On Winners and the Image of Poker

Was somewhat diverting last week to see how that $25K World Poker Tour World Championship played out and all of the surrounding hubbub concerning the deep runs of Erick Lindgren (the eventual runner-up) and David “Chino” Rheem (who won the sucker). I actually barely followed the tournament itself, to be honest, but I couldn’t help but overhear some of the hooting and hollering that resulted from that particular pair making it to heads-up.

Both obviously occupy interesting, similar places in the poker community at present. Lindgren’s story is perhaps somewhat better known thanks to a recent BLUFF feature discussing his significant gambling debts and even a stint in rehab, as well as the openness with which his many creditors have reported on sums owed.

Rheem’s story might be a little less well known, although that absurd-in-retrospect judgment placed upon him by Epic Poker’s Standards and Conduct Committee back in August 2011 broadcast his reputation for failing to pay back debts a little more widely than had been the case previously.

Recall how the EPL placed its first Main Event winner on probation “in order to effectively monitor the personal conduct of Mr. Rheem as he works to meet his personal financial obligations as required under the Players’ Code of Conduct”? Provides a chuckle today, that, as we now understand the extent of Epic Poker’s own significant financial obligations, and the way Federated Sports + Gaming weaseled out of those obligations by taking the bankruptcy route. Heck, some of us are still receiving legal notices helping us monitor that, too.

Both Lindgren and Rheem provide a lot of forum fodder, obviously, and their performances in the WPT World Championship created another occasion for further judgments, jokes, and conjecture about the players’ backing arrangments as well as the possibility of certain debts getting settled thanks to their large scores ($1,150,297 for Rheem and $650,275 for Lindgren).

My initial reaction upon seeing those two in the top spots heading into the final table and then learning they had finished 1-2 was to think back to what I was writing about a week ago regarding “The Shifting Place of the WPT World Championship.” There I was noting how the event has become much less central on the poker calendar over the last several years, both for players and for fans.

One idea I had in mind when writing that post that I didn’t really discuss explicitly was the way the $25K WPT World Championship seems to have evolved into an event reserved for only a select few -- namely, those who can afford and/or be backed for the $25K buy-in. Thus my initial thought about Lindgren and Rheem both playing and coming away with the top two prizes was to think how that result seemed to confirm such an idea that the tournament is kind of segregated from others on the schedule, something only for those like Lindgren and Rheem who even with their debts (or perhaps because of their debts, and, of course, their skills as players) can get backers and play.

But then I had a different thought about it all, partly inspired by the EPL’s fretting over its image once Rheem won that first Main Event. I thought about how curious it is that people place so much importance on who wins a poker tournament and the way the story of that person’s triumph might reflect on the game itself.

The NBA playoffs are currently down to four teams -- Miami, Indiana, San Antonio, and Memphis -- and some commentators are already talking about how the upcoming finals will probably fail to earn high television ratings because of the absence of “big market” teams (e.g., from New York or Los Angeles). But no one is worried about the state of the game itself being negatively affected by who ends up winning in the end. Or affected at all, really.

Meanwhile in poker, discussion about how winners are perceived both within the community and beyond often forms part of the post-tourney response, particularly in the case of the highest-profile tournaments.

Such discussion always surrounds the WSOP Main Event, of course. Remember the first year of the “November Nine” (2008), when all of the talk was about how the final nine featured a bunch of nobodies? Coincidentally -- or ironically -- it was Rheem alone who initially stood out among that group as the only “pro” among them, thus causing a lot of uncertainty about whether or not the whole delayed-final table experiment was ultimately going to be “good for poker” if no one knew the players involved.

Such has been the case ever since the WSOP Main Event started to attract notice by those outside of poker. I’m thinking of the end of The Biggest Game in Town by Al Alvarez in which he reports on the 1981 WSOP. Alvarez describes one player, Bill Smith, drinking heavily throughout the tourney on his way to the final table, and quotes an unnamed poker pro worrying “If Bill ends up beating all of the nice guys, like Bobby [Baldwin], it’s going to set the image of poker back ten years.”

Smith ended up busting in fifth, leading Alvarez to say (with tongue clearly in cheek) that “the new, clean-living image of poker had been spared for another year.” That Stu Ungar would go on to win that year -- an amazing character, to be sure, though obviously not exactly a wholesome representative of the game -- perhaps provides yet another one of those hindsight-producing ironies here.

