Files Found! Poker Audio from 2004-2006

We still have this desktop PC in use that is probably more than a decade old now. We use it for a few household-related tasks, among them printing documents with the even older printer attached to it (although that is rarely needed in this mostly paperless world). It’s not even online, which in truth has probably helped add to its longevity, being isolated as it is from the scary virus-filled outside world.

As you might imagine, there are some old, old files on there, including some old audio files of poker podcasts from back when podcasts first became a thing. I’ve written about those before here, including recently. In fact it was just in December of last year I shared a screenshot of all the folders on the drive containing those old shows.

I guess I’ve got a little bit of hoarder in me, having continued to keep all those files. The only reason I downloaded them in the first place was because that was typically the method of listening to them then. We weren’t listening to podcasts on our phones quite yet, and so a lot of the time I’d download the show and listen on my computer while playing online.

Anyhow, for a long time I’ve been going back to those directories and to other places on that old PC to look for something else -- something I knew I had downloaded once upon a time, but could never quite put my finger on where it could be.

In 2005, CardPlayer sponsored live audio commentary for that year’s World Series of Poker Main Event final table. I remember listening all night and into the morning, with the sun having risen here on the east coast by the time Joe Hachem finally ousted Steve Dannenmann in a short heads-up battle to win. Shortly after that CardPlayer posted the .mp3s on their site -- one per week, I think -- eventually posting eight files which totaled something like 13.5 hours’ worth of audio. It wasn’t long after that the files were no longer available.

I was positive I had downloaded those files, and I thought I must have them somewhere but just couldn’t figure out where. Finally -- kind of randomly -- I looked in an old external drive last week and there they were, along with some other old poker-related goodies.

Among the other files there were what I believe might even be the entire run of Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio shows (from 2004-2006), a number of Ante Up! episodes from their first couple of years (2005-2006), some episodes of CardPlayer’s The Circuit from early 2006, Phil Gordon’s 2005 WSOP podcasts plus some Poker Edge shows, the old Poker Diagram podcast (anyone remember that one?), and several episodes of Rounders the Poker Show (forerunner to the 2+2 Pokercast) from the summer of 2006.

I think the latter collection of Rounders shows might include the Jamie Gold interview he gave just a couple of days after winning the 2006 WSOP -- the one I believe was later admitted into court as part of Crispin Leyser’s lawsuit against him that was eventually settled out of court in 2007. (I hope so, anyway.)

I grabbed the 2005 WSOP shows, got ‘em loaded on the iPod, and listened to the first 20 minutes today. Phil Hellmuth and Jeff Shulman are hosting, and already within that short introductory section had on Gary Thompson and Howard Greenbaum of Harrah’s, Mike Matusow (who was at that final table and destined to go out in ninth), Howard Stutz of the Las Vegas Review-Journal (then, and still), and Oklahoma Johnny Hale.

I remember lots of other guests coming and going throughout the marathon, including Puggy Pearson who would pass away the following spring. I found myself wanting to jot down some notes as I listened, thinking perhaps I’ll share some highlights here once I get through it all.

What a time that was, and it’s hard to believe it’s now over a decade ago. A time when I couldn’t get enough poker -- I’d listen, watch, or read anything. You too, probably.

Poker Podcast Review: Full Tilt Poker's Tips from the Pros, Episode 5 -- Your Online Poker Bankroll feat. Howard Lederer

I see the Two Plus Two Pokercast guys have conducted their interview with poker’s most interviewed subject of late, Howard Lederer. They posted the show just a few moments ago, actually. Four hours long, this one.

As I was saying a few days back, I’ll certainly be listening in, even though I have a feeling that while there may be some new nuggets, there will be a lot that will be similar to what we heard last week in the PokerNews interview -- i.e., deflecting blame, rationalizing inexcusable decisions, selectively forgetting unflattering details, and the like.

Before I listen, though, I wanted to share one little find I had while sorting through some old files, something that kind of relates both to the Two Plus Two Pokercast and to Lederer.

When I started the blog way back in 2006, I was inspired to do so by a few different factors, one of which was the poker podcasts I had begun listening to just a few months before. In particular it was the Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio podcast on which the subject of poker blogs occasionally arose that got me thinking of trying something similar.

