Tuning In: A Few Recent Poker Podcasts

Was doing some work in the barn today and listened to a few poker podcasts while I did.

I first went back about a month to hear Bill Chen’s segment on Episode 371 of the Two Plus Two Pokercast. Chen’s always an interesting one to listen to -- very relatable for me, not because of the depth of his analytical thinking, but for the place of poker in his life as something very important but not all-consuming.

Then I checked out the latest PokerNews podcast -- Episode 326 -- which started with some discussion from Donnie and Rich about the recently completed PokerStars Pro Tour in California and then featured a enjoyable conversation with WSOP National Championship winner Loni Harwood. All interesting and fun and a good quick catch-up on recent events in poker.

Finally I dialed up a podcast I hadn’t tuned into for a while -- Ante Up! -- which just last month made it a full decade’s worth of podcasting. I used to listen to these guys -- Chris Cosenza and Scott Long -- constantly back when they first started out and wrote about their shows here fairly frequently, too. Tuning in again, I had to grin at how much the show had remained the same with the familiar mix of personal anecdotes about their own play, a run-through of news items, and some strategy talk.

They aren’t numbering their shows, but 10-plus years’ worth of weekly podcasts must add up to well over 500 by this point. Kind of brings to mind the story of this blog (into its 10th year now) which I know by this point readers sometimes drift away from and then return occasionally, perhaps surprised to see things still chugging along as usual.

The episode I grabbed was from a couple of weeks back, the one in which they discussed Matt Savage’s recent Facebook poll and discussion inviting players to weigh in about what they thought constituted an excellent tournament structure -- the 7/30/15 episode.

If you didn’t follow that whole discussion from Savage, the Ante Up! show is a good way to catch up with its particulars. (Indeed, as one of the few not on Facebook, I’ll admit I didn’t quite follow the entire structure discussion.) They get into it about the 12-minute mark and the discussion lasts about 15 minutes.

By the way, according to those responding to Savage’s poll, the most-important to least-important factors when it comes to creating an excellent structure were determined to be (1) time; (2) levels; (3) player ability; and (4) chips, or starting stack.

Savage agreed that of these four, the number of chips in the starting stack should be considered the least important -- since the length of levels and schedule of blinds/antes increases can obviously make a “deep” stack less deep, relatively speaking. Meanwhile, Savage agreed with the importance of having well measured levels (e.g., not skipping steps along the way), and that the length of levels does in fact have a lot to do with how great and/or appropriate a structure is.

Gonna have to get Ante Up! back into the regular rotation here. Have always enjoyed the way Chris and Scott approach all things poker, representing as they do the perspective of the great majority of us -- i.e., non-pros who greatly enjoy playing the game and following the stories surrounding it (including the stories involving those who are pros).

2013 WSOP, Day 36: Breaking a Hand

I suppose like just about everyone who learned how to play poker from the early 19th century up through around 2003, I was first introduced to it as draw poker. That is, as a game in which you were dealt five cards, you gave some back and got more, and you tried to build a poker hand right there in your hand. Etymologically speaking, that is of course where that term came from -- a poker hand, with five cards (like five fingers).

Meanwhile those who first learned the game over the past decade -- i.e., after ESPN showed Chris Moneymaker winning $2.5 million at the World Series of Poker -- likely began with Texas hold’em, with one’s hand being built from the two cards one held face down and the five sitting face up in the middle.

It was five-card draw, of course, that I was playing as a kid, in which one tries to make high hands. I didn’t really get introduced to lowball games until much later. So I didn’t play deuce-to-seven triple draw -- the game I was watching people play last night as I helped cover Event No. 59 ($2,500 Limit 2-7 Triple Draw Lowball) -- until much later, and even then only occasionally.

As a tourney reporter, I’ve only encountered non-hold’em games at the World Series of Poker. That’s the only place where I’ve reported on Omaha, stud games, draw, and so on. Before going in last night I was remembering having covered the 2-7 Triple Draw event way back in 2008, my first year at the WSOP. I also covered David “Bakes” Baker’s first bracelet win in 2010 in the 2-7 NL Draw event, and have reported on a few different mixed-game events which have included either 2-7 TD or 2-7 NL (with a single draw), and occasionally both such as in the 10-game event last week.

