On the Relative Watchability of Poker (Again)

Just a quick sign-off to the week today to share something unrelated to politics or elections or the like. I mean, it’s a poker blog, you know?

Saw my buddy Tim Fiorvanti -- formerly of BLUFF magazine and now writing for ESPN -- tweeting out today a new article appearing on ESPN in which one of the site’s senior writers Arash Markazi shares a personal reflection of having watched this year’s World Series of Poker Main Event final table.

Markazi isn’t necessarily a “poker guy,” although as he explains at the start of his column he plays now and then and like a lot of people during the 2000s found a lot of enjoyment in watching televised poker.

He shares the not uncommon view that a big reason why he found poker TV compelling back then was “because of the characters I had become connected to while watching all those shows.” He also got a little tired of it all even before Black Friday, and sounds as though he’d drifted away from watching over recent years (again, like many others).

Markazi went to the Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino this year to watch all three nights of the final table. To summarize his general impression, he wasn’t too entertained, finding it all much too tedious and tame. To be fair, Markazi seems to be applying some of the criteria for what makes a sporting event entertaining to this in-person experience of the final table, which most of us who have spent time watching people play poker know isn’t really the best way to judge.

Even so, he persuasively laments that even after watching players going at it for more than a dozen hours, he “had no real connection to them” and thus couldn’t find a way to be engaged.

He thinks back to Jamie Gold at the 2006 WSOP Main Event final table who helps provide a sharp contrast between a fond poker watching memory and the more recent experience. He talks to Gold as well, who affirms the much-shared point that “you need to have players talking to have heroes and villains.” Since the 2016 WSOP Main Event final table featured relatively little of that, there was necessarily going to be (in Markazi’s estimation) a “disconnect between the viewers and the players at the table.”

Interestingly, Markusi doesn’t mention any of the coverage leading up to the final table, which I have to assume he didn’t see. If he had, he would no doubt have discussed the prominent role William Kassouf played in those shows, cast as he was as a kind of “villain” precisely because of his table talk or so-called “speech play.”

He might also have addressed the WSOP’s somewhat confused handling of Kassouf, which could have been interpreted as representing a position directly opposed to the one Markusi and Gold espouse in the column -- namely, that table talk is a very good thing when it comes to making poker more interesting as a “spectator sport.”

Anyhow, check out Markusi’s article if you’re curious, titled “Poker is lacking the heroes and villains it so desperately needs.”

Image: “Bax's parents watching him play the #mainevent #finaltable #wsop #poker #gojohnnygo #bax,” Dutch Boyd. CC BY 2.0.

Eight-Figure Cashers Meet Heads-Up in WSOP-C Finale

I was up late last night doing some work and so noticed some of the tweets going by signaling that Jamie Gold and Antonio Esfandiari were among those who were at the final table of the World Series of Poker Circuit Main Event at the Bicycle Casino. Also making the final nine in that $1,675 buy-in event (with re-entries) were Ray Henson, Bryn Kenney, and Ludovic Geilich.

As the night wore on the messages continued to pop up as Gold and Esfandiari eventually made it to heads-up. It was then I clicked over to the live stream provided by the Live at the Bike folks and watch the last several hands play out, with Esfandiari eventually winning to take the ring.

With 756 entries, the first prize for Esfandiari was $226,785. Many commenting over Twitter noted how the pair showing up at this WSOP-C Main final table was a bit of a throwback. “It was like 2006 all over again!” tweeted Jennifer Tilly, a thought occurring to many others, I imagine.

That of course was the year of Jamie Gold’s victory in the WSOP Main Event, marking his introduction to most of us via the subsequent ESPN coverage. By then we also were well familiar with Esfandiari thanks to his 2004 win in the World Poker Tour L.A. Poker Classic, also shown repeatedly on our teevees.

Both players have made California home, explaining their having turned up for the event at the Bicycle. Both have also at one time in their careers sat atop the Hendon Mob’s “All-Time Money List” ranking players’ tournament winnings, a list currently headed by Daniel Negreanu.

There was another connection between the two I couldn’t help but think about while watching them square off last night. This had to be the first time two players with eight-figure cashes on their tournament résumés ever met heads-up in a tournament.

By winning the first Big One for One Drop at the 2012 WSOP, Esfandiari cashed for $18,346,673, while Gold won a $12,000,000 first prize for taking down the largest-ever WSOP Main Event in 2006. (As we know, neither player actually won those full amounts, with Esfandiari reportedly only having around 15% of himself and Gold famously giving up half of his prize in the subsequent lawsuit.)

Only two other players have eight-figure tournament scores -- Daniel Colman (awarded $15,306,668 after winning the 2014 installment of the Big One for One Drop) and Martin Jacobson (who won $10,000,000 for his victory in the 2014 WSOP Main Event. Safe to make the assumption, then, than none of these guys have played heads-up before. (Sam Trickett, who finished runner-up to Esfandiari in that Big One for One Drop, became an eight-figure cashers upon the conclusion of that event, as his prize was $10,112,001.)

One other bit of trivia from last night’s WSOP-C results -- Gold’s second-place cash for $139,820 was the second-highest of his career.

Image: “List of largest poker tournaments in history (by prize pool),” Wikipedia (retrieved 3/30/16).

Hellmuth and Gold, Political Pundits

Today is Tuesday, which often makes me think of the “Super Tuesday” -- that is, the $1,050 buy-in weekly no-limit hold’em tournament on PokerStars. Of course today that phrase has a different meaning for many as both the Democrats and Republicans are holding primaries or caucuses in a number of states.

If I’m counting correctly, the Democrats are having primaries and caucuses in 11 different states with about a third of the total delegates up for grabs. Meanwhile the Republicans are holding primaries and caucuses in 13 states with about half of their delegates in play. In other words, after today both races will suddenly move from the early levels to the mid-to-late stages, with nominations perhaps even being all but locked up depending on how things go.

Speaking of poker and politics, I saw a couple of items pop up yesterday in which poker pros were being asked to weigh in on the ongoing presidential race.

First there was Phil Hellmuth tweeting about an article on the website The Street concerning Donald Trump running away with the GOP nomination and the efforts by some in the part to stop him. The article is titled “How Do You Beat Donald Trump? We Asked a Poker Champion,” and has Hellmuth characterizing Trump as a “loose-aggressive” (LAG) player and offering ideas for how to win versus such an opponent.

Nothing too unusual about seeing Hellmuth appear in such a context. I mean we all consistently go to Hellmuth for commentary on all sorts of things besides poker, seeking his thoughts about, say, Jay-Z’s latest joint, the Golden State Warriors, or Carl’s Jr. Texas BBQ Thickburgers.

In the article Hellmuth unsurprisingly advises patience and waiting for a strong hand with which to defeat the player getting involved in too many pots (and betting too much when he does). Of course, that strategy hasn’t worked very well for Trump’s opponents thus far, perhaps because they themselves are too weak as candidates to have much with which to play back against him.