In any case, this whole idea of assigning such significance to the winner’s character or identity and its ultimate effect on the “image of poker” is curious to say the least. After all, the game attracts such a wide variety of people, and the very nature of the game -- with chance a significant element -- makes it impossible to exert any sort of control over who is going to win and thus be perceived as representing the game going forward.

Looking back, I’d say that was one of a few impossible goals the EPL was striving for during its brief, quixotic existence, i.e., to try to exert some sort of control over who the winners in poker were going to be, ensuring they be both skillful and of acceptable character. (Wrote a little on that idea way back in early 2011 when the EPL was first announced in a post titled “A League of Their Own.”) But in truth, it is foolhardy to suggest the fate of the game depends so heavily on outcomes.

So Rheem wins and Lindgren almost does. So what? Poker endures.

Words With Friends

Followed with interest the conclusion of the first Epic Poker League Main Event that ended early Saturday morning with David “Chino” Rheem the winner. Also noted, of course, the 2+2 thread and all of the hullaballoo on Twitter and elsewhere regarding Rheem’s many outstanding debts, the obvious joke being his $1 million score had many lining up to meet him at the cashier’s cage.

Rheem’s victory came amid further revelations having to do with that other big story in poker from last week, one that also involved the issue of players trusting one another and getting burned. I’m talking of course about the “Girah” scandal involving Jose Macedo, Haseeb Qureshi, Dan Cates, and others. More has come out regarding that one, particularly with regard to Cates’ involvement and culpability, enough to warrant a revised and expanded “Cliffs notes” post over on 2+2.

At some point last week -- after I’d posted my bit about the “Girah” scandal on Thursday -- I was talking with a friend about it who commented on how incredibly naïve and/or gullible Macedo’s “friends” had to be to get hoodwinked into that whole Skype scam.

I’m talking about the part of the scandal where Macedo persuaded others in his “strategy group” to play a couple of unknowns whom he characterized as fish. Somehow Macedo additionally convinced these others to allow him to view their sessions as they played, using TeamViewer, a desktop sharing tool. His “friends” ended up losing to the fish, and later it was revealed Macedo was either relaying information about his strategy group’s buddies’ hole cards to the “fish” -- or perhaps was even playing those two accounts himself.

My friend and I were chatting about this -- over Skype, in fact -- when he joked that he knew some “aggro fish” who were looking for heads-up action, facetiously asking me to play while he watched. “It boggles the mind,” he said, to think how these guys would allow Macedo -- a person they’d never even met face-to-face -- talk them into playing the unknowns while he watched.

“I don't let anyone look over my shoulder when I play Words With Friends,” was my response.

More naïvety, gullibility, and other ethically-dubious behavior is on display in Cates’ lengthy interview on Subject:Poker that appeared on Friday. There Cates reveals himself to have made numerous bad decisions over recent months, another one seeming to have been his agreeing to give the interview in the first place. Cates -- whom it should be noted is still only 21 years old -- can’t seem to give a straight answer to any question put to him, contradicting himself and even calling back to admit to lying (repeatedly) about having multi-accounted.

All of this drama over “Girah” and Rheem got me thinking further about the value of a person’s word and how such is often said to be of special importance in the poker world. Many poker players -- especially those who’ve been part of the scene for a long time -- speak of the value of a person’s word as in fact being higher in the poker world than outside of it, the frequency of verbal agreements involving money (such as the many Rheem has been accused of failing to honor) a testament to that difference.

There’s something almost counterintuitive about it, really. That poker -- a game based on lying, or at least misrepresenting oneself in ways that serve one’s self-interest -- would be a realm in which people could trust one another more readily than elsewhere. But many insist that is the case, citing the “gambler’s code” and pointing out how stories such as the ones surrounding Rheem and the “Girah” group are noteworthy because of their uniqueness.

Speaking of, Noah Stephens-Davidowitz (who along with Vanessa Selbst conducted the Cates interview for S:P) wrote an interesting post on his personal blog last week titled “The Vouching System Sucks” in which he decries the way many in the poker community overvalue each other’s “word,” particularly when given as a recommendation to trust a third party. And Zimba over on CardRunners added some thoughtful advice last week as well regarding “Protecting Yourself From Cheating.”

