The Force

I remember the first three Star Wars films appearing in theaters. While those films appealed then (and still today) to a very wide audience, I was pretty much perfectly aged for them, given that all three were out by the time I was a freshman in high school.

I only dimly remember going to see each of the films in the theater. I know I liked them, but really in just the same generic way kids and preteens tend to like just about anything that is entertaining (and popular). My younger brother collected the action figures, I recall, and also had replicas of the Milleneum Falcon and some other fun stuff. I was more into sports and music and other things, though, and so never got caught up in any of that.

In fact, I can’t remember rewatching any of those original three films after having seen them in the theater, not even on television. Wait... I take that back. I helped cover the World Poker Tour Five Diamond Classic two years ago -- which just happens to be going on again right now -- and once B.J. Nemeth played The Empire Strikes Back on his iPad as a kind of ambient background for a late night game of open-face Chinese. Pretty sure that was the first time in three-plus decades I had seen it.

Perhaps it was college and grad school and marriage and other life stuff distracting me, but when the second set of Star Wars films began coming out in the late 1990s, I was actually a little surprised by how central the whole cultural phenomenon had seemingly become. Everyone was somehow interested in it, with nearly everyone expressing disappointment in The Phantom Menace, it seemed. (I never saw those films.)

Now with the franchise being revived once more this week with The Force Awakens, everyone is talking Star Wars again. And of course with the web and social media being what it is today, every available detail of the film’s production and marketing have already been chronicled and scrutizined endlessly as will shortly be happening with the film itself.

When considering the kind of “spell” the whole sucker seems to cast over so many, the title almost seems self-referential in a way, as though referring to the cultural “force” the franchise wields being revived once again.

Had a conversation with a buddy not long ago about it all. He was trying to convince me I needed to give myself over to the force -- or, rather, that I should sit down and watch all of the films and experience the kind of enjoyment and pleasure he and so many others have. I listened, but you can imagine how hard a task my friend had.

But then there are other things that exert a kind of force over me -- like poker, for instance -- for which it would be difficult to, well, force others to try.

Travel Report: Season XII WPT National: Canadian Spring Championship, Day 4 -- Canadian Comebacks

Was a good last day at the Playground Poker Club. Kind of a weird one, poker-wise, actually. The two short stacks entering the final table both survived double-ups within the first eight hands, then eventually outlasted everyone to make it to heads-up.

Then Jason Comtois won yet another double-up to take the lead away from John Paul Tabago, and eventually Comtois -- who began sixth out of six -- won the sucker. As he won, I recalled Comtois saying on Day 3 how he’d survived 10 all-ins that day alone and had never had an average stack for the entire tourney. That’s Comtois enjoying a raucous celebration with his friends after all was done, the pic again from Rob Gracie for the WPT.

The poker was bookended by a couple of meals, the first coming early on when I met my blogging colleague B.J. Nemeth, Chris Tessaro, and Kara Scott for crepes at a place called Bagel Expressions just a few minutes’ walk away from the hotel. Had the strawberry and banana crepes, along with a couple of cups of coffee, which along with the interesting conversation made for a good start to the day. Was a lot fun hanging and chatting about various poker-related topics with those three, and we also learned some details about Kara’s wedding coming up in May in Italy.

Play ran from noon until late afternoon, then once the last hand was dealt and all the loose ends were tied most of us repaired back to the Rail one last time (the restaurant/bar in the Playground), including Tony Dunst and Mike Sexton who came over once they’d completed the commentary they had been delivering on a half-hour delay.

I had a burger and a piece of cheesecake, then we hung around a bit longer while meals were finished. One player, Alexander Wong, stopped by to thank Dunst and Sexton for their kind words about his play on the commentary, and it was cool to hear them discuss some of his hands with him. A few other folks asked to have their pictures taken with Mike, who was obliging in every instance.

All in all a very fun week in snowy Montreal. Big thanks to the Playground Poker Club for being so helpful all week, and thanks as well to the WPT crew who were great fun to hang with again.

Looking forward now, though, to getting back to Vera and the farm and all of our four-legged friends.

Talking Generational Differences in the Great White North

Rapid-fire posting this morning as we are readying for an early start (11 a.m.) for this first of three Day 1 flights at the World Poker Tour National: Canadian Spring Championship in Kahnawake near Montreal. There is snow on the ground here and cold temps here for my return visit to the Great White North (after having come to Niagara Falls just a month ago).

Got in around dinner time last night and had a fun meal at a local steakhouse with Tony Dunst, WPT Event Coordinator Bennsey Johnson, and my blogging colleages for the week, B.J. Nemeth and Ryan Luchessi.

Among the many topics of conversation was an interesting discussion of the “internet generation” -- i.e., those who are young enough to have grown up in a world in which the internet was already the omnipresent cultural force it is today -- and how they differ from those who came before.

B.J. made an interesting analogy, I thought, when he pointed out how those of us who grew up pre-internet (like he and I did) often have to “translate” online phenomena into offline approximations in order to understand them, whereas the younger generation is already “fluent” and doesn’t have to make that extra step.

Online poker perhaps provides the most ready example, as Tony and his contemporaries all took to the game -- their introduction to poker -- without having to think of it as a “version” of live poker and thus needing to adapt strategies learned in that context when playing online.

I’d go on, but we are already here at the Playground Club and readying to go, and so I’ll stop here. Follow the updates over at the World Poker Tour site today to see how things go, eh?

Travel Report: Season XII WPT Doyle Brunson Five Diamond World Poker Classic, Day 4 -- Fantasyland & BrokeLivingJRB

Not a ton of time for scribbling today, so I’ll move through this update quickly. One reason why my time is short is because after play was done yesterday I joined B.J. and our friend Shancy for a couple of hours’ worth of open-face Chinese, during which many grins were had while I also made it to Fantasyland a couple of times.

Speaking of fantasies, the 59 who returned for yesterday’s Day 4 still entertaining dreams of winning this year’s World Poker Tour Doyle Brunson Five Diamond World Poker Classic and realizing a seven-figure score battled down to just 21, with Jean-Robert Bellande building a big stack to carry the lead into today’s penultimate day of play.

I’m remembering Bellande being especially short in the middle of Day 2 of the event, right around the time the re-entry period ended. He was definitely in shove-or-fold mode there for a while, but when they came back for the last level of that night he went on a rush, knocking out both Phil Hellmuth and Jen Tilly sitting next to him, to finish the day in good shape chip-wise. Then for the last two days he’s just kept on adding to his stack.

I agree with those who are entertained by Bellande and find him “good for poker” (as they say). I also dig his self-deprecating persona, especially when he retweets others’ digs at him (both seriously delivered and otherwise).

Jeremy Ausmus had an especially funny tweet yesterday (which @BrokeLivingJRB of course retweeted), in which he suggested there might be something wrong with the reporting regarding Bellande’s first-position status.

Lots of big names left among the final 21 in addition to Bellande, with Joe Serock, Dan O’Brien, Christian Harder, Will Failla, Dan Smith, Barry Hutter, and Steven Silverman among them. It’s been that kind of tourney. In fact, yesterday I went through and saw I knew by sight 40 of the 59 remaining at the start of the day, a very high percentage relatively speaking.

Also happening in the Bellagio poker room yesterday was the start of a non-WPT $100,000 event which quietly began playing out on a couple of tables in the center of the room. Ben Lamb, Joseph Cheong, Erik Seidel, Jason Koon, Ben Tollerene, Anthony Gregg, and Justin Bonomo were among the dozen or so entrants in that one.

