okay (and thus lessening their stress) was an immediate focus, and soon after he was finding ways to help others affected by the event.

You’re hearing a lot of people sharing similar sentiments about Garry over the last few days, many of whom are associated with poker in a variety of ways. Garry Gates? Great guy, they say. They were saying that before this crazy run, of course, and will continue to do so after, however things ultimately play out.

I’m starting to imagine watching Garry and the others begin the final table tonight. In one way, it doesn’t even seem real, like some sort of weird “sim” constructed to divert us all. Like I say, no one expected this.

Then again, it makes perfect sense to see Garry in this position, representing (in a way) so many of us who play and love poker and whom he has helped and supported in countless ways.

My friend is playing in the WSOP Main Event. Still!

I’m loving it for Garry. Loving it as well for all of us, too.

#LFGGG!

EDIT (added 7/21/19): Garry ultimately made it all of the way to fourth place for a mind-boggling $3 million cash. I wrote a bit more about Garry and his run for the PokerStars blog here: “Gates, Moneymaker, and how poker brings us together.”

Photos courtesy Neil Stoddart (upper) and Joe Giron (lower), PokerStars blog.

Eight Years, Eight Hands: Looking Back Through the 2007-2014 Main Events

Readying here for the Fourth of July tomorrow, and for the start of World Series of Poker Main Event on Sunday. Hard to believe the whole sucker has almost played out again already.

Thinking about the Main Event inspired me to rummage around a little through the last eight years’ worth of live reporting from the WSOP on PokerNews -- a pretty cool, easy-to-navigate archive. From each of the eight years I chose a single hand from either the final table or close to it and presented all of them in a compilation over in the PokerNews Strategy section.

Some of the hands were more consequential than others, but each featured some interesting, even fascinating decisions made by the players involved, thus inspiring the title of the compilation “The Second-Guessing Game: Key Decisions from WSOP Main Events (2007-2014).”

Part 1 covers the following hands:

2007 - The elimination of Philip Hilm in ninth place by Jerry Yang in just the 15th hand of the final table. Recall how Yang began that final table in seventh while Hilm was in first.

2008 - A huge hand early on from the final table between Dennis Phillips (with A-K) and Ivan Demidov (with A-Q) that suddenly sent start-of-final-table chip leader Phillips down to ninth of nine.

2009 - The wild Billy Kopp-Darvin Moon hand with 12 players left that saw both flop flushes and Kopp suddenly ousted in 12th.

2010 - The dramatic hand in which Jonathan Duhamel knocked out Matt Affleck in 15th, cracking Affleck’s aces after they were all in on the turn and Duhamel filled a straight on the river.

Part 2 then carried things forward with these hands:

2011 - Kind of a cool hand from heads-up between Martin Staszko and Pius Heinz in which both were bluffing away without a pair and Staszko finally pushed Heinz off his hand.

2012 - Andras Koroknai’s huge six-bet shove with K-Q-offsuit, called by Greg Merson called who held A-K-suited to knock Koroknai out in sixth.

2013 - J.C. Tran’s fold with six players left to Jay Farber’s four-bet in a blind-versus-blind hand. Tran had A-Q while Farber had pocket sixes.

2014 - Mark Newhouse’s elimination hand in which he battled to the river versus William Tonking, finally pushing his last chips in with pocket tens on a 2-4-J-4-J board, and Tonking found a call with pocket queens.

Remember those hands? Click over to relive ‘em and/or think about some of the strategy followed in each.

Human Interest

Just had a chance to read and enjoy Phil Galfond’s latest blog post, the first part of a kind of mini-memoir detailing his path to becoming a poker pro. He’s titled it “My Poker (+other) Story.”

If you’ve read Galfond’s blog before, you know he’s a thoughtful, smart guy and a good writer, too. Thus does it come as no surprise to see the discussion of his journey extend beyond the same-old-move-up-through-the-stakes tale so many other online grinders have told.

And really, it’s usually the “(+other)” stuff that makes any poker player’s story more interesting, isn’t it? More human.

I’ll just mention a few reflections I had as I read, then let you go check out the post yourself.

One was how easy it is for me to identify with Galfond, despite the fact that his achievements as a player obviously dwarf my own.

He talks about being obsessive, sort of an introvert (but still social), and intellectually curious. He mentions both friendships and family and makes it clear how important relationships with others are to him. And he also shows a well-founded appreciation of the need for balance between work (or pursuing one’s personal goals, such as in poker) and leisure.

All stuff I can understand and relate to, for sure. You, too, I’ll bet.

His post additionally covers his college career and how his pursuit of a philosophy degree was cut short by poker. He talks a lot about classes that interested him and other aspects of the academic life that did not.

Here is where Galfond and I went in somewhat different directions. I’m one who ended up going on with higher education as far as it would take me, getting graduate degrees and eventually teaching at the college level. And even though I got a ton of value out of taking that path and have no regrets about doing so, I share some of Galfond’s cynicism about the importance of degrees and grades and other ways we use higher education to measure ourselves against one another.

I like Galfond saying how he decided to be a philosophy major simply because the classes were interesting, and not worrying about where such a degree might take him, career-wise. “I didn’t know what it would lead to in life,” he says, “and I didn’t much care.”

I’ve had a lot of experience advising college students. While I always try to be practical with my recommendations to them, I also always attempt to make sure they understand that whatever major they choose, it had better be in something they find interesting. If they have some ability in that field and can do well in those classes, so much the better. But they gotta like it... at least something about it.