“Poker is no different from any sport, business or life situation,” writes Zimba in his post, explaining how one will certainly encounter others failing to honor their word in poker just as one will elsewhere. I tend to agree. While recognizing the uniqueness of the culture of poker -- where the collective pressure to honor one’s word perhaps operates differently than it does outside of poker -- it’s obvious that when it comes to taking a person’s word, you still gotta know with whom you’re dealing.

That is to say, in poker or elsewhere, know who your friends are. And value their words accordingly.

2008 WSOP Main Event Final Table Resumes Tomorrow

In just a little over 24 hours they will be gathering over at the Penn & Teller Theater at the Rio to resume the 2008 World Series of Poker Main Event final table. Almost forgot all about it, didn’t you?

As one who regularly follows podcasts, reads forums and blogs, and keeps up with other varieties of poker media, I suppose I’ve become somewhat familiar with the nine players’ personalities over the last 100-plus days. Can’t really claim to have that much knowledge of playing styles beyond the few hands we saw on the ESPN shows. While I was there covering the action up through Day 5 this summer -- and I watched the feature table for a few hours on both Day 6 and Day 7 -- I can’t really claim to have picked up all that much extra information that yr average ESPN viewer wouldn’t already have.

My limited knowledge ain’t gonna stop me, though, from offering a few thoughts about the remaining players here on the eve of the final table.

1. Dennis Phillips (26,295,000) -- The 53-year-old account manager for Broadway Truck Centers in St. Louis will most definitely be easy to root for tomorrow. His humble nature and dedication to charity work has won him a lot of fans during the long lead-up to tomorrow’s final table. He definitely caught some cards during those last two days of play in July -- we all saw him flop a couple of flushes there in the ESPN telecasts. But we also saw him get paid on those hands, and show a willingness to bluff (and catch others’ bluffs), too. I definitely like Phillips’ chances, though a lot depends on the table draw (not to mention how the cards go). In any event, he’s certainly one of about five players who will be seriously gunning for the bracelet and not merely to finish in the top five or six. (Check out my interview with Phillips here.)

2. Ivan Demidov (24,400,000) -- His big chip stack and third-place finish in the World Series of Poker Europe Main Event most certainly affords Demidov some extra credibility as a contender tomorrow. Some have mentioned how good it would be for poker should the 27-year-old from Moscow -- or one of the other three non-Americans still alve -- manage to take the bracelet. The fact that he played 242 hands at that WSOPE final table might mean his opponents tomorrow have gained a bit of extra knowledge about how he approaches the endgame, although without knowing hole cards it is hard to estimate the significance of such information. I’d expect Demidov to maintain his healthy chip stack early on, although he has expressed in at least one interview a willingness to flip with a shorter-stack, especially if it is with a more formidable opponent like Rheem.

3. Scott Montgomery (19,690,000) -- We all saw Montgomery luck out a couple of times on ESPN to survive, but so did most of the other nine at some point in their respective journeys. The 26-year-old Canadian finished fifth in the WPT L.A. Poker Classic early in the year. He has a mathematics degree and has done some teaching (in Japan, actually), so has a bit of smarts about him. Also has a winning, self-effacing personality, too, as evidenced on ESPN and on the 10/30/08 episode of the Pocket Fives podcast. Seems willing to take some chances and gamble it up, and so might be a target for the short stacks early on.

4. Peter Eastgate (18,375,000) -- The youngest (aged 22) of the nine, and looks it. Eastgate is the only one of the group I don’t believe I’ve actually listened to being interviewed. On the few hands shown on ESPN telecasts, he appeared to have the sort of bold, aggressive style you’d expect of a young internet-trained player. Being from Denmark, expect a lot more comparisons with Gus Hansen to be thrown around tomorrow, especially if Eastgate goes deep (which I think is very likely). Has an effective, non-expressive poker face, too, which helped him in the hand in which he knocked out Tiffany Michelle. Would not be surprised at all to see Eastgate playing on Monday when they return for heads up.