At one point I overheard staff referring to one of the high rollers (one not listed above) and saying how he’d seen him play in a $100 tourney just a day or so ago. Reminded me a little of the story OhCaptain told me about a guy who’d busted from our $10K event showing up to play that night in an $80 tourney in which he took part. Those anecdotes illustrate how the game paradoxically is both all about money and has nothing to do with money (for some).

We’re thinking it might well be a long one today. Again, head over to the WPT site to see if JRB can maintain his frontrunner status today and perhaps make tomorrow’s six-handed final table.

Travel Report: Season XII WPT Doyle Brunson Five Diamond World Poker Classic, Day 3 -- Tight Fit

Down to 59 now in the World Poker Tour Doyle Brunson Five Diamond World Poker Classic, just 14 eliminations away from the money. There are three more days to go the six-day event, so today will probably see the field carved down to the low 20s or so, then on Tuesday they’ll play down to six and finish up on Wednesday.

I was talking yesterday about how the re-entry format and lengthy period for buying back in made the first day and much of the second kind of anticlimactic, likening it to a “regular season” and calling the period after re-entries end the “playoffs.”

I might have called that re-entry period the “preseason,” actually, with this interim between the re-entry period ending and the money bubble bursting being the regular season and play following the cashes starting being the playoffs. However we want to draw our analogies, things are getting increasingly more interesting with much more to report as the significance of individual hands grows incrementally as they go.

Nearly all 40 or so tables in the Bellagio poker room have been constantly filled for the past three days, initially with tourney players, then as the field finally got smaller (especially yesterday) with cash games filling in once the tourney no longer needed tables. Bobby’s Room -- the walled in inner room inside the poker room -- has had two or three tables going constantly, too, with Doyle Brunson (who didn’t play the tournament bearing his name), Eli Elezra, David Oppenheim, Kenny Tran, Huck Seed, and several other familiar folks among those who have been sitting at the tables in there.

All of which means the poker room has been constantly packed with people, including players, media and the TV crew, poker room staff and Bellagio servers, and others filling every inch. Interestingly, though, I’m not really sensing anyone being that bothered by the crowded quarters, and I, too, have realized ideas of “personal space” kind of automatically adjust in such situations.

It’s like we’re all at a sold out, standing room only show or something, and while there isn’t much room to move around, all seem pretty glad to be there. The fact that everyone has been especially helpful and all seem to be working together well to keep things running smoothly has gone a long way in this regard, making it a fun tourney thus far to cover. Kind of an emblem of multi-table tournament poker, I guess, a huge field all doing what they can to try to fit into just a few seats at the end.

Non-tourney news from yesterday included me winning one NFL bet (the Bengals) and correctly resisting making a second one (on the Panthers). Also I’d had ideas during the day of perhaps joining B.J. Nemeth and Jess Welman to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey (which Jess had never seen) once the day was done, but decided to go for the extra couple of hours of sleep instead. (Here is an old post in which I wrote a bit about 2001: “My Mind Is Going... I Can Feel It....”)

Sounds like from the tweets B.J.’s attempts at making Jess appreciate the film’s achievement didn’t quite land, given Jess’ tweet afterwards (“Worst. Movie. Ever.”). I imagined a scene of conflict between the two resulting in the remote control being thrown up in the air, rotating end over end in slow motion like a bone or a space station. I also thought of B.J. responding to Jess’ dislike of the film in HAL’s voice…

“Look Jess, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.”

I think Jess will soon be explaining her response to 2001 on her blog, for which we can stay tuned. Meanwhile, as always, check back over at the WPT site for updates today from Day 4 of the WPT Five Diamond.

Travel Report: Season XII WPT Doyle Brunson Five Diamond World Poker Classic, Day 2 -- The Playoffs Begin

Another busy one at the Bellagio yesterday for Day 2 of the World Poker Tour Doyle Brunson Five Diamond World Poker Classic. They played five more 90-minute levels, with the field ultimately getting whittled down to 140 players by night’s end with Jeff Madsen leading everyone at the moment.

I’ve been mentioning how this $10,300 buy-in event features a “re-entry” format. That re-entry period lasted all of the way to the end of Level 8 yesterday, with no limits on the number of times players could enter.

Once we got into Level 9, B.J. Nemeth did some number crunching. Ultimately there were 449 total entries in the event, with 309 unique players. A little over two-thirds who participated bought in just once (216), while the rest entered anywhere from two times all of the way up to a couple buying in seven times.

At one point during the day I told B.J. and Ryan Luchessi (my blogging partners here) that until the re-entry period ended, the tourney felt a little like the regular season, with players jockeying for position but no one really being out of it quite yet, even if they bust. But once we got into Level 9 and players could no longer buy back in, it was as though the “playoffs” had begun.

Having re-entries and lots of players taking the option definitely affects the flow of a tournament from a reporting perspective, with lots of bustouts-that-are-not-really-bustouts creating a kind of ongoing sense of anticlimax. Thus it was almost relieving once players really were eliminated for good during the last two levels of the night yesterday, if only to provide a sense that we were finally moving forward with the tournament.

Of course, there are many other more relevant issues regarding re-entry tournaments and how they affect players that are being debated at present. WPT Executive Tour Director Matt Savage shared some thoughts about the re-entry tourneys not too long ago in an op-ed for PokerNews that begins with the question of whether or not it might be time to rethink having them.

Meanwhile, all this talk about entries makes me think of “entrees,” a word that for some reason I always want to type when I mean the former. And speaking of entrees, I am definitely eating well here.

Yesterday began with a big (and enjoyable) breakfast at the Cafe Bellagio with Jen Newell, Drizzdtj, and OhCaptain. Then it was back to the buffet once again following the end of play along with many of the remaining players. I think many tend to like these days of reasonable length (lasting around eight-and-a-half hours with breaks) with dinner coming at the end rather than in the middle.

Ended up making a quick trek via the tram over to Monte Carlo after dinner to visit a short while with Absinthetics and OhCaptain who were playing in a tourney there. Handy getting from here to there on the free tram. I took that pic up above on the way over during the brief period of being exposed to the windy, cold conditions here in Vegas at present.

Should be another interesting day, tourney-wise, as the “playoffs” are now in full swing with every elimination bringing us closer to a champion. Meanwhile I am gonna enjoy a little morning football right now before play begins. Check over at the WPT site for updates to see how things progress.

Travel Report: Season XII WPT Doyle Brunson Five Diamond World Poker Classic, Day 1 -- Crab Legs and Christmas Trees

Kind of a whirlwind day yesterday for the kickoff of the World Poker Tour Doyle Brunson Five Diamond World Poker Classic. They played through five 90-minute levels with short breaks between each and no stopping for dinner, which made the day go by quickly.

We got our dinner, though, hitting the Bellagio buffet afterwards where my blogging partner B.J. Nemeth loaded up on crab legs as he said he would be doing all day.

“Why should I get anything else?” asked Nemeth.

We were packed fairly tightly there in the Bellagio poker room, our workstation positioned right next to Bobby’s Room with nearly all of the 36 or so tables being filled at some point with tourney players. We were almost as crowded as those crab legs on B.J.’s plate!

With players busting and re-entering throughout the day there ended up being more than 320 entries all told, although I don’t know how many individual players were actually participating. Chances are we’ll see the total entries go up significantly today through the first three levels when re-entering remains an option. There will be some new faces, too, showing up to start their tourneys today. I know, for instance, that is Phil Hellmuth’s plan.

Found myself throughout the day having flashbacks to earlier visits to the Bellagio and its poker room, including some that came early on when I was just getting started with the blog. Among those visits was one instance when I interviewed Barry Greenstein, and we actually conducted the interview in Bobby’s Room while Phil Ivey, Doyle Brunson, Eli Elezra, and others played at the neighboring table.