Thus when students ask me about being an English major, I ask them if they love to read literature and write about it. If the answer is yes to that, then we can talk about how you don’t have to be an low-earning English teacher after graduating with an English degree. In fact, you can do just about anything in which being able to read and write is needed.

I never tell students it doesn’t matter whatsoever what major they choose -- they don’t want to hear that -- but I have thought it numerous times. Because really it doesn’t. Not that much.

People joke about the relative value of humanities degrees a lot. Even Galfond parenthetically asks later on when talking about not graduating “what’s a Philosophy degree worth anyways?” But he’s not talking about translating the degree into any dollar amount or other measure of value, a mistake some students make that all but ensures they’ll get as little as possible out of their college years. Not entirely (I don’t think).

No, Galfond is talking about finding something interesting and worthwhile, and continuing with it until it stops being either. The classes were worth it for him, for a while, anyway. Finishing and meeting arbitrary requirements for a degree was not.

I had one other, more personal thought when reading Galfond’s post, namely the memory of having been there at the Rio back in 2008 when he won his WSOP bracelet in the $5,000 pot-limit Omaha event (with rebuys). That was my first WSOP with PokerNews, and it just so happened Galfond’s win came at one of the first final tables on which I had ever reported. Change100 and I were there for that one.

I’d have to go back through the blog to recall details of the tourney and final table, but I remember it being a fairly dominating performance by the guy we kinda vaguely knew at the time as that “OMGClayAiken” dude who crushed online.

So I’m looking forward to Galfond getting to that part of the story, too, so as to learn more about what the experience was like for him that night. And to learn more about both the “pro poker player” and the “person,” as Galfond describes himself atop his blog.

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.

A Couple of Saab Stories

You might’ve heard that story from last week about a poker player in Australia who was charged along with a couple of others with drug offenses, including having tried to arrange for the importing of about 46 pounds’ worth of cocaine. Street value somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 million (Aussie dollars), apparently. Not that you are I would be doing business on that street.

The player, David Saab, appeared in court last week, and will be going back in May. Sounds like at least one of the others arrested is a poker player, too, part of the so-called “Saab Squad” of Australian players of which Saab is the best known.

Saab has had a few notable results over the last few years, his biggest cashes both coming in 2008. That’s the year he won an Asian Poker Tour event in Manila for $280,000, then finished 46th in the World Series of Poker Main Event where he earned $135,100.

I remember Saab quite well from that 2008 WSOP ME, both for his boisterous personality and for the blue Superman t-shirt he wore. When I heard the story of his arrest last week, I thought specifically of two hands I saw him play during his Main Event run that year.

One of the hands came on Day 4 when there were perhaps 250 players left in the event. Saab was way up there, among the leaders with 1.8 million chips. Jason Su, who was also sitting very comfortably with about 1.2 million, opened with a raise from the cutoff, and Saab three-bet from the button. The blinds got out, Su reraised, Saab unhesitatingly shoved all in, and Su just as quickly called.

The blinds were just 4,000/8,000 at the time, meaning the players had committed around 150 big blinds each, with Su putting his tourney life at risk. As it happened, both had A-K and ended up splitting the pot.

I remember Saab being utterly unfazed throughout. Su had on the hand, while Saab’s cards were unsuited. “Hey, I can make a flush two ways!” he cracked before the community cards were dealt. I also remember him yelling out something -- after the hand concluded, I think -- about having to be willing to gamble to win.

The other hand I remember involving Saab came from Day 5 when the field had shrunk to 150 or so. This one began with Phil Hellmuth (who’d go on to finish 45th that year, one spot ahead of Saab) limping from under the gun. Saab raised from the cutoff, the button called, and Hellmuth called as well.

The flop came , and all three players checked. The turn brought the , pairing the board. This time Hellmuth fired a pot-sized bet. Saab quickly called, and the third player got out.

The river was the . The Poker Brat checked. Saab, again acting without any delay, pushed out a decent-sized bet, about two-thirds of the pot. Hellmuth let it go, and a grinning Saab showed as he collected the chips.

As you might imagine, Hellmuth was Not Amused.

A lengthy tirade followed which included the 11-time bracelet winner characterizing all of his opponents as “these idiots.” In my post on the hand -- titled “Believe It, Phil” -- I couldn’t resist referring to Jack Buck’s memorable call of Kirk Gibson’s Game 1 homer in the 1988 World Series when reporting Hellmuth’s post-hand declaration: “I can’t believe what I just saw.”

That post also refers to Saab calling himself “the luckiest player” and claiming that he was color blind, the latter a not-necessarily-serious suggestion that he was perhaps not fully aware of what the chips were worth.

Saab clearly had his opponents on their heels that day, his seemingly fearless play (combined with some good fortune, one imagines) certainly helping him make that deep run.

It appears, however, such a willingness to gamble might’ve caught up with Saab. Will be curious to see what happens when this one reaches the showdown -- most specifically whether or not Superman will be able to avoid being sent up the river.

On Eastgate and the Bracelet; or, Must WSOP Main Event Champs Do Our Bidding?

I haven’t used Ebay in quite some time. I have an account on there, and some years ago had fun buying a number of old vinyl copies of records I’d been seeking. Sold a few things on there as well, if I recall. But somewhere along the way Amazon and other outlets started offering used items on the cheap, and I found it easier just to pick up items there.

Ebay has somehow survived without my patronage, however, as I saw when I returned to the site this week. I went back because I was curious to see what was happening with Peter Eastgate’s 2008 World Series of Poker Main Event bracelet, which you might have heard the young Dane has decided to sell and give the proceeds to UNICEF.