Among those early podcasts was Rounders, the Poker Show, the one hosted by Mike Johnson and Adam Schwartz who later on would move over to host the consistently excellent 2+2 show. Those early Rounders shows were good, too, many of which focused on one lengthy interview with a poker personality. Indeed, given their track record and experience with interviewing, I do look forward to hearing how Johnson and Schwartz handled the interview with Lederer (and am inclined to guess they likely did well).

Anyhow, just yesterday I happened to be searching for some old music files among a stack of CDs and DVDs and noticed I had a few on which there were folders labeled “Poker Podcasts.” During those early days of listening to podcasts I’d save them onto the computer before listening, and for some reason I was compelled to back those files up along with everything else.

Looking through those folders I am seeing a bunch of old episodes of Rounders, the Poker Show as well as Card Club, Poker Diagram, The Circuit (from back when it first appeared on the CardPlayer site), Ante Up!, The Poker Edge (with Phil Gordon), and some other obscure ones like California Poker Radio, NetBettor, and so on.

Also tucked in there are some old files labeled “Full Tilt Poker” which upon closer inspection turn out to be episodes of a kind of half-hearted attempt at podcasting by the FTP crew. The shows were all just a few minutes long and featured members of Team Full Tilt being interviewed by a host (who doesn’t identify himself) to talk about various strategy tips -- e.g., how to play ace-king, slow-playing, heads-up play, and so on. I think most were recorded either late 2005 or early 2006.

One of those I found featured Lederer, of course. The topic? Bankroll management. I had to listen.

“The number one consideration when it comes to bankroll management is working on your game and making sure you have the best of it,” Lederer begins. “If you don’t have the best of it, no bankroll management system is going to help you win.”

It’s an obvious point, of course, that if you aren’t a winning player then you can’t possibly come up with a scheme to prevent your bankroll from dwindling rather than growing. Lederer follows that with a few other guidelines regarding how much you need to have in your account in order to play different games comfortably (e.g., SNGs, limit games, no-limit).

Lederer then gets into other standard stuff about how, say, if you are a limit hold’em player you want to have a certain number of big bets in order to avoid going broke (Lederer says 500 big bets per table). He goes on to recommend “limits per session” (i.e., “stop-loss” limits) and the need to walk away once you’ve lost a certain amount.

“Poker’s going to be there, you know, Full Tilt Poker’s going to be open,” he says with a laugh. “There’s always going to be a game.”

The discussion then moves on to address the importance of tracking one’s play and keeping good records. “Being a good poker player takes a lot of self-honesty,” says Lederer. “Keep accurate records of how you do... those records won’t lie,” he adds. And for players who are losing overall, a check of the ledger can be especially helpful. Says Lederer, “you need to be objective, you need to be self-critical, you need to figure out what you’re doing wrong, and you need to fix it.”

I know, I know... it’s an easy target. Still, pretty funny hearing all of this advice about how to avoid risk of ruin coming from one of those involved with losing track of hundreds of millions of dollars. By the way, there’s another episode featuring Chris Ferguson also on the topic of bankroll management advice (talking about the “The Chris Ferguson Challenge.”)

(I’d point you to the shows on the web, but am having trouble finding them anywhere anymore.)

Will be thinking of all of these tips, then -- about the need to keep accurate records, about the value of setting limits for oneself, about the importance of self-honesty and figuring out what’s one is doing wrong -- when listening to Lederer’s 2+2 interview.

Praise the Lord Admirals

I mentioned a while back how the chefs over at Poker Soup had invited me into their kitchen a few episodes back (episode 15). I had a lot of fun chatting with them about poker, podcasts, and the upcoming WSOP. Am gonna swing me a decent headset here soon and perhaps might join them again at some point this summer when I’m out in Vegas helping cover the WSOP for PokerNews.

During our conversation, the subject of the old Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio show came up. We all agreed it was a terrific show -- really the first poker podcast of any note, having started way back in November 2004 and run up through August 2006. There was some talk when I was on there of trying to get the Lord Admirals on Poker Soup, and sure enough this week they were able to do so, having Cincinnati Sean, Brent Stacks, and Headhunter Mark on for the first hour or so of episode 18.

Some of you may remember Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio, though I’m going to guess many reading this blog do not. When I first started Hard-Boiled Poker (a little over three years ago), I frequently wrote about the podcast in which two amateur players from Toronto got together weekly -- usually with others from their home game -- to talk about poker. If you’re curious to learn more about the show, here’s a post I wrote shortly after they went off the air in 2006 in which I recounted some of what I thought to be the show’s particular highlights.