Was a little starstruck then, I’ll admit, although having been around it all for so long now that feeling has gone away. I did recall it yesterday, though, especially when occasionally peering into Bobby’s Room where Doyle was there again all day along with a few more familiar faces.

Also was reminded of those days thanks to the visit of OhCaptain who got himself a media badge and shot some pictures. Was nice finally to meet him after all of these years blogging alongside one another, and I know he got a kick out of doing the photographer thing.

I’m not even sure Brunson plans to play in the tourney at all, as the games in Bobby’s Room have to be more attractive to him. He did take a break at one point yesterday, though, to go help light the Bellagio’s Christmas tree.

Meanwhile the field was full of familiar folks yesterday, with several well known (and accomplished) players seated around just about every table. The tourney should produce a talented final table, I imagine, and as we move into the next couple of days the play will become more interesting, too, especially after the re-entry period ends.

Gonna break it off here for now as I’m running to meet Jen Newell and Drizztdj, the latter another one of those whom I’ve known for years but never actually met face-to-face. Am grateful for the chance to connect with these folks thanks to the World Poker Blogger Tour having their big get together this weekend (with the WPBT tourney happening today).

Meanwhile you can check over at the WPT site later today to see how Day 2 plays out and who emerges as contenders in this week-long $10K event.

Travel Report: Season XII WPT bestbet Jacksonville Fall Poker Scramble, Day 4 -- Fast Finale

All done in Florida and now I’m back home after a quick, uneventful voyage back. Jared Jaffee took the World Poker Tour bestbet Jacksonville Fall Poker Scramble down without too much struggle yesterday after starting the final six-handed table with about a third of the chips in play.

Actually runner-up finisher Blake Purvis did manage to challege Jaffee briefly, even seizing the lead by less than a big blind to start heads-up play. But Jaffee won the first two hands between the pair to push back ahead, then whittled away for another hour before finally using -- our friend Poker Grump’s fave hand -- to crack Purvis’s pocket aces and secure the win.

It took 99 hands and just a few minutes under four hours for the final table to finish up. Many spoke of it being one of the fastest final days they could remember for a WPT final.

The length of levels were increased from 60 to 90 minutes after dinner on Day 2 and continued at 90 minutes through the long Day 3 when they played down from 26 to six. Then for the final table they reverted back to hour-long levels, then made it 30-minute levels when heads-up play began, all of which helped create conditions for that rapid finish.

I know back during the first few years of the WPT there was much talk about the structure not allowing for enough play at final tables. I’m remembering some changes being introduced around 2007 to slow things down at the end somewhat, then in 2009 another change was made to what I believe is this current format. A little too tired at the moment to look it all up. I’ll be at another WPT event in a couple of weeks (the Five Diamond at the Bellagio) and in fact will be working with longtime WPT reporter B.J. Nemeth at that one, so he can surely fill me in on the history of these structure changes.

Even if things got pushed along a little quickly at the end, Jaffee was certainly a worthy winner, breaking through to grab a WPT title after having made a couple of final tables and come up short before.

Now that I’m back I’m catching up a bit on the news, including the big story regarding New Jersey imminently joining the online poker game in the U.S. with licenses being approved and a “soft” launch of some sites happening tomorrow and the official start of things cranking up next week. Something else I’m going to have to read more about in the coming days. Gonna be very interesting to see WSOP.com, Ultimate Poker, and others getting up and running over here on the east coast.

For now, though, I’m going to try to grab some rest. Was a good time in Jacksonville working alongside friends old and new, and much thanks to the bestbet folks again for being so accommodating.

2013 WSOP, Day 22: Step Right Up

I was writing yesterday about playing a tournament downtown at the Golden Nugget, mentioning that momentary, minor feeling of trepidation I experienced sitting down to play a live event after not having done so for many months before.

Most years when I’ve come out to help report on the WSOP I felt something similar when stepping into the Rio that first day, especially early on. But I can’t really say I felt too much of that yesterday as I jumped in for my first full day of live blogging for PokerNews, helping out the team reporting on Event No. 32, the $5,000 NLHE 6-max. event.

I’ve mentioned to a few folks I’ve been reuniting with these last couple of days how it seems like the intervening months since the 2012 WSOP passed by more quickly than ever. Got to chat with both Jess Welman and Lukas Willems of the WSOP team yesterday and said as much to both of them, noting additionally how during this last year I’d been on a number of trips -- including several WSOP Circuit events -- which made coming out this year seem a little less momentous than in the past. Of course, both Jess and Lukas well knew what I’m describing, as they are both on the WSOP beat all year round.

So picking up with reporting on the second day the $5K 6-max. felt a little like stepping right back into something that hadn’t ever really ended for me. The PokerNews site had a redesign just before the start of the WSOP, and so there were a few small puzzles to solve yesterday to figure out how things were done. But none of it was too troubling, and I had both Jon and Mat to help me along the way, anyhow.

I’ve reported on this same $5K 6-max. event in the past, and it always proves to be one of the tougher events on the schedule, attracting both the toppermost tourney regs and the many online MTT and SNG grinders, too.

I remember well the 2009 WSOP when Matt Hawrilenko won this event, Josh Brikis took second, and Faraz Jaka third. There were 928 playing that year, with Hawrilenko earning over $1 million for first. The turnout slipped to 568 in 2010, though, and so for the past two years they’ve made it a $10K and drew fields of exactly 474 both times (with the winners each earning over $1 million).

Just 516 played the $5K 6-max. this year, meaning there’s a little over $600K up top for first. Of those 128 returned for yesterday’s Day 2, and 14 of them survived to night’s end, led by Jonathan Little, Allen Bari, and Vasile Buboi. Others still in the hunt include Ryan D’Angelo, Erick Lindgren, Andrew Robl, Jon Aguiar, and Lee Markholt.

There were tons of other notables among the eliminated and small-cashers yesterday. T.J. Cloutier was solidly in the mix right up until the money bubble, but he had a momentary slip-up to go out a few spots shy of the money. In his final hand, Cloutier four-bet jammed more than 60 big blinds with 8-7-suited and Mike Sowers was quick to call with his pair of kings.

“How’s that for ABC poker?” said Cloutier afterwards, as Jon reported. After losing the hand and during the counting down of chips, Cloutier expressed how he hadn’t realized Sowers had as much as he did and thus had him covered.

The table talk was generally engaging and fun for eavesdroppers. Lindgren was very chatty throughout the day and night, talking golf a lot with Craig Fishman near the end. Allen Bari could be heard occasionally sharing observations about life. Also Matt Glantz and Daniel Negreanu had a long, interesting conversation about the WSOP Player of the Year race and the inclusion of the WSOP Asia Pacific results.

Negreanu, of course, is at the center of that discussion currently as he leads the POY race thanks to his performance in Melbourne (including a Main Event win), with Tom Schneider’s second bracelet win this week putting him squarely behind Negreanu at the moment. Both Negreanu and Schneider are gunning for an unprecedented second WSOP POY title, by the way, with Negreanu having won in 2004 and Schneider in 2007.

The play was solid throughout, and obviously several steps up from what I experienced in my little tourney on Tuesday. There were a few situations like Cloutier’s bustout that perhaps appeared to ride that fine line between “move” and “mistake,” but as always I don’t think a person watching intermittent hands at a table can ever be wholly confident about such judgments.

It was a long day, and I suppose even after working a lot of events over the last several months I found myself dragging a bit as we crossed the 2 a.m. mark to work that 15th and final hour. Playing for 11 hours the day before probably didn’t help.

But it was a good day full of good poker. And some good eats, too, as B.J. Nemeth stepped up to make a dinner run to In-n-Out Burger for a bunch of us.