Here’s the auction, if you’re curious. The bidding started at $16,000, I believe, and it looks like with a little under a week to go the current top bid is $45,100.

Not a lot of details there on the auction page about the bracelet itself, other than a note explaining that it has a total weight of 168 grams of 18k white gold with 291 small “brilliant” cut diamonds set onto it. I read somewhere that the net value of the sucker is somewhere around that $16,000 mark where the bidding began, though I’m not positive about that. I think it is probably safe to say, though, that the current bid is probably well above whatever the materials are worth.

Hard not to wonder a little about Eastgate’s decision to let go of the bracelet, the symbolic or “sentimental” value of which most certainly exceeds whatever value any appraiser might assign to it. Of course, we did hear a few months ago that Eastgate, now aged 24, had declared he was stepping away from poker, perhaps for a short while, or maybe even for good. Thus does the news of his selling of the bracelet perhaps come as a little bit less of a surprise.

That announcement came in July, just before the start of this year’s Main Event. “It was never my goal to spend the rest of my life as a professional poker player,” said Eastgate at the time, noting that since his victory he’d discovered that he had “lost [his] motivation for playing high-level poker.” Rather than continue doing something to which he was no longer dedicated, he decided to opt for a different path, seeking, as he put it, “to find out what I want to do with the rest of my life.” (Here’s the CardPlayer article sharing that news.)

Coupled with that announcement, the selling of the bracelet appears to take on an additional significance, perhaps symbolizing for Eastgate a sincere commitment to his decision to move away from poker.

Some have expressed dismay over Eastgate’s decisions both to leave poker and to sell the much-coveted bracelet, now regarding him as one who has clearly failed to live up to those expectations many seem to have for WSOP Main Event champs to serve subsequently as “ambassadors” for the game. While I can’t say I share that view, I think I do understand from where it comes.

I remember way back in 2006 writing a post -- “Assessing the Gold Standard” -- in which I reacted to Jamie Gold’s victory in the Main Event and talked a little about the expectations awaiting him. There I said I believed “it should be understood that winning the bracelet need not require one to fill any particular, Miss-America-type diplomatic role.”

Like I say, I don’t really feel much differently about the issue today. However, I do recognize things have changed for poker since the summer of 2006. A lot.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, signed into law just a few short weeks after Gold’s WSOP win, is by most observers’ estimation a piece of legislation that has utterly failed in many, many regards. However, the UIGEA did succeed in accomplishing one thing, namely, to put online poker in particular -- and perhaps poker in general -- on the defensive.

Ever since the game’s introduction in the early 19th century, poker has been viewed by some (or many) as an illicit pursuit, and thus has always needed to be defended by those who think otherwise about the game and believe it is worthwhile to counter objections to it. But since the UIGEA became law (fully implemented -- finally -- in July of this year), that need to present to a mainstream audience that poker is indeed a legitimate pastime and/or pursuit has taken on additional urgency.

Such wasn’t the case in August 2006. With bigger fields than ever coming to that year’s WSOP -- and no apparent reason at the time to suspect poker’s astounding pattern of growth would ever be stopped -- it didn’t seem like we needed the champ to go out and “fight the good fight” on poker’s behalf. Poker would do just fine with or without such help.

Such is no longer the case. And thus comes the hand-wringing from some when a recent WSOP ME champ declares the game no longer satisfies his most meaningful desires, and therefore he’d rather do something else. Or when a November Niner (Joseph Cheong) says he’d rather not win the Main Event but would “prefer second,” since “that would bar me from [the perceived obligation of] being a poker ambassador.”

It is true, I guess. Winning the WSOP Main Event these days is like being elected to a political position. No one voted for you, but suddenly you’re their representative. Like it or not.

And whatever it is you end up doing will necessarily be interpreted as either successfully doing our bidding -- i.e., representing poker in a politically-favorable way -- or something else.

(EDIT [added 4 p.m.]: On a somewhat related note, here's an interesting 2+2 post from the 2010 ME champ, Jonathan Duhamel, in which he talks about a few big hands while also indicating his intentions for the coming year.)

The True Story: Day 1 Chip Leaders at the WSOP Main Event

Watched some of the coverage of the 2010 WSOP Main Event again last night on ESPN. Yesterday they showed highlights from Day 1c and Day 1d, giving an hour to each day. These Day 1 flights are okay, but not terribly riveting, really. I’m glad ESPN appears to have changed its original plan to give two hours each to the four flights and instead devote more time to the more exciting -- and relevant -- Days 6 and 7. (See the full schedule here.)

Speaking of Day 1 not being all that important in the larger scheme of things, there was an interesting moment from last week’s episodes involving Mike “The Mouth” Matusow, the highlighted player at the feature table during Day 1a. If you saw the show, you might remember this -- a kind of strange-sounding statistic thrown out by Matusow to his tablemates.

Matusow’s claim came following a weird hand involving himself, Gerhard Maurer, and Alex Carr. The Mouth is in the small blind with , Maurer in the big blind with , and Carr on the button with , and all three players make straights on the turn, with the board showing .

“What are the chances of that?” asks Lon McEachern. “Actually we just checked our statistical archives,” answers Norman Chad, tongue firmly in cheek. “It’s the first time in the history of the Main Event three players have made a queen-high straight on the turn on Day 1!”