To Hellmuth’s credit, he also outlines a Plan B which involves essentially being even more loose and aggressive in response. It’s a more interesting article than you might think, getting a bit more specific and going beyond that earlier attempt at casting Trump as a poker player appearing in Time a month ago.

The other item that came up yesterday was Jamie Gold (of all people) appearing on Fox News to talk about the presidential race. It was a short three-minute bit in which Gold, introduced as both a former “world poker champion” and an “expert odds analyst,” shared a few thoughts about betting on the election.

Gold talks a little about how betting odds perhaps provide more accurate indicators of what will happen than polls, then offers some ideas about how to bet the election, including explaining the idea of “middling” (here relevant if, as Gold suggests, “it’s about a 99% chance” Hillary Clinton and Trump will be the parties’ nominees).

Gold’s appearance predictably earned some funny and cynical responses yesterday, although it made me think back to his expressed desire after winning the 2006 WSOP Main Event -- on High Stakes Poker, I believe -- that he one day become known as the greatest bluffer ever. Have to say, his commenting on a major news network as an “expert odds analyst” is getting there, wouldn’t you say?

Gold was fine in the short segment (I thought), which you can watch here.

Photos: “Phil Hellmuth” & “Jamie Gold” (adapted), flipchip / LasVegasVegas.com, CC BY-SA 2.0.

2015 WSOP November Nine, Day 2: McKeehen’s Still On Top

Watched every hand again last night as the 2015 World Series of Poker Main Event final table played down from six players to three, with Joe McKeehen remaining in a dominant position going into three-handed play for tonight’s finish.

It’s reminding me once again of that WSOP Circuit final table from a couple of years ago that I’ve mentioned before, the one at Caesars Atlantic City I helped cover where McKeehen entered the final day with a big lead and never seemed to be challenged much at all on his way to the win.

Kind of remarkable, really, to think how easily things have gone for McKeehen at the final table thus far. Not only has he avoided making any bad decisions, he’s barely even taken that many risks at all even with decent hands in good spots. Both his opponents’ styles and the cards have dictated that result somewhat, but the overall impression has been that it’s hard to imagine how things could have gone much differently for McKeehen up to this point.

Easily the most interesting hand last night was the one that came relatively late when they were four-handed and Josh Beckley managed to three-bet and then fold pocket jacks to a reraise from the chip leader. We knew when watching that McKeehen had four-bet with pocket queens, which helped raise the eyebrows a little further when we saw Beckley avoid getting hooked by his two hooks.

The hand reminded me of one from the 2006 WSOP Main Event final table, something I brought up in another “what would you do?”-type PokerNews article today. I’m referring to a hand in which Richard Lee reraised all in with pocket jacks versus Jamie Gold’s queens and was knocked out in sixth.

Even though the two hands were similar, it’s funny to go back and think about how crazily different the play was at the ’06 final table -- where, it should be said, most of those there were amateurs, with Allen Cunningham being the exception. In fact in the hand Gold limped in with his queens, something that is hard to imagine happening today. So, too, have the 3x-and-above opening raises at that final table become a thing of the distant past.

Will be there ’til the end again tonight. While it’s hard to envision McKeehen in trouble, it sure would be interesting to watch should either Beckley or Neil Blumenfield manage to get in a position where they can present him some difficulty to complicate the conclusion.

Remembering Wasicka’s Call-or-Fold Dilemma

Poker-wise, today -- August 10 -- has several significances. It’s Doyle Brunson’s birthday today. Kara Scott, Ed Miller, and John Hennigan are also celebrating birthdays today, I believe.

Meanwhile, it was on this date in 2006 that the final table of the World Series of Main Event played out, the one in which Jamie Gold won what is still the largest first prize ever in a WSOP Main Event of $12 million.

Was thinking back a little today to that final table -- the first WSOP ME to play out after I’d started Hard-Boiled Poker about three months before.

I have an article over on PokerNews today focusing in particular on the wild three-way hand that resulted in Michael Binger finishing third and Paul Wasicka making one of the most talked-about folds in WSOP history (before eventually finishing second). Those who remember the hand might find it interesting to relive it briefly. And if you don’t recall the hand, check out the incredibly tough spot in which Wasicka found himself.

The article appears under the heading “Hand Histories,” and I’m kind of thinking of occasionally writing about other famous poker hands in history, in particular ones that highlight an especially interesting strategic decision. Will try to avoid the same old stuff with these, but rather invite readers to hone in on a moment -- like Wasicka’s decision -- and share their thinking about it.

What other hands might work well for “Hand Histories”? Let me know -- I’m all ears.

Travel Report: Season XIII WPT bestbet Bounty Scramble, Day 3 -- Same Old Gold

Have a couple of quick highlights from yesterday’s Day 3 of the World Poker Tour bestbet Bounty Scramble to share.

They played down from 27 to six players yesterday, starting at noon and winding up right around 10 p.m. to make it an much earlier finish than we had the first three days here.

Ryan Van Sanford of Fort Lauderdale ended the night with the chip lead. I knew Van Sanford was young, and likely the youngest of the final 27 when play began. Heard someone say he was just 21 at one point, confirming that suspicion. Then at the end of the night when the final tablists filled out their bio sheets I learned he only turned 21 last Saturday. Couldn’t help but reflect a little after that on where I was back in late 1993 (i.e., in grad school already).

Jamie Gold ended up making it to the final two tables before going out in 16th place. Again, as I was noting yesterday, there was lots of table talk from Gold and other evidence to support what Christian Harder tweeted earlier in the event when referring to Gold: “He played and talked exactly like he did when he won the WSOP.”

Again, it was a kind of uncanny watching Gold perform, given how strongly it was echoing the behavior most of us saw back during the 2006 WSOP coverage. There were pretty much all of the same antics that both make watching the game more interesting but also drive some of the players kind of nuts with the way he pushes the boundaries of angle-shooting and rule-testing.

Early yesterday I noticed him frequently saying “nice hand” whenever an opponent showed any resistance on an early street. That is, he wasn’t saying it after a hand completed, but during it, such as when he would bet the flop and an opponent would call. No idea what effect it was having on other players, but as a reporter it was jarring to keep hearing the phrase at the wrong moment like that when following the action.

There was one fun hand that saw Gold fold on the turn in the face of an all-in shove from Harvey Vandeven. His fold was preceded by a lot of anguished talk as he revolved his hole cards in his hand, exposing them for those who were curious (which would warrant a penalty), though not exactly showing them. He also was saying what he held, though again, not exactly.

Finally he folded, showing he indeed had what he was indicating he had. Then Vandeven showed one of his cards to reveal Gold was ahead when he folded, and that produced a lot of merriment at the table and some good-natured congratulations from Gold. Here’s the hand report, if you’re curious.

