Stories Upon Stories at the WSOP

Yesterday was definitely an interesting day to rail the World Series of Poker Main Event, which I find I’m doing mostly by shuttling between WSOP.com (for live updates and counts), the poker news sites (for spontaneous features), and Twitter (for reactions and discussion).

Lots of interesting stories emerging regarding the players who remain. As the day wore on, I found myself continually seizing on one particular plotline as “the” story of Day 5, then having that one be soon replaced by another and so on right up until the end of play.

Start-of-day chip leader Joe McKeehen spent a good portion of the afternoon on top of the counts, and he finished up with 3.66 million -- above the average (about 2.79 milly) and good for a spot inside the top 20 with 69 players left from the starting field of 6,420. McKeehen intrigues me mostly because I helped cover his win in a WSOP Circuit event in Atlantic City in March 2013, a tournament in which he conspicuously distinguished himself as a talented player and dominated at the close.

Brian Hastings ascent up the counts then led to thoughts about his complicated place in the poker world at present (see “The Battle of Hastings”). He finished the night at 4.74 million and in 10th position, and thus will continue to earn attention going forward, thanks also to his having won two bracelets already this summer which allows him to challenge for the lead in that strangely-calculated WSOP Player of the Year race.

Then it was Anton Morgenstern leaping to the fore, the player who entered Day 7 of the 2013 WSOP Main Event in first position with 27 left only to be ousted in 20th place. It wasn’t exactly a blow-up two years ago for the young German -- he experienced some bad fortune in two big hands against Mark Newhouse -- but still, it was a remarkable turn of events.

I still like to rib my friend Stephen Bartley for his tongue-in-cheek-but-still PokerStars blog post he published during Day 6 declaring “Why Anton Morgenstern will (probably) win the main event.” After leading for a short while yesterday, Morgenstern ended today with 4.2 million (17th of 69). See “Anton Morgenstern Getting the Second Chance of Lifetime” on PokerNews to read what Morgenstern is saying about his return trip to the latter stages of the ME.

Speaking of the PokerStars blog, the deep run of Team PokerStars Pro Daniel Negreanu will continue to keep them occupied over there as it has throughout the Main Event thus far. He has 3.62 million (in 22nd place) and chances are the closer he gets to the final table the more likely his story will be eclipsing everything else.

Then at another break the not-so-familiar name of Bruce Peery appeared in the top slot, with a tweet by Chris Moneymaker quickly helping everyone learn why he might be of interest to WSOP Main Event fans and historians. “Sick sweat at @WSOP #MainEvent,” wrote Moneymaker, “as best friend from 2003 and guy who lost half my action leading with 145 left.”

As Eric Raskin wrote about in his oral history The Moneymaker Effect (2014) as well as in the preview Grantland article “When We Held Kings,” Peery was the fellow who told Moneymaker not to aim for fourth place and a cash prize of $8,000 in that final PokerStars satellite back in ’03 but to try to win one of the three Main Event packages, ensuring his friend he’d give him $5,000 and take half his action. Alas for Peery, he backed out of the deal and thus missed out on being able to claim half of Moneymaker’s $2.5 million score.

Tim Fiorvanti jumped on that story yesterday for BLUFF, talking to Peery to get more details which Tim shared in “Moneymaker Legend Grows as Bruce Peery Takes WSOP Main Event Lead.” Peery will begin today in 35th position with 2.4 million.

But finally it was Pierre Neuville’s story that ultimately pushed past all of these, just as his chip count managed to exceed everyone, too, by night’s end. The 72-year-old finished with 7.105 million to lead all and grab away the Day 5 headlines.

We’ve all gotten to know Neuville over the years as the very amiable Belgian who earned a reputation as the “Serial PokerStars Qualifier” after winning seats in 23 straight EPT events online. He only took up poker seriously after retiring from a lengthy career in business, I believe, and has earned nearly $2.2 million in live tourney cashes (plus a lot online, too) over the last eight years or so including a two runner-up finishes in EPT Main Events and another second-place in a WSOP bracelet event.

If you don’t know Neuville, check out this interview Remko Rinkema did with him at EPT Deauville earlier this year to hear him explain how “poker makes me younger every year”:

Impossible not to pull for Neuville, and his story -- just like his chip stack -- will take precedence when they get going again today. But with all of these other stories -- and players -- still in the mix, the overall narrative should continue to take some interesting turns.