Matusow checks from the small blind. Maurer, in the big blind, then bets 3,000 into the 4,800 pot, and Carr promptly calls from the button. “That could be the greatest check I made in my entire life,” says Matusow. “I was checking to induce a bluff, not a bet and a call,” he adds with a grin. Finally, he lets his hand go.

The river is the , pairing the board, and Maurer wastes little time moving all in for his last 8,925. Carr doesn’t wait long, either, before calling, and Matusow is a bit dismayed to see his two opponents had neither better straights, flushes, or full houses.

“This is one long, long, long, long, long tournament,” says Matusow afterwards, perhaps in part to make himself feel better about the hand. Having made no less than two WSOP ME final tables (2001, 2005), plus made a couple of other deep runs (87th in 2004, 30th in 2008), Matusow obviously knows from experience that losing a hand on the first day isn’t necessarily cause for too much despair.

A commercial break follows, and when the show resumes Carr is shown saying “running good early on Day 1... that’s bad.” That’s when Matusow -- sort of like Chad did with McEachern, only Matusow isn’t kidding -- offers to provide some data, in this case to back up the idea that being among the chip leaders on Day 1 is no guarantee of success in the WSOP Main Event.

“In 2008 when I got 30th,” says Matusow, “I was like 16% of average chips for five straight days.” His opponents nod in agreement, Matusow’s experience sort of affirming Aesop’s fable about the tortoise and the hare. No need to worry about racing out in front early. Slow and steady can win the race, too.

The Mouth continues. “And only one person of the entire top 100 chip leaders on Day 1 cashed.”

“That can’t be right,” says Carr. “Actually, that’s not even close to accurate,” Chad slips in. “That is a true story,” affirms Matusow. “That’s why Day 1 doesn’t mean zero!” he concludes. Probably meant to say that’s why Day 1 means zero, but we get the point.

Carr was right to question Matusow’s claim. A good number usually make it through Day 1 of the Main Event. This year a little over 70% of the starting field of 7,319 made it to Day 2. In 2008, there were 3,629 players still in the hunt after one day of play out of the starting field of 6,844 (about 53%). The top 10% or so make the cash (in 2008, the top 666 were paid), so it stands to reason at least a few of those in the top 100 at the end of Day 1 should still be around once the cash bubble burst.

Chad’s editorial comment made me curious to see just how inaccurate the statement was that only one player among the top 100 at the end of Day 1 in 2008 actually made the cash. So I looked back to see.

What follows is a list of the top 100 at the end of the four Day 1 flights (combined) from the 2008 Main Event. If the player ultimately made the money, I’ve added in parentheses where the player finished and how much he or she earned (and put them in bold). If the player did not make the top 666, there is no note beside the name.

2008 WSOP Main Event, Day 1 chip leaders

1. Henning Granstad -- 242,950 (finished 553rd, $23,160)
2. Mark Garner -- 194,900
3. Ben Sarnoff -- 177,500
4. Brandon Adams -- 176,450
5. Curt Kohlberg -- 173,050
6. David Baker -- 163,450 (252nd, $35,383)
7. Brian Schaedlich -- 160,725 (456th, $27,020)
8. Howard Berchowitz -- 160,075
9. Arnaud Mattern -- 157,650
10. Kellen Hunter -- 155,200 (115th, $41,816)
11. Stefan Mattsson -- 154,275
12. Steve Austin -- 149,000 (552nd, $23,160)
13. Mohamad Kowssarie -- 146,000
14. Patrick Fortin -- 145,275 (390th, $28,950)
15. Robert Mizrachi -- 142,400 (458th, $27,020)
16. David Stucke -- 140,525 (510th, $25,090)
17. Sami Rustom -- 140,450
18. Dylan Linde -- 138,425 (366th, $28,950)
19. Jeff Frerichs -- 138,025
20. Diren Yildiz -- 136,075 (181st, $38,600)
21. Soren Peterson -- 135,475
22. Josh Schiffman -- 133,000
23. Adam Hudson -- 127,750
24. Nick Caltabiano -- 127,700
25. Nikolay Losev -- 127,225 (28th, $193,000)
26. Evan Woodington -- 127,125 (451st, $27,020)
27. Michael Souza -- 126,100 (291st, $32,166)
28. Serj Markarian -- 126,000 (521st, $25,090)
29. Joe Marcal -- 125,325
30. Victor Ramdin -- 124,600 (64th, $96,500)
31. Wayne Brown -- 124,575
32. Robin Andreas Berggren -- 124,125 (196th, $38,600)
33. Todd Rebello -- 123,925
34. Andrew Tisler -- 123,900
35. Michael Martin -- 123,025
36. Samir Shakhtoor -- 122,875 (208th, $38,600)
37. Christian Choi -- 122,225
38. Marko Batanjac -- 122,000
39. Charles Dolan -- 121,625 (177th, $38,600)
40. Kido Pham -- 120,650 (41st, $154,400)
41. Nghia Le -- 119,750 (108th, $41,816)
42. David Singer -- 119,425
43. William Purle -- 118,575 (171st, $38,600)
44. Igor Ioffe -- 118,525 (345th, $32,166)
45. Diogo Borges -- 115,825 (404th, $28,950)
46. Joe McGowan -- 115,575 (505th, $25,090)
47. Jason Mannino -- 115,100
48. Jay Katsutani -- 115,000
49. David Oppenheim -- 114,400
50. Michael Johnson -- 114,000 (545th, $23,160)
51. Mark Vos -- 113,200 (80th, $77,200)
52. Alexander Borteh -- 112,425 (197th, $38,600)
53. Anton Allemann -- 112,250
54. Woodrow Johnson -- 111,900
55. Alexander Kostritsyn -- 111,850
56. Mojgan Stringham -- 111,475
57. Chino Rheem -- 111,375 (7th, $1,772,650)
58. Liya Gerasimova -- 111,050
59. David Dao -- 111,005 (453rd, $27,020)
60. Kara Scott -- 111,000 (104th, $41,816)
61. Bill Blanda -- 111,000 (333rd, $32,166)
62. Brad Booth -- 110,825
63. Patryk Hildebranski -- 110,350
64. Robert Eckstut -- 110,275
65. Evelyn Ng -- 110,225 (238th, $35,383)
66. Danny Smith -- 110,175
67. Alex Balandin -- 109,925
68. Carlos Mortensen -- 109,825
69. Leonid Yanovski -- 109,575
70. Jan Skampa -- 108,450
71. Messaoud Bouchaib -- 108,375 (643rd, $21,230)
72. Kory Mitchell -- 107,500 (414th, $28,950)
73. Mohsin Charania -- 107,475
74. Jason Kang -- 107,375 (532nd, $25,090)
75. Coco Valerice -- 106,727
76. John Goossens -- 106,350
77. Joshua Norris -- 106,325 (179th, $38,600)
78. Marc Podell -- 105,800 (100th, $41,816)
79. Bryan Colin -- 105,650
80. Doron Malinasky -- 104,950 (246th, $35,383)
81. Michael Watson -- 104,425
82. Dale Sing -- 104,125 (662nd, $21,230)
83. Tim Loecke -- 104,050 (23rd, $257,334)
84. Heidi Northcott -- 103,075
85. Gus Hansen -- 102,900 (160th, $41,816)
86. David Saab -- 102,525 (46th, $135,100)
87. Paul Loh -- 102,125
88. Andrea Benelli -- 102,050
89. Israel Hodara -- 101,525 (381st, $28,950)
90. Gilles Smadja -- 101,450
91. Whitney Blanton -- 101,450 (412th, $28,950)
92. Johan Berg -- 101,450
93. Bill Meyer -- 101,150
94. Raymond Rice -- 100,575
95. Eetu Vehilainen -- 100,325 (434th, $27,020)
96. Arthur Azen -- 99,800
97. Aaron Kanter -- 99,700
98. Grudi Grudev -- 98,800
99. Daryl Yarosh -- 98,575
100. Scott Montgomery -- 98,525 (5th, $3,096,768)

