Files Found! Poker Audio from 2004-2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of Story: 2009 WSOPE Main Event Concludes

Spent much of the afternoon and evening following the World Series of Poker Europe Main Event final table on PokerNews. Sucker ultimately went something like 16 hours all told -- not quite the 22-plus hours from the year before when John Juanda outlasted Stanislav Alekhin, but a marathon nonetheless.

The last five hours consisted of Daniel Negreanu and Barry Shulman battling heads up for the bracelet. Negreanu had the chip lead when heads up began, although the Card Player publisher pulled even and then ahead after an hour or so. But Kid Poker moved in front again and looked as though he was going to win it all after getting Shulman all in preflop holding versus Negreanu’s two black aces. But two hearts flopped, then a third came on the turn, and Shulman was back in front with a three-to-one chip lead.

Negreanu would spend the next couple of hours clawing back close to even, and had the lead once more when the hand Danafish declared “Hand of the Day” occurred. The pair got it all following a jack-high flop with Shulman having A-A this time versus Negreanu’s . Then a second jack stunningly came on the turn, and it again looked like Negreanu’s day. Then came an ace on the river, saving Shulman and crippling Negreanu. Shortly after that one, Shulman would take the last of Negreanu’s chips with pocket tens versus Kid Poker’s pocket fours.

As I said, I followed along for most of the latter part of the final table yesterday, thoroughly enjoying the reports on PokerNews. Like Snoopy (who reported earlier days), both Danafish and Djinn employ a keen wit and (to me) add a great deal of fun to the reports, exemplifying what makes live blogging ultimately more valuable than the ticker-type updates one can find on Twitter -- although those are fine, too, for those desirous of the quick check.

I love posts with headlines like Danafish’s “Negreanu Has Chips Delivered to Him on a Trey,” in which one learns Negreanu flopped a set with pocket threes. Or Djinn’s “One Way Street Changes Direction, Confuses Tourists” describing how after a brief spell of pots won by Shulman the chips had begun to flow back Negreanu’s way. Fun stuff, and the kind of thing that definitely encourages one to keep hitting refresh to read more.

Last summer while helping cover the WSOP for PokerNews I wrote a post asking the question “Does Humor Belong in Tournament Reporting?” My answer was ultimately an affirmative one, noting that even if there were millions of dollars at stake, we were reporting on a game, after all, and so I concluded that “keeping it light (within reason) is probably the right instinct, generally speaking.”

Wouldn’t want to sacrifice accuracy, clarity, or reader interest, of course, in order to yuk it up too wildly... but a little bit of wit here and there definitely adds value to the reports, in my view. One could even argue doing so lends a “literary” quality that ensures the reports endure a little better than they would otherwise as straightforward, unadorned accounts of the action.

And as I say, Danafish, Djinn, and Snoopy are in my opinion the tops, striking the right balance throughout. Thus what’s left there on the PokerNews page is a vivid account of all of the important hands, as well as a fine balance of humor and color that makes the chronicle well worth reading through even after the event has ended. Well done, mates!

Barry Shulman’s win obviously adds another layer of intrigue to the upcoming November Nine, where his son, Jeff, will be trying to match his father’s victory with a win of his own. Gary Wise has a new interview with Jeff this week up over on the ESPN Poker Club in which the publisher, president, and COO of Card Player takes back his earlier threat to “renounce” the bracelet by “throw[ing] it in the garbage” should he win the Main Event. (He’s currently fourth in chips.) Jeff also points out in the Wise interview that “[n]ot once was [he] ever thinking about trying to get extra publicity” by making the statement, which some -- including your humble gumshoe -- remarked was a pretty obvious consequence of the whole brouhaha.

Wise comes away from the interview saying Shulman doesn’t appear a “villain” to him in the still-unfolding 2009 WSOP Main Event story. Some will still characterize him that way, though. And it will be interesting to see how Barry Shulman’s WSOPE Main Event victory will play into that bit of story-manufacturing.