It was an oftentimes very funny show (the Admirals are witty guys -- something they proved yet again on the Poker Soup show the other night) that included a lot of great poker strategy discussion, though always presented from a suitably humble amateur’s perspective. One of the neatest aspects of the show was its inclusiveness. The Lord Admirals were consciously trying to build a community with that show, a task which they achieved especially well. As I wrote in that post linked to above, “listening to the show was a little bit like being part of a ‘Card Club’ that met on a weekly basis.” Indeed, I think anyone who remembers the show knows what I’m getting at there.

I wrote my first post here not that long after having found the Card Club podcast, and indeed it wouldn’t be that big of a stretch to say that listening to the show might well have been part of what inspired me to start a poker blog in the first place. That’s because Cincy Sean and Stacks frequently talked about poker blogs on their show. I remember they even had a “blog of the week” feature on there for a while, and had folks like Dr. Pauly and Iggy and others on there as guests, with whom they always had interesting, entertaining conversations about poker, media, life, what have you. (For example, click here to read a summary of Sean & Iggy’s interesting discussion from the summer of 2006 about the significance of poker blogs.)

In fact part of what Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio was about was to participate in (and perhaps inspire) a kind of “alternative press” when it came to poker, something other than what you found in the poker mags or on a few online sites. Sean in particular was always arguing for the value of independent voices, talking and listening to one another, and the show both exemplified what he was arguing for as well as encouraged others to participate in the conversation, too.

Some time after Card Club went off the air, I did an interview of sorts with Cincy Sean to find out what the Lord Admirals were up to as well as to get his thoughts on some of these subjects. If you’re curious to read more about both the history of the show and these other matters, you can read that interview here.

When Card Club first went on the air, there really weren’t any other poker podcasts, although Rounders, the Poker Show (which later became the Two Plus Two Pokercast) & Ante Up! came on board shortly afterwards.

Nowadays there are dozens, more than any of us can reasonably listen to on a regular basis. Some are quite good, some less so. All owe a debt -- at least indirectly -- to Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio, the first and certainly one of the best poker podcasts in the genre’s brief history.

Thanks, Lord Admiral Radio

About three months ago I spent a couple of posts writing up a “Podcast Line-Up” -- basically a ranking of ten poker podcasts of which I was aware at the time. For each of the ten I wrote a brief review -- here’s Part 1 (#6-#10) and here’s Part 2 (#1-#5). Since then, I’ve been regularly listening to a couple of other podcasts not mentioned in that list, including the weekly show produced by Pocket Fives (briefly discussed in a previous post) and Phil Gordon’s less frequently-produced The Poker Edge (part of ESPN’s “Poker Club”). I may in the not-too-distant future write a new post that updates the rankings by adding the new ones, dropping some of the old ones, and revising some of the reviews to reflect where some of these podcasts have gone since early summer.

Alas, any updated list of podcasts will necessarily omit the one I had rated at the very top of my rankings, Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio. Card Club bid us all farewell a couple of weeks ago, ceasing production after a whopping 84 episodes (and change). I just wanted to take a moment to thank “Cincinnati” Sean, Brent “Stacks,” “Headhunter” Mark, Evan “the Terrible,” Erik, Dan, and all the other Lord Admirals for having produced such a fine show over such a long period of time (from November 2004 through August 2006). There are numerous reasons why I enjoyed Card Club . . . I’ll just list three here.

For one, Card Club was genuinely informative when it came to poker strategy and theory. The group often quizzed each other from their favorite poker books. They also intelligently discussed hands sent in by listeners and from their home game. And they didn’t just talk Hold ’em, but Omaha, Stud (five- and seven-card), Razz, and even the odd Anaconda hand. And, of course, Columbo’s terrific One Minute Mysteries (now relocated over to the Ante Up! podcast) added significantly to the proceedings.

Even though Sean and Stacks never once professed themselves to be experts about any game or aspect of poker, they were nevertheless routinely insightful in their discussions. The show was helpful in other ways as well. In their next-to-last broadcast (episode 83), Sean, Stacks, and Mark openly discussed the level of success each had achieved in their respective poker careers. I appreciated the openness with which they described their successes (and failures) at the tables. They also touched on their ambitions as poker players, all three identifying reasonable, modest goals for themselves.