So, yeah, a few more than one of the top 100 at the end of Day 1 did cash back in 2008. In fact, almost half of them did -- 46 in all. More than I thought would be there, to be honest. Among those in the list are two who made the final table (Chino Rheem and Scott Montgomery), as well as nine players who’d be among the top 100 at the end of the event.

Incidentally, any errors here are obviously my own. I did the cross-checking myself, and could well have missed somebody, especially if the name was listed differently on the counts and payouts, although I think I caught everyone. (Also had to mess with spreadsheets a little to combine the four Day 1 flights -- another chance for errors to creep in.)

I imagine the results from other years would probably be similar. The WSOP Main Event is a long, long tourney, and there are many, many ways to get from that first hand to the money and ultimately the final table and the bracelet.

Then again, I think it is safe to say that Day 1 does mean more than “zero.” Especially if that happens to be your chip count at the end of Day 1, as was unfortunately the case for 2,173 players this year -- including Matusow.

The Secret Struggle of the Starmaker (on Marketing the 2008 WSOP Main Event final table), Postscript

I continue on my “poker sabbatical,” taking a break from poker for a few days here following that nasty week-long run at the tables.

I actually punctuated the bad streak with a big withdrawal of funds -- which had a terrific psychological effect, by the way. Instantly went from singing “I’m a Loser” to “Feelin’ Groovy.” Hello, lamp post. Whatcha knowin’?

I did leave myself enough on both PokerStars and Full Tilt to go back, although when I do I’ll necessarily be moving down in stakes so as to secure the now smaller rolls.

Still allowing myself to play the freebies, though, and so will be taking a shot again this afternoon at another World Blogger Championship of Online Poker event, once again no-limit hold’em. Couldn’t play in the one last night as it didn’t start until 10 p.m. Eastern. Too late for shleepy Shamus.

Of course, the one WBCOOP event I am most intrigued about comes tomorrow. That’ll be the mixed game event Stars generically refers to as “8-Game Mix” but I prefer calling “S.P.L.E.N.D.O.R.” That’s the one that rotates between the five H.O.R.S.E. games (limit hold’em, limit Omaha/8, razz, stud, stud/8), no-limit hold’em, pot-limit Omaha, and limit 2-7 triple draw. Have practically zero experience in the latter, so may well have to skim Daniel Negreanu’s chapter in Super/System 2 to have a clue.

Meanwhile, I wanted to add a quick postscript to a post from a few weeks back called “The Secret Struggle of the Starmaker (On Marketing the 2008 WSOP Main Event Final Table).” That was the post in which I talked about what Harrah’s Sports and Entertainment Director of Communications Seth Palansky said on Gary Wise’s podcast (the 11/19/08 episode) regarding the efforts to heighten publicity surrounding the so-called “November Nine.”

You’ll recall that Palansky claimed on Wise’s show that one of the nine players had been offered a chance to appear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, while another had been given an opportunity to appear on Ellen, the daytime talk show hosted by Ellen Degeneres. According to Palansky, both players turned down these offers.

