Something Noteworthy: Duke Wins NBC Heads-Up

Was following that NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship over the weekend in which Annie Duke ended up surviving six heads-up matches, including winning two of three against Erik Seidel in the finals, to capture the $500,000 first prize. I said on Friday that despite the relatively fast, made-for-TV structures for most of the matches -- as well as the inherent luck involved in any given heads-up match -- “anyone who manages to win... will have accomplished something noteworthy.”

That Duke won will probably further fuel debates over the relative significance of the event in terms of its measure of poker skill. Of course, anything involving Duke tends further to fuel debates in the poker world.

The fact is, besides now being known by many as a reality TV star, Duke is a highly accomplished poker player. Just looking at her WSOP record, it’s kind of amazing. She has 38 total cashes for over $1.12 million (I think the WSOP site is missing one, her cash in the 1995 Main Event), 15 final tables, three runner-ups, and one bracelet (the $2,000 Omaha/8 event in 2004). All in open events, incidentally, and in a wide variety of games (no-limit hold’em, limit hold’em, Omaha/8, stud, stud/8, and pot-limit Omaha).

Of course, Duke’s biggest win in terms of career earnings was that $2 million score for winning the 2004 Tournament of Champions event, which, like the NBC Heads-Up event, was a tourney she was invited to play. In fact, only ten players were invited, and while Duke outlasted a genuinely tough field (Hellmuth, Lederer, Chan, Raymer, Brunson, Negreanu, Ivey, Cloutier, and Reese), some have downplayed the significance of her having so significantly boosted her total career tourney winnings in this single-table freeroll.

So I think there is probably a bit of prejudice already in place to downgrade Duke’s triumph this weekend. Interestingly, two articles turned up on Sunday -- before Duke had won -- that differently addressed the significance of the event. One was a piece over on Casino City Times by Gary Trask with the headline “NBC Heads-Up event held in high regard by poker pros.” The other was a blog post by Daniel Negreanu in which he rated the “World’s Top Ten Toughest Tournaments.”

At first glance, the articles may appear to share a common focus -- namely, to highlight those tourneys the top players hold in “high regard” as genuine achievements if one wins. Indeed, Negreanu’s article does provide a somewhat thorough ranking of tourneys’ “toughness” according to three primary criteria: strength of field, structure, and field size. While his list certainly invites debate -- e.g., ranking the WSOP Main Event as the sixth-toughest tourney and putting a couple of yet-to-be-played events at the top of his list -- it is clear Negreanu is focusing mainly on how well the events test players’ tourney skills.

The Casino City Times article rather focuses on other factors affecting players’ “high regard” -- namely the enjoyment they get from participating, the fun of competing (and earning bragging rights with friends/colleagues), and the intangible benefits of succeeding in a high-profile, televised event.

Trask quotes Phil Gordon noting how “we all want to play in it” and how “the fact that it’s a heads-up, one-on-one match really brings the whole ego thing into the equation.” However, Gordon recognizes how the tourney may rate lower on a “toughness” scale such as the one Negreanu put together. “[W]e all realize that when it comes right down to it, this is a crapshoot,” says Gordon. “There’s just so much luck involved in a one-time heads-up match.”

Negreanu does mention at the end of his list how the NBC Heads-Up event’s fast structure necessarily eliminates it from consideration as one of the “toughest” tourneys. But the question remains of how to rate the achievement of someone who does win the event. As an NBC Heads-Up champ, Duke joins a list of other highly accomplished players -- Hellmuth, Forrest, Wasicka, Ferguson, and Seed. Each enjoyed some good fortune along the way to win their titles, but such is true for all tourney winners to some degree.

I’ll stick to the idea that winning it is “something noteworthy,” though doubt Duke’s win will necessarily up the NBC Heads-Up event’s status as an especially “tough” test for players.

Does the WSOP Need a Commish?

As I’m sure most of you have heard by now, a delay was indeed granted for compliance with the finalized regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, meaning U.S. banks and other financial institutions will not be required to block transactions with online gambling sites until June 1, 2010. Doesn’t mean they cannot block such transactions already -- they have been able to do that since January 19, 2009, in fact -- but doing so is still not mandatory.