No Time to Read, Must Comment

Continuing to follow that “battle of Hastings” I discussed here late last week. Find myself still checking that 2+2 thread about it fairly frequently while also reading some of the commentaries such as the thoughtful one contributed by the Australian player James “Andy McLEOD” Obst yesterday over on the Calvin Ayre site (presented as an interview, though in fact an essay by Obst).

No major advances occurred over the weekend, really. In fact, the most noteworthy recent developments concern how certain high profile pros have been reacting and responding to the story.

Speaking of the 2+2 thread, I noticed today someone chiming in some 1,500 posts into it with one of those amusingly oblivious posts that often come up deep in an active discussion, saying essentially (I’m paraphrasing) “I heard something about this but haven’t read -- what’s this all about?” The question earned the derision it deserved, as well as a pointer to the “Cliffs” of the discussion that appear as the thread’s initial post.

Such a contribution is a bit like the daydreaming student who suddenly becomes aware of the possibility that something either in the discussion or the teacher’s incessant yammering might in fact be important for him to know. He thrusts up his hand and shamelessly asks for a recap, insensible to the fact that he’s distinguishing himself as an obstacle to actual dialogue.

Saw someone tweeting something similar today about not having followed the story, though nonetheless being eager to share a position regarding it, namely, that whatever it was about, it likely confirmed other theories this person has advanced in the past about online poker.

Sort of thing happens a lot online, of course. Read the comments to any post or article, and you’ll frequently find many only responding to the headline, leading photo, or whatever text or picture might have successfully baited the person to click over to the page.

That’s a different kind of non-contribution, perhaps even more frustrating for those who are actually engaged with the story and trying to find something constructive to take away from what is happening. Kind of a like a movie review by a person who is only acquainted with the title, perhaps has seen a trailer or has a general idea of the plot, and has picked up on the fact that others are talking about it and so feels compelled to talk about it, too.

Some time ago I got on a kick of listening to a lot of film-related podcasts, including a couple focusing on low-budget, “exploitation” and cult fare for which discussions about the making of the films can be as interesting (or more so) than discussions of the films themselves.

One such podcast was devoted to the whole “video nasties” phenomenon that arose in the U.K. during the mid-1980s, going through and reviewing all of the films that were put on the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) list -- 72 in all. (Here’s a link to the show’s website, if you’re curious.) Each episode opens with an audio clip of Mary Whitehouse, the activist who led the charge against the video nasties, in which an interviewer is asking her if she herself had in fact seen any of the films she was petitioning to have banned.

“I have never seen a video nasty,” she responds. “I actually don't need to see visually what I know is in that film.”

What a line, eh? Seems to imply she was able to “see” the movies in some manner other than “visually.” (Whitehouse, incidentally, is one of the three targets in Pink Floyd’s brilliant track “Pigs (Three Different Ones)” from the 1977 LP Animals.)

It’s a quote those who have studied the whole “video nasties” story enjoy bringing up when criticizing the movement to stop the sale of what in truth was a pretty arbitrary compilation of videos, representing as it does a kind of bald-faced, strangely unembarrassed hypocrisy.

That’s the example I think of when someone butts into a conversation the person hasn’t been following, only to deliver judgments and conclusions about what the person thinks might be at issue.

The Battle of Hastings

This past Sunday, poker pro Brian Hastings jumped on Twitter to allege an instance of angle shooting perpetrated by an opponent of his during a World Series of Poker event. Hastings has won two WSOP events this summer, and this incident occured at the final table of one of them, the $1,500 10-game mix.

“PSA,” tweeted Hastings. “Alexey Makarov aka Lucky Gump (I think) tried to angle shoot at 10 game FT. Floor ruled against him tho. Beware.”

Several sprang to Makarov’s defense as Hastings described a hand in which Makarov had asked for a misdeal following the awkward delivery of the first three cards in stud. Hastings believed Makarov only made the request after seeing everyone’s upcards, including the deuce Makarov had been dealt.

Before long Hastings was reporting that he “may have overreacted” and that “Alexey and I made up and are friends again.” In other words, it appeared a very minor episode and if it weren’t the WSOP where every little dust-up gets extra scrutiny, few would have noticed it.