5. Ylon Schwartz (12,525,000) -- The 38-year-old chess master from Brooklyn was probably the most idiosyncratic-seeming of the nine in interviews, tossing off strange, off-the-wall comments that suggested he either wasn’t affected by the whole delayed-final-table spectacle or was pretending such. When Phil Gordon asked him what his future plans were on The Poker Edge, Schwartz responded with something about jumping off the Rio roof if he didn’t win. (As I wrote about yesterday, Schwartz also has some interesting things to say about how chess compares to poker.) From what I saw on Day 7 when watching from the stands, Schwartz was playing uber-tight in an effort to make the final table -- probably only Kelly Kim was tighter there at the end. While many think he’ll continue in that vein tomorrow and be content to finish in the top five, I’m thinking he could surprise people and play more aggressively early on. Not in a wild Jerry Yang-fashion, but be active enough that he could well accumulate chips and be around to contend at the end.

6. Darus Suharto (12,520,000) -- I heard Suharto interviewed on The Poker Edge about a month back. The 39-year-old Canadian was back at his accounting job and in fact sounded as though his job had a much more prominent place in his life than did poker or even the WSOP. The impression might be misleading, however. Even though Suharto is an amateur who only plays part-time, he has gathered some experience here lately at the EPT London and the North American Poker Championship. Even so, of all the final nine, he seems to me the most likely to sit tight from the beginning tomorrow and just try to survive the first couple of eliminations.

7. David Rheem (10,230,000) -- The Los Angeles pro was easily the most prominent of the nine both on the ESPN shows and elsewhere, thanks both to his earlier poker successes (including one televised final table at this year’s WSOP) and that bit of news about his having had an outstanding arrest warrant. Until Demidov’s deep WSOPE run, the 28-year-old seemed to be a favorite pick among many to win, but with the relatively-shorter starting stack his fate depends heavily on his being fortunate whenever he decides to make that first big gamble tomorrow. I don’t see Rheem being content to sit on his below-average stack very long tomorrow. Indeed, Rheem seems to me the most likely of the remaining players to make a Philip Hilm-like early exit.

8. Craig Marquis (10,210,000) -- The 24-year-old from Arlington, Texas was most conspicuous at the ten-handed table in July, showing an obvious willingness to go busto in his effort to exploit what had been hyped as the biggest bubble in poker tourney history. Seems like a smart, funny guy. Is a prominent contributor over on Two Plus Two where he started a Q&A thread about a month ago titled “Ask a member of the November Nine.” He didn’t answer all of the questions posed there, but did respond to many (perhaps too many, actually). A complete wild card, really, who could flame out early or gather chips and go deep.

9. Kelly Kim (2,620,000) -- The 31-year-old Californian endured a lot of ups and downs during the seven days of play, nearly busting right at the money bubble (and on a few other occasions), then limping to the finish at the very end. Sounds like a savvy tourney player who may well endure into the top six or seven spots, should he manage to double up during the first orbit or two (and then hang on after that).

I’ve established already that I’m pulling for Phillips to take it down, although as I say above I think the table draw has a lot to do with how things will go for him. Thought a little about making predictions, but taking a page from Phillips’ book of humility, I’m gonna refrain other than to say I think the non-Americans are all gonna do well tomorrow.

Unless you plan to keep yr head in the sand until the ESPN “plausibly live” show on Tuesday night, be sure to head over to PokerNews’ live reporting tomorrow to follow all of the action.

Worryin’ About Hurryin’: The 2008 WSOP Main Event Final Table

Was catching up on some podcasts over the weekend and heard Gary Wise’s interview with David Rheem on Wise Hand Poker (the 8/13/08 episode). Rheem is one of the so-called “November Nine” who made the delayed final table of this year’s World Series of Poker Main Event. You might remember Rheem from his appearance at the Event No. 4 final table (the $5,000 Mixed Hold’em event) shown on ESPN a couple of weeks ago. He entered that final table the chip leader, but ended up going out in fifth.

You might also recall back in July an article appeared in the South Florida Sun Sentinel reporting Rheem had an outstanding warrant in Hollywood, Florida for apparently having failed to appear in court in 2003 on a misdemeanor trespassing charge. Less widely circulated was a subsequent report that the 2003 warrant is apparently no longer valid.

I had heard Rheem interviewed once before on the Two Plus Two Pokercast (Episode 32, 7/14/08), but on Wise’s show Rheem mentioned something new. When asked his thoughts regarding the 117-day delay before the WSOP ME final table, Rheem admitted that when he began the tournament, he had no idea such a delay was scheduled.

