That Time I Learned That Jesus Didn’t Love Me

I think any of us who work long enough “in poker” -- as players, staff or tournament organizers, agents, promoters, reporters and “media,” or in other capacities -- end up collecting quite a few stories that we can’t really share, for a variety of reasons.

Some of the stories can’t be told because they involve “sensitive” information never intended to be publicized. Others have to remain hidden because they might endanger a person’s current employment. Still more are kept quiet because they reflect badly on either the one telling the story or others who for whatever reason are judged not to deserve such treatment.

I know over the ten-plus years of this blog I’ve “self-censored” a number of times, although to be honest I wouldn’t suggest any the stories I’ve suppressed were all that scandalous. One of the stories I consciously chose not to tell before I’m gonna share today, as it seems both a little timely and at this far remove fairly innocuous.

My first time covering the World Series of Poker was for PokerNews back in 2008, and as I’ve written about here many times before during those first couple of summers everything seemed especially interesting and exciting thanks largely to the novelty of it all. The interest remained even by the fifth or sixth summer I was there, even if the excitement had waned a bit by then.

Chris Ferguson -- a.k.a. “Jesus” (a nickname I tend not to employ anymore) -- was of course one of the more recognizable “poker celebs” back then. One of the early events I helped cover in 2009 was a $2,500 buy-in pot-limit hold’em/pot-limit Omaha event, and Ferguson played. While at the table he had out his phone and was playing Chinese poker, and I remember writing a live update in which I mentioned this fact.

It was kind of a novel thing back then to see someone on a device playing a different poker game while at the table -- not nearly as ubiquitous as it would soon become -- making for a bit of color worth mentioning amid an otherwise not-so-exciting Day 1. Kind of thing wouldn’t deserve being pointed out even a year later, I’d say, but at that time it was curious enough to include. I seem to recall making a joke in the update about two games not being enough, since the tourney featured PLH and PLO and Ferguson was playing a third game on his phone.

Anyhow, in my next “travel report” post here on the blog, I retold that story and a few others from the day. When referencing Ferguson, I said something about peeking over his shoulder to see him playing Chinese poker, taking a bit of poetic license in the way I described the scene (as though I had captured a little “inside dope”). Truthfully, there was no reason to look all that closely to see what he was playing. In fact, he was talking about the game with Andy Bloch who asked him about it.

In that post I also mentioned an “Approved Electronic Device Rule” the WSOP had in place that year which was not being enforced at all. I explicitly said I didn’t care one way or the other about players being on phones or other devices while playing, but I did note it seemed inconsistent to have a rule that no one heeded and that no one seemed interested in requiring anyone to heed.

There was a short sequel to the story -- this is the part I haven’t told before.

The next day I was back at the Rio where I first heard from a fellow reporter, then from the head of the team something about Ferguson not being happy with my posting about his Chinese poker playing. It was never 100% clear to me whether the objection concerned the live update or my HBP post (it seems like it was the latter, actually), but apparently “Jesus” was concerned enough to have spoken to then-WSOP Commissioner Jeffrey Pollack about it.

This is all very vague in my memory, I’m afraid, but I have a fleeting recollection of Ferguson having said something about how the WSOP shouldn’t allow the reporters to nose around in private business, with there even being some suggestion about credentials being revoked. However severe his objection really was, Ferguson was eventually told whatever he needed to be told, and the matter went no further. Meanwhile I was assured I’d done nothing wrong -- either in the live updates or on my blog -- and not to worry about it.

I also remember being told how Ferguson and I would probably get along quite well -- that we have similar personalities and interests, and seemed like we’d hit it off. Needless to say, I never sought out meeting him to find out if that were true.

I didn’t tell the story at the time partly because I was a little embarrassed by it, even if I shouldn’t have been. As a reporter, I didn’t like being noticed at all, never mind in a negative way. And if given the choice, I would have much rather reported that Ferguson liked me than that he had been made upset by anything I’d done.

I thought about the story again after Ferguson made his inglorious return to the WSOP earlier this month. When asked by PokerNews if he had anything to say regarding his absence since 2010 and/or his feelings regarding what had happened with Full Tilt Poker, he repeatedly responded “I’m just here to play poker.” It was a little like back in ’09, when he didn’t like anyone reporting on his doing anything other than playing in an event.

Ferguson has cashed seven times already this summer, including finishing fourth in an event over the weekend. His appearance at that final table created a bit of a stir, as PokerListings described in detail. He was asked again about whether or not he planned to apologize to the poker community, he responded “What are you talking about? No comment” before walking away.

Howard Lederer has also returned to the WSOP, the prospect of which I wrote about here back in May following his apology (which seemed at the time an unsubtle prelude to his returning). I mentioned in that post how his playing in any events would be a bit like men playing in the ladies event, necessarily producing a lot of unpleasantness and ill will, especially should he be successful. The same obviously goes for Ferguson, and it sounds a lot like that final table scene over the weekend confirmed that prediction.

Of course, while Lederer’s apology caused us to wonder about his sincerity, Ferguson seems unequivocally sincere in his non-avowal of responsibility for what happened at Full Tilt Poker.

No, people aren’t really loving Ferguson very much these days, and his success in WSOP events only seems to be adding still more negativity to a poker community he and others damaged so greatly already. Can’t say I’m that bothered, though, given how I found out long ago “Jesus” didn’t love me.

Image: “Jesus eyes the next table,” Matt Waldron. CC BY 2.0.

Contemplating Commissioners

Was listening today to an interview with the new Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred who was elected to take over the position last August after Bud Selig stepped down.

Can’t say he was especially riveting to listen to as he addressed various “state of the game” questions, but afterwards my mind wandered a little into a couple of interesting memories from years past.

One was very long ago -- had to be 1981, I guess -- when Major League Baseball went on strike for nearly two months right in the middle of the season. I lived and breathed baseball then, playing all summer, collecting cards, watching and listening to games, and poring over box scores in the paper every day, so the strike was hugely disappointing to a young Shamus. (Making it worse, the strike started the day after my birthday.)

I was concerned enough about the situation to write a letter to then MLB commissioner Bowie Kuhn, something I probably wouldn’t remember having done if not for the fact that Kuhn wrote me back. I have long lost both letters, but you can imagine what they both said -- mine expressing a desire they’d resolve the sucker and his registering my concern and stating his similar hope.

I thought of that when hearing Manfred talk about how baseball fans contact him constantly -- some every single day -- with thoughts about the game and how it can be improved. I imagine he probably experiences that sort of thing much more often than Kuhn did back in those letter-writing days.