Any successful poker player understands the importance of self-assessment, and it helps to hear or read others having such conversations as we try to interpret our own progress as players. I think most regular listeners would agree that they almost always benefitted in some tangible way from having listened to the show.

Secondly, the show was purposely geared toward the amateur player in a way that made it both unique and particularly rewarding to short-stacked types like myself. A few other poker podcasts aim for such a focus, and some (e.g., Ante Up!, PokerDiagram) are quite successful at doing so. Most podcasts still tend to be geared more towards the professional circuit, however. While shows like Rounders and CardPlayer’s The Circuit are always interesting and worth listening to, interviews with professional players are usually hit-or-miss affairs -- entertaining, perhaps, but not always of particular relevance to us players of lower limits.

Finally, I always appreciated the inclusive approach taken by the Lord Admirals -- indeed, listening to the show was a little bit like being part of a “Card Club” that met on a weekly basis. Sean repeatedly stressed the desire to build a community of poker players with the podcast. Judging from the always active Lord Admiral forum (located over on the Card Clubs Network), comments on the show’s blog, and the extensive network of poker bloggers who continually made the podcast a common point of reference, the show appears to have been successful at realizing such a community-building goal.

Thanks again, guys, for all of the effort creating and maintaining the show for so long. Well played.

(If you’re not familiar with Card Club, old shows remain available. Episodes 37-84 are still posted on the Lord Admiral’s blog; Episodes 2-24 & 26-36 are still up over at Feedburner.)

Image and Photo: Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio.

An Existential Pause

A very interesting conversation on this week’s episode of Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio between Cincinnati Sean and Iggy, a.k.a. “The Blogfather.” Iggy, of course, is the man behind the always-readable Guinness and Poker blog. His “uberposts” -- massive blog entries compiling tons of (mostly) poker-related material and links -- are well worth the time. (If you haven’t been there, check it out.) The pair touched on a number of topics during their wide-ranging dialogue, including the relative worth of participating in poker affiliate programs, the recent gathering of the World Poker Blogger Tour in Vegas, the progress of H.R. 4411 (the version of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act that recently passed through the House), the recent lawsuit brought by seven prominent pros against the WPT, and the implications of CardPlayer’s status as the “exclusive content provider” for the WSOP this year.

That latter topic -- about how poker gets talked about and reported on -- led Sean to ask Iggy to comment on the current and future state of poker blogging. Iggy suggested that pros like Daniel Negreanu and Phil Hellmuth having their own blogs surely indicated poker blogs had moved from the periphery to the “mainstream” (of the poker world, anyway). Sean disagreed, saying that in his eyes those “diary”-type blogs kept by pros (and others), while interesting, weren’t really blogs at all. “Anyone can write on their web page what their feelings are and how much they love their girlfriend,” explained Sean. Such “vanity blogs,” as Sean described them, hardly participate in the blogging community and thus in his mind didn’t really indicate much of anything about the current and future state of poker blogs.

Sean then made what he humbly described as an “academic distinction” between blogs and simple web pages, saying that while a web page merely reports (or transmits) information (such as a person’s experiences), a blog includes links and invites comments. According to Sean, a blog isn’t simply a monologue to no one in particular, but deliberately participates in a dialogue or exchange of ideas.

Iggy disagreed. “You can write a blog and not be part of the community,” Iggy replied. “There’s something to be said for that . . . that you just want to get out your thoughts, your opinions, [and] what you think is cool.” In fact, argued Iggy, for pros like Negreanu and Hellmuth to blog at all actually “legitimizes us” (i.e., those who write the kind of blog Sean prefers). Sean granted Iggy that point, and the pair moved on.

Both Sean and Iggy made good observations here. What do I think? I believe a blog can be any number of things -- a personal diary, a virtual soapbox, a promotional tool, a news outlet, a discussion-starter, a confessional . . . you name it. Ultimately, a blog shapes itself according to the personality of its creator. Some personalities -- like Iggy’s -- become more interesting and expansive as they develop, thereby contributing significantly to the “world” in which they participate. Others develop differently, although as Iggy points out, “there’s something to be said for” the value of even the most obscure, inward-looking blog. I agree that keeping a blog does mean entering into a “community” of sorts -- whether one purposefully intends to or not. With poker blogs, even just providing a daily report of one’s wins and losses with the occasional hand history thrown in is a way of joining an ongoing, many-voiced conversation about strategy and/or the experience of playing poker.