According to Rheem, following Day 2 he had a decent-sized chip stack and was discussing the tournament with some friends. “They were, like, ‘you know, once you make the final table, you make a three-month break,’ and then, you know, I almost lost money on it because I didn’t believe them. I was like ‘I’ll bet you money that you don’t!’ And then when their arm was out ready to shake my hand, I knew they were serious.” Rheem said he then went to the Tournament Director to confirm, and that’s when he first found out about the delay.

There was no hurry, I guess. Not like it really mattered on Day 2.

Rheem seems pretty likable. So do his fellow final tablists Dennis Phillips, whom I heard interviewed on Phil Gordon’s The Poker Edge (7/24/08), and Craig Marquis, who appeared on The Poker Edge as well (8/7/08). Listening to their interviews got me wondering about where things stood heading into that final table, still nearly three months away.

Play stopped in the early morning hours of July 15th with exactly 21 minutes and 50 seconds left in Level 33. That means these guys played over 65 hours of poker to get to this point in the tourney. The blinds are currently 120,000/240,000 with 30,000 antes. Here’s what each player will have in front of him when the first hand gets dealt on November 9th:

On the World Series of Poker website, there’s an article dated July 15th that purports to give final table seat assignments, but that information is incorrect. As Dennis Phillips mentioned on The Poker Edge, they will be drawing for seats five minutes before play begins on Nov. 9th.

I listed the number of big blinds each player currently has as well as the “M” or ratio of one’s stack to the current total of blinds and antes -- i.e., the “cost per round” figure popularized by Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie in their Harrington on Hold’em series.

On the most recent episode of The Poker Edge, Phil Gordon suggested that “the pace of play at that final table is going to be ridiculously slow.” He was referring to the fact that when it came to players like Marquis -- whom he said was “not exactly short-stacked, not exactly desperate yet” -- “you’ve got 40 big blinds, there’s no hurry.”

Indeed, if one looks at the “M” ratio of the nine players, a lot of them are still in that “Green Zone” (an “M” of 20 or higher) in which Harrington and Robertie say “all moves are available.” However, Arnold Snyder, in his discussion of “chip utility” in The Poker Tournament Formula 2, would certainly disagree with the notion that “there’s no hurry” when one is down to 40 big blinds.

For Snyder “full utility” is only possible when one has 100 big blinds or more, a situation only Phillips and Demidov currently enjoy. That, says Snyder, “is the minimum stack size required for unhampered post-flop play, including information bets and more advanced moves on later streets or against more aggressive deep-stacked opponents.” Snyder describes a stack size of 60 big blinds as still “competitive,” though not “fully functional.” Stacks of 30-60 big blinds have “moderate utility,” and below 30 makes one’s utility “low.”

Of concern here for players other than Phillips and Demidov is the fact that 20 minutes after they start play on November 9th -- i.e., probably less than one orbit -- the blinds and antes will be moving up to 150,000/300,000 plus 40,000. That means unless a player like Marquis picks up a pot within those first few hands, he’s down to 30 big blinds and “low utility” (according to Snyder’s rubric).

Gordon’s comment reminded me that he had said something similar last year at the start of the 2007 final table. Indeed, that final table also began with 120,000/240,000 blinds and antes of 30,000, with roughly the same total number of chips in play. After the first hand of that final table -- in which Jerry Yang raised to 1.4 million from under the gun, was called by a late position player, then took the pot with a big bet on the flop -- Ali Nejad spoke of the 630,000 that was in the pot before each hand began and how that was a decent-sized prize to go after.

“Yeah, but the blinds are very small in relation to the stack sizes here,” answered Gordon. “There’s not a single player at the table who’s ready to just push under the gun or raise all in…. It would surprise me greatly -- unless there are just some huge hands, like aces versus kings or something like that -- to see any elimination here in the first three or four hours of this tournament.”

Anybody remember where we were after four hours last year? No less than four players -- Philip Hilm, Lee Watkinson, Lee Childs, and Hevad Khan -- had already busted.

We’ve a long time to wait, still. But I tend to believe we’re probably gonna see some serious hurryin’ once we get there.