A bit of trivia: Had history evolved differently, Richard Nixon could have been in the MLB Commissioner’s seat then as he was actually offered the job in 1965, which he turned down. Later on, after both he and Kuhn took their respective offices in 1969, Kuhn presented Nixon a trophy honoring him as “Baseball’s Number 1 Fan” during a reception at the White House (pictured at left).

I also found myself after listening to Manfred being interviewed thinking a bit about the World Series of Poker’s experiment with having a commissioner and Jeffrey Pollack’s tenure in that position which lasted from early 2006 through November 2009. Pollack first came from NASCAR to the WSOP in mid-2005, and somewhere in there -- perhaps just after he changed from being VP of Marketing to Commish -- there were rumors that Pollack was in fact angling one day perhaps to succeed Selig as the next MLB Commissioner.

Some of Manfred’s PR-like talk about baseball made me think of Pollack and the rhetoric he employed -- often effectively -- when talking about poker in general and the WSOP in particular during those years. While many spoke favorably of him early on, later things soured a bit and his departure and subsequent involvement in the failed Epic Poker League helped influence many to conclude his influence on the game’s livelihood was mixed at best.

I was thinking, though, about how we got used to having someone in what seemed an authoritative position -- even if it weren’t, really -- who was constantly addressing questions about the “state of the game” and thus by default carrying a kind of influence, if not on the game at least on how people thought about the game.

There are certain poker players who today perhaps occasionally seem to fill that role. I suppose Alex Dreyfus with his GPI-related ventures perhaps also does, too, as do those leading the EPT, WPT, WSOP, and other major tours and venues.

But there’s no “commissioner” currently acting as the game’s “table captain” -- not that there actually can be, I don’t think.

Which is okay. Until there’s a strike, then to whom will the kids send their letters?

Remembering Rivers Duking It Out With Duke

I’m a big fan of old recorded comedy, having spent many years fishing LPs out of the used bins to build a big but not too embarrassingly large of a collection. And of course now that practically everything exists online to be hunted down if one desires, I’ve filled a lot of gaps when it comes to those old records and radio shows, in particular from the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s.

Both Robin Williams and Joan Rivers were significant figures during that era of comedy, and of course both became even more central in popular culture during the decades since. Both recorded a few LPs, though none of them found their way into my collection. Still, I appreciated how both contributed importantly to American comedy.

When news of Rivers having passed began circulating yesterday afternoon, many in poker immediately recalled her venomous tête-à-tête with Annie Duke on Celebrity Apprentice from five years ago. I found myself looking back at a post I’d written here the day after the finale of that quasi-competition.

For Rivers the show existed amid what became an extended final run of heightened fame marked by her appearance on several reality shows, “red carpet” hosting gigs, and the E! network show Fashion Police that helped keep her a household name.

For Duke being on Celebrity Apprentice was the most notable of several television-related ventures that included turning up on other game shows and a couple of failed attempts starting shows centered around her own then-growing celebrity such as Annie Duke Takes on the World (a game show in which she played poker against amateurs) and All In (a sitcom based on her life -- no shinola).

At the time Duke was still representing UltimateBet (or UB) well after the site’s massive insider cheating scandal had become public. Indeed, she’d been spending much of the previous year defending the site, repeatedly claiming the site had shown “grace and integrity” in its handling of the matter when even then it was clear that was hardly the case, and of course later on further corruption within UB became even more evident. (She’d part with the site at the very end of 2010, three-and-a-half months before Black Friday.)

In other words, some of the poker community was already uncertain about Duke’s status as a “spokesperson” of poker even then in the spring of 2009, although on Celebrity Apprentice she was absolutely regarded that way by others on the show and by the mainstream audience. Indeed, when it came to the Rivers-vs.-Duke rivalry on the show, it was Duke’s poker player identity that earned the most remembered bit of vitriol from the comedian, at least among those of us in poker -- even more remembered than Rivers calling Duke a “Nazi” and comparing her to Hitler.

From that 2009 post:

“Even if you haven’t been watching the show, you’d probably heard about Rivers’ shots at poker and Vegas. How she referred to the money contributed by poker players to Duke’s cause as ‘money with blood on it.’ How she referred to her many years performing in LV by saying ‘I’ve met your people in Vegas for forty years -- none of them have last names,’ suggesting the nefarious and/or criminal backgrounds of the inhabitants of Sin City...”

“You’re a poker player... a poker player,” Rivers continues in the clip we all passed around at the time. “That’s beyond white trash.” “Poker players are the most awesome people in the world,” Duke responds, not necessarily her finest moment as a debater. “Poker players are trash, darling... trash,” reiterates Rivers.

Duke’s subsequent move from UB to the doomed Epic Poker League didn’t do much to prove Rivers wrong, either, when it came to her judgment of Duke. Speaking of, Jeffrey Pollack -- whose reputation in the poker world would sink in the EPL ship along with Duke’s -- was still the WSOP Commissioner at the time of Duke’s appearance on Celebrity Apprentice, and in the WSOP conference call that year would maintain that Duke’s appearance on the show represented a “leap forward for the mainstreaming of poker into our pop culture” and that the “net effect was going to be very good for poker.”

I’m wondering otherwise in that post, given how badly the game was portrayed on the show. And of course, years later, even poker players are today unhesitatingly siding in retrospect with Rivers against Duke.

For Rivers, Annie Duke was just one of several with whom she battled heads-up in a long career, her unrestrained comedic style (and personality) often being much more savage than subtle (or more Juvenal than Horace). And while poker and its image might have suffered some collateral damage from their exchange years ago, the game would persevere nonetheless -- despite both of them.

Epic Limbo

Was set to pen something today regarding what I thought was a well-managed feature in the Village Voice from earlier in the week regarding the plight of full-time American online poker players who’ve found themselves seeking new life paths following Black Friday.

The article by Chris Parker, titled “Online Poker Kings Cashed Out,” stumbles over a few particulars regarding Black Friday and its aftermath, but does a neat job overall profiling several U.S. players who were significantly affected by the shutdown. Probably the most interesting aspect of the article is how most of those to whom Parker spoke don’t really fit the stereotype for online grinders -- i.e., just one is a young (early 20s), unattached male for whom poker replaced college.

There is some discussion in the article, too, about the way Black Friday affected non-players, too, with references to book sellers and those involved with the business of televised poker. No mention in there of the so-called “poker media” and how writers, publishers, website owners, and others were also affected, but the point is nonetheless made that “the feds blew up an entire industry” when they unsealed the indictment and civil complaint last April.