What is Hard-Boiled Poker? A babbling three-month old? A mere babe in the blog wilderness, its identity still uncertain? So far I’ve considered it a place to work out (mostly) poker-related thoughts and ideas, soliciting advice and opinions from others as I do. In an earlier post I mentioned that professional player Kenna James suggests writing about poker makes one a better player. Being forced to reflect on your decisions -- and explain them in a way that makes sense -- helps you become more aware, more knowledgeable. That’s certainly part of what I’m hoping to accomplish here -- to improve my game by describing (in a hopefully coherent way) what I think I’m trying do while playing. Putting it into words helps me see a little more. Hearing what others think provides further clues . . . .

That's why writing a poker blog is like being a detective. Raymond Chandler once described the detective story as “a man’s adventure in search of hidden truth.” All poker bloggers are shamuses, really. Investigating themselves.

Assuming the Worst

This week’s installment of Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio (an entertaining, informative podcast primarily aimed at the lower limit player) featured the conclusion of Episode 19 of Columbo’s “One Minute Mystery,” titled “The Case of the Clichéd Players.” If you haven’t heard ’em, Columbo’s OMMs generally come in two parts, and usually the Card Club guys make us wait a week to find out how each OMM turned out for Columbo. (See my earlier review of Card Club for more about both the show and the OMMs.)

“The Case of the Clichéd Players” generated a thoughtful discussion on the Card Clubs forum that was continued on the show once the hosts played the second part of the OMM. An issue that arose -- really the main issue of significance, I’d say -- concerned the quality of play in online, low buy-in, multitable tourneys. In the hand, Columbo faced what appeared to be some very loose, very questionable betting and calling before and after the flop. Having to make a tricky post-flop decision, Columbo decided he was up against a couple of inexperienced and/or inexpert players and so acted accordingly. It turned out well for him, with his correct assumption that his two opponents were playing the hand poorly allowing him to triple up.

The OMM and the discussion surrounding it got me thinking a bit about how easy it is to underestimate one’s opponents at the table. I essentially agreed with Columbo’s cogitatin' in this here situation -- the minimum raises and calls of big bets by his foes did seem to indicate the likelihood that he was up against some untutored adversaries. It is easy, though, to fall into the trap of “assuming the worst” about the level of one’s opponents’ abilities, especially in these low buy-in tourneys or in low limit cash games. I know I’m guilty of making such assumptions -- sometimes on scant evidence -- and usually end up paying the price when an apparent donk turns out to be more crafty that I had realized.

In some of my recent posts I may have given the impression that I’m the only sane one at a table of lunatics -- that all of the other players at these low limits are operating at less than full capacity, thereby giving me the right to sit back and judge their awful play. Such is hardly the case. Looking back at the three hands I shared in “Life in the Land of the Blue Chips,” I can certainly question the level of my own thinking in a couple of instances (particularly “Hand 1” where I recklessly ride big slick to the bottom of the river). While those hands all certainly demonstrate some unorthodox play, none of them can be taken as irrefutable evidence that those involved (even me) are bad players. Indeed, the fellow in “Hand 1” (Underpants) who preraised with 82-suited could well have been pursuing a simple blind steal, was caught (with his pants down, so to speak) by my BB reraise and had to call, then fortunately flopped two pair and turned the boat. If I proceed from that point assuming he’s preraisin’ with any ol’ suited crap, I’m likely gonna be donating even more to his stack.

In Small Stakes Hold ’em, Miller/Sklansky/Malmuth make two sets of recommendations regarding starting hand selections, one for a “loose” table (where 6-8 players are seeing the flop) and one for a “tight” table (where only 3-5 players see the flop). When first arriving at a low limit hold ’em table where you don’t know any of the players, they recommend presuming you are at a loose table and continuing to think that way until proven otherwise. This advice goes against conventional wisdom, actually, which says to begin cautiously and try to learn about your opponents’ tendencies before mixing it up. However (argue Miller/Sklanskly/Malmuth), “at the small stakes there are so many confused and poorly-skilled players that failing to play extra hands should prove more costly those times when you should play them than they will save you those times you should throw them away.”