’Cos like I say with regard to the live blogging, that’s part of what makes all of this fun -- the stories. That’s a point WSOP Commish Jeffrey Pollack made on this week’s Two Plus Two Pokercast with regard to the WSOP ME final table. “I think the November Nine table is straight out of central casting,” said Pollack, noting how among the nine there are “a lot of great players and interesting characters” -- Shulman included.

I know I’ll be reading.

On Shulman’s Spite

A week ago today the media corps had taken up various locations around the last three tables of the 2009 World Series of Poker Main Event, the usual poker people who’d been there since late May having been joined by a number of other outlets who had arrived to follow the final days of play this summer. For my role as one of those helping cover the proceedings for PokerNews, I was stationed near the secondary feature table where I pretty much stayed put for the entire day and evening, reporting action from that table until the tourney played down to ten players, at which point all who were left then reassembled around the main feature table. (Along with a few hundred others.)

Well before that wild finish to the night, it was mid-afternoon when we first got wind of the story about Jeff Shulman, publisher, president, and COO of Card Player magazine, and what sounded like some sort of junior-high-schoolish “I’ll Show Them!” kind of revenge he was plotting should he manage to win the Main Event.

“He says if he wins he’s gonna throw the bracelet in the garbage,” one heard being repeated up and down media row. “He what?” was the usual response.

As readers of this blog are probably already aware, the story first broke over on Wicked Chops that afternoon. Following up on a rumor, the Entities asked Shulman at the first break (a little after 2 p.m.) if what they were hearing were true, namely, that if he won the Main Event “he’d renounce the bracelet as he believes that Harrah’s has treated his magazine unfairly.” Shulman’s response was “if by renounce it you mean throw it in the garbage, then yes.”

After talking to Wicked Chops, Shulman then returned to his seat there at the secondary feature table where he spent most of Day 8. So, as we were covering his play, we were also reading the story and passing back and forth various responses to it. I recall posting one small item in the live blog mentioning which of the remaining players had WSOP bracelets (just Phil Ivey and Jordan Smith, at that point), and consciously avoiding saying anything in the post like “this is what they are all playing for,” since apparently one player wasn’t so enthralled by the prospect of eventually owning that bit of jewelry. (Note Flipchip’s pic, by the way, in which Shulman -- on the far left -- is the only one not reaching for the bracelet.)

In the Wicked Chops article, the Entities connect Shulman’s dissatisfaction with Harrah’s to the “exclusive” media deals which impose certain limits on how Card Player and other outlets can cover the WSOP. As some may recall, Card Player was the “exclusive content provider” for the WSOP in 2005 and 2006; then in 2007 Bluff Magazine took over that role which it has occupied for the last three years. (Full disclosure: Bluff has contracted out live updates to PokerNews, for whom I’ve worked the last two summers.)

In fact, Shulman’s gripe with Harrah’s apparently is not primarily connected to the issue of access, at least according to Shulman’s own statement on the matter that appeared on the Card Player website late last week. “Some people are reporting that I’m upset because the World Series canceled a media deal with Card Player,” says Shulman. “My comments have nothing to do with that, and everything to do with my disappointment in how the World Series is run.”

The article goes on to list a number of complaints from Shulman, some very specific (e.g., the problems surrounding players getting shut out of the Main Event this year, the juice Harrah’s charges players entering the events), others less so (the “bad attitudes” and “inaccurate decisions” of those running the show). And, in fact, Shulman does go back to that issue of the WSOP having an “exclusive content provider,” something he sounds as though he objects to on principle even though Card Player has precisely that sort of deal with the World Poker Tour at present. (EDIT [added 4:15 p.m.]: Or did until recently. See B.J. Nemeth's comment below.)