Discussion about it, though, prompted David “Bakes” Baker -- one of those who has brought to the fore game integrity issues with the Modiano cards being used at the WSOP -- to complain that Hastings himself had been involved in some shenanigans during the weeks leading up to the series, having played high-stakes mixed games (including SCOOP events) on PokerStars under another person’s account.

“So after I FT’d the SCOOP 2k a bunch of well known pros messaged me telling me @brianchastings was behind the NoelHayes account on Stars,” tweeted Baker.

Hastings normally plays as “$tinger 88” on PokerStars, and indeed, a player registered in Ireland named “NoelHayes” had made one of the $2,100 NLHE final tables during SCOOP, finishing fourth and in fact knocking out Baker (a.k.a. “WhooooKidd”) in fifth.

Playing on a second account is of course against Stars’ Terms of Service which explicitly limits players to just one. “In the event that PokerStars becomes aware of additional accounts opened by a User,” says the applicable item in the TOC, “PokerStars may close such additional accounts without notice and may confiscate funds held in such additional accounts.”

Much noise ensued over Twitter as well as on Two Plus Two where a thread to discuss Baker’s allegation was swiftly begun. As some in the thread have noted, the story evokes a much older one involving Hastings and his huge $4.2 million winning session versus Viktor Blom on Full Tilt Poker in December 2009.

Blom -- that is, “Isildur1” (whose identity was unknown at the time) -- lost those millions versus Hastings, then the latter revealed in an interview how he had been supplied hand histories involving Blom compiled by his then CardRunners pro colleagues (something that also skirted close to crossing a line in FTP’s terms, although the site determined Hastings was not guilty of any violations). Here’s a post from then introducing that controversy, if you’re curious.

The 2+2 thread raged onward for a couple of days and more than 240 posts. One side issue brought up by some concerns the highly-publicized bracelet bets Hastings made prior to the start of the WSOP and the idea that some making those bets didn’t realize he’d been playing high-stakes mixed games online during the spring.

Early this morning -- just before 5 a.m. Vegas time -- Hastings chimed in with a fuel-on-the-fire contribution to the thread in which he pointedly avoids addressing the whole “NoelHayes” question.

After making clear “I have nothing to add to the conversation publicly” and dismissing “what strangers on the internet” have to say about him, Hastings laments “something like this being a major story in the poker world at a time in which the WSOP is in full force and we should be trying to promote and grow the game of poker, rather than drag it through the mud.”

He brings up the state of online poker in the U.S. and efforts to bring the game back, calling it “unfortunate that certain people have been on bad runs and choose to take their frustrations out outwardly” -- i.e., by criticizing his apparent multi-accounting. He adds “this will be my last post in this thread,” although he already has come back a couple of times to further the theme that efforts to uncover his misdeeds are hurtful to the game as a whole.

Needless to say, such a post was not received well at 2+2. Indeed it makes little sense as an argument, which for me comes off like Nixon in his 1974 State of the Union stressing the need to put an end to the Watergate investigations (“One year of Watergate is enough”) in order to allow the the nation and its government to start “devoting our full energies” to other important issues.

Certainly yet another story of high-stakes multi-accounting reflects somewhat badly on the game, but not acknowledging it or considering it worth looking into would obviously be much worse for poker. Compare the cheating allegation in the $10K Heads-Up event a few weeks ago (still apparently being investigated). Sure, even an accusation reflects badly on the game in general and the WSOP in particular, but the damage caused by a reputation hit hardly compares to harm caused by actual cheating.

Hard to tell, to be honest, amid all the back-and-forthing what exactly to think about what has been alleged, including whether or not some “may have overreacted” here as Hastings might have done with Makarov. Even so, it will be curious to follow where this battle proceeds next.

(EDIT [added 6/25/15, 6 p.m.]: The thread and story takes another turn, with Baker sharing a direct message from Hastings in which the latter admits to having played on Stars on the “NoelHayes” account [which some have pointed out would have to have been done from the U.S. via VPN, another big no-no]. If curious, click here.)

Grab Your Popcorn (Isildur1 v. Full Tilt)

Spent most of yesterday running around seeing family and doing some last minute shopping. I did, however, try to monitor from time to time what folks were saying about the PokerNews interview with the still-unidentified Isildur1 that appeared yesterday. You know that name “Isildur” is a Lord of the Rings thing, right? This sucker is turning into a regular triple-feature.