Will be back at the Rio today and the next several in a row, this time stepping over to join the coverage of Day 2 of the $3,000 pot-limit Omaha event in which 137 remain. Step over to the PokerNews live reporting page starting this afternoon to follow along.

For the Record: Keeping Score at the WSOP

Jessica Welman, besides now working as Managing Editor for WSOP.com, also keeps an engaging personal blog where she mostly writes about popular culture or comments on other issues of the day. However, every once in a while she uses that space to write about poker, such as a few days ago when she shared a nifty find she’d made in her capacity with the WSOP in a post titled “Lending History a Helping Hand-for-Hand.”

Jessica came across some online reporting from the WSOP conducted from 1995 to 2000 -- that, is dating back to pretty much the beginning of online anything -- and in her post describes what she found and what she likes about it.

Her post ultimately points back to the argument in favor of so-called “hand-for-hand” reports from final tables, something both she and B.J. Nemeth have long petitioned for and demonstrated in their reporting from World Poker Tour final tables. I’m talking about the practice of reporting every single hand from a final table, often numbering them, rather than only reporting most and/or significant hands while perhaps inserting other items of interest or relevance along the way.

Thus Jessica’s primary emphasis in her post is to argue that “it is time we stepped it up with hand-for-hand of every major final table” at WSOP events and other major tourneys. I want to address that argument, but first let me say a few things about that 1995-2000 coverage Jessica unearthed and in particular the examples of hand-for-hand reporting they contain.

Here is the page containing links to those 1995-2000 WSOPs. I know I’ve seen some of this before tucked away on the Conjelco site, although to be honest I hadn’t really explored it much and so like Jessica wasn’t previously aware of everything that was there.

By the way, for those seeking more early online reporting from the WSOP, the PokerPages site has reports going back to 2000. (There’s overlap, actually, with the same 2000 reports appearing on both sites.) CardPlayer has live updates from all events in 2005 and 2006. And from 2007 to present, PokerNews has handled the coverage as a primary content provider for the WSOP.

Among those reports from 1995-2000 one finds event summaries (including interviews and other goodies) written by Tom Sims, Andy Glazer, and Mike Paulle. Some of their reports from those final tables are quite thorough, and as Jessica points out these writers have left behind a great resource for anyone interested in studying the WSOP history during these pre-“boom” years. These guys were truly trailblazers.

One especially cool nugget highlighted by Jessica is a hand-for-hand account by Sims of the 1997 WSOP Main Event final table at which Stu Ungar won his third title. She also highlights another interesting item from that year’s WSOP Main Event, “The Andy Bloch Project” in which Sims and Bloch worked together to report all 648 hands Bloch played in that year’s ME.

Both reports are fascinating in their thoroughness. I think it’s probably safe to say nothing quite like it had been tried before -- not on such a scale, anyway -- and thus was Sims (and in the latter case, Sims and Bloch) challenged to establish both a methodology for keeping track of the info as well as devise a system for presenting it.

There to the left is a little snippet of Sims’s hand-for-hand reporting from the 1997 ME final table, with abbreviations indicating players, positions, and actions. As he himself explains in his “Post-Mortem” that appears as a sidebar to his reporting, he dictated hands into a microcassette recorder as they occurred, then transcribed it all to post online by the next day. (Jessica mentions in her post the poker player Melissa Hayden confirming this method adopted by Sims.)

Jessica praises Sims highly, and I can’t help but agree with her that he’s left something especially valuable in his report. Jessica calls Sims’s 1997 ME final table report “one of the most compelling, colorful, and thorough pieces of content” she’s ever read, and even goes so far as to suggest that between that report and “The Andy Bloch Project,” “his efforts... have more long-term value than any of the coverage generated at this year’s series.”

I’ll continue to agree with Jessica regarding Sims’s reports being “compelling” and “thorough.” And while the hand-for-hand stuff is not really that “colorful,” the “Daily Report” Sims filed to go as part of his 1997 ME final table reporting is indeed terrific, setting the stage nicely and really capturing the unusual scene at the only WSOP Main Event final table every to have been played outdoors (on Fremont Street, in front of Binion’s Horseshoe Casino).

I’m not going to go as far as Jessica and suggest the wealth of coverage from the 2012 WSOP somehow has less long-term value than Sims’s ’97 reports. I do think Jessica means more to praise Sims than denigrate more recent reporting efforts, and in fact her main point (as mentioned above) is really to advocate for hand-for-hand reporting from all WSOP final tables -- i.e., not just the Main Event -- so future readers and students of the WSOP can enjoy a record as thorough as the one Sims created 15 years ago.

In other words, I appreciate what she’s saying about the need for hand-for-hand coverage. From 2005-2006, CardPlayer occasionally provided hand-for-hand reports from WSOP final tables. PokerNews continued to try to do so from 2007-2008, and every once in a while in 2009. I was there with PN in ’08 and ’09, and so helped produce some of those reports and thus have had experience live blogging hand-for-hand. But from 2009 onward I believe the only hand-for-hand reporting from final tables that has been done at the WSOP happened at Main Events and the big buy-in events like the $50K Player’s Championship and the “Big One for One Drop.”

However, with regard to hand-for-hand reporting, let me point out a few issues Jessica doesn’t mention in her post.

She refers to the WPT’s reporting of final tables (which she helped with up until taking her position with the WSOP) and the standard set there for hand-for-hand reporting. “As a result,” notes Jessica, the WPT is “able to offer a wealth of statistical information that can only be estimated on other tours and at the WSOP.”

She’s right. It’s a little like having complete box scores for one league’s games, but only partially complete statistics for another. And like I say, I like the point she’s making about there needing to be more thorough “box scores” at the WSOP. As she notes, “these updates are the official record of these events and have a shelf life and utility that extends beyond the day of the final table,” and thus the more thorough the reports are, the more useful they can be.

Of course, the WPT’s final tables are exclusively no-limit hold’em, whereas at the WSOP many non-hold’em events present particular challenges when it comes to hand-for-hand reporting.

Pot-limit Omaha with pot-limit betting and two extra hole cards requires an extra bit of mental cogitation to chronicle hands at showdown. Stud games present more problems, with even more cards to keep up with, shifting betting order, and fixed-limit betting often speeding up the action. And of course, split-pot games add still more difficulty with multiple winning hands, split and quartered pots, and so on.

That’s not to say hand-for-hand coverage isn’t possible for non-hold’em events. But it is easier said than done. In fact, I’d suggest even an especially quick and talented reporter with a microcassette recorder (or today, an iPad) would find producing a complete hand-for-hand report from a Stud/8 final table an incredibly difficult task.

Speaking of Sims’s microcassette recorder, we might also point out that Sims didn’t “live blog” the 1997 WSOP Main Event final table, but rather filed a report the next day. Still a quick turnaround, but it’s probably worth noting that Sims didn’t face the same deadline -- i.e., right now -- that today’s live bloggers do.

Finally, I’d like to share some of what Tom Sims himself had to say about the innovative experiment of trying to report every hand from the 1997 WSOP Main Event final table. Interestingly, while he’s clearly proud of what he achieved with his report, he’s much less quick to praise his work and hold it up as a model of reporting than is Jessica.

Sims starts his “Post-Mortem” reflection on his reporting thusly: “The 1997 WSOP is now history, and while I am generally satisfied with my role in Conjelco’s coverage of this annual classic, I think I could have done better.”

The next paragraph then describes his process a little further while explaining why exactly he believed his reporting was somehow lacking.