Speaking of the poker media, you no doubt heard yesterday’s news regarding Federated Sports + Gaming, owners of the Epic Poker League, having filed for bankruptcy. That was the news that has sidetracked me from the plan to discuss Parker’s Village Voice in more detail -- let me recommend that article, though, as a relatively good look-in from the mainstream upon our little, struggling poker world.

I’ve mentioned here several times how I’ve been able to contribute to the Epic Poker blog over the last six months or so with a weekly column in which I’ve discussed poker and popular culture, “Community Cards.” Has been great fun to do so, and as others have said with regard to working with the EPL folks I’ve nothing but good things to say about the experience.

Like the league itself, the future of the EPL blog is a bit up in the air at present. While things don’t appear especially rosy right now, the league hasn’t already folded as some of the talk yesterday seemed to suggest. Hard to resist the pull of that “Epic Fail” phrase, though. Heck, I’ve actually got an Epic Fail app on my iPhone that calls up photos from the hilarious website.

In a bit of goofy, grim irony, my last post went up late Tuesday night -- just before the announcement from FS+G -- and was titled “Jeremy Lin, Poker, and the Desire to Be Surprised.”

If you look back at my other CC columns, this last one is a bit more tangential than most when it comes to drawing a connection between poker and popular culture. To be honest I can think of at least a dozen others I like better or would sooner point to as evidence of what the column was about. Can’t help but grin, though, at my having picked up on Chuck Klosterman’s idea that we like surprises -- in fact crave them since so much of our lives seem to be plotted out for us these days.

It was a slight surprise yesterday to hear that FS+G was declaring bankruptcy, although in truth it wasn’t as though the news dropped from the sky like some sort of unexpected bolt of lightning. I think most observers more or less knew the experiment to start a professional poker league with high buy-in events and huge overlays in this uncertain, post-Black Friday world was on shaky ground from the get-go. And the postponement of the fourth Main Event and $1 million freeroll finale (originally scheduled for mid-February) had only increased speculation that the league was far from thriving.

As FS+G Executive Chairman Jeffrey Pollack mentioned in his letter yesterday announcing the Chapter 11 filing, the EPL still plans to stage its fourth tournament series and the championship. Obviously, a failure to stage those events would be grievous given how all who participated in the first three tournament series did so with an expectation of the $1 million freeroll as an additional, potential overlay for them should they qualify for it. Not to mention inspire us all to look back with askance at that disciplinary action delivered by the EPL Standards and Conduct Committee last August against David “Chino” Rheem over his failure to honor his financial obligations.

So once again, we find ourselves in wait-and-see mode, hoping we don't see yet another poker-related story -- like the ones told in that Village Voice feature -- end in disappointment.

A League of Their Own

Last night Vera and I watched a little of the Australian Open. We caught the end of a women’s singles first-round match between fifth-seeded Samantha Stosur of Australia and the 17-year-old American Lauren Davis. Stosur easily defeated Davis (6-1, 6-1), for whom this was her first-ever Grand Slam event. Davis had won her way into the tournament after winning a junior tourney in December in order to earn a wildcard entry. A little like winning a satellite tourney in poker, I suppose.

Was kind of intriguing to see Davis do what she could against Stosur, the not insignificant skill divide between the two accentuated somewhat by their contrasting appearances. There was the pixie-like Davis (only 5’1”, I believe), battling gamely against the taller, more muscular Stosur who made the French Open final last year and who many think is a strong contender perhaps to win her first Grand Slam this month.

While Davis did manage to pick up a few points here and there, the outcome was never in doubt. Unlike in poker, where a fortunate card (or several) really can help an outmatched newcomer defeat a seasoned pro, there was no chance here for Davis to go “all in” and gamble for the win.

The possibility in poker for amateurs to compete directly against top pros has always been one of the most fascinating elements of the tournament circuit. Aside from a handful of invitation-only, often made-for-TV events, every single major tournament on the poker calendar is -- like the Australian Open -- technically an “open” event in which anyone (theoretically) can play.

That said, when it comes to the Australian Open one must demonstrate at least some ability to participate. All 128 players in the women’s draw, for instance, either received an invite because of their current WTA singles rankings or won a wild card spot like Davis did. Meanwhile, in poker, anyone with enough to cover an entry fee can play.

Found myself thinking about this difference again this morning when the news broke of the creation of a yet-to-be-named professional poker league.

The story is only a couple of hours old, though by now you’ve probably at least heard about it. According to an article from the Associated Press -- picked up by a number of outlets, including ESPN (who listed the story among its front page headlines today) -- Annie Duke will serve as the new league’s commissioner, with former WSOP Commish Jeffrey Pollack acting as its chairman. Pollack is also described in the AP story as one of the league’s co-founders, with a private company, Federated Sports & Gaming, Inc., listed as having created the league.

Among the other details shared in the article is a plan to stage four televised “regular-season events” as well as a “$1 million championship freeroll” that will take place at the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas. As was the case with the short-lived Professional Poker Tour -- the last attempt at something like a professional poker league (begun in mid-2005 and defunct a little over a year later) -- those who participate in this new league will do so by invitation only.

“About 200 players will be invited into the league based on a mathematical formula measuring finishes in major events, money earned, and recent success,” says the article. Notably, only live tourneys will be considered, with cash games and online events not factoring into the calculations. Also not unlike what was the case with the PPT, players will be granted memberships of differing lengths, lasting either two, three, or five years, with a few “lifetime cards” being given to certain elite players.

Quotes from Duke and Pollack in the article directly evoke this issue I’ve brought up of non-pros competing with the established veterans of the game, sort of making it sound as though it’s a problem that the game’s best players sometimes (or often, even) have to play against less talented players. “This is incredibly pro-centric,” says Duke. “This is the one piece that’s kind of missing from the poker landscape right now... something for the best players in the world to compete against the best players in the world.”

Will be interesting, no doubt, to follow the process as it unfolds over the next few months. (I believe the first event will not happen until August.) Debates over invitations and the “formula” for determining who gets in will no doubt be fierce. Indeed, just a couple of posts ago I was referring to how the “all-time” list of tourney winnings is most certainly an imperfect indicator of who might be the “best players in the world.” I’ll also be curious to see how well the new league manages to avoid the many problems that led to the PPT’s demise, although I imagine that example will likely serve as a kind of object lesson for the new league as it forges ahead.

Am wondering a little about the money, the securing of which will obviously prove crucial to the league’s survival. Am also wondering about how the new league will be viewed, specifically whether or not it will find an audience and earn a spot on “the poker landscape” (to use Duke’s term) that is not way over on the periphery somewhere.