I saw threads continuing to lengthen on the forums as the debate persists regarding what indeed might have happened prior to Brian Hastings’ huge $4.2 million winning session versus Isildur1 on 12/8/09. Still a lot of energy among the posters going back and forth with arguments over whether or not Hastings unduly benefited from information about Isildur1’s play prior to the session.

For most, the issue concerns Full Tilt Poker’s admonition, listed in its “Site Terms,” against players gaining “an unfair advantage” by “accessing or compiling information on other players beyond that which the user has personally observed through his or her own game play.” Statements by Hastings following the session alluded to his having seen reports on Isildur1’s play that had been compiled by his friend and fellow CardRunners pro Brian Townsend. (See yesterday’s post for more specifics.)

Adding to the intrigue, Full Tilt Poker’s Fraud and Security Team conducted an investigation of the matter, including interviewing Hastings, Townsend, and Cole South, and determined that neither Hastings nor South were guilty of any violations of FTP’s terms. Townsend, however, was found to be guilty of “datamining,” and has thus been stripped of his Red Pro status on Full Tilt Poker for one month.

Not the first time Townsend has violated FTP’s rules, incidentally. You might recall how late last summer (2008) Townsend admitted to having created and played under multiple accounts (though not simultaneously) on both Full Tilt Poker and on PokerStars. For that transgression, Full Tilt revoked Townsend’s Red Pro status for six months.

Interestingly, Townsend’s explanation at the time concerned the fact that he had been experiencing a downswing and was thus forced to play lower stakes games than he normally did. “The reason why I created these accounts,” wrote Townsend on his blog, “was because I enjoy anonymity when playing smaller and am very prideful in what I do.” (Townsend also spoke with PokerNews’ Gloria Balding at the time regarding the issue.) In other words, it was a desire to remain anonymous and not have players whom he faced know that he was Brian Townsend -- a.k.a., the former phenom “sbrugby” who a year or so before had suddenly turned up at the high-stakes games to take on the big boys (much like Isildur1) -- that motivated him to create and use the additional accounts.

If you’ve read the interview with Isildur1 from yesterday on PokerNews, you saw that the unknown Swede is considering filing a “formal complaint” with Full Tilt Poker regarding the session with Hastings. It almost sounds as though he hadn’t contemplated doing so until after having been told of Full Tilt Poker’s policies and their potential application to his session with Hastings. He also notes in the interview that he does not plan to play on Full Tilt Poker until he hears back regarding his complaint.

Not sure how far Isildur1 will get with his query, but I’m most certainly intrigued to watch what happens next. As I noted yesterday, the “Site Terms” at Full Tilt Poker as well as similar terms that exist at other online poker sites certainly include a number of essentially ungovernable prohibitions, thus creating a lot of ambiguity among many regarding their efficacy. It is interesting to think how a person’s voluntary publicizing of information regarding his play (e.g., Hastings’ post-session interviews) can invite such scrutiny -- not to mention the potential for punishment.

In other words, as many poker players already know full well, it usually pays to keep quiet.

Such was Isildur1’s strategy until yesterday. Like most, I’m curious to hear more from the Swede, and apparently more is to come over on PokerNews. However, I wouldn’t blame him should he decide to resume his former policy of keeping mum. The safer path, it seems.

(I’m not big on Tolkein minutiae, but I guess his Isildur was finally taken down by a group of attackers after taking a less safe path.)

Digging for Gold (Mining Isidur1)

Was talking to Vera Valmore yesterday about the latest “big thing” in poker everyone seems to be talking about -- namely, all the speculation over whether or not Brian Hastings perhaps received a little extra assistance from his CardRunners buds that might’ve helped him in that huge session versus Isildur1 last week. You remember that session -- the one in which the senior at Cornell University took himself a little study break and ended up going back to the books $4.2 million richer. (Read more here.)

I tried to summarize the situation, including what I could remember of Full Tilt Poker’s “Site Terms” that might have been relevant here. I said I knew there was a rule against collusion, and those who do collude risk forfeiting their balance. I knew there was also something in there about using certain programs -- called “external player assistance programs” (I see now, looking at the site) -- “which are designed to provide users with an unfair advantage over their opponents.” That rule goes on to say that “Full Tilt Poker defines an unfair advantage as a user accessing or compiling information on other players beyond that which the user has personally observed through his or her own game play.”