In my post I was critical of Palansky’s decision to “break” such news on Wise’s show, as well as of the many strange assumptions he subsequently made about the players’ responsibilities when it came to marketing the WSOP. I did not outwardly doubt the validity of the claim, though I did imply that it sounded a bit far-fetched, and so left that as an unresolved question.

Incidentally, I also posted over on Pokerati a brief summary of what Palansky said on Wise’s show, again not claiming to affirm or deny the validity of Palansky’s claim, but merely passing along what was said on Wise’s podcast.

Anyhow, after a month hiatus, PokerRoad Radio came back on the air this week with shows from the Five Diamond WPT Classic going on at the Bellagio. On the 12/13 episode (with guest Annie Duke), host Ali Nejad belatedly reported the story Palansky told on Wise’s show.

Nejad’s co-hosts expressed skepticism of the truth of Palansky’s story, with Gavin Smith in particular saying he “called bullsh!t.” “I don’t believe it happened,” said Smith. “Are we saying that Seth [Palansky] is trying to cover [himself] or the WSOP?” asked Sebok. “I don’t see any other way around it,” answered Smith.

Then, on the 12/14 episode (with guest Greg Raymer), the hosts again discussed for a minute or so an email that Joe Sebok had received from an “unnamed source” on the subject. This email, from a “person in poker,” explained to Sebok “that what [Smith] said was correct, yesterday,” namely, that “some of the people that supposedly were invited to these media tours actually were not invited.” Sebok added that the message “even took it a step further by saying that -- I don’t know if it was the World Series of Poker or Seth Palansky in particular -- had... scheduled this media tour through New York to go on all of these shows, but then... at the last second, the shows cancelled.”

In other words, it was not the players who bailed, but the shows. Sebok concludes by characterizing the incident as “a little egg on the face” for the WSOP who subsequently appears to have tried “to cover their own ass” via the story about players refusing to go on Leno or Degeneres.

As I implied in the earlier post, I think there’s a lot to criticize regardless of whether the story of the invites was truthful, a fiction, or somewhere in between. Does seem, though, that we didn’t exactly have a situation where, say, chip leader Dennis Phillips was asked to be on The Tonight Show and he turned Leno down.

Which would make it all the more odd (and uncool) for anyone to suggest that might have been what happened.

The Secret Struggle of the Starmaker (on Marketing the 2008 WSOP Main Event final table)

Another interesting episode this week of the Gary Wise podcast, Wise Hand Poker (the 11/19/08 episode). Wise interviews Barry Greenstein for the first half of the show, and the two discuss the recent World Series of Poker Main Event final table, the new “red pro” forum on PokerRoad, and other matters. Wise then has Harrah’s Sports and Entertainment Director of Communications Seth Palansky on and they continue the discussion of the delayed final table and the relative success of the experiment.

During the latter interview, Palansky reveals some of Harrah’s intentions regarding marketing the “November Nine” and building hype around the ESPN broadcast. He talks about how they’d apparently decided “to treat the Nov. 9 as a finale, like you would a movie opening, which means you don’t want to strike too early.” Comparing the final table to a much-anticipated movie premiere, Palansky explained “You’re trying to get people to the box office, to make the decision to purchase a ticket and go watch a new movie. So the real crux of the promotion should have been around the last couple of weeks.”

Apparently (according to this here post-mortem), various factors, including the Olympics, the presidential election, and even the economic crises made it more difficult for promoters to “strike” at that crucial time -- i.e., the last two weeks before the table was played and then shown on ESPN. Sounds a little strange, frankly, given that everyone knew back on May 1 when the Olympics and the election were scheduled.

Palansky goes on, though, to cast further aspersions in the effort to explain why the November Nine was not the huge cultural phenomenon organizers had envisioned it to be.

He also blames the players. That’s right. Now that the final table has finished, the Director of Communications for Harrah’s has decided it is okay to suggest the players themselves were somehow to blame for the failure of the idea.

On Wise’s show, Palansky said he wanted to “break” the news that two of the November Nine had been offered the chance to do guest spots on mainstream talk shows -- the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and the Ellen Degeneres show -- and both turned down the opportunities. Wise was unable to get Palansky to identify which players were the ones asked, but on the 2+2 thread about the interview Dennis Phillips’ agent says he was not made any such offer. Gotta believe that. I mean, I know Hard-Boiled Poker is the cat’s pajamas and all, but I can’t imagine Phillips would do an interview with me (and about 200 others) and not do one with Jay Leno or Ellen Degeneres! Scott Montgomery also chimes in on the thread to say that he doubts the claim is even valid (“umm, i think this whole thing sounds like a load of bs to me” says Montgomery).

After passing along that item, Palansky then offers lengthy judgment of the players who he says refused the chance to take poker to the mainstream:

“But one of the reasons why I wanted to come on here with you tonight Gary, was to express a concern I do have for some of the advice and some of the moves poker players are making. Because if you want to mainstream a game, and if you’re trying to get corporate America to buy into what you’re selling, you need Tom Bradys, you need Peyton Mannings, you need Michael Jordans, etc. If we have guys that aren't willing to take that mantle, or the same ten, twelve guys that you see getting a lot of attention at the Main Event early on: the known names for their antics or whatever the case may be. If people want to leave it just to those dozen, they can’t grow the game. For all the others, they’ve got to take advantage of the opportunities that get presented to them, and it’s unfortunate that in situations where we had a successful pitch and an opportunity for our players to be on that national stage, they chose not to.”