It certainly sounds like the league’s founders are envisioning more than a curious, large-scale “home game,” but rather something much more ambitious.

The AP story begins with a comparison with professional golf, saying how “the new league is hoping to become the PGA of poker.” There Pollack also speaks of how membership in the new league “will signify standing as a true professional in poker.” And in another press release from the Federated Sports & Gaming, Erik Seidel is quoted saying he hopes the new league will be “on par with other professional sports,” adding that he is “looking forward to true excellence in the game being rewarded.”

I do hope the new league turns into something fun and good for poker. But these are some lofty goals. Indeed, might it go against the nature of the game itself -- of which luck is necessarily a part -- to insist on finding a way to reward “true excellence”? I mean, even with links on the front page of ESPN, poker can’t really be tennis, can it? In poker, a Lauren Davis will beat a Samantha Stosur now and then.

Of course, in this new league, they’ll never play.

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.

Pollack Moves On, WSOP Commish Seat Open

From a poker news perspective it has certainly been a WSOP-centric week. The November Nine finally played out, with the final table shown over on ESPN. Sounds as though the ratings for that FT broadcast dipped slightly from last year’s November Nine show, but essentially held steady. In 2008, the rating was 1.9, which meant about 1.9 million households and 2.36 million average viewers. In 2009, the rating was 1.8 -- a little over 1.8 million households and 2.1 million average viewers. Of course, both FTs represent a big jump from 2007, when the rating was just 1.4.

A little surprising for most, I think, that this year’s November Nine -- with Phil Ivey, Jeff Shulman, and a few other personalities/stories to generate added interest -- didn’t improve on last year’s total. But perhaps our perspective is blinkered a bit, for a couple of reasons.

One might simply be the fact that a poker show can only attract so much attention; that is to say, there might well be a ceiling of sorts when it comes to the number of viewers even the best possible poker show can attract -- a possibility some don’t necessarily want to consider.

There’s another reason, though, why I think we tend to see a lack of obvious growth as a negative. Having witnessed the recent “boom” in poker, we came to expect big, dramatic jumps from year to year, and when they don’t come, the resulting impression is unfavorable, even if holding steady ain’t necessarily such a bad thing, big picture-wise.

The week concludes with yet another big WSOP story, this one regarding the Commish, Jeffrey Pollack. Pollack came on the scene just as the “boom” was booming, and has been at the helm ever since. He has announced that today will be his last day as Commissioner of the World Series of Poker.

Pollack came to the WSOP from the professional sports world. He started The Sports Business Daily in the mid-90s, a trade publication covering the business side of sports that still exists as an important “insider” voice today -- the sort of thing that industry leaders routinely consult for its commentary and reporting.

Not surprising, then, that from there Pollack would move over into the business of sports, first as a communications consultant to the NBA. Pollack began working with the NBA during the 1998-99 lockout, and eventually was named the league’s Vice President of Marketing & Corporate Communications. Then Pollack moved over to NASCAR, where for five years he held a similar position -- Managing Director of Broadcasting and New Media -- in which he was heavily involved with the promotion and marketing of the sport.

In 2004, Harrah’s Entertainment purchased Binion’s Horseshoe, which included taking over the World Series of Poker. The following year Harrah’s relocated the fast-growing Series from the humble downtown casino to the spacious ballrooms of the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino (although the WSOP ME final table was played back at Binion’s in 2005 as a kind of last waltz).

Among its other initial moves, Harrah’s hired Pollack away from NASCAR to become the Vice President of Marketing for the WSOP, and so he joined the circus right as the “boom” was happening. Then, at the start of 2006, Harrah’s created a new position -- a Commissioner of the WSOP -- and named Pollack as the first occupant of that seat.

That first year -- 2006 -- was the WSOP’s biggest ever in terms of Main Event entrants (8,773). Then came the surreptitious passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. Coincidentally, it was also Friday the 13th (10/13/06) when then President George W. Bush signed that sucker into law.

The “boom” was over, but the WSOP would still continue to grow, and Pollack certainly deserves a lot of credit on that front. Poker is a much harder sell than is basketball or stock car racing. Our buddy Otis wrote a terrific piece last summer over on Tao of Poker in which he did a nifty job characterizing the difficulty of Pollack’s task.

“Pollack has a big league ‘My Fair Lady’ job to do on the World Series and he has to make sure it sticks,” writes Otis. “He's working with a world that polite society doesn't want to admit exists and he has to put enough makeup on it to make sure it can handle the occasional smeared mascara. And he has to do all of it without painting the WSOP into a whore.”

Pollack faced other challenges as well, most particularly from the old guard who regarded the WSOP changing from a relatively small, private gathering of friends to a massive, public spectacle with either discomfort, frustration, or outward disgust. It was easy for those critics to target the new guy Pollack, though in some respects he wasn’t necessarily the one deserving of such invective. Like others, I, too, have misgivings about the seeming “corporatization” of poker and the WSOP, but all things considered found Pollack a highly positive figure whose contributions to (and management of) the WSOP’s growth was especially constructive.

I also found Pollack an amiable and very forthright guy whenever I heard him interviewed in podcasts -- something he did on many occasions. Dr. Pauly notes how the Commish never gave him any indication that he couldn’t write whatever he wanted when gonzo-reporting on the WSOP, and while I can’t pretend to speak for everyone, I think most others in the media probably shared that appreciation.

I remember last summer during one of the dinner breaks sitting in the Amazon Room having a Capriotti’s sandwich and surfing online. Read a tweet from Pollack noting that he was watching Game 7 of the NHL finals on the other side of the Amazon, so I walked over and joined him to see the Penguins beat the Red Wings in a thrilling finish.

“Have a seat,” he said invitingly as I arrived, indicating an available chair.

Indeed, that was the message Pollack most earnestly tried to convey time and time again as the WSOP Commish. You’ll recall the Day 1d debacle this year, when players who’d come for seats in the Main Event had to be turned away, a day that I’m going to guess was Pollack’s most difficult during the nearly four years of his tenure. Because really, the message one always heard Pollack trying to convey -- either explicitly or as a subtext -- was that when it came to the WSOP, everyone was invited.

Best of luck to Pollack, and to whomever ends up taking his now empty seat.

* * * * *
By the way, my second Betfair piece appears this morning -- an interview with James McManus. Check it out. Will probably move on to write about other, non-book related topics over there soon, but will always be including book reviews (and hopefully more interviews) as well.

Have a good weekend, all.

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.