Notice that the authors are not saying to assume you are up against bad players -- rather, they say to assume you are up against loose players (implying, perhaps, that one or two or more might in fact be “poorly-skilled” enough to pay you off if you time things well). When I first arrive at a low limit table I try to follow the trio’s advice and assume it’s a loose table, but also try to avoid assuming the players are clueless. In fact, I attempt to give them all credit for knowing what they’re doing -- again, until they make a play that cannot possibly be interpreted as an intelligent one. In truth, I usually find it better policy to assume the worst about my own hand -- not about my opponents’ abilities -- and let folks showdown a few bottom pairs or busted draws to me before concocting any overly-elaborate theories about them.

If you haven’t done so, do check out Card Club and the OMMs. I always liked the Columbo TV series, where “who done it” was usually less of an issue than how it was done (and how Columbo is going to figure it all out). We all know the murderer will be caught in the end, so the result matters less to us than the process by which the result was achieved. The OMMs tend to operate similarly. It (usually) doesn’t matter so much how the hands turn out; what matters is process, that is, the thinking that leads to -- hopefully -- correct decision-making. And a big part of such correct decision-making is not assuming your opponents all think they’re playing blackjack.

Image: Edvard Munch, The Scream (1892) and Tom Neal from the 1945 film Detour (adapted), public domain (both).

Poker Podcast Line-Up (Part II, 1-5)

Okay, single file . . . everyone line up against the far wall there. What follows are my top five poker podcasts (6-10 appeared in my previous post). I should note that there are other podcasts out there, of course, that I've yet to hear. Also, my preferences are dictated (predictably) by my own interest in small stakes games, so someone with other interests may have different favorites. In any event, here goes:

1. Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio
The longest-running poker podcast is also the best, in my opinion. Card Club began in November 2004 as a weekly podcast devoted to chronicling the adventures of a private poker club in Toronto. Soon the show expanded to include reports from Vegas, book reviews, listener contributions, and more, growing from a 25-30 minute show to what now generally approaches a hour’s worth of quality listening. The hosts, “Cincinnati” Sean and Brent Stacks, are smart, witty students of poker who (too) modestly describe themselves as low-limit hacks. They occasionally invite other members of Lord Admiral for “roundtable” discussions about hands or other poker-related topics. Last summer a listener, Ray or “Columbo” (of pokerwannabe.blogspot.com), began contributing his own “Columbo’s One-Minute Mysteries.” Each mystery features Columbo puzzling over a particular crisis point in a poker hand, at which time he invites the listener to consider “What would you do?” The Lord Admirals ponder their responses, then we get to hear a second, concluding part (either during the same show or the following week). The OMM’s are smartly constructed and made more humorous by the clever insertion of Peter Falk soundbites into each mystery. (They begin around episode 40 -- check ’em out.) That a listener has now become part of the regular program this way highlights one of the show’s greatest strengths -- its inclusiveness. “Cincy” Sean often repeats his desire for the show to participate in and help foster a larger “community” of poker players, a kind of common ground where small stakes players can meet and share ideas and experiences. The show entirely succeeds in realizing this purpose. I recall a “roundtable” from an early episode when the club discussed a Hold ’em hand that had been emailed in by a listener. As the discussion began, Sean mentioned that the hand came from a $0.50/$1.00 limit game, but quickly added that the stakes weren’t as important as the listener’s question about his play. Short-stacked players like myself appreciate such disclaimers. Many of us will never rise much further than the lower limits. For us poker will probably always be a much-valued recreational activity (and not a full-time profession). If you fall into this category of player, a show like Card Club will add significantly to your enjoyment of the game. Perhaps begin with the later shows, but do work your way back as the earlier ones -- even the first dozen -- remain good listening. Rating: a pair of aces; always play

2. Ante Up!
This Florida-based weekly podcast started approximately one year ago with hosts Christopher Cosenza (an editor at Tampa Bay Times) and Scott Long (an editor at the St. Petersburg Times also who writes a column called "Bet On It" for the TBT) having conversations about poker of modest length (15-20 minutes) and unexceptional depth. The early episodes are all fine, but none are terribly impressive. However, after 20 weeks or so the pair really began to hit their stride and shows became lengthier and much more engaging. The occasional appearance of avuncular Mike Fasso (a columnist for the St. Petersburg Times) also adds a lot to the proceedings. Cosenza and Long play all games at lower limits (online and live) and thus much of what they have to say is relevant and enjoyable to small stakes grinders such as myself. Episodes are organized around a particular topic or theme (e.g., “Pot Odds,” “First time in a casino,” “Check raising,” “Poker Books We’re Reading”). They’ve also devoted shows to games other than Hold ’em (Omaha, 7-Card Stud, Razz). Pick it up around the 20th episode or so and enjoy. Rating: ace-king suited; play often, particularly from late position