(Thanks, by the way, to Kevin Mathers for doing the transcribing work.)

I don’t even know where to begin, there are so many incorrect assumptions underlying such a view. Not to mention the fact that when the final table delay was first announced, WSOP Commish Jeffrey Pollack made it abundantly clear that nothing in particular would be expected of the nine who made the final table in the way of promotional activities.

For one, there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of poker players, generally speaking, many of whom don’t want to be Peyton Manning (or Phil Hellmuth or fill-in-the-blank). Secondly, there’s a misapprehension about the tournament itself, wherein the cash prize for winning far exceeds any possible benefits a guest spot on Leno might bring a person (and thus should be weighed accordingly).

There’s also a fairly misguided view about poker’s place in popular culture. Palansky comes to poker via the National Football League where he also served as Communications Director. His comments seem to suggest that poker is perfectly analogous to football, both in the way it is played and presented and its place in the public consciousness. Poker has a real problem, I think, if those in charge of promoting the WSOP are going to continue to operate under this assumption.

In the 2+2 thread, Shane “Shaniac” Schleger” offers his rejoinder to such a view. He finds it “disingenuous and frustrating to blame player apathy or laziness for not helping to ‘grow the game,’” pointing out how Harrah’s, the WPT, and other corporations haven’t exactly compensated players generously (or at all) in the past. He goes on to call it “delusional” to think any of the nine who made this year’s final table were “going to have the motivation and charisma to try and become the next Hellmuth,” and thus thinks a “new strategy” is in order.

Over on the Big Poker Sundays radio show, Schleger suggested that like Scott Montgomery, he was doubtful Palansky was even being truthful with his claim about the Leno/Ellen offers.

I can’t imagine why Palansky would make up such a thing, although it does uncannily recall Lou Krieger’s recent observation, voiced on his podcast and repeated on his blog, that he “expected to see these guys on all the major TV shows, much the same as you see movie stars trotted out on the talk show circuit whenever they have a new film to promote. It was really disappointing that none of them got a chance to talk poker with Letterman, or play some cards with Ellen, or appear on any of the morning network shows. That would have been a real build up.”

Even if the claim is truthful, I can’t say I see the purpose in throwing the November Nine under the bus this way except perhaps to try to bully the next group of poker players who make the 2009 Main Event delayed final table subsequently to perform more closely to Harrah’s wishes. Which -- even if successful -- would not necessarily produce desired results (to my way of thinking). ’Cos poker ain’t football. Nor will it ever be.

I guess there is one aspect of all of this that relates to poker -- the idea of blaming others when things don’t go one’s own way.

No Worries

Watched a little football yesterday. Toward the early evening, once the Titans-Jaguars game had wrapped up, CBS moved over to show the last couple of plays of that crazy Pittsburgh-San Diego game which I’m sure Mean Gene had been watching closely all afternoon.

The game ended with the unlikely score of 11-10, the Steelers on top. Pittsburgh had scored a safety early on, then kicked three field goals to arrive at 11. With the Chargers down to their last play, the stats guys reported no NFL game had ever ended with that score (in over 12,000 games). San Diego then tried a trick play involving multiple laterals, ended up botching one and Pittsburgh safety Troy Polamalu scooped it up and ran it in the end zone as the clock ran out, making the score a much less unusual 17-10.

But the refs conferred for several minutes, decided there had been an illegal forward pass earlier in the play which meant they were ruling the play dead. Game over. 11-10. However, the refs botched this one, too. As ref Scott Green admitted after the game was over, the play shouldn’t have been ruled dead at all since the illegal pass had never touched the ground. “It was incorrect to have killed it at that point,” said Green. “The ruling should have let the play go on.”

Now none of this really matters as far as the outcome of the game goes. However, as I was watching, I was thinking of the screams of agony that had to be filling the air in the Vegas sportsbooks. Pittsburgh was a five-point favorite yesterday, see, meaning that final, nutty play had a lot of significance to anyone who had bet on the game, regardless which team one had picked. For the guy who had bet on the Steelers to cover the spread, he became subject to an incredibly unlikely slowroll, thinking he’d won, then learning he’d lost, then learning he’d lost only because the refs screwed up!

Speaking of unlikely outcomes, I had found myself a little earlier in the afternoon flipping the channels once the Titans had appeared to have taken control of their game with the Jaguars, and at one point landed on ESPN where they were replaying the World Series of Poker Main Event final table. Now I had seen the entire show last week and really there wasn’t much compelling me to watch it again. However, I realized there was one moment I knew I wanted to see one more time -- that hand in which Peter Eastgate rivered Scott Montgomery with the case six to knock Montgomery out in fifth place. Talk about unlikely. There was only one card left in that deck that could’ve ended Montgomery’s day, and out it came.

The reason why I wanted to see that hand again was not because I enjoyed seeing Montgomery bust out in such wicked fashion, nor that I particularly liked seeing Eastgate win the hand. No, the reason I wanted to see it again was to see Montgomery’s reaction -- that wonderful mix of self-effacing humor, quiet acknowledgment, and good sportsmanship. We’ve all suffered bad beats, but this one was about as brutal as it gets. And Montgomery’s response was a model of grace.

It was also a pretty cool “sports” moment to watch again, too. To remind you, Eastgate had made it 1.25 million from middle position. ESPN then shows Dennis Phillips checking his hole cards -- which indeed included the -- before folding. Montgomery then reraises all in with his last 7 million-plus from the small blind, and Eastgate calls, showing to Montgomery’s .