He’s a character, all right. Definitely possesses what on the surface appears to be a lot of humility about himself and his game, yet his words and actions are often so ambiguous its hard to know what’s sincere and what isn’t. In any case, he added some extra entertainment to what has already been a pretty fun tournament thus far. (Photo of Gold above by Joe Giron.)

Harder ended up getting all of the way to the final 10 before running pocket queens into not one but two players holding pocket aces. Before the community cards were dealt, Jason Helder cracked that it would be funny if Harder’s opponents made a set, and Harder quick-wittedly replied that he was pulling for that to happen (as it would mean a fouled deck).

Others making deep runs included another blast-from-the-past of sorts, Mike Gracz (who finished 11th), Jacob Bazeley (15th), David Diaz (18th), Darryll Fish (21st), Shannon Shorr (26th), and Anthony Zinno (27th).

They don’t start back until 4 p.m. today, so you can check over at the WPT site beginning then for updates to see if Van Sanford wins. I’m going to assume he’d be a youngest-ever WPT champion -- I believe Nick Schulman won one at 21, too -- but I don’t know for sure.

We’ll probably be edging toward a conclusion by the time the WSOP Main Event picks back up tonight three-handed. I did end up watching some of that last night -- getting back in the room just in time to see Newhouse’s incredible bustout in ninth again. I’ll probably write more about that later in the week after I return, but for now my attention points back to the bestbet Jacksonville for one more day.

Travel Report: Season XIII WPT bestbet Bounty Scramble, Day 2 -- Chip in the Box

Day 2 at the World Poker Tour bestbet Bounty Scramble was a marathon of a day, lasting from noon until after 2 a.m. They played from 161 players down to 27, with Jason Helder who ended the Day 1 flights with the chip lead still the pace-setter with a leading stack.

Jamie Gold is among those still in the hunt, too. In fact he was the first player to get to 1 million chips yesterday before coming back to the pack by night’s end. He again was the source of a lot of table talk and interaction, making things a degree more interesting for the observer than is usually the case. Can’t speak to how his presence and behavior affected others who were playing with him, but most seemed to roll with it.

I was writing about reading Stephen King’s 11/22/63 on the way here, a time-travel story. Indeed, there’s a “time travel” feel to watching Gold here doing all the same things we saw him doing back in 2006 during his Main Event run.

Daniel Strelitz (54th), Zo Karim (49th), last year’s “Scramble” winner Jared Jaffee (47th), Matt Jarvis (45th), Mohsin Charania (44th), John Racener (39th), former NFL player Richard Seymour (37th), and last year’s third-place “Scramble” finisher Margo Costa (33rd) were among those cashing yesterday.

Probably the most memorable moment yesterday came shortly after they’d reached the money. Matt Jarvis was actually the shortest stack in the room with 55 left, and only 54 paid. But he survived into the money, then shortly after had won a pot that saw the dealer sweeping chips afterwards to him seated next to him in Seat 1.

The dealer got a little too close to the jackpot box in between them with the move, and a chip found its way into the box which led to a lot of hilarity and a little consternation as there wasn’t a key handy to get in there to retrieve it. (See pic above by the great Joe Giron.)

In fact, it wasn’t clear at the time if just one chip fell in or perhaps more, and so when play continued while a key was fetched and Jarvis got involved in a hand, that created a somewhat intriguing situation. You can read about “Jarvis and the Jackpot Box” here.

Gonna close it here as Day 3 is already almost here. Check the WPT site for updates today in between tuning into the November Nine and following the PokerNews coverage of that tonight.

A 2006 WSOP Time Capsule

Didn’t watch the “One Drop” last night (DVR’d it). Instead what time I did spend looking at poker actually involved viewing some of the 2006 World Series of Poker Main Event -- not the ESPN episodes, but the live pay-per-view that was shown that August night (the eighth anniversary of which comes this weekend) when Jamie Gold won the biggest first prize in WSOP Main Event history.

The program brings back some personal memories. That final table occurred just a few months after I started this blog, and about six weeks prior to the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. Thus it exists within a rosy context, a time when my absorption in all things poker was at an all-time high. As was the case for a lot of people.

The playing styles at the final table are of course conspicuously different from what we see today, with everyone opening for at least three times the big blind before the flop (sometimes more), lots of overbetting of pots after the flop, and many all-ins that today would automatically be read as “ICM suicide.”

The commentary by Phil Gordon doesn’t have the benefit of eight years’ worth of hindsight, and so while he does point out what seem like misplays or less-than-recommended bet-sizing here and there, most of his observations -- like the plays themselves -- are essentially time-bound, perfectly fine then while highlighting in retrospect changes in tournament strategy that have happened since.

Other comments by the many guest hosts rotating through during the broadcast are similarly time-bound, and since it was such an interesting time those comments are all the more intriguing.

At one point Doyle Brunson stops by. It happens to be his 73rd birthday. He’s just finished playing a 14-hour day the night before, finishing 21st in one of those post-Main Event bracelet tournaments they ran that year.

“What are your impressions... eighty-seven hundred players this year?” begins Gordon, and Brunson answers that he was one who expected there would be an increase in players from 2005. There were 8,773 players in the WSOP Main Event that year -- still a record. That was more than 3,000 more than had played in 2005, and more than 10 times as many as had played in 2003.

“I think that it’s just going to get bigger and bigger,” Brunson continues. “I don’t see any stopping it. In fact if there were some way to bet, I would like to bet there would be something like 40-50 thousand players in 10 years.”

“Oh boy,” says Gordon, who begins to disagree. “I think so,” affirms Brunson. “The only thing that would stop it, you know, if the internet....”

At that point Brunson gets interrupted by another “Oh boy” from Gordon as a hand has developed that will result in Sweden’s Erik Friberg getting knocked out in eighth place by Gold.

“Hold onto that thought,” says Nejad as the hand starts to play out. But the bustout distracts them and they never do get back to the topic.

Not unlike the way the idea itself would be interrupted just a few weeks later. That vision of 50,000 WSOP Main Event players -- perhaps spread all over Las Vegas and/or the internet -- would be left behind, time-bound.

What the Winner Said

I might have mentioned here before how I’d covered new World Series of Poker Main Event champion Ryan Riess in a couple of WSOP Circuit events during the 2012-13 season.

He had a big score early in the season at an event I did not cover, the WSOP-C Horseshoe Hammond Main Event in October 2012 where he won nearly $240,000 for finishing runner-up. He then traveled to many subsequent WSOP-C stops, earning a number of small cashes leading up to the WSOP this summer.

I believe it was at the Harrah’s Cherokee stop where I first began to notice him, mainly because he’d come over to chat with Rich and myself during breaks a couple of times. He struck me as a friendly guy and from what I could tell a decent player -- i.e., at a table full of non-pros in that Cherokee ME, he was stood out as perhaps a little more comfortable and seasoned as a player.

Thus when the WSOP Main Event reached its fifth day or so during the summer and I saw Riess still among the field, I wasn’t too surprised having known a little of him before. I also wasn’t surprised when he made it to Day 7, then battled with a short stack before finally accumulating some chips to take to the final table.