Interestingly, if you look back a couple of issues and read Card Player’s cover story on the history of the WSOP (the June 23, 2009 issue, Vol. 22, No. 12), you can see how the article (as well as the two sidebar pieces that accompany it) place an emphasis on the Binions and the pre-Harrah’s part of the story. The fact is, even many of those who think Harrah’s has done well by the WSOP over the last few years feel nostalgia for the old days, when the Series was decidedly more “family” than “corporate.”

The post on Pokerati about Shulman includes some interesting responses in the comments. The discussion there lingers over the “exclusive content provider” issue a bit -- interesting in and of itself, but kind of tangential to the Shulman story -- but those who do comment specifically on Shulman’s “throw it in the garbage” plan appear mostly critical of it as demonstrating varying degrees of hypocrisy, pettiness, or short-sightedness.

Probably the most salient of these comments comes from Tom Schneider (towards the end of the thread), who says the whole thing reminds him of someone entering a beauty pageant in order to win and then renounce the contest in order to make a political statement. Schneider also points out how it wouldn’t really serve Card Player’s interests to have its president/publisher/COO “throw away the most coveted prize in the sport his magazine is founded upon.”

What do I think? Well, I have a couple of reactions.

One is simply to view Shulman’s “revenge” plan as not having been thought through very well, and thus a bit too confusing to have much effect other than to draw attention to Shulman himself attempting to be some sort of iconoclast. There may well be a kernel of well-founded, sincere desire to help poker in there somewhere, actually. I was writing yesterday about having a love for the game, and Shulman himself says (in the Card Player article) that “I love poker and entered with the hopes of winning.... But, more importantly, I support making the industry stronger and better for the players.”

I don’t doubt Shulman does love poker and has genuine motives to make the industry stronger. But I also think it isn’t clear how this weird act of defiance would work as either an expression of that love or a way of helping the industry he supports.

My other reaction is even less judgmental. As silly as Shulman’s idea seems to be, it does make things interesting, doesn’t it? I’m not going to cast Shulman as the “villain” to Ivey’s “hero” just yet -- in fact, I think some of these other guys are going to make for pretty damned interesting cast members, too, in this little drama. But still, we’re gonna be watching Shulman extra closely, ain’t we? (He's got chips, too.) So part of me -- the poker fan part who especially enjoys the many intriguing storylines and characters poker can create -- is reaching for the popcorn and anxious to see how it all plays out.

Last year I’ll admit that after being initially disappointed that the Main Event final table was going to be delayed -- meaning I was going to have to miss the big finish -- when I got back home in July I was basically ambivalent about not being there for the November Nine. Didn’t really have much interest or investment in any of the players, when it came down to it.

But I’d love to be back in Vegas to see this final table. Doubtful that’s gonna be possible, I’m afraid, given that other life I have. But I’ll be watching intently, for sure. As will many.

On Poker Mags (Redux)

Got a chance over the weekend to glance at the latest Card Player, the one with Layne Flack on the cover (Vol. 21, No. 19, Sept. 30, 2008). Have yet really to peruse the issue, but I did take a gander at Jeff Shulman’s “From the Publisher” intro, headlined “Card Player Readers Sound Off About Scotty Nguyen’s Televised Antics.” And, well, I thought I’d sound off a little, too.

Shulman begins by noting how “many loyal Card Player readers were upset” after watching Nguyen’s performance on ESPN a few weeks back, adding that Nguyen had posted an apology over on the Card Player forums. Shulman summarizes the letters as being “nearly” unanimous in their condemnation of Nguyen’s conduct, with “many” of those who took the time to write suggesting that “Nguyen’s actions cast poker in a negative light outside of our industry.”

“We couldn’t agree more,” says Shulman in response.

As a conclusion to his response, Shulman then shares that “many readers asked why our magazine overlooked Nguyen’s conduct” in the August 19, 2008 issue (Vol. 21, No. 16). “We received more than a few questions about whether or not we saw the tournament or just reported the results,” says Shulman.