3. CardPlayer’s The Circuit
Last December CardPlayer magazine began producing these podcasts at the Five Diamond World Poker Classic, essentially daily reports from the event though augmented considerably by interviews and strategy discussions. Since then, CardPlayer has continued to produce four or five lengthy (usually around an hour-long) episodes from each major circuit event. The show was originally co-hosted by Scott Huff (an amateur player) and Mike “the Mouth” Matusow, and the earliest episodes (from the Five Diamond, the Caribbean Poker Adventure, and the Gold Strike World Poker Open) feature several moments where Huff successfully tames Matusow into an entertaining and informative contributor. Things deterioriate a bit after that, with Matusow frequently coming on and complaining endlessly about his misfortune at whatever tournament they happen to be covering, his self-loathing and/or whining often obscuring interviews with guests. (Even Huff’s attempts to toss the Mouth into “Radio Jail” -- i.e., turning off his mic -- seem not to have worked.) Matusow has now apparently moved on, with pros Joe Sebok and Gavin Smith having assumed co-hosting duties with Huff. This trio interacts very effectively -- all three are smart and articulate about poker and at times can be funny as hell. Huff’s perspective probably matches that of most of the show’s listeners (a low-limit grinder with more online than brick-and-mortar experience), and thus provides a nice way of interacting with Sebok, Smith, and the pros who come on the show. Huff frequently asks questions you or I would want asked (about strategy, moving up limits, bankroll considerations, etc.). The show can also be very entertaining. For some humor highlights, check out the episode featuring Steve Dannenman and the “New Cut Crew” from the WPT Winter Open, the one featuring Phil “I can dodge bullets baby” Hellmuth from the Five-Star World Poker Classic, or the one with Haralabos Voulgaris at the Mirage (which I’ve mentioned before). Great stuff. Rating: ace-king offsuit; plenty of reasons to play

4. Rounders, the Poker Show
Rounders is a Canadian podcast that’s associated with an AM station out of Vancouver. The hosts Mike Johnson and Adam Schwartz are both smart and engaging, although their sometimes-overly-rapid delivery (esp. Johnson’s) is a clear tell that you’re listening to sports radio. The weekly, 45-minute show focuses primarily on the pros, with nearly all the top names having been interviewed at some point during the thirteen months or so it has been produced. There’s also a good deal of discussion about what’s happening in Vegas. So while you may now and then hear some strategy talk, the podcast is generally geared in other directions. The hosts are players as well, with Schwartz playing in some of the bigger money games and Johnson playing lower limits and online tourneys. So they will occasionally relate their own experiences, and since they are both good talkers the discussions are generally fairly compelling. The show is well-produced and always sounds great, and a lot of the older interviews are not so time-bound as to be less interesting today. If you’re interested in particular personalities, go through the archives and find their interviews among the 50+ episodes produced thus far. (Unlike some of the interviewers at the bottom of the list, these two do a fine job letting the guests speak their minds.) Rating: ace-queen offsuit; mostly play but can be let go now and then

5. Phil Gordon’s 2005 WSOP podcasts
Last summer professional player and former co-host of Celebrity Poker Showdown Phil Gordon produced one of the more popular poker podcasts of the year during the World Series of Poker. From June 3rd to July 17th, he posted podcasts on an almost daily basis detailing his experiences playing multiple events at the WSOP. During breaks Gordon would record brief rundowns of how he had fared during the previous level, often narrating interesting hands or other notable events that had occurred. He’d also usually interview at least one other pro per episode (they run from 5-10 minutes up to a half hour or more). In the end, every episode includes something of interest, including genuinely helpful tournament strategy tips (from himself and from others). Gordon is a pretty likable guy who’s clearly knowledgable about poker. He also can be pretty damn funny at times, too. I found these sometime late last summer and had listened to all 29 of them within a couple of weeks. I’m sure I’m not alone in hoping he does something similar again this year. Rating: pocket jacks; a favorite over most of the field

Okay, move it on out. You've seen 'em all . . . now, check 'em out yer selves and tell me what you think.

Images: Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio, Ante Up!, CardPlayer’s The Circuit, Rounders, the Poker Show, Expert Insight (Phil Gordon).