As I have related previously, I was a reluctant participant, and it took numerous invitations by Chuck Weinstock before I relented and consented, much against my better judgment. I really didn’t need the hassle of what turned out to be an unrealistic commitment on my part. Also, as I now realize, I violated an old maxim of mine: I put the “em-PHAW-sis” on the wrong “syl-LABBLE”, by focusing on recording the play-by-play data and getting it on the net the next day. I only did the Daily Report narrative because of Chuck’s urging, had little time nor mind-frame to do it justice, and relied on the coded, hard to read, play-by-play data to provide most of the meat of my reportorial efforts. This was a big mistake. Making the play-by-play data a public record was my prime motivation, but I should have highlighted more of the color and important hands at the daily Final Tables, and done the tedious transcribing of play-by-play data at my leisure, after the WSOP. If I ever undertake another Poker reportorial [sic] assignment, I will skip the hand-by-hand data (I’ve made my contribution!), or do it on a “to follow at my leisure” basis, and devote a lot more time and effort to what’s going on.

Sims is much too hard on himself here, particularly with regard to his “Daily Report” which is quite engaging and highlights plenty of color (even if it doesn’t really talk about important hands). And despite what he says about abandoning the experiment, it appears he did provide one more hand-for-hand report for the 1998 WSOP Main Event final table as well.

Still, the reservations he expresses about hand-for-hand reporting are worth noting.

Interestingly, while he certainly believes that the “play-by-play data” he’s produced is valuable -- and with great prescience has an idea of a “public record” to which he’s contributing -- he laments that by producing the hand-for-hand report he’s largely missed out on being able to share the larger story of that year’s final table. Recognizing his own limitations as an individual reporter, he consciously chooses to forgo the hand-for-hand experiment going forward in favor of stepping back and being able to report “what’s going on.”

I present Sims’s own self-criticism as more food for thought to those who like Jessica would like to see future WSOP coverage model itself after what he accomplished.

One way of ensuring the creation of such a “box score”-like report from every WSOP final table would be for the WSOP to assign one person (or perhaps two for non-hold’em events) to do what Sims did and simply stand nearby and chronicle every hand -- not reporting it immediately like the live bloggers do, but taking the time afterwards to reassemble the notes into a readable format.

Of course, PokerNews (or another media outlet) could assign reporters to perform this task. And not to speak for PN, but I’d imagine they’d happily do so if the WSOP insisted that was the kind of coverage they required from them as part of their arrangement. But as Sims himself points out, producing such “play-by-play data” necessarily means the reporter(s) engaged in doing so aren’t going to be able to do much else.

I’ll end the post here, having already run on much longer than intended. I haven’t even gotten into the larger debate between the relative “value” or “shelf life” of unembellished hand-for-hand reporting and more imaginative narratives about what happens at a poker tournament -- an argument that if taken far enough starts to resemble debates about the relative worth of scientific explanations of the world versus artistic responses to it.

Anyhow, as a “word guy,” you probably already suspect where I lean on that one. So I’ll stop here and invite you to share your own words about it all.

Hellmuth and the WSOP

Last week I published a post just as the WSOP Europe Main Event final table had reached a break and only four players remained. As we all know, Phil Hellmuth ultimately emerged as the winner at that table, topping a field of 420 players to earn another gold bracelet to go along with the 12 he’s won at the WSOP in Las Vegas over the last two-plus decades.

After Hellmuth’s win, Grange95 wrote a post titled “Hellmuth & the Hobgoblin” reminding us all of the “Should a WSOPE bracelet count?” debate that started when the WSOP Europe began in 2007. He even pointed to an item I’d written for Betfair Poker almost exactly two years ago in which I brought up the debate.

Both Phil Laak and Gus Hansen had just won bracelets at the 2010 WSOPE (the last in London), and perhaps as a result there had been a revival of discussions over whether or not the bracelets won in Europe were as valuable or coveted as the ones won in Las Vegas. I’m guessing we’ll start hearing similar debates -- though perhaps pursued less energetically -- when the first World Series of Poker Asia-Pacific (“WSOP APAC”) kicks off in April 2013.

In that Betfair item I mentioned Matt Savage (who served as a tourney director for the WSOP in the past) suggesting the WSOPE bracelets were “like a real bracelet” and WSOP VP Ty Stewart firing back that yes, indeed, they were.

The piece also quotes none other than Phil Hellmuth having discussed the issue just a few days before on a podcast, The Hardcore Poker Show (the 9/27/10 episode). There Hellmuth maintained that a WSOPE bracelet was “not the same thing” as a bracelet won in Las Vegas, even going so far as to say that “everybody knows it's not really a bracelet.”

When Hellmuth made that pronouncement a number of people quickly responded by saying as soon as he won a WSOPE event he’d be changing his tune. Such seems to be the case, and Grange95 has some fun in his post pointing out the irony of the Poker Brat’s situation.

There was a lot more reaction to Hellmuth’s win last week, almost all of it coming in the form of praise for his accomplishment in Cannes and expressions of awe at his having added yet another big win to a storied career. The €1,022,376 first prize (equal to about $1.32 million) represents his second-biggest score ever, only exceeded by his prize for finishing fourth in the “Big One for One Drop” where he won about twice that ($2,645,333).

If we count those WSOPE bracelets (and I think we all are at this point), Hellmuth extends his record total to 13, now three ahead of Doyle Brunson and Johnny Chan. And, of course, he’s the only player to win both the WSOP Main Event and the WSOPE Main Event.

Among the reactions to Hellmuth’s victory came a few voices bringing up another idea some have been floating pretty much since Hellmuth parted ways with UltimateBet at the end of 2010. In fact, it’s an idea some were talking about even before Hellmuth had officially cut ties with UB when he’d begun turning up at events during those last couple of months no longer sporting UB gear, something I wrote about in November 2010 in a post titled “Signs of the Times: Hellmuth & UB.”

The idea I’m referring to is the possibility of Hellmuth signing with the WSOP itself as a sponsor. Speculation about such usually has been linked to further conjecture about the WSOP getting seriously involved with online poker, perhaps even in the U.S. (should legislation and other factors align properly).

Somewhat ahead of the curve, B.J. Nemeth briefly sketched out this scenario in a post back in November 2010. The announcement that Hellmuth was no longer to represent UB then came on December 30, 2010. Black Friday arrived a few months later, after which the whole discussion of site sponsorships quickly receded to the background.

Like I say, though, the thought of Hellmuth becoming some sort of spokesperson for the WSOP hasn’t gone away, as evidenced by a few people articulating it once again in the wake of his WSOP Europe Main Event win.

Of course, the whole idea of the WSOP ever wanting or needing a spokesperson might well be a bunch of applesauce. (Indeed, I’d be one to favor not having such a figure at all, at least not among active players.) But if we were going to speculate about the selection of a spokesperson, would Hellmuth be a candidate?

He’s won the most bracelets, he’s made the most final tables, and he has the most cashes. Whenever one goes to search players in the WSOP database, his name is the first listed, right at the tippy-top. He’s obviously one of only a handful of players non-poker people sometimes recognize as a “poker pro” (as currently understood). And he’s known not just stateside but around the world for his accomplishments at the poker table.

If it ever does come to pass that the WSOP is looking for someone to represent them as a kind of spokesperson, then, wouldn’t Hellmuth be a reasonable choice?

I say no way. A couple of reasons spring to mind.

For one, his long-term association with the UB/Cereus crowd, including continuing to promote the site and essentially turn a blind eye while insider cheating scandals rocked the poker community, should make him much less attractive as a potential spokesperson.

In that “Signs of the Times” post from a couple of years ago I noted how “the UB patch has become a unique symbol. It yields various interpretations, but for many it evokes certain, specific themes, including greed, fraud, self-interest, and other negative and/or detrimental associations for poker.” I also noted how Hellmuth’s long-time connection with UB meant that even if he were to stop wearing the logo he’d still always be linked to the site and all of the destructive influence it brought upon the poker community. He “always will be... UB.”