I had noticed the same, of course. It was hard not to, given how that issue -- with Nguyen on the cover being christened as “The King of Poker” -- had arrived in the mail the day before the ESPN program first aired. I didn’t read the issue until after I’d seen the show, and thus like most readers had the spectacle in mind as I scanned the articles reporting the event.

There were three different articles in that issue that focused on the H.O.R.S.E. event. One (“The King of Poker”) is a straightforward summary of the action that indeed reported nothing beyond key hands and eliminations. A second (“Three-Handed Nightmare”) also simply reports a couple of key hands from three-handed play and nothing more.

A third article, titled “An Interview With the Players’ and People’s Champion,” consists of a five-question interview of Nguyen about his victory in the event. In the interview Nguyen does talk about having lost his temper just before being eliminated in the 2007 Main Event, and explains how this year he had redoubled his efforts to control himself. “This year, I said no more personal [grudges]. I don’t care who it is, if you make me mad, I’m going to walk away.” The interviewer then asks Nguyen about a moment during the H.O.R.S.E. finale when he did just that -- he walked away “to blow off steam” -- though the focus of the question is not on what made him angry, but instead about how he had stopped to sign autographs and pose for pictures with fans during the interval.

To the reader who hadn’t seen the ESPN broadcast, there’s very little indication that Nguyen conducted himself in anything but a professional manner at that final table. To the reader who had seen the show, the interview certainly contains a couple of ironic-sounding moments, which I suppose might have further inspired some of those letter-writing readers to ask Card Player why there was no indication of the ugliness in any of their reporting.

I remember thinking as much at the time, but frankly passing it off as a familiar bit of sugar-coating. Back in February I wrote a post called “On Poker Mags” in which I stated that while there were many things I liked about Card Player -- e.g. the strategy columns, some of the features, and the book reviews (although I think they’ve stopped doing those) -- Card Player could not realistically be considered “a reliable source for unfettered, ‘journalistic’ treatments of the poker industry . . . even if it does refer to itself as ‘The Poker Authority.’”

In other words, I don’t expect Card Player to judge Scotty Nguyen or make any pronouncements within its pages about whether or not his actions cast a “negative light” on the industry. I’ve been reading the magazine for a good while, now. I know better.

Even so, Shulman felt the need to respond to readers’ complaints about Card Player’s perceived silence regarding the unpleasantness at the H.O.R.S.E. final table. “Unfortunately, due to strict WSOP media guidelines,” explains Shulman, “Card Player was unable to observe the tournament live, and instead reported on the event from a media room that was not equipped with an audio feed.”

Now that’s simply disingenuous. In several ways.

Probably the most obvious is the implication that Card Player somehow had no idea whatsoever about any of the extracurricular activities that went on that night until after the ESPN show aired. I was over in the Brasilia Room that night covering a different tournament, and I’d heard all about Nguyen’s antics even before the night was done. Indeed, for the next couple of days it was all the buzz there at the Rio. Absolutely no one who covered the WSOP this summer -- regardless of the level of access -- could possibly have made it through mid-July without some inkling of what had happened.

Furthermore -- as the interview with Nguyen shows -- it is not as though Card Player couldn’t have done some further investigation after the event took place to help them find out what happened that night beyond key hands and the order of eliminations.

In fact, Shulman is being a little less than sincere about those “strict WSOP media guidelines” when he suggests non-credential reporters couldn’t even enter the same room as the final table. The truth is, anyone could walk in off the street and take a seat in the arena to watch a final table. Again, just silly even to imply poor Card Player had to sit way over in the media room and watch it all play out on a silent television screen.

But really, the biggest problem I have with the disclaimer is the insinuation that the magazine would have reported something about Nguyen’s antics if they could have, but they were not allowed to.

Oh, they could have said something, if they really wanted to. But they didn’t. And like I say, I don’t really expect them to.

But the suggestion that they woulda if they coulda.... Frankly that strikes me as more misleading than any of those articles about the H.O.R.S.E. event were.