I watched the coverage this week and like everyone else saw that ESPN profile in which Riess spoke of himself as being the best player among the final nine. And of course I saw the short interview with Kara Scott after his win in which Riess responded to her question about his confidence going in by proclaiming “I just think I’m the best player in the world.”

Was kind of funny to hear, especially since I’d already formulated that image of Riess that didn’t really fit with such boastfulness. Of course, my image of him was based on incredibly slight information, and thinking back I found myself tempted to reinterpret his giving us updates on his chip counts at Cherokee. Sure, he was friendly and likable, but was he also self-promoting some, too? (Not that there is anything wrong with that.)

I also followed what struck me as a kind of crazed reaction on Twitter to Riess’s bold self-assessment, something Rich wrote a little about in his “Five Thoughts” piece this week. The forums -- where every new WSOP Main Event winner is necessarily a loser until proven innocent -- have likewise predictably taken the statement and run wildly with it.

Riess appeared on Fox News yesterday morning and did well fielding some artless questions from Shepard Smith who was more nitwit than wit during the short segment. Smith asked Riess about the statement, in fact, and Riess explained a little how it hadn’t been an off-the-cuff remark, but an idea he’d been articulating for several months.

“Yeah, I said that before this tournament started,” replied Riess. “I started saying it in March and I was practicing for this tournament and it worked out. I proved myself.”

Shepard continued with jokes about putting it all on black and so on. Shepard even had a heads-up game queued on his monitor to play with Riess, but he screwed that up to add a little more awkwardness to it all. Finally Shepard signed off with a cynical-sounding “Congratulations on your big money and on being the greatest player in the history of the world,” and a smiling Riess thanked him.

The last player to win a WSOP Main Event and then afterwards even entertain the subject of being the “best player in the world” was Jamie Gold, of course, who even before he won the Main Event back in 2006 was appearing on CardPlayer’s The Circuit podcast as the chip leader talking excitedly about how great he was. I remember Gold telling Scott Huff and Joe Sebok how he had accumulated so many chips that he -- all by himself -- was making the tournament go faster than it was supposed to, thus causing tournament staff great consternation as they tried to adjust the schedule to handle it all. (Anyone else remember that?)

Then Gold won and afterwards continued with similar statements about his greatness on an appearance on Rounders, the Poker Show (precursor to the Two Plus Two Pokercast) and elsewhere.

One of the active stories at the time of Gold’s win was the whole “ambassador of poker” mantle given to the WSOP Main Event winner, with the Moneymaker-Raymer-Hachem triumvirate having established a lot of expectation in that regard. Gold, meanwhile, was talking during the WSOP Main Event about how he wasn’t interested in serving such a role, something I wrote about here way back in 2006 the day after he won in a post called “Assessing the Gold Standard.”

Then came the legal squabbles and other ugliness regarding his deal with Crispin Leyser and other missteps, with Gold more or less removing himself from consideration as an “ambassador” in the eyes of many, deservedly or not. In truth I always thought Gold really did give at least some effort toward promoting the game in those couple of years after his win, not that he had to. See this post about Gold, “Starting Again,” I wrote during the 2008 WSOP for more on that thought.

Don’t really see Riess as following Gold’s path, though. The whole “poker ambassador” thing has changed a lot over these last several years -- the change starting, really, with Gold’s win -- and I don’t think the poker community looks to the WSOP Main Event winner as having as much of an obligation in that regard as once was the case.

So I’m not really thinking too much about Riess being a representative of the game going forward. Nor am I bothered that much at all by a poker player exuding confidence, particularly after having experienced some success at the tables. As I more less tend to do with all of those who win the WSOP Main Event, I’m pulling for Riess to handle it all as well as he can going forward, and I’m pulling for poker to do well, too, although I don’t necessarily think those two things are that closely related so much anymore.

Meanwhile, kind of funny to think about Riess doing a Muhammad Ali after his win, yea? I mean he’s given us all something to talk about, that’s for sure.

2008 WSOP, Day 36: Starting Again

A good day yesterday. Another Day One. Two down, two to go.

Turned out to be a short shift for yr humble gumshoe, just three two-hour levels’ worth of live blogging. While most of us are working every day through this first stretch of the Main Event, some are getting some extra hours off here and there to decompress. Was my turn to leave early last night, and so I got to head back to the home-away-from-home at the dinner break.

Forgot to mention how on Thursday (Day 1a) I had finally gotten the chance to meet Otis (of Up for Poker). Sort of funny. We kind of get to know each other a bit via the blogs, then spend about eight hours working almost side by side in the Media Press Box before finally figuring out who the other is. Finally got to chat a bit during the dinner break. Nice dude, and he contributes to an excellent poker blog, as I’m sure most of youse already know.

Yesterday (Day 1b) started with another fun visit as I got a chance to meet up with Scott Long, co-host of Ante Up! As those of you who’ve listened to show would imagine -- and really, if you haven’t heard the show, go check it out already -- Scott is a friendly, quick-witted, funny guy with whom it’s a lot of fun to hang out. Sincerely wished I’d had more than the half-hour to shoot the breeze.

Scott and I talked for a while about my crazy summer and his fun week of playing and checking out the happenings at the Gambling Expo. We also discussed his new venture with his co-host, Chris Cosenza, the Ante Up! Magazine. Pretty exciting stuff. After three years-plus of uninterrupted podcasting, the duo is striking out on their own, leaving the auspices of the St. Petersburg Times to produce their own magazine and podcast independently.

I’ve repeatedly spoken favorably of Ante Up! here at Hard-Boiled Poker, and allow me once more point you, dear reader, to Ante Up! Still pretty much the only poker podcast out there that primarily focuses on the amateur player. Definitely worth finding an hour or so each week to enjoy these guys.

As far as the rest of the day went yesterday, I spent all of my time over in the corner of the Amazon Room, just behind Blue Table #1 where Jamie Gold had been assigned Seat 1. As you might imagine, ESPN had its cameras over there pretty much without interruption throughout the day.

F-Train and I noticed how Gold had gradually accumulated extra patches on his shirt throughout the afternoon, obviously taking pecuniary advantage of the extra attention. Since F-Train and I were apparently being included in so many shots (the camera was pointing right in our direction for most of the day), I joked with him that we should have gotten some patches, too, given how much camera time we were getting.

The dealer who began the day on Table #1 screwed up and put out blinds of 25/50 rather than 50/100 (as the schedule of play dictated). We noticed the mistake right away, but no one at the table did. (I think they were all too mesmerized by Gold.) We didn’t say anything, of course, since we have all been instructed not to do or say anything whatsoever that might affect play. Finally, when a new dealer came in after 30 minutes of play, the error was corrected. No one at the table seemed all that concerned about the mistake.