As I explained it to Vera, some of the buzz made it sound as though it were possible that Hastings may have had some knowledge of hands played by some of his friends against Isildur1. That is, perhaps some of what they call “datamining” had happened whereby Hastings learned some things about his opponent he might not have been able to learn without assistance from another.

Hastings didn’t really say much along those lines in his 12/9/09 blog post about the session. He does mention there fellow CardRunners pro Brian Townsend’s losing session earlier in the day versus Isildur1, but doesn’t say anything about having had any inside dope regarding Townsend’s hands.

Shortly after his big day, Hastings was interviewed on a couple of podcasts, including ESPN’s The Poker Edge with Andrew Feldman and Phil Gordon (the 12/10/09 episode). At about the 10-minute mark, Gordon asks Hastings specifically about how he and his buddies had gone about analyzing Isildur1’s play, and Hastings responds by saying they had done quite a bit of study of the unknown Swede’s habits. Hastings notes in particular that Townsend had “analyzed a database of, like, 50,000 heads-up hands that Isildur1 played and constructed ranges of what Isildur1 was doing in all kinds of spots,” adding that “the three of us discussed a ton of hands and the reports that Brian made.” Hastings also appeared on Mediocre Poker Radio (the 12/11/09 episode) where he again makes reference to having watching Townsend playing that session and getting in the mood to play Isildur1 after Townsend finished.

Then, on 12/14/09, Gary Wise posted an article over on the ESPN Poker Club which made a few points about Hastings’ big win, including placing an emphasis on “the strength of the collective” -- i.e., pointing out how beneficial it can be to have fellow poker players to talk to about one’s game. Wise noted how “he, Townsend and Cole South conglomerated their hand histories, allowing them to study the mystery man's playing style,” and included that quote from the Poker Edge interview as well as support.

A couple of days after Wise’s article appeared, a thread started up over on Two Plus Two that raised the question of whether or not Hastings et al. may have violated Full Tilt Poker’s “Site Terms.” On Saturday, 12/19/09, a representative of Full Tilt Poker (“FTPSean”) came onto the thread to say that “After doing an investigation and speaking with Brian Hastings, Brian Townsend, and Cole South, the Fraud and Security team have come to the conclusion that the statement taken from the ESPN article describing the three combining their hands into a shared database was inaccurate.”

However (FTPSean goes on to say), the investigation did reveal that Townsend -- a Full Tilt red pro, by the way -- was guilty of a breach of FTP rules regarding datamining, and that the punishment for Townsend would be the loss of his Red Pro status for one month. (Townsend writes about the matter on his CardRunners blog here.) (Incidentally, Cole South came onto the Two Plus Two thread later as well to deny any wrongdoing on his part.)

I told Vera the whole thing seemed to highlight the fact that the online poker sites have certain rules that seemingly cannot be enforced. Indeed, in FTPSean’s note on Two Plus Two he begins by saying “There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing hands, discussing opponents, or discussing strategy with other players while away from the table,” but then notes how the sort of datamining of which Townsend was found guilty is out of bounds.

Clearly there is some distinction there regarding the degree to which one takes one’s discussions of strategy while away from the tables. Less clear is how exactly one makes that distinction -- and, importantly, how an online site can effectively regulate against it.

I tried to draw an analogy with downloading music files from the web -- clearly not legal, but “everyone does it.” Vera quickly stopped me. “Not everyone does it,” she said. True. “And downloading music files can always be tracked,” she added, noting a clear difference between the sort of rule-breaking that we were talking about with regard to sharing hand histories/compiling databases and my proposed parallel.

Definitely seems on the surface to be a bit unfair to the individual who finds himself up against “the strength of the collective.” But, really, anyone who plays online poker potentially subjects him/herself to such a disadvantage, dontcha think?

Wonder what Isildur1 thinks about all of this? Sounds like we might find out, as apparently Matthew Parvis of PokerNews has scored an interview with the Swede. I imagine we’ll be seeing that appear sometime today.

Will definitely be interesting to see what else those continuing to dig deeper into this story manage to uncover.

(EDIT [10:55 a.m.]: Parvis’s blog post about the still-to-come interview.)

(EDIT [11:25 a.m.]: The PokerNews interview is now online, in which Isildur1 says he plans to make a formal complaint to Full Tilt Poker regarding the session with Hastings.)