Last night saw a starting field of 282 whittled down to just 88, with most of the eliminations coming during the second half of the day. One who busted was Bill Chen, and it was his elimination hand that got me thinking about (1) a hand of triple draw I’d reported on back in 2009 and (2) that unique occurrence in triple draw of a player “breaking” his or her hand.

With the hand last night I’d missed the first draw, but as I passed by I saw it was a three-way hand and Chen was nearly all in, and so I stopped to take note of what happened next. Chen ended up nearly out of chips after standing pat on the second draw while both of his opponents -- Mike Leah and David “Bakes” Baker -- drew one card. Then came the third draw, and when Chen saw Leah stand pat (while Baker drew one again), he decided to break his hand and draw one card in the hopes of improving.

As it turned out, Chen made the right decision to break his hand, although he was all but doomed, anyway, as Leah had already made a “number one” or the nuts -- 7-5-4-3-2. Chen said afterwards he “had an 8-7,” and in fact managed to draw to a better hand -- a “number three” (7-6-5-3-2) -- but it wasn’t good enough and he was eliminated.

The 2009 hand I recalled came from that year’s $2,500 “Mixed Event” (which is what they called the 8-game tourney then). It was the final day, and they were down to the last couple of tables. The game was 2-7 TD, and the hand involved Layne Flack, Eric Crain, and Jimmy Fricke. All three had drawn cards on the first round, then only Flack stood pat on the second. After that second draw Flack bet, Crain raised, Fricke folded, and Flack called. Then Flack watched as Crain stood pat on the third draw.

That sent Flack into the tank for a spell, and after much thought he finally decided to break his hand and draw one. As we discovered afterwards, he’d had 9-5-4-3-2 and had tossed the nine only to receive a jack and worsen his hand. Meanwhile, Crain also had 9-5-4-3-2, and Flack was obviously unhappy to see that his decision had cost him half the pot. Here’s that hand report, and here also is a HBP post titled “Intense” which discusses the hand.

I call breaking one’s hand unique both because it doesn’t come up that often in 2-7 triple draw -- it’s rare that a player will stand pat, then draw on a subsequent round -- and because such obvious change-of-course-type decisions don’t really come up in other poker variants, or at least not as conspicuously. Sure, a seven-card stud hand with five rounds of betting might well cause players to alter some larger plan for the hand at some point along the way. The same can happen in hold’em or Omaha games, too. But from an observer’s standpoint, there’s usually no obvious action to witness that unambiguously announces a player has suddenly been forced to adopt Plan B.

I’ve been talking to various people out here this summer about the detour I experienced career-wise where I began going down one path, then took this interesting turn to write about poker. For example, when meeting Reading Poker Tells Zach Elwood yesterday, at one point I kind of ran through an abbreviated version of the story to give some context to our discussion of my “Poker in American Film and Culture” class.

I left what was a fairly secure full-time position to embark on this other, less certain career, primarily because I’d reached a point where I wasn’t comfortable staying with the original plan and I had an option available to me to make a change. In other words, it felt a bit like I was holding what might turn out to be a losing hand, and I decided to break it with the hopes of drawing to something better.

Making that sort of “break” is easier said than done. Perhaps that’s why I find it a little bit fascinating to see a player make that decision in triple draw -- to admit things aren’t going quite right and risk trying a new path. Such a sudden, meaningful revision to the story one has been telling about oneself. Interesting to think something so explicit and plain to see can come up in a game in which you can’t see anyone’s cards.

I’m back on “the deuce” today for Day 2. Click over the PokerNews to see if anyone else decides to break a hand.