Was It Good For You? (On the Celebrity Apprentice Finale)

I’m no culture snob. Sure, I might write something here about Dostoevsky from time to time. I’m even contemplating a soon-to-be-written post in which I’m going to reference Virginia Woolf. But I obviously enjoy (and appreciate) a good, pulpy page-turner, and consume other forms of popular culture (music, film, etc.) as readily as anyone.

Have never, ever been a big fan of the “reality” show thing, though. Like everyone else, I first became aware of the shows cropping up in the 1990s. I noticed when programs like The Real World starting to push music off of MTV, then Survivor (which premiered in 2000) kind of representing a tipping point after which similarly-styled programs began their decade-long TV tyranny. I remember watching some of that first Survivor that summer, the one in which the clothes-optional dude won the $1 million. Can’t say I paid much attention to that one after that first season, however, even in 2007 when poker pro Jean-Robert Bellande was on the China one.

Nor have I bothered much with the dozens and dozens of Survivor imitators (except for American Idol, which does entertain from time to time). Since these shows basically come and go without my ever noticing them, it wasn’t until last night that I bothered with Celebrity Apprentice, despite all of the hype in the poker community regarding Annie Duke’s deep run. Finally did break down and watch the finale last night in which Joan Rivers managed to “win” the hopelessly-contrived “competition” manufactured by the show.

Since there is that poker connection, and since a lot of people are buzzing about what happened last night, I thought I’d share here a bit of my own response to the show.

One of the questions most intriguing to poker players and folks in the poker media is the familiar “Is it good for poker?” question. Always comes up, that one. They ask it fairly often -- about various cultural phenomena -- on The Poker Beat, so much so that someone started a thread on their forum a few weeks ago titled “Sick of ‘is it good for poker’ topic?” The discussion on that thread went back and forth for a while, then some joker jumped in with his own non-constructive entry into the debate:

“Good points, all. But the question needs to be asked: is the ‘is it good for poker’ debate good for poker?”

Now that I think about it, that might have been me. Although my question was about 98% class clown in its inspiration, it actually produced some interesting responses. (As it happens, it really is not so useless to assess once in a while the usefulness of self-assessment!)

Anyhow, I suppose we’re all wondering whether or not Annie Duke’s appearance on Celebrity Apprentice is good for poker. In that WSOP conference call a couple of weeks back, WSOP Commish Jeffrey Pollack indicated that he thought it was, pointing out how it represented a “leap forward for the mainstreaming of poker into our pop culture” and that the “net effect was going to be very good for poker.”

I gotta wonder, though. I mean, did you watch?

From what I could tell, Rivers “won” the thing not because she raised more money than Duke (she didn’t), nor even because she demonstrated in any obvious way better leadership skills or creativity or whatever it is the show is attempting to measure in its contestants. Rather, it seemed pretty clear that Trump picked Rivers in the end as the winner of a popularity contest, and her popularity rested largely on her characterization of herself as a person who wanted to “win with honor,” and her characterization of her opponent -- a “pokah playah” -- as someone who was willing to forgo all moral guidelines in her Machiavellian quest to succeed.

In other words, while Annie Duke’s profession as a poker player made her an intriguing figure on the show, it also clearly helped make her the villain. And I guess now we’re left to contemplate whether that’s good or bad for poker.

Even if you haven’t been watching the show, you’d probably heard about Rivers’ shots at poker and Vegas. How she referred to the money contributed by poker players to Duke’s cause as “money with blood on it.” How she referred to her many years performing in LV by saying “I’ve met your people in Vegas for forty years -- none of them have last names,” suggesting the nefarious and/or criminal backgrounds of the inhabitants of Sin City. How she called poker players “beyond white trash.”

And, oh yeah, there was that Hitler thing, too -- a crazily hyperbolic attempt to characterize Duke as a ruthless dictator. That offended some, but not as many as you might think. (Rivers later apologized on her Twitter page -- to Hitler.)

Rivers again sounded the poker-is-gambling-is-criminal theme last night. In the final fund-raising task, Duke raised three times as much as Rivers (about $450,000 to $150,000); however, Rivers was able to diminish Duke’s achievement by referring to the money raised as “mafia money.” Duke again fired back in defense of poker players, but her cause appeared lost.

Even though I haven’t been watching the show, I knew Rivers was going to “win” early on Sunday night and told Vera Valmore as much. The not-so-subtle way the show portrayed Rivers as “all heart” and Duke as “all business” made it obvious. Rivers’ final “America is a charitable nation” speech at the end was just overkill -- she was already destined to be anointed the show’s heroine.

What is a show like Celebrity Apprentice about? It’s about what just about every cultural product produced for mass consumption that achieves significant commercial success is about, namely, reaffirming the status quo. Which at the present time does not include a loving acceptance of poker as a pursuit accepted by the majority of American society. If you didn’t get that before, the show confirmed it fairly unambiguously, in my view.

The show also confirmed a few other elements of the status quo of American culture, none too flattering. I’m not going to explain all of these points here, but if you watched the show, you know what I’m talking about:

Men are in charge.

Women shouldn’t act like men.

Emotion trumps intellect.

Greed is good, but don’t be so obvious about it.

There are other things to say about how the show reflects other aspects of American culture -- including issues associated with class and race -- but we’ll keep it a poker blog today.

And as far as poker is concerned, I’ll conclude (for now) that Annie Duke’s appearance on Celebrity Apprentice is at best a push. Might have helped a little insofar as it invited people who hadn’t previously thought much about poker to consider the question of whether or not it represents a legitimate pursuit. But that would require looking past the way the show indirectly positioned poker as part of what defined the show’s “villain,” thereby underscoring cultural prejudices against poker.

How Many Will Enter the 2009 WSOP Main Event?

Shortly after Jeffrey Pollack was promoted from Vice President of Marketing to Commissioner of the World Series of Poker in January 2006, he began fielding interviews in which almost invariably Pollack would be asked how many players he thought would be entering the upcoming WSOP Main Event.

For three years running, Pollack always had the same reply -- or non-reply -- to the question. For example, when Pollack last year appeared on Phil Gordon’s podcast The Poker Edge (the 5/15/08 episode), Gordon put the question to the Commish once again. “I couldn’t pin you down last year,” Gordon began, “I’m going to try again this year: How many participants in the championship event for the World Series this year?”

“I don’t know, you tell me,” said Pollack. “There are certain things I’m consistent on, and one of them is never publicly predicting the turn-out. I will give you the line I always give, and that is [to say] whoever makes the decision to show, we’re going to welcome them with open arms and they know they’re going to have a better experience than they did the year before.”