We overheard a lot of tabletalk at Gold’s table today, much more than we could reasonably report in the blog. At one point, one player told him how 2006 was the best year to win the Main Event, since we aren’t likely to see that big of a prize pool for the Main Event again anytime soon. Indeed, pointed out another player, Gold still holds the record for having won the biggest ever cash prize ($12 million) in the history of the WSOP.

“I don’t want to have that record,” answered Gold. “I want poker to become bigger and bigger and bigger.” He could just be talking, but I’m inclined to believe him.

The one woman who was seated at the table busted out first, and Gold was especially patient and gracious with her as she shook his hand afterwards and told him what a privilege it was for her to play at his table.

We all know how Gold hasn’t seen a lot of tourney success since winning the Main Event in 2006. And his not-so-great reputation wasn’t helped much today, as he managed to bust out before the end of Level 3. Still, even though I’m as cynical as anyone about Gold’s poker-playing prowess, I’m gonna give the man some credit for his apparently being so ready and willing to play the role into which he was cast with his ME victory. Everyone at his table wanted to shake his hand when he finally busted, and he did so without hesitation, despite the obvious ignominy associated with his early exit. It was a truly a friggin’ circus for him from start to finish today, but he seemed (to me) to have endured it with a certain dignity.

Back this afternoon for Day 1c -- I’ll be there for all five levels. The numbers were down yesterday, though the talk in the Rio was that the Fourth of July holiday kept some runners away, and that we’ll likely see much bigger fields on Days 1c and 1d.

Remember to follow along over at PokerNews.

2008 WSOP, Day 1: Dawn

The sun officially rose at 5:25 this morning in Vegas. I think I beat the sun by ten minutes or so. The World Series of Poker starts today. And I’m here. And wide awake.

About 7 p.m. yesterday I was standing just outside one of the entrances to the spacious Amazon Room at the Rio Casino Resort and Hotel. Right next to one of those huge, inflated Milwaukee’s Best Light cans with little legs and feet sticking out the bottom, a clownish-looking commemoration of the punchline to the WSOP-sponsoring beer’s commercials.

Had only been there a minute or two. Was scanning the hallway, looking for other PokerNews live bloggers, as we had one last pre-Series meeting scheduled. There was a moderate amount of activity in the hallway, with a number of folks passing to and fro amid the big beer cans and the CardRunners display. I noticed a figure walking toward me, a fellow a few inches shorter than me sporting a WSOP baseball cap and a dark T-shirt with “MALIBU” printed across the front. He quickly brushed past and into the Amazon.

Hey, I know that guy. I turned around and followed him in, the laminated, green pass hanging around my neck permitting my entry. I watched the fellow I had recognized -- 2006 WSOP Main Event champion Jamie Gold -- swiftly resume his seat behind a short stack of chips at one of the last two tables in a WSOP Mega-Satellite. The board indicated 91 entrants had begun the tourney, and they were down to the final 11. It appeared that only the top three spots paid, with the total prize pool adding up to a modest $26,000 or so.

I went over and stood with TassieDevil, one of my blogger colleagues, and we chatted about Gold for a moment, speculating about why the man who’d claimed the largest single payday in WSOP history had entered what looked to be a $300 satellite. A pre-tourney warm-up, perhaps?

Eventually we assembled with the other bloggers -- about 16 altogether, I believe -- around another one of the 200-plus tables to discuss numerous particulars of our planned coverage of the 2008 World Series of Poker.

We had all just come from a BBQ dinner in Henderson that brought together the entire PokerNews team, about 60 or so bloggers, field reporters, multimedia folks, and others. That’s where I had finally met in person a number of others whom I’ve come to know via Hard-Boiled Poker and/or other means, people like Change100, B.J. Nemeth, Mean Gene, Snoopy, Steve Horton, loganmark, Dr. Pauly, and PokerNews Editor-in-Chief John Caldwell.

As has been happening all week, I felt that sort of uncanny, strangely familiar sensation with everyone. I could sense they’re having the same response to me. (Indeed, Pauly somehow pegged me as Shamus even before we were introduced, though he’d never to my knowledge had any reason to know what I look like in “real life.”) That’s what happens when you read thousands and thousands of each other’s words, some addressed directly to you in private messages, some broadcast to you and the rest of the world via blogs or articles. Kind of makes introductions superfluous, really.

During the dinner, Pauly symbolically represented all of us writers by having a small notepad and pen at the ready at all times, presumably to aid a soon-to-be-composed chronicle of the proceedings. Like you, I eagerly anticipate his reports over at Tao of Poker, as well as the features he’ll be writing for PokerNews, the first of which (highlighting week one storylines) went up this morning.

The blogger meeting lasted at least a couple of hours, as there was a lot to cover regarding the complicated, carefully-coordinated system by which the reporting gets done. I glanced back a couple of times during the meeting, noticing Gold had made it to the final table of the satellite, then that he didn’t seem to be among the last five or so with chips.

The meeting concluded with a “style guide” discussion led by Haley. Some people find such discussions of usage and mechanics at best boring and at worst useless. Not this crowd. These are writers, people who care about words and how they are employed. Have to admit I had a little “I’m-in-the-right-place” moment there as we debated whether hyphens have a place in words like “preflop” (no) or “no-limit” (yes). Haley convinced me, actually, that “hold’em” is in fact a contraction (I have always typed it as two separate words).

Things kick off a little under six hours from now with Event No. 1, the World Championship Pot-Limit Hold’em event ($10,000 buy-in). We have received our schedules for the first week, and I actually will not start reporting until Monday with Event No. 4, the $5,000 Mixed Hold’em event in which players will alternate between LHE and NLHE. Will definitely head back over to the Amazon Room today, though, to be there when the cards first go in the air, and will probably be around at some point both Saturday and Sunday as Event No. 2, the first $1,500 No-Limit Hold’em event, gets underway.

Will check in here to let you know what I see. And since yr awake now, too, be sure to head on over to PokerNews for live reports.

WSOP Final Table Hand No. 229: Split Decision

Okay, one more. All in all, ESPN’s pay-per-view was well done, I’d say. I can’t imagine sitting through the whole thing live, but watching it this way -- in easier-to-digest segments, after the fact -- has been a treat. In fact, as this here post exceeds all reasonable guidelines for length, let me suggest you approach it similarly. Don’t feel obligated to read all at once . . . take it in small chunks, if needed. The discussion comes in three parts: (1) a description of the action; (2) an attempt to assess one of the player’s decisions using game theory; (3) a last reflection.

I. The Action

This is the last hand to feature three players. Jamie Gold has 63,425,000 in chips. Paul Wasicka has 13,325,000. Michael Binger has 12,650,000. The blinds are still 200,000/400,000 (with the 50,000 ante). We watch the action from the bird’s-eye view of the overhead camera. Not following Jesus’s advice for playing the button while three-handed (described in the previous post), Gold limps from the button from over on the right-hand side of the table. On the left, Wasicka calls from the small blind. Binger -- in the middle -- puts in a raise of 1.5 million. Gold pauses and calls Binger’s raise. We are shown a lengthy close-up of Wasicka riffling his chips as he decides what to do. We hear Wasicka speaking. “You can’t have a hand every single time, Jamie . . . Jeez.” About twenty seconds go by, and Wasicka makes the call. The pot is 4,650,000.