That said, some will argue that since Hellmuth hasn’t been linked to any of the cheating scandals directly, we shouldn’t hold his UB past against him. In other words, that we should overlook his overlooking the scandals.

Even so, the WSOP could do much, much better than to hire the world’s whiniest winner and poker’s poorest sport. (That photo up top of Hellmuth in the fetal position is from the 2010 WPT Bay 101 Shooting Stars event, taken just after his being eliminating in sixth.)

There’s not much need to catalogue all of the many examples of the Poker Brat’s being bratty, although for a few recent additions to the list check out Jen Newell’s “Table Talk” column (for Poker.co.uk) in which she describes some of Hellmuth’s bad behavior at the WSOPE final table.

“Congrats to the best tournament poker player that ever lived!! Phil Fking Hellmuth” tweeted Doyle Brunson (@TexDolly) a short while before the WSOPE Main Event concluded. Like others, I couldn’t help but react similarly to Hellmuth’s win and acknowledge a remarkable sequence of performances at the WSOP and now the WSOPE.

But as far as electing Hellmuth spokesperson for the WSOP/Harrah’s is concerned, I can think of hundreds of candidates for whom I’d rather vote.

2012 WSOP, Day 50: Racing to the End

It has come fast. The last day of the 2012 World Series of Poker -- save the Main Event final table, to play out in late October -- has arrived.

Yesterday’s Day 6 was a marathon, made both longer and more challenging by the many breaks taken throughout the day and night.

I mentioned yesterday how this year ESPN essentially has five “feature” tables around which they can shoot -- the main one in the “mothership” arena, a secondary one to the side, and three more over in what used to be called the “Blue” section but last night was dubbed “Gold.” Those pictures were from when they had gotten down to four tables, with the main, the secondary, and the two on the side.

They played down from 97 to 27 players yesterday, which meant in addition to those five tables there were six more “outer” tables set up to begin play, but gradually as players busted those were broken, the remaining players reseated, and the tables literally broken down and taken out of the Amazon room.

The various areas are quite far apart, actually, which was one reason why extra breaks would come up in order to give players time to find their new locations. They’d occasionally switch entire tables sometimes, too, in order to make one or another “featured,” and that do led to the extra 10-minute pauses in the action.

So it was a long one. All in all, it would take until after 2 a.m. (five two-hour levels plus part of a sixth) to eliminate 70 players and establish today’s final three tables. (I should mention the ESPN folks have been great to work alongside, and we’ve had many occasions to help one another out while making space for each other, too.)

The knockouts came quickly at the start, though the pace would slow down as the day wore on. There was some minor buzz about all of the “big names” getting knocked out on Day 6, including Gavin Smith, Vanessa Selbst, Jason Somerville, David “ODB” Baker, and 2011 November Niner Sam Holden. At the dinner break I joked on Twitter that there were still big names left, including Martinezalonso, Israelashvili, and Gwennael Grandmougin. Typing those made me think of players from past WSOPs such as Manoj Viswanathan and Meenakshi Subramaniam.

There will be plenty of intrigue today among the final 27, led currently by Marc Ladouceur who finished 63rd in the Main Event just last year. Also of note is the fact that two women still remain as well, Gaelle Baumann and Elisabeth Hille, with Hille currently fifth in the counts. I will have to look it up to be sure, but I think 2000 might be the last year two women made the final 27 when Annie Duke finished 10th and Kathy Liebert 17th.

Today may take a while, with the average stack still deep at a little over 61 big blinds, and only four players returning to less than 30 BBs. Who knows, though? I’m remembering 2009 when everyone was sure the 27-to-9 day would be lasting until dawn and they ended up racing to the end by 9 p.m.

Speaking of racing, I’d be remiss not to mention the late night chair racing competition that came after all was done last night in which Remko, Rich, B.J., and Ali Nejad invented a competition and executed it in the most hilarious fashion imaginable.

The contest required participants to run with a dealer’s chair, gathering momentum and then jumping on it at a certain point to see how far they could ride afterwards. Kind of like bobsledding, although the ultimate goal was distance, not speed.

The order and results could not have been funnier.

First the sight of Remko, literally a flying Dutchman, establishing the mark to beat.

Then Rich, despite his best efforts coming up short of Remko’s mark.

Then B.J., who looked for all the world as though he was about to cruise past Remko when he leaned too far and fell forward, crashing to the sound of laughter all around.

And finally Ali, there to shoot the last of his ESPN video reports for the WSOP, providing his own commentary then expertly gliding past Remko to victory.

We were still laughing as we left, racing back to get a few hours rest before today’s Day 7. Like I say, today may take a while. But I’m guessing no matter how long it takes it’ll seem like we’re flying.

(EDIT [added 7/23/12]: "The Great WSOP Media Chair Race" on YouTube.)

2012 WSOP, Day 30: Attempts at Time Travel at the WSOP

I’m not a huge science fiction fan, although I have a few favorite authors and novels. In grad school once I had the opportunity to help teach a history of SF class, and so became acquainted with some of the periods and subgenres like the early adventure/pulp stuff and the “space westerns,” “hard” and “soft” SF, alternate history SF, the variety focusing on satire/social commentary, cyberpunk, and so on.

Time travel stories represent another category of SF that always intrigued me, especially those stories that used the conceit of traveling through time to explore ideas about what might be natural to us as humans and what is learned behavior or thinking. You know, stories that use time travel to show how particular cultures shape us into being and acting a certain way, with the move to the past or future forcing characters to question assumptions about themselves or each other. (See Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.)

You could say any attempt to write factually about something that has happened in the past is a little like traveling through time. Even writing up a hand report at a poker tournament involves imagining for a moment what you experienced a few minutes before.

In that case there are usually certain tangible facts that overwhelm the story and its significance, namely, the cards that were dealt, the bets that were made, and the ultimate impact of the hand on the tournament as a whole. Other elements might be worth including, too, as part of the effort to give a reader a sense of what it was like to have been there, standing nearby, watching what happened. But at the heart of it is an attempt to go back, to relive.

Last night I was helping cover Event No. 44, a $1,000 no-limit hold’em event in one corner of the Amazon. Meanwhile, across the spacious ballroom on the other side of the science-fiction-y “mothership,” there arose a complicated situation in Event No. 45, the $50,000 Poker Players Championship, surrounding a controversial pot-limit Omaha hand primarily involving Nikolai Yakovenko, Shaun Deeb, and Abe Mosseri. You’ve probably already heard something about this one, which came up last night right at the end of Day 2 of that five-day event.

Donnie Peters wrote up a detailed report of what happened (in two parts) for the PokerNews blog. In the first part, Donnie explains the complicated preflop betting that saw four players limp in, the small blind complete, then the big blind raise and the first three limpers call. Deeb then reraised with the rest of his chips from the button -- he had less than the amount needed to make a pot-sized raise, so he was all in. It folded to Yakovenko in the big blind who reraised over the top of Deeb’s raise, and only Mosseri called (after an especially long time in the tank).

The hands were tabled and the community cards dealt with Deeb winning the main pot and Mosseri the side pot. Then arose the real controversy over Yakovenko’s reraise over Deeb’s raise. According to Donnie, he’d said he was “all in” although he could only reraise the size of the pot. Which suggests he wasn’t really all in. And which also suggests Mosseri’s call wasn’t for all of his chips either (Yakovenko had Mosseri covered by a little), but for just whatever amounted to a pot-sized reraise. This despite the fact the players had played the hand as if it were an all-in shove and call.