2008 WSOP, Day 21: Tigers & Grizzlies

Was fairly smooth sailing yesterday back in the Brasilia room for Day 2 of Event No. 34, the $1,500 Pot-Limit Omaha w/rebuys event. Ended up being about a ten-hour day at the office -- not bad at all. Some of the guys on ours had a prop bet going with the ones covering the Stud event (Event No. 35) regarding who would finish first, a bet our guys won by about an hour-and-a-half.

Today’s final table is scheduled for the main stage (and will be broadcast over ESPN360). Two name pros made it -- Layne Flack and Ted Forrest. Forrest is the one I’d look out for, although among the others current chip leader Kyle Kloeckner and Michael Guzzardi look tough, as does Dario Alioto who took down the PLO event at the WSOPE last fall.

Tim “Tmay420” West is also there. This is his second final table this summer, and I also covered his other one (the $5,000 No-Limit Hold’em shootout). He’s the short stack going in today, but I’m hoping he gets some chips together and makes a run. West is a super friendly guy and a hell of a player to boot.

Had a few interesting, extracurricular moments yesterday while covering the event. Annette “Annette_15” Obrestad stopped by for a visit. My partner, Marc, has worked with Betfair in the past, and so Obrestad came in to say hello to him. She seemed a little bummed at not being able to play -- she is still only 19 years old, and in fact won’t be able to play until the 2010 WSOP as her birthday is in September. There was talk of her getting in on some cash games, though that can’t possibly happen either unless they are side games. Seemed like a friendly, smart person, and I can imagine how the contrast of her sweet image and terrorizing style of play can give her opponents fits.

Layne Flack was bouncing off the walls, pumped up on All In energy drinks and/or his natural hyperactive tendencies. He frequently came over to our station to chat, usually when Tiffany Michelle and Amanda Leatherman were sitting nearby. Flack once scampered over to engage them in a debate over who had the sexiest name. I joked about putting that into the blog, but refrained.

We did include some of the players’ banter in the blog, including a couple of posts about a several-hour-long debate the players were having about the relative difficulty of killing a tiger versus a grizzly bear. Here is the first one:

Pick Your Battles
Play is tightening up even more as we near the cash bubble. As players pass small stacks of chips back and forth, the table talk is increasing.

Just passed Table No. 63, where the following was overheard: “I'd rather fight a tiger with a knife than a grizzly with a gun.”

Not sure of context, but it sounds like the subject of choosing one's battles carefully is on everyone's mind with just four to go before the money.

Then, a good six hours later:

Beasts of Prey
The discussion about weapons of choice when trying to kill tigers and/or grizzly bears, begun earlier this afternoon, has lingered on into the night.

“I mean, think about this,” said Ted Forrest to Nathan Hagens, wishing to draw a distinction. “The Siegfried and Roy show... They carry a 300-lb. tiger on their back. You're not gonna carry a grizzly bear on your back....”

“No fun the first time I did it!” yelled Layne Flack from the other table.

Bill Chen was in this event, having been knocked out on Day 1. He was there sweating his co-author Jerrod Ankenman, who ended up cashing yesterday, when he came over to our table and asked if he could set up his laptop next to us. Of course, we said. Chen proceeded to log on and play a PokerStars freeroll, something he’s obligated to do from time to time as a PS-sponsored pro.

Terrence Chan was nearby and he and Chen occasionally discussed his progress in the freeroll, laughing and clearly having a good time. I’ve read a good deal of Mathematics of Poker, so it was definitely amusing to see the scholarly Chen joking around in defiance of the professorial persona one might assume from the book. One player who cashed brought a copy of the book for Chen to sign, which he did and then got Ankenman -- still alive in the tourney at the time -- to sign as well.

Should be an interesting final table today. Am hoping afterwards or perhaps tomorrow (my day off) to connect with the Beyond the Table guys, as all three -- Karridy, Dan, and Tom Schneider -- are in Vegas at the moment. Of course, Tom is busy cashing in event after event (he’s made the money five times already). Have a feeling I’ll be seeing the Donkey Bomber at the next event I cover, the Deuce-to-Seven Triple Lowball (Limit) event.

As always, head over to PokerNews to follow it all.