The flop comes , and Phillips is heard saying he had folded a black six. Montgomery quickly estimates that the on the turn would leave Eastgate drawing dead. (So would a few other diamonds, I suppose.) He also smilingly says something in there about how “that will make it that much worse when the six comes on the river.” (I’d check on PokerTube, but it is currently down for maintenance.)

The turn is the , which gives Montgomery trips but actually is a meaningless card. I know ESPN dubbed in the commentary later, but they did a nifty job here with Lon McEachern’s call: “And now the riverrRROHHHHHH!!!!!” -- his cry matching the crowd’s uproar at the appearance of the . Phillips immediately backs away from the table in horror. “A one-outer,” you can hear him say.

Montgomery just sits there for a moment smiling, as if he knew it was coming. I’d see his funny spot on the earlier ESPN telecast, as well as heard him interviewed on Pocket Fives (the 10/30 episode), and so was already inclined toward liking the guy. But this reaction -- see the above screen shot -- was just simply terrific. With a big grin he stands up and shakes hands, makes a joke with Ylon Schwartz (it appears), and ambles off. Such is life. Would that we all were able to understand and accept it so well.

I’m guessing those poor saps who bet on the Steelers to cover yesterday probably reacted a little differently.

The Finale, Finally (the 2008 WSOP Main Event final table)

There are more pressing things to talk about today -- including the highly distressing news regarding the feds’ efforts to finalize those UIGEA regs before the Obama administration takes over. (I will be writing something about that tomorrow tonight.) But I thought today I’d share a few brief impressions of last night’s show on ESPN, the hastily-packaged two-hour presentation of the delayed final table of the 2008 World Series of Poker Main Event. (By the way, the show has already been uploaded over on PokerTube, if you haven’t see it and are curious.)

The show was certainly compelling to watch, even if I was already familiar with how most of the hands went. Indeed, of the 24 or so hands shown, there were only a small number that hadn’t gone to showdown for which I was curious to see some hole cards. From what I could tell, there wasn’t too much evidence that ESPN had such a short turnaround. They’d obviously planned the show pretty carefully ahead of time, having already produced those little color pieces (and the “Nuts”) and obviously mapped out the 12 segments (each of which featured two hands, I believe) fairly rigidly.

I did notice a conspicuous lack of Norman Chad humor in the early going, though he made a pretty good comeback there at the very end during the heads up segment, e.g., that reference to the venue -- the Penn & Teller Theater there in the Rio -- and eventual champ Peter Eastgate’s inscrutable muteness: “You know, if Teller ever retires, it could be Penn & Eastgate.” Not such a bad line, eh?

Was most fascinated by that early hand (Hand No. 18) between Dennis Phillips and Ivan Demidov, of course, which I wrote a little bit about on Sunday.

To reconstruct it for you, Demidov had just taken the chip lead from Phillips, having about 22.4 million to Phillips’ 21.6 million when the hand began. (ESPN shows the totals slightly differently just before the hand -- Demidov with 24.06 million and Phillips 23.05 million -- but I think that might reflect the situation just after the earlier hand that Phillips lost to Ylon Schwartz.) Phillips limped from under the gun, and it folded around to Demidov who raised to 1.025 million from the button. Both blinds folded, then Phillips repopped it to 3.525 million. Demidov then four-bet to 8.225 million, and Phillips called. The flop came . Phillips bet 4.5 million into the 17-million or so pot, Demidov raised all in, and Phillips folded, having lost over half his stack on the hand.

Last night we learned definitively that Phillips had (a couple of overs to that flop, plus a gutshot), while Demidov had (a double belly-buster plus a backdoor flush draw).

I’d thought Demidov could have had a number a different hands there, having used position and perhaps a sense that he could push Phillips around as leverage. Was therefore not too surprised to see the ace-queen. I said on Sunday I thought Phillips might have had pocket kings. Barry Greenstein in his audio commentary sounded pretty certain that Phillips had Q-Q. But a number of people in the forums, as well as $mokkee and Haley (to whom I give all props), thought Big Slick was a more likely candidate.

Easy to judge from afar, but it looks like at least three errors here from Phillips -- the UTG limp, the call of the four-bet, and the timid lead on the flop. The broadcast last night confirmed the sense that Phillips seemed more than a little bit out of his comfort zone. Similarly did the choice of hands shown help give us the impression that the other amateur at the table, Darus Suharto, was out-of-step, too, especially when compared to Schwartz, Demidov, and Eastgate, all of whom seemed perfectly at ease.

Was not surprised to see the 105-hand heads up battled distilled to two hands, though both were certainly interesting (and important ones). As I mentioned earlier in the week, it is disappointing that we only get to watch less than 10% of the hands played at the final table, which by many accounts was one of the most interesting and well-played WSOP ME final tables ever.

A couple of other last impressions. The scene at the Penn & Teller Theater certainly looked impressive, with the raucous crowd (who weren’t that way the whole night, I know) and electric atmosphere. Neat stuff. Also, all nine of the players came off as especially good-natured and sportsmanlike. All of them seem naturally inclined toward being “good guys,” but I think the delay and all of the associated obligations might’ve made each even more attuned to the fact that they were being observed more closely as temporary “representatives” of poker. And they all did very well in that regard, as far as I can tell.

Like I said yesterday, I’m still no fan of the delay, but I do think we’ll see something similar again next year. I guess the good news here is that we have less time to wait for the start of the 2009 WSOP!