Out of This World: The Isildur1 Saga Continues

So Brian Hastings, a senior at Cornell University, is trying to study for finals right now. I understand he’s having a hard time concentrating. Why? Word is he had a decent session at the online tables night before last.

How decent? Try about $4.2 million up. Sometimes taking a study break can be most beneficial.

That gargantuan session by Hastings thus provides us with the latest jaw-dropping chapter of the continuing adventures of Isildur1. Hastings won that big countryside-sized field of cabbage -- $4,206,964.19 to be exact (according to highstakesdb.com) -- in 2,867 hands of $500/$1,000 heads-up pot-limit Omaha versus the ever-ready Isildur1. Meanwhile Isildur1, having won earlier in the day versus jungleman12 (~$471,000) and Brian Townsend (~$722,000), ended December 8 down a total of $3,013,361.19 (in a little under 10,000 hands played).

That rivals Isildur1’s day back on Saturday, November 21 when he dropped around $3.3 million to Patrik Antonius and Phil Ivey, also at $500/$1,000 PLO. That was the day of the still-record $1,356,946.50 pot Isildur1 lost to Antonius. Still not as bad as his worst day when he dropped over $5 million, though.

Speculation about Isildur1’s identity has continued over the past couple of weeks, with no final revelation having been made as yet. On November 26, Tony G posted on his blog that Isildur1 was in fact the young Swedish player Viktor Blom. Ilari “Ziigmund” Sahamies also addressed Isildur1 as “Viktor” in chat during one of their sessions, which most took as further confirmation the player was Blom.

However, soon (on December 1) we heard news in a Bluff Europe piece that Blom was denying he was Isildur1. The next day another story popped up saying that the fellow issuing the denial was in fact a different person, a fellow named Victor Blom (with a “c”) who happens to live in the same Swedish town as the poker pro.

Hard to know, then, which of the stories to believe. Some have speculated that it would be in Blom’s interest to deny being pegged as Isildur1 because of a severe tax situation in Sweden. Gotta think the longer this plays out, the greater the chance we’ll finally learn once and for all.

Hastings wrote a lengthy post on his CardRunners blog that talks a bit about the session, though mostly just tries to place the day in the larger context of his life and career. Others who have played Isildur1 are talking, too, including Patrik Antonius, who recently was interviewed by Phil Gordon over on the Full Tilt Poker Academy site.

“He’s a very interesting opponent,” says Antonius near the start of the 18-minute interview, adding that he’s “very dangerous” because of his penchant for aggression, his desire always to play deep, and the way he constantly “wants to make big decisions all the time,” thereby always keeping the game at an intense level. Like Tony G does in his post, Antonius judges Isildur1 to be a talented player, and the Finnish stud especially marvels at the way Isildur1 seems always to make decisions especially fast, even when playing 6-8 tables at a time versus multiple opponents.

Gordon asks Antonius about bankroll management with regard to this $500/$1,000 PLO game, and Antonius explains that in truth “there are different rules for bankroll management when it comes to very good players.” There are also different rules, it seems, when dealing with stakes this high. The fact is, no one has the $300-$500 million Antonius suggests would be needed to play in such a game where one can lose a milly in a half-hour, or $3 million (or more) in a single day. So, in essence, for everyone playing the game it is “all like taking shots” -- something good players can handle much more readily than lesser skilled players.

At the end of the interview Gordon asks Antonius again about Isildur1’s remaining anonymous, and whether that gives him any advantage. Not anymore, says Antonius. Even though Isildur1 can apparently mix up his game quite effectively, by now he’s played so many hands he’s become more of a known quantity than he was when he first appeared a few weeks back.

According to highstakesdb.com, Isildur1 is now more than $1.5 million down overall. That’s after having peaked at more than $5 million ahead right around mid-November. The report on the Hastings-Isildur1 session notes how Hastings ran especially well during the session, hitting cards at a much higher clip than would be expected. (He ended more than $3 million over his EV.) Writes Baard, “it was clear from the comments [Isildur1] made in the chat that he thought he was caught in a parallel universe or something.”

To most of us, the whole Isildur1 story seems like it is playing out in a parallel universe. Actually not even “parallel,” as it is hard to see it having much relation to this one.

Definitely out of this world, though.