Makes sense, really, for the Commish to avoid making such predictions, as there really isn’t much to gain from doing so. Predict a number too low, and it gives the impression the WSOP wasn’t prepared to handle the field that arrives. Predict a number too high, and it gives the impression the WSOP hasn’t met expectations. And, as a marketing-savvy guy, Pollack has always been aware of the importance of impressions.

I’ve heard Pollack interviewed a few times this year, and also heard his answers to questions at the 2009 WSOP Media Conference Call a couple of weeks ago. Haven’t been hearing the question about Main Event numbers so much of late, as I suppose reporters are getting wise to the fact that Pollack ain’t gonna give them anything concrete in response.

All of which makes it interesting to discover that in the 2009 WSOP Staff Resource Guide one finds predictions -- of a sort -- of the numbers of entrants for each of the 57 bracelet events. Including the big one.

Now this guide isn’t necessarily meant to serve as part of the marketing of the WSOP, but rather just a helpful reference for those many individuals employed by Harrah’s to manage the various events. It’s a good idea for those folks to have at least some clue about how many will be showing up for each event so as to prepare more efficiently the needed tables, dealers, and other resources.

Nevertheless, these planned-for numbers do give us a glimpse into what those running the show at the WSOP are anticipating. If you are curious, you can mosey over to Pokerati to see where Kevmath has compiled a list of these predictions, including indications of whether returning events are predicted to have more or fewer entrants.

Lots of interest in there, for sure, such as the prediction of 150 entrants for the much-hyped $40,000 buy-in “40th Annual” No-Limit Hold’em Event (Event No. 2). Barry Greenstein has an over-under bet on that one with Eli Elezra in which Greenstein has taken the over on 222 entrants. They’re also planning for 5,305 players to come out for the so-called “stimulus special” $1,000 buy-in No-Limit Hold’em Event (Event No. 4), which would rival the number of entrants for the Main Event in 2005. Like I say, check out the list on Pokerati for other interesting figures.

So, in this here WSOP Staff Resource Media Guide, we have ourselves a prediction (in a way) for the Main Event -- 7,323. That would represent an increase of nearly 500 from last year’s total (6,844).

My instinctive response to the number is to say it sounds reasonable. There are many factors, of course, which will affect the Main Event turnout, the two biggest probably being the still-struggling economy and the rest of the overstuffed WSOP schedule. But the general vibe I’m catching is that there’s a bit more excitement this year regarding the WSOP than last time around. And as far as the Main Event goes, we might actually see some benefit coming from the institution last year of the “November Nine” delayed final table, insofar as everyone saw how it worked and thus some may well be further encouraged to participate in the Main Event this time around.

Dr. Pauly has already predicted 7,100 for the 2009 WSOP Main Event. Like I say, I think some number over 7,000 sounds reasonable. What do you think?

On the 2009 WSOP Conference Call, the Hall, and All

Listened to that conference call earlier in the week for the World Series of Poker. That was Tuesday morning, with Jeffrey Pollack (WSOP Commish), Jack Effel (WSOP Tournament Director), Doug White (ESPN’s Senior Director of Programming), and Seth Palansky (WSOP Communications Director) all offering a few observations and announcements, then taking questions from reporters.

I have to say do very much like the WSOP’s efforts to communicate with players, the media, and fans like this. I know I’m critical every now & then of certain stuff that comes out of the WSOP’s brain trust (e.g., am still no fan of the delayed final table). But I do admire the effort and what seems to me to be a lot of sincere desire on the part of those running the show to build the WSOP and poker in constructive, profitable ways.

Can’t say there was too much in the way of “breaking news” in the call, especially if the listener had already leafed through the “Official Media Guide” that came out last week. Last year, of course, the news of the delayed Main Event final table and the whole “November Nine” thing had just broke a day or two before, so there was much discussion of that. There was also some real news in there, including word that the final tablists’ prize money would be placed in an interest-bearing account and thus would be increased between July and November.

Like I say, not too much of note, really, in this year’s call. Was kind of surprised at how few reporters seemed to be on the call asking questions, and very few (one?) from “mainstream” press (unlike last year). Those guys are fun, usually, mainly ’cause they are capable of firing the occasional clueless question (“Does the winner get all the money?”). But they also generally give us an indication of what non-pokery types are thinking about poker, and there wasn’t much of that this time around. I think there was one question at the end from the Chicago Sun-Times, but otherwise all came from poker people. (Not sure why that was.)

Also, there only seemed to be about five or six different reporters asking questions, meaning they had to keep cycling back and inviting the same ones to ask new questions. In fact, at the end of the call Pollack said the group could take one more question, but there were no more.

There was some discussion of the new plan for dealing with player conduct, with a tracking system allowing officials to keep up with the repeat offenders as well as some tough talk about penalties, etc. They discussed the planned schedule over on ESPN, who have decided to shun almost all of the preliminary bracelet events in favor of highlighting the Main Event all summer and fall. There was a question about Annie Duke and Celebrity Apprentice, with subsequent references to that show cropping up more often than I expected they would.

One interesting part of the call (to me) was the discussion of the new procedure being instituted this year for electing people to the Poker Hall of Fame, although that was probably because I hadn’t read those two pages that carefully in the Media Guide. Harrah’s is going to involve the public in the voting process this year, which seems to me like it will add some interest in the HOF. And perhaps create some controversies, too.

From May 26-July 2, people can go over to the World Series of Poker website and submit nominations along with 250-word-or-less testimonials. The top ten most frequently nominated folks will be announced some time during the Main Event in July, probably early on I’d imagine. Then in August the HOF committee (not quite sure who is on that) will review the list and decide if any other names need to be added.

In September, the living Hall of Famers -- there’s 16, says the Media Guide, although several people have noticed some errors throughout the sucker, so don’t quote me -- will get ballots and be asked to rank those nominees whom they feel are worth electing to the HOF. Those Hall of Famers will also be able to nominate folks for 2010, if they wish. Also voting on this year’s nominees will be a group of representatives of the poker media “not to exceed the number of HOF voting members” (i.e., not more than 16). The ballots will go back to the HOF committee, and it says “Any finalist receiving 75% or more of the votes” will be enshrined in a ceremony to take place during the November Nine weekend.

Reading this over again, I’m not really sure what the point is of “ranking” the nominees, if all the HOF committee will be looking at is whether or not the nominee got voted as worthy of induction or not. While the process has changed, the criteria hasn’t (I don’t think), with players qualifying for having played against top competition, having played for high stakes, having played consistently well and thus gaining peers’ respect, and standing “the test of time.” Non-players who have also contributed significantly “to the overall growth and success of the game of poker” can be selected, too.