At issue, then, was the side pot and how much Yakovenko really owed Mosseri after the hand. But the floor came over and apparently initially ruled that since Mosseri had only technically called a pot-sized reraise preflop, there should have been a betting round after the flop (there hadn’t been -- the five community cards were dealt out without any chances for post-flop betting), and thus “the turn and river would have to be rerun as the flop action hadn't been complete,” as Donnie reports.

In other words, it appeared as though they were going to try to go back in time (so to speak) to deal the turn and river anew, this time giving Yakovenko and Mosseri an opportunity to bet, raise, or fold. Such a ruling also meant Deeb was no longer safe. He’d survived the hand by flopping a set of jacks, then rivering a flush to beat Mosseri’s A-A-x-x and Yakovenko’s K-K-x-x. (I like how PN photographer Joe Giron used the fish-eye on that pic, adding a bit further to the weirdness of it all.)

See Donnie’s post for all of the specifics. He uses that initial ruling -- and Deeb’s understandably incredulous response -- as a cliffhanger moment, then comes back with the second part of the story in which the ruling gets overturned. There would be no redealing of the turn and river, after all. Also, Yakovenko was made to pay off Mosseri as though it had been an all-in situation even though Yakovenko couldn’t have raised all in, because that was essentially how the players had played the hand. (Sounds like a correct ruling.)

By the way, B.J. Nemeth additionally reported the hand for PokerListings. And both Donnie and B.J. did especially well, I thought, relating what happened clearly and thoroughly.

The controversy then continued when Yakovenko (crippled in the big hand) busted shortly thereafter and Phil Ivey was moved to the table to fill the empty seat. Because Mosseri had tanked for so long (possibly as much as 15 minutes, according to Donnie) and the subsequent efforts to get a ruling on the hand took a lot more time, players were unhappy they’d missed most of the last level of the night while other tables played on.

They’d already reached the point where it had been announced the clock would be stopped and only four more hands would be played. That’s when the table apparently proposed playing the last four hands of the night with Ivey, then have Ivey leave the table and allow them to play 15-20 more minutes to make up for hands lost before.

Ali Eslami explained it all to Donnie, using what I consider the line of the night to explain the players’ thinking. It would be like "going back in time to fill the space," Eslami told Donnie. The floor wasn’t going for that, though, and after four hands with Ivey the day was done.

Love that line. Probably a very good thing they weren’t allowed to go back in time to fill the space. All of us in the Amazon Room might have gotten swept up into a black hole or something, jettisoned out into a different dimension entirely.

Man, it would’ve taken forever to get a decent ruling if something like that had happened.

In the end, then, there were a couple of moments in the story where people had seriously entertained the idea of “going back in time” to redo things. In the first, the floor actually ruled they’d be redealing a turn and river in the big hand, then changed their minds. In the second, it was the players coming up with the idea of going back and reliving a section of Level 10, but that plan didn’t materialize either.

Not that you really can go back in time. Not really. Still, the desire to do so more or less possesses us so frequently. Happens constantly in poker tournaments. And in poker tournament reporting, too.

Probably says something about human nature, this desire we have always to go back and “get it right” or at least do things differently.

But no, the present is where we must remain, spending much of our time thinking about what has happened. And what might have been.

Republican Candidates’ Cards on the Table

Happened to catch that debate of the Republican presidential candidates last night on CNN. Seems like they’ve had about 10 of these suckers already.

Last night’s debate, dubbed the “Western Republican Leadership Conference (WRLC)/CNN Debate,” was held in Las Vegas at the Venetian, and thus it wasn’t surprising to see the opening montage search the setting for metaphors to introduce the show.

Check out the first couple of minutes:



Was kind of uncanny, actually, to switch over there and during that opening sequence hear all of those echoes from my “Poker in American Film and Culture” class.

We’ve spent much of the first half of the semester learning about the history of poker -- and American history, too. Thus we have discussed at length how the game spread westward, kind of absorbing and illustrating all of those “American frontier” themes that the country’s expansion out west in the 19th century often evokes. And we’ve also talked some about the many U.S. presidents who were poker players, and how some have argued the game actually offers a genuinely meaningful proving ground for would-be leaders.

In fact, media/political commentator Jeff Greenfield made that latter point after last week’s debate in which the candidates actually sat around a circular table. “Next time, have the moderator deal cards,” said Greenfield “Then watch them play a few hands of poker. (Not Texas Hold ’Em—unfair advantage to Texas Gov. Rick Perry.) Few better measurements of shrewdness and temperament than how someone plays cards.”

I missed Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” making a similar poker reference in his breakdown of last week’s GOP debate, but B.J. Nemeth told me on Twitter last night how Stewart had said it looked like “the world’s most boring poker game.” (That pic is from that 10/11/11 debate; last night they were at podiums again.)

In that opening montage last night, there were initial references to the western U.S. as “the American frontier” and how the west represented “a historic land of opportunity.” Then came the Vegas-related references, “a city where dreams are made... and crushed.”

There was the Stratosphere and the “Welcome to Vegas” sign and a roulette wheel providing predictable imagery. Then, when the seven candidates were introduced, we saw cards and chips and what looked like a poker table.

The narration referred to a “dramatic reshuffling of the pack” pushing Herman Cain up among the “leaders of the pack” with Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Meanwhile Newt Gingrinch, Ron Paul, and Michele Bachmann were characterized as “wild cards,” while Rick Santorum was “eager to beat the odds.”

The candidates’ faces appeared on the cards themselves. When I noted on Twitter that the debate was being introduced via poker metaphors, Oskar Garcia who covers gambling/Vegas for the Associated Press responded to say the imagery also evoked other gambling games such as blackjack or baccarat. A good point, but I’d bet those compiling the little sequence (and most viewers) were probably thinking poker.

Poker actually was evoked by the candidates themselves at an earlier debate during an exchange between Romney and Perry. When the subject of Texas’ relative growth during Perry’s tenure as governor came up at that debate, Romney suggested Perry had been dealt a good hand, so to speak, and thus had succeeded more because of luck than skill.

“If you’re dealt four aces, that doesn’t make you necessarily a great poker player,” said Romney of Perry. I wrote about that exchange in one of my “Community Cards” columns over on the Epic Poker blog, if you’re interested to read more.

So we keep hearing about poker at these debates, with the many references further proving the point of my class that poker is, in fact, an important part of American culture. But despite the hopes of some in our little poker community, the game itself -- particularly the topic of possibly legislating online poker -- isn’t really being discussed.

No, poker itself isn’t being addressed, although the game keeps providing metaphors and symbols that others -- and even the candidates themselves -- are using to try to distinguish them from one another.

That said, they all mostly still seem like a pack of cards.

2011 WSOP, Day 49: In the Thick of It

I woke up this morning and for two solid minutes had no clue where I was. Could not have been more disoriented. A month in the desert will do that to a person, I guess.

Or maybe it was that crazy day yesterday.

Was a somewhat stressful day for your humble scribbler, actually, thanks to a laptop surprisingly failing me at the very start of Day 7 of the World Series of Poker Main Event. I was able to work on others’ computers during the day, the extra mental energy needed to negotiate unfamiliar keyboards and tracking pads making the whole day like running with weights or something. But all worked out.

During the dinner break, B.J. Nemeth generously shepherded me to a couple of different Apple stores here in Vegas, and I ended up leaving my MacBook Air at one. They called later in the night to tell me whatever had been ailing my laptop had been cured, and this morning I was able to get back over there, grab the sucker, and get back over to the Rio today in time for today’s Day 8.

Eliminations happened at a rapid clip yesterday. They went from 57 to 22 in five 120-minute levels, meaning an average of seven knockouts per level. There was a lot of what seemed to be crazy shipping of chips going on with less-than-premium hands (not unusual), although there were a number of “cooler”-type situations that helped move things along, too.