So another six months to see if any other legislation might get moved along here. Will be keeping an eye on that hearing scheduled for Thursday, December 3 at 10:00 a.m., the one where the House Financial Services Committee will be discussing Rep. Barney Frank’s two bills -- one to make the UIGEA delay a full year, and the other to introduce a mechanism with which to regulate online gambling in this country.

The delay is terrific news, in my view, and while regulation isn’t necessarily desirable -- particularly if certain states, namely my own, opt out -- it doesn’t look as bad as a world in which the UIGEA has been fully implemented.

Indeed, the misbegotten law has already done significant damage in the poker world, negatively affecting both online and live poker as well as the various industries associated with both. Sure, the UIGEA has certainly provided me with a lot to write about here at Hard-Boiled Poker over the last three-plus years, but the overall effect of the law has been exceedingly negative. Will be glad to see the sucker taken care of once and for all.

Speaking of the “UIGEA era,” I was thinking again over the weekend about the World Series of Poker and how a little over two weeks ago, Jeffrey Pollack stepped down from his post as the first-ever WSOP Commissioner. Since Pollack’s resignation, a few folks have written further about how he’ll be remembered, and indeed, one aspect of his tenure as Commish will be how it mostly coincided with this awful law that single-handedly slowed down what appeared at the time to be unstoppable growth for the Series.

In “The Pollack Legacy: The Good, the Bad, and the Silly,” Amy Calistri does a good job compiling various moments of significance during Pollack’s time with the WSOP. In her discussion, Calistri notes how “After the UIGEA, people were ready to stick a fork in poker,” and how she and others all “argued that the UIGEA would accelerate the end of the poker boom.” However, the WSOP rebounded from the hit, and Pollack’s contribution to that recovery was certainly, as Calistri says, a “significant accomplishment” for which he’ll be remembered.

T.J. Cloutier also wrote a little something about Pollack last week, a piece titled “Poker Has Lost a Good Man.” In his article, Cloutier talks a bit about how Harrah’s apparently created “a position one level above” Pollack’s, someone who would henceforth “be a buffer between [Pollack] and top management,” and speculates about whether that bit of reorganization might have provided a kind of encouragement for Pollack to step down.

Cloutier, who served as a member of the Players Advisory Council (a Pollack creation), notes that while Pollack always “had to answer to corporate management,” in his view “he was pretty much in control of the World Series.” The implication, then, is that given a situation in which the Commissioner no longer enjoyed such control, Pollack chose to move on. Not sure what the hierarchy really is at present, but the fact that soon after Pollack’s resignation Harrah’s stated it has “no intention at this time to replace the Commissioner role” does suggest the corporation feels that moving forward the operational management of the WSOP can continue without any Commish appearing to guide the ship.

Does the WSOP need a Commissioner? It did, after all, make it 35 years without one.

Gary Trask of Casino City Times thinks so. In a recent article, Trask argues that the Series “needs someone -- not a group of people -- to act as the face of the brand.” He has a point, and indeed, as one further considers the “Pollack legacy,” one might add how he succeeded in making the whole idea of having someone “act as the face of the brand” seem essential for the WSOP. (In the post-Binion’s era of the WSOP, that is.)

As Trask notes, one especially important function of the Commissioner is to provide “a voice to do the same and take the heat when something goes awry” -- something that will surely happen, no matter how well managed things go. Trask goes onto suggest his top ten current poker professionals who could serve as Commish, although I think most would agree that it probably wouldn’t do to have a pro come along to fill the position. (Trask puts the well-liked Mike Sexton atop his list, perhaps the only serious suggestion among the ten.)

While not everyone was always happy with Pollack, the consensus seems to be mostly favorable regarding his legacy, and the fact that it seems difficult to imagine a replacement is probably further evidence of his having served a successful term in the position. I agree with Trask that it is probably a mistake to move forward without having someone acting as WSOP Commissioner, although I cannot easily imagine who would be the person to fill that politically-challenging role.

I know I wouldn’t want to.