“And here’s the flop,” calls out the tournament announcer -- . Wasicka very deliberately taps the felt with an extended finger. Phil Gordon points out how “it wasn’t an instant check . . . he did study it.” Binger reaches forward and pushes in a healthy 3,500,000 chip bet. Close to half of Binger’s chips are now in the pot, so he’s likely committed to go all the way here. Before he can even bring his hands back to his sides, Gold waves back-handedly and says “I’m all-in.”

Wasicka immediately groans and stands up from the table, obviously less than thrilled with Gold’s move. “This is sick,” he says through gritted teeth. Gold loudly cries out “This is it, guys!” “This is sick,” repeats Wasicka. “We all got a hand, let’s do it,” says Gold. “Let’s go all three . . . let’s get it over with, right now.”

Wasicka is fit to be tied. “Are you kidding me?” he says to no one in particular, sitting down and reexamining his cards. He stands again and asks Binger how much he has bet. Gold interrupts saying it doesn’t matter because he’s all-in, but Wasicka objects and Gold backs off. A moment passes and Wasicka again voices his displeasure. “This is disgusting,” he says. Gold nods as if in agreement. His nod evolves into a goose-like bobbing action, then he stands upright and claps his hands. Wasicka folds and Binger instantly calls.

Binger has for top-pair, top-kicker. Gold has for an open-ended straight draw. Gold claps his hands, then shakes Binger’s hand and wishes him good luck. Gordon announces Gold has eight outs, but soon we learn that he actually only has seven. “Paul, You didn’t have the best hand, did you?” Gold calls across the table. “I had the seven-eight of spades,” answers Wasicka. He has folded an open-ended straight flush draw. “Wow,” says Gordon. “I don’t know how you can fold that hand.”

The pot is 26,800,000. “Gimme a spade, at least,” asks Gold. The turn comes -- the . Even better. Gold is hugging Johnny Chan. And Binger is drawing dead.

Binger is smiling and very gracious. He tells a friend he’s curious to see what the river card is, and whether it would have helped Wasicka beat him (if Gold had stayed out of the pot). He walks over to Wasicka and they shake hands. “It’s been a pleasure, man,” says Wasicka. “I’m curious if I would’ve beaten your hand,” says Binger. He’s thinking about what would’ve happened if he had gone all-in first. Would Gold have folded? (Probably not.) If Gold had folded, would Wasicka have called him? “I probably would’ve,” says Wasicka. “One of us has to take [chips], you know.” The now-meaningless river card comes -- . Wasicka would’ve made his flush.

Wasicka wanders around the table with a half-smirk, half-grin on his face as Harrah’s officials set the stage for heads-up play. Within seven hands, Gold will take the rest of the chips (between scoops of blueberries).

II. Wasicka’s decision

Gold’s all-in was bold. It is probably safe to say it altered the outcome of the hand. It arguably sealed his victory for the tournament as well. If Wasicka had made the call with his straight-flush draw, he would’ve won the hand and had around 38 million chips -- not too far from half of the chips in play. Let's forget about that spade on the river for a moment. Should he have called?

If we are talking strictly pot odds, the answer is yes. He need to put 12 million in to win a pot of nearly 27 million -- that’s 3.25-to-1. With a whopping 15 outs for the turn and the river, he’s looking at better than 2-to-1 to hit a winner. If this were a cash game, calling would be a no-brainer.

But this ain’t no cash game. If he calls and wins, terrific. However, if he calls and Gold still wins the hand, the tournament ends right there with Wasicka finishing in second place (since he began the hand with more chips than Binger). If Wasicka calls and Binger wins the hand, he will either be left with 675,000 chips (if his hand beats Gold’s), or will be out right there in third place (if Gold’s hand beats his) -- either way, he’s very likely destined to finish third. So calling could end well or disastrously. But folding also is something of a risk. Folding means either assuring himself at least second place or becoming the short stack by a fairly large margin (he’d be about 15 million behind Binger).

Put yourself in Wasicka’s position. What would you do?

How about this. Let’s say everyone was allowed to turn their cards face up after Gold went all-in. Now put yourself in Wasicka’s position. Let’s say you were even allowed to use CardPlayer's Texas Hold ’em Calculator. You know you’re 53.82% to win the hand. You know Binger is 29.01% to win. You know Gold is 17.17% to win. What would you do?

Here’s where we might actually use some of that game theory stuff we keep hearing people like Chris "Jesus" Ferguson answering questions about but most of us never really pay much heed. (If numbers ain’t yr bag, save yourself some grief and skip now to section III.)

Let’s say you make the call. Over half the time you end up heads-up with nearly half the chips. Let’s also say if that were to occur, you’d have a 50-50 chance of winning the whole ball of wax. About a third of the time you will either finish in third right here or within the next hand or so. Another 1/6 of the time you’ll finish in second place right here. So by calling . . .

-- 27% of the time you win $12 million (after winning a heads-up battle)
-- 43% of the time you win $6 million (after losing a heads-up battle or after busting out right here in second)
-- 30% of the time you win $4 million (after busting out right here or soon afterwards in third)

Let’s say you fold. Once you’ve folded, Binger is about 65% to win and Gold 35%. (I can’t be precise here, but that’s about where it stands given Gold has seven available outs plus the backdoor flush draw.) Let’s also say that if Binger wins the hand, 2/3 of the time you’ll end up playing for awhile and getting bounced out in third place. (I say that because he’d have a bit over twice your chips.) And if Gold wins (as happened), let’s make you a 6-to-1 dog to overcome the huge chip lead and somehow win. (I say that because Gold has over 6 times Wasicka’s chips when heads-up begins.) In other words, by folding . . .

-- 5% of the time you win $12 million (after winning a heads-up battle)
-- 52% of the time you win $6 million (after outlasting Binger and making it to second or after watching Binger lose here and then eventually losing a heads-up battle)
-- 43% of the time you win $4 million (eventually busting out in third)

Which is the better decision? Isn’t it obvious? (Ha ha.)

Knowing what we know, calling is going to be the more profitable play here. Let’s say we play out this scenario 200 times and we call 100 times and fold 100 times. The 100 times we call, here’s how we do:

Win $12 million 27 times = $324 million.
Win $6 million 43 times = $258 million.
Win $4 million 30 times = $120 million.
TOTAL = $702 million or an average of $7.02 million each time.

The 100 times we fold, here’s how we do:

Win $12 million 5 times = $60 million.
Win $6 million 52 times = $312 million.
Win $4 million 43 times = $172 million.
TOTAL = $544 million or an average of $5.44 million each time.

Thus, between the two choices, calling is clearly going to be more profitable than folding. So says game theory, anyway . . . .