I think it will be interesting to follow this process, especially once the nominees proposed by the public are announced in July. There will be some names in there that definitely belong, some that definitely don’t, and some for whom it will be harder to call. And it may happen that a large number are voted in -- more than the one or two that generally go in each year -- especially on this first pass with the new procedure.

To be honest, as I think about who should be considered no one really springs to mind. I would assume names like Ferguson, Harrington, Negreanu, and Ivey are gonna come up a lot over on the WSOP site when the public starts submitting nominations, but we’ll see how all that plays out.

Here’s a list of the 37 current HOFers:

Tom Abdo, Crandall Addington, Bobby Baldwin, Billy Baxter, Lyle Berman, Joe Bernstein, Benny Binion, Jack Binion, Bill Boyd, Doyle Brunson, T.J. Cloutier, Johnny Chan, Nick “the Greek” Dandalos, Barbara Enright, Fred “Sarge” Ferris, T. “Blondie” Forbes, Henry Green, Murph Harrold, Phil Hellmuth, James Butler “Wild Bill” Hickok, Red Hodges, Edmond Hoyle, Berry Johnston, Jack Keller, Corky McCorquodale, Roger Moore, Johnny Moss, Henry Orenstein, Puggy Pearson, Julius Oral “Little Man” Popwell, “Amarillo Slim” Preston, David “Chip” Reese, Jack “Treetop” Straus, Dewey Tomko, Stu Ungar, Red Winn, Sid Wyman.

The Media Guide somehow leaves both Chan and Straus off of their list. Oh, and that “Sebastian Bilodeau” currently listed over on Wikipedia as a member of the HOF is a phantom, I think.

Who else belongs here, would ya say?

WSOPE Will Take Place Before WSOP Is Over

Noticed the World Series of Poker had recently settled on dates for the 2008 WSOP-Europe events -- September 19th through October 1st. No word as yet on what events will take place, though I assume we’ll be seeing something similar to what happened last year when there were three events, including the £10,000 “Main Event” Annette Obrestad took down.

You’ll recall all of the buzz last fall about whether or not the WSOPE events should be considered “real” bracelet events, particularly after Obrestad’s victory (the day before she turned 19) made her the youngest WSOP bracelet winner ever. There are lot more meaningful debates to be had, of course, but this year’s delayed Main Event final table may well have an effect on how the WSOPE is viewed, for a couple of reasons.

For one, the WSOP Main Event (Event No. 54 of 55) will not have finished by the time the WSOPE events are played. If WSOP officials were to number those London events as Nos. 56, 57, and 58 -- a relatively meaningless, mostly ornamental change -- doing so could actually make those events seem more integrated into the primary WSOP schedule and thus more like “legitimate” bracelet events.

Secondly, it would seem likely that one or more of those who make this year’s WSOP Main Event final table will be playing in those WSOPE events. In fact, I would think WSOP officials would like it very much if all nine were there so as to direct more attention what will be happening in London this fall.

Last year the WSOPE events attracted a few big name American pros, but the fields mostly consisted of non-Americans (particularly Europeans). However, last year also saw record numbers of non-Americans trek to Vegas for the WSOP. Ten non-Americans won bracelets at last year’s WSOP, and the WSOP Main Event final table featured five non-Americans -- Jon Kalmar (U.K.), Philip Hilm (U.K., orig. Denmark), Tuan Lam (Canada, orig. Vietnam), Alex Kravchenko (Russia), and Raymond Rahme (South Africa). Also, champ Jerry Yang, a U.S. citizen, was born in Laos, meaning only three of the players making the ME final table were born in the States. All of which helped underscore what WSOP Commissioner Jeffrey Pollack was saying back when the first WSOPE was announced: “We are trying to put more ‘World’ into the World Series of Poker.”

Seems very possible that this year’s ME final table will also have an international flavor. And if a number of Europeans make it, I would certainly expect to see all of them playing in the WSOPE. In any event, what each of the “November Nine” decide to do with regard to the WSOPE will certainly be one of the major storylines come September.

How Many Will Enter the 2008 WSOP Main Event?

Unlike last year at this time, I haven’t really noticed all that much speculating on the forums, blogs, podcasts, and elsewhere about the possible number of entrants for this year’s WSOP Main Event.

There was one thread over on 2+2 (begun back in early March) that didn’t get too much response when it began, flared up again briefly in April, then got some more responses after the announcement that the Main Event final table had been rescheduled to November. (Most estimate that move won’t have a significant impact on the overall number of players entering the ME.)

The thread hasn’t even reached 90 posts, though. I remember last year someone posted a contest to pick the correct number (perhaps someone will do that again eventually). Over 700 responded on that one, including me. I guessed 5,763, about 600 shy of the final total.

Guesses in this year’s thread mostly range between 5,000 and 8,000. (Oliver Tse predicted between 8,000 and 9,000.) One popular response was to say less than 2006 (8,773) but more than 2007 (6,358). Several also suggested that for a variety of reasons (including the weak dollar) we’re going to see fewer Americans percentage-wise in this year’s field than ever before.

Last year at this time, we were all still trying to keep our heads above water amid the considerable wake caused by the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act, signed into law in October 2006. It was only late February 2007 when Harrah’s made it known that “third-party registrations for players are not permitted unless submitted by Official WSOP sponsors.” That policy continues to be in place for this year’s WSOP -- it appears as Rule No. 5 on this year’s tournament rules -- although by now the online sites and players have had plenty of time to grow accustomed to the new arrangement.

On Monday, Lenny over at the PokerBlog posted some lines regarding the WSOP ME, including some odds on the number of total entrants. The odds came from an online casino called “Paddy Power.” Here are the odds they’re laying on how many will enter the Main Event:



Lenny says he’s going with one of the favorites here and predicting “right around 6,700” entrants. Phil Gordon made the same prediction last week on his podcast, The Poker Edge, also guessing exactly 6,700, although he also stated he thought attendance was going to be down this year at the WSOP. He must’ve been referring to overall numbers and not the Main Event, as 6,700 entrants would represent an increase from last year’s total of 6,358.

Says Gordon, “I’ve noticed the attendance in the poker rooms has been significantly lower over the course of the past, say, six-to-nine months than [it had been] in the past. The economy, as we know, is suffering a little bit. I think that although the rest of the world seems to be exploding with poker growth, I think the U.S. might be a little burned out on it.”