Kind of exciting, I have to admit, once the redraw for the final three tables was taking place. Fun to be in the thick of it, with all of the madness swirling about as players, staff, and spectators were relocating, readying for play to resume. I snapped photos of all three as they were readying to resume. That’s the main feature table up above, followed by the secondary feature table (left) and the lone outer table (below).

I’ve been lucky enough to be at the Main Event at this point in the proceedings a few times now, and while there’s a lot about the tournament that becomes less than riveting the more times you see it, this moment when they reach the last 27 continues to provide some thrills.

The payouts jump up above $300,000, reason enough to get keyed up. And all of those left, even the shortest stacks, know the November Nine is possible.

Thanks to dealing with those laptop troubles -- and those extra couple of minutes I wasted this morning figuring out where I am -- I have to cut it short today.

Check over at PokerNews’ live reporting to see who makes it through to the final nine, and also check out ESPN2 (if you can) for sorta-live coverage as well.

The Order of the Flop

This might be about as arcane as it gets when it comes to poker tournament reporting, but I’m going to write about it anyway. One of those quirky little “issues” that sometimes come up among those who have done this sort of thing over and over and over again. Definitely not as important as other, more pressing issues, like, say, those involving journalistic integrity (such as Jon Katkin wrote about on Pokerati over the weekend). But kinda sorta interesting not only to those who write about poker tournaments, but to those who read such reports, too.

And maybe kinda sorta related to those larger, more meaningful concerns, too. Let me explain.

The “issue” -- I’m going to keep using the scare quotes -- is whether or not in games that have community cards to report the flop as it comes or to reorder the cards from high to low. E.g., if the flop comes (as in the above pic from a past WSOP), is it better to write out the cards in the order they land on the table or should the flop be reported as ?

Whenever this debate arises among poker reporters -- as it did over Twitter last night a little bit -- I can’t help but think of the fight between the “Big-Endians” and “Little-Endians” in Jonathan Swift’s Gullivers Travels.

You remember, the factions Gulliver encounters in the land of Lilliput, with one group insisting upon first breaking eggs on the big end and the other adamant about breaking them on the small end? War erupts between Lilliput and nearby Blefuscu over the matter, and thousands die as a result.

Talk about a hard-boiled story! (Rim shot.)

B.J. Nemeth is a lead proponent of ordering the flop. As he explained on Twitter last night, not only does he always reorder the three cards from high to low, when there are paired cards he likes to order them by suits, too. Says Nemeth, “Personally, when the cards are the same (2 or 3 kings, for example), I list them alphabetically by suits. c-d-h-s,” adding “I don't consider that to be required, but I like consistency. And I can always identify my own updates years later.”

“Orderers” such as Nemeth champion resetting the flop because they believe it increases readability. In a sense, they are doing for the reader the small amount of mental work each player must do when he or she looks at the flop. The further ordering of suits on paired boards is perhaps a little idiosyncratic, but as Nemeth says he doesn’t “require” that of himself. (Or others?)

“Non-Orderers,” meanwhile, will report the cards as they appear on the table, as is. “The flop is the flop,” is how Paul Oresteen put it last night on Twitter, defending the decision not to reorder the cards when reporting. (It should be added that we are speaking here of the flop only; obviously it is vital to report the flop, then the turn, then the river in correct sequence!)

Like I said, a big part of me wants to dismiss this whole debate like a bunch of discarded eggshells. But B.J.’s comment about being able to “identify [his] own updates years later” got me thinking that perhaps there is something meaningful here, something that actually suggests this “issue” is of at least some relevance, if in an indirect way.

Like Paul, I’m a “Non-Orderer.” I write the flop as it comes. It’s part of my mindset as a reporter, as someone who is not allowed to alter the facts when reporting. I understand the “readability” argument just fine, but I can also imagine taking that idea further to justify other alterations and embellishments when reporting. I’m with Paul -- the flop is the flop. And the turn is the turn and the river is the river. Those elements of the hand -- like the bets and other happenings relevant to the way the hand plays out -- I don’t change.

However, I do allow myself the freedom to engage my readers when telling the story of the hand by the introduction of other, contextual matters that heighten interest, as well as by turns of phrase and other examples of what might (immodestly) be called “creativity” that serve to make the report more interesting. Or, to put it differently, to increase readability. And that stuff I’ll order in whatever way seems most appropriate. Additionally, that introduction of personal style is also how I might “identify my own updates years later” (if there weren’t a name attached to the hand report, that is).

That said, as someone who respects and appreciates others’ styles and approaches, I’ve nothing but love for the Orderers. And thankfully, I don’t think any of those with opinions about ordering flops is invested heavily enough in the “issue” to take up arms over it.

Although now that I think about it, I know B.J. always carries that titanium spork in his bag.

Inside Jokes

Am still a little ways off from heading Vegas-ward. About a week-and-a-half before I leave, after which point I’ll be there until the end helping cover this summer’s WSOP for PokerNews. Part of me feels like I should be there already, but I’m also very much enjoying getting to spend some extra time with family before heading out.

Have been continuing to follow the live reporting and streaming as well as the many articles, posts, podcasts, tweets, and other messages being sent from the Rio to the rest of the world. More than ever, the internet helps those of us who aren’t there at the WSOP keep up with what is happening both at the tables and elsewhere.

Of course, there’s no substitute for being there, really. I was reminded of that yesterday when I started seeing retweets from a new Twitter account -- @RedBullRobbie. The likely-fake-but-who-really-cares account purportedly represents the wit and wisdom of Robbie Thompson, the tourney director/announcer. That’s Robbie pictured above, presiding over Event No. 2, the $25,000 Heads-Up No-Limit Hold’em Championship.

Anyone who’s been around a WSOP final table over the last few years is familiar with Robbie, who among other things is known for his appetite for seemingly endless quantities of Red Bull. Speaking of, I remember vividly an experience from a final table last summer in which I became even more familiar with Robbie’s beverage of choice. And when I say familiar I mean I was wearing it. (Read more here.)

I remember going in to help cover a final table one other time last year, and Robbie was there. “How’s life, Robbie?” I greeted him. “Good,” he replied, then paused a beat. “I lie sometimes.”

I’m remembering another occasion when I went to cover that EPT event in Kyiv, Ukraine and Robbie was there directing the tourney. When I saw him, I immediately went over and said hello.

“Hey, I have a question,” I continued. “Shoot,” he replied. “I came 5,000 miles to ask this. Is flash photography allowed anywhere inside the Amazon Room?” “Why I oughta...” he answered with a grin, walking away.

The answer is no, of course. As Robbie has explained about a hundred thousand times to those watching final tables at the Rio.

Anyhow, whoever is sending tweets from @RedBullRobbie is doing a good job conveying his personality, and those of us familiar with him are enjoying it. I responded once yesterday, and B.J. Nemeth pointed out that it was likely the account wasn’t really Robbie. To which I answered “Keep us informed. If fake, we can toss it away, send it back, give it up, release...”

It was an inside joke, there, referencing the many colorful ways Robbie describes players folding their hands. Am guessing perhaps 3% of my followers caught the allusion. I remember in years past making up further, exaggerated variations on Robbie’s call of players folding around to the blinds.

“Jeff mucks, Antonio says no thank you, Phil asks for a refund, David returns it for insufficient postage, Oscar wants to speak to the manager...”

While I’m definitely enjoying my time at home, I look forward to heading back out, getting inside the Rio, and seeing Robbie and all of the other familiar faces once again.

Meanwhile, check in on those final table live streams at WSOP.com where you might very well catch a glimpse of Robbie circling the table and calling the action.

Bang!