III. Final thoughts

To be fair to Wasicka, this here experiment assumes full knowledge of everyone’s cards and all of the relevant percentages. Not precisely what happened in real life, to be sure. However, I think it is safe to say Wasicka pretty much knew where he stood when he made the decision. He knew how many chips everyone had. And he knew that all 15 of his outs were probably good. (He could’ve feared a higher spade draw, but I’d be willing to bet that possibility really didn't affect his thinking too greatly when he made his decision to fold.) [EDIT (added 9/18/06): Listening to Wasicka on CardPlayer's The Circuit this week, I discovered that, in fact, he was worried Gold was on a higher flush draw here! So I'd have lost that bet.] So even without knowing that the spade came on the river, Gordon was probably right when he suggested calling was the play to make here.

While it's doubtful Wasicka had all of this worked out to the nearest hundredth of a percentage point, he still knew (I'd argue) that he probably should call. And that he probably wasn’t going to. That’s why he is repeating how “sick” and “disgusting” the situation is. We’ve all been there (though never for these stakes). We know know know what is right, but we just can’t act on that knowledge and the pull the trigger.

In the final hand of the tournament, Wasicka did pull the trigger and make the call of an all-in. Only this time Gold had him beat. As I mentioned before, I’m gonna leave that hand to others to decipher. Watch it here, if you want. Meanwhile, for anyone who’s made it all the way through this monster of a post, it’s been a pleasure . . . .

WSOP Final Table Hand No. 218: Honest Abe

Was over on Full Tilt Poker this afternoon and realized there were more playing that $200/$400 Omaha Hi-Lo game (twelve players, including Allen Cunningham) than $0.50/$1.00 limit hold’em (eight players, including your humble servant). Starting to think FTP is a great site for watching, but not so hot for playing . . . at least if yr a short-stack like me. (Ranted about this circumstance once before, actually.)

Speaking of watching poker . . . I have two more hands from the WSOP Main Event Final Table to talk about. I see that ESPN’s edited version of the Main Event has made it through day four so far (six episodes down, six to go). Not sure when exactly they’ll be getting to the final table, but I’ll probably take a peek to see some hole cards on a few of these hands.

By the time we get to this particular hand, they were down to Jamie Gold (nearly 62 million), Paul Wasicka (about 16 million), and Michael Binger (around 12.5 million). The mood around the table has lightened considerably since Cunningham went out. It’s about 3 a.m., so they’ve been at it for eleven hours or so, minus the breaks. Chris “Jesus” Ferguson is now in the booth with Ali Nejad and Phil Gordon answering questions about three-handed play. Ends up delivering a mini-sermon here on the subject. And it was good.

What would Jesus do? Well he’d never limp from the button. Rather, when on the button, he says to raise half the time and fold the other half. He says definitely play any king or ace. When in the small blind, he says to call a third of the time, fold a third of the time, and raise a third of the time.

On Hand No. 217, Gold had raised to 1 million from the button. (The blinds are still 200,000/400,000 with a 50,000 chip ante.) Wasicka folded in the small blind, then Binger moved all-in from the big blind. Instead of deciding on his own what to do next, Gold asked Binger what he wanted him to do.

“It’s fifty-fifty,” Gold explains. “You wanna go all-in fifty-fifty? You tell me . . . call or fold.” Binger smiles nervously. “I don’t know what you have,” he says. “I’m telling you, I don’t have much,” Gold replies. “If I had a big hand, I’d call you in five seconds.” Gold is grinning from ear to ear. Binger asks him “You have a pair or an ace?” Gold slowly blinks, saying “I don’t have a pair.” Finally, after some more hem-and-hawing, Binger says he can’t tell Gold what to do. Gold nods and tosses his cards into the muck.

As the cards are dealt for Hand No. 218, Nejad confidently suggests “Michael Binger is showing that he is unafraid of Jamie Gold.” Nejad is dead wrong, of course. Anyone paying even a little bit of attention can see Binger just now demonstrating that he’s very afraid of Jamie Gold. The man has him outchipped five-to-one, and Binger has little desire to tangle with the chip leader when the difference between second and third place is two million clams.

Binger also seems to be having difficulty figuring out what Gold has from how he’s playing. Case in point: Hand No. 218.

The action moves fairly quickly here until we get to the river. Wasicka folds on the button, Binger raises to 1 million from the SB, and Gold calls from the BB. The flop is . Binger checks, Gold casually throws out a minimum bet of 400,000, and Binger calls. The pot is 2,950,000. The turn is the and both players quickly check. The river is the . Binger checks and Gold casually stacks twelve green chips and pushes them in the middle -- a bet of 1,200,000.

“Ten and jack?” quickly asks Binger. Gold appears amused at the question. He smiles and exhales. There is absolutely zero chance he has a straight here. “I’ll show ya,” says Gold. Binger looks up at the dealer and asks “Can he show me before I make my decision?” The table shares a chuckle.

Then Gold actually flips one card over quickly, briefly exposing it before turning it back down. Binger leans forward in an exaggerated gesture, asking “What was that?’ “I dunno,” Gold shrugs. “Was that the jack of diamonds?” says Binger.

“He can’t do that,” says Gordon. “If the tournament director sees him do that, that is a ten-minute penalty.” The commentators will continue to discuss the violation for the next couple of hands, and while Gold is never assessed any penalty, it ultimately matters very little. Sitting out ten minutes at this juncture would’ve caused Gold to miss at most four or five hands, perhaps six if Binger and Wasicka agreed to fold each hand immediately after it was dealt. That’s two orbits or so -- at most a 1.5 million chip hit to Gold’s massive stack, probably evenly divided between the two short stacks. Not a factor.

The subsequent exchange between Gold and Binger is one of the better examples of table talk in the whole broadcast.

Gold: “You wanna donate, donate.”
Binger: “I’m thinking about it.”
Gold: “I’m probably bluffing, man.”
Binger: “I know.”
Gold: “1.2 million, man . . . . Put it in . . . .”

In the booth, Ferguson says “The bet actually does smell a lot like a bluff.” Gordon agrees. “He’s been Honest Abe so far when he’s talking at the table,” Nejad chimes in.

Binger: “Aye-yi-yi.” (He slaps his hand to his forehead.)
Gold: “I bet small enough so you can call. Then you’ll see my hand.”

Binger takes a moment to calculate pot odds and then compute what percentage of the time Gold would have to be bluffing to justify a call here. You know what I’m talking about. That piece of mental calisthenics you read about in Harrington on Hold ’em but have yet really to implement in your game. The pot is nearly 3 million. Gold bet 1.2 million, so Binger is looking at about 3.5-to-1 odds to call. As Harrington explains, that means Binger needs to be right only once every 4.5 times he calls here to break even. As Binger himself finally concludes, “if you’re bluffing like 20-30% of the time, I gotta call.” “So you’re priced in,” says Gold. “Here you go. Let’s call. Get it over with. You’ll see my hand . . . and . . . rock ‘n roll! I’ll show you either way.”