The discussion came amid Gordon’s interview with WSOP Commissioner Jeffrey Pollack. Gordon had asked Pollack to offer his own prediction, which the Commissioner refused to do (as he always has done). However, when Gordon offered that estimate of 6,700 -- saying he “wouldn’t put too big a bet on it” -- Pollack did respond by saying “We will see, and maybe off-air we will wager a nice steak dinner,” a response which Gordon interpreted as implying Pollack was “taking the over” on his prediction.

I don’t have much feel for what we’ll see at this year’s Main Event, although I do think the final total will probably exceed that of 2007. Of course, whatever the tally ends up being, it will surely be given more symbolic worth than it deserves as an “indicator” of the overall health of poker.

Television & Poker; or, the Search for a Happy Medium

Busy weekend, a lot of it spent in the car. Have been trying to visit various family and friends before my summer in Vegas. I’ll be leaving in just under two weeks to go help PokerNews cover the World Series of Poker.

Had the iPod-like device with me and ran through all of the several podcasts I had recently downloaded, many of which concerned the much-discussed decision by ESPN and Harrah’s to move the final table of the WSOP Main Event to November. Heard WSOP Commish Jeffrey Pollack interviewed on a few of the shows. Some were recorded prior to the announcement, such as the April 7 episode of WSOP Radio (posted April 8). In those Pollack remains reticent when asked about the “rumor” of a possible change. Others were recorded afterwards, such as the May 1 episode of Keep Flopping Aces in which Pollack jubilantly echoes all of the points he’d made earlier in the day during the WSOP presser.

Over on Wise Hand Poker, Gary Wise interviewed recently-hired WSOP Communications Director Seth Polanski (on his May 7 show). I’d heard Polanski on another Rounder’s Radio show back on April 2nd (Pumped on Poker), at which time he didn’t even hint at the possibility of the change. Polanski’s resumé includes performing similar roles for the NFL Network and Fox Sports. On Wise’s show, he explained he thought one of the reasons why he had been hired a couple of months ago by the WSOP was to help facilitate this very move, so he obviously knew something back in early April.

After his interview with Polanski, Wise spoke briefly about why he was in favor of the change. Wise referenced the recent decline in popularity of poker on television and how it suggests “the poker boom as passed.” Linking falling TV ratings to the game’s overall health, Wise stated that “the only way to sustain the growth of the community . . . is to keep poker as a televisable entity popular.”

Wise then mentioned the history of televised game shows, and how the most popular of them -- his examples included Twenty One and Who Wants to Be A Millionaire? -- were often short-lived, having too quickly exhausted their appeal. He pointed out how Twenty One was so popular (in the late 1950s), attendance at baseball games went down on those nights when it aired. However, theorized Wise, the “adrenaline rush” of the show quickly wore off. “Within two years of that kind of popularity, Twenty One was off the air, and without some serious adjustment, televised poker was facing the same kind of fate. That’s why a change is needed.”

Wise’s example here wasn’t the best chosen. Twenty One was not cancelled because of poor ratings. In fact, when it first aired in September 1956, it was not a hit initially. Only after the producers began manipulating the results (apparently at the insistence of the show’s advertiser, Geritol) and started feeding contestants answers and “scripting” a more exciting drama, did the show become a cultural phenomena worthy of the cover of Time. When an unhappy contestant who had been made to lose came forward with allegations of impropriety, a federal investigation ensued, and Twenty One was unceremoniously yanked from the airwaves in October 1958. (The scandal was dramatized with some embellishment in the 1994 film Quiz Show.)

So the show didn’t fail because people became tired of it. It failed because the game it was depicting had become unacceptably corrupt.

Once I ran out of podcasts, I turned on AM radio (something I rarely do these days). Landed on Sporting News radio, where Dave Harbison was hosting his SNR Pregame show. Apparently he was taking calls on any topic. The first call I heard was about the NHL playoffs. Then the second caller had the following question for Harbison:

“Where do these sports networks come off showing so much poker?”

I’m not making this up. This was just before noon yesterday.

Harbison answered the caller by explaining that the networks need programming, and while he himself didn’t watch poker, enough people apparently did for it to be an acceptable way to fill the time on the sports networks. The caller didn’t like that explanation, and said that since poker didn’t involve athletic ability, he didn’t consider it a sport. “Well, neither does a hot-dog eating contest,” Harbison replied. “But they show that, too.”

Harbison then offered a brief dissertation on media, in which he actually brought up Marshall McLuhan’s famous argument from Understanding Media (first published in 1964) that the “medium is the message.” Although he glossed over most of the particulars of McLuhan’s thesis, Harbison’s essentially seemed to be applying the idea correctly when he said that when in comes to, say, a network like ESPN, the medium itself is more important than the content. As McLuhan states -- I had to pull out my musty copy of Understanding Media to find the quote -- “it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action,” even if the “content” may once in while distract us from that fact.

After a couple of minutes, I sensed the sports talk show host becoming self-conscious about having unintentionally revealed his theoretical chops. He hastily ended the discussion by referring the caller to McLuhan’s book, then took a call about a recent list of the best baseball parks.

I switched off the radio and meditated a bit on what I’d been hearing. When it comes to televised poker, the decision to move the final table to November clearly indicates the relative importance of the “medium” and the “content.” (For more on this point, see Amy Calistri’s wistful post from yesterday, titled “The Way We Were: Computers and Final Tables.”) And while Wise might’ve picked a different example than Twenty One, his point still makes sense -- and perhaps is even more illustrative of this situation than he intended it to be.

Regardless of the content, the medium -- television -- introduces certain requirements in order to survive -- that is, in order to retain its ability to “shape” or “control the scale and form of human association and action.” I think Wise is correct to say the medium demands a certain element of “novelty” or “innovation” or “change” in order to keep viewers engaged. So the content, while relatively less meaningful in and of itself, must nevertheless be constantly manipulated and repackaged so as to keep the relationship between broadcaster and viewer alive.

Of course, as the example of Twenty One aptly demonstrates, it is possible to manipulate the content too much, corrupting it to the point where it is no longer viable for its given medium. Television audiences (and federal officials) could not tolerate an ethically-ambiguous, “scripted” game show in late 1958. Nor would they, I imagine tolerate similar shenanigans were they to happen with the WSOP. (Let’s all hope this change doesn’t invite anything along those lines.)

Then again, audiences won’t tolerate stasis, either. So those who create television shows have to keep changing the content in order to sustain themselves. I suppose there’s a middle ground in there somewhere, where the content continues to be revisited and altered but not to the point where it is no longer acceptable for its given medium.

One thing’s for sure, though. There’s no way to keep everyone happy.