Binger continues to deliberate. “You got me,” Gold finally confesses. “C’mon!”

Binger folds and Gold immediately shows his . Jack-high. In other words, jack squat.

“Aaaaaugghhh,” cries Binger, doing a nice imitation of Charlie Brown just after Lucy pulls the football away. Again.

[EDIT (added 9/28/06): The hole card cameras on ESPN's edited version of the final table show us Binger indeed folded the best hand -- .]

Binger shakes his head, takes a swig from his water bottle, slaps the padded table edge, and tells Gold good hand. “I told you you got me,” says Gold. “I’m having fun. Easy for me to say, with a stack like this . . . .”

Gold’s having fun, all right. So is the viewer. (Good thing, too, since the outcome has been all but decided.) A great example, really, of where the live broadcast beats the edited version.

Okay, one more hand (Hand No. 229) and we can get on with our lives. Meanwhile, I’ll be railing that crazy Omaha Hi-Lo game on FTP . . . .

Photo: “The first 1953 $5 Silver Certificate printed (Smithsonian)” (inset), National Museum of American History. Public Domain.

WSOP Final Table Hand No. 187: Having the Heart to Go Big-Time

Later on in Jim Thompson’s The Getaway, a mix-up in a train station allows a small-timer crook to make off with Doc McCoy's bag full of loot from the bank heist. As McCoy pursues him through the train station, the thief notices the man chasing him isn’t shouting after him as one might expect a robbery victim to do. The small-timer correctly surmises that there must be something in the bag that is preventing him from calling out. “The thief was very cocksure, it should be said; in this particular branch of crime, he had to be. Also -- and it is hardly necessary to point this out -- he had known no criminals of Doc McCoy’s caliber.” Things don’t end well for the small-timer. (Also hardly necessary to point out.)

There were a number of interesting hands prior to Hand No. 187.

There was Hand No. 141 involving Gold and Cunningham. From UTG, Cunningham bet 1 million on a flop of and Gold called from the button. Both checked the turn card, the . Then when the river came , Cunningham bet 2 million and Gold quickly raised all-in. As Cunningham contemplated what to do, Gold stood up and said “Gotcha!” and made like he was ready to turn over his cards. Cunningham had no choice but to fold.

There was Hand No. 155 where Wasicka, as he had done in Hand No. 134, made what appeared to be another sketchy decision. After raising to 1 million UTG, Binger reraised all-in from the button. Wasicka thought for quite a while (nearly three minutes), then called with KQ-off only to see Binger turn over a pair of cowboys. The board didn’t save Wasicka this time, and Binger doubled up.

There was Hand No. 170 in which Gold and Cunningham both called Rhett Butler’s short-stacked all-in, then Gold bet into the dry side pot on a board of . Cunningham folded, Gold showed , and his jacks outlasted Butler’s pocket fours. Butler finished fifth.

So they were four-handed as Hand No. 187 began. Blinds were 150,000/300,000 with a 50,000 ante. Gold had just about exactly 50 million chips, Binger around 14 million, Wasicka 12 million, and Cunningham just over 10 million. Cunningham raised to 800,000 from UTG, Binger folded on the button, Gold called from the small blind, and after a bit of thought Wasicka chose also to call from the big blind. A rare instance of three-way action (at this stage). The pot is 2.6 million.

The flop comes an eyebrow-raising . All three players check fairly quickly. Ali Nejad asks Robert Williamson (the current guest in the booth) why Cunningham didn’t bet that flop. “Suited and coordinated,” explains Williamson. The turn is the . “Somebody might take a stab at this now, with that ace on the turn,” Williamson suggests. Indeed, Wasicka, acting first, bets 1 million. At not even 40% of the pot, Wasicka’s bet is either a simple probe bet to see how the others feel about their hands or a potential trap. Cunningham thinks a moment, pushes out 1 million to call and says he’s going to raise. Even before Cunningham announces the amount of his raise, Gold tosses his cards in the muck.

After some deliberation, Cunningham eventually pushes in 2,975,000 more chips. It isn’t clear why he didn’t put in exactly 3 million for the raise -- it appears from the dealer's tone he might have simply missed grabbing that last 25,000 chip before pushing in. (“I do that on purpose sometimes,” says Williamson.) Gordon and Williamson agree that Cunningham probably has an ace with a high heart kicker.

The pot is now 7,575,000 million and the action is on Wasicka. Gold’s early fold had enabled Wasicka to contemplate his next move for a bit even before Cunningham put in his raise. He waits about twenty seconds then announces he’s all-in. “Wow,” says Williamson. “Oh, my goodness,” says Gordon. It appears neither saw that coming. “Paul must have a heart flush or an ace,” says Williamson. Since Wasicka has him covered, a call would force Cunningham to put in his entire stack. He takes only a moment and then folds.

As the crowd cheers, Wasicka shows his hand -- . No ace. No flush draw. Nothing, really. “That was a big boy bluff right there,” says Gordon. Cunningham smiles sheepishly in appreciation of the play. “Two tens with the ten of hearts,” he says to someone else at the table, revealing what he had held. “Trying to get him to fold a jack.” [EDIT (added 9/28/06): ESPN's edited version of the final table confirms Cunningham indeed held . Gold, incidentally, had .]

Cunningham was a little bit like the thief who stole McCoy’s bag here. For a moment it looked like he might get away with the loot. But he ran into a higher-caliber criminal (on this hand, anyway). Wasicka’s “big boy bluff” looks sick, all right, although if you think about it, Cunningham just about has to have what Gordon and Williamson speculated he did have (an ace with a high heart kicker), or perhaps JJ, to continue with the hand. After the tournament ended, Gold spoke of Wasicka as the one player at the final table he could never figure out. This was probably one of the hands that helped make Wasicka appear more of a "big-time" opponent in Gold's eyes.

This was also probably the hand that determined how both Wasicka and Cunningham would be finishing, securing Cunningham’s eventual exit in fourth place and allowing Wasicka to stick around a bit longer. Winning that pot pushed Wasicka up to 19 million; meanwhile Cunningham had been knocked down to 7 million. Within three hands Cunningham would begin moving all-in repeatedly in a last-ditch attempt to recuperate. On the hand in which Cunningham is finally eliminated -- Hand No. 208 -- he again holds pocket tens, this time losing out to Gold’s after a king flops. (And, as it turned out, Wasicka also loses with pocket tens on the tourney's final hand.)

I have one of my own hands I’d like to solicit advice about in my next post. After that I’ve picked out two more hands from the latter stages of the WSOP final table that seem worth talking about. One of those features a lot of interesting table talk (the best thing about this here pay-per-view, I’ve decided). The other is the hand in which Binger gets eliminated in third. Being a small-timer myself, I’ll be leaving that final hand for commentators of a higher caliber to discuss.

Image: Brach’s Conversation Hearts (adapted), Amazon.