For the Record: Keeping Score at the WSOP

Jessica Welman, besides now working as Managing Editor for WSOP.com, also keeps an engaging personal blog where she mostly writes about popular culture or comments on other issues of the day. However, every once in a while she uses that space to write about poker, such as a few days ago when she shared a nifty find she’d made in her capacity with the WSOP in a post titled “Lending History a Helping Hand-for-Hand.”

Jessica came across some online reporting from the WSOP conducted from 1995 to 2000 -- that, is dating back to pretty much the beginning of online anything -- and in her post describes what she found and what she likes about it.

Her post ultimately points back to the argument in favor of so-called “hand-for-hand” reports from final tables, something both she and B.J. Nemeth have long petitioned for and demonstrated in their reporting from World Poker Tour final tables. I’m talking about the practice of reporting every single hand from a final table, often numbering them, rather than only reporting most and/or significant hands while perhaps inserting other items of interest or relevance along the way.

Thus Jessica’s primary emphasis in her post is to argue that “it is time we stepped it up with hand-for-hand of every major final table” at WSOP events and other major tourneys. I want to address that argument, but first let me say a few things about that 1995-2000 coverage Jessica unearthed and in particular the examples of hand-for-hand reporting they contain.

Here is the page containing links to those 1995-2000 WSOPs. I know I’ve seen some of this before tucked away on the Conjelco site, although to be honest I hadn’t really explored it much and so like Jessica wasn’t previously aware of everything that was there.

By the way, for those seeking more early online reporting from the WSOP, the PokerPages site has reports going back to 2000. (There’s overlap, actually, with the same 2000 reports appearing on both sites.) CardPlayer has live updates from all events in 2005 and 2006. And from 2007 to present, PokerNews has handled the coverage as a primary content provider for the WSOP.

Among those reports from 1995-2000 one finds event summaries (including interviews and other goodies) written by Tom Sims, Andy Glazer, and Mike Paulle. Some of their reports from those final tables are quite thorough, and as Jessica points out these writers have left behind a great resource for anyone interested in studying the WSOP history during these pre-“boom” years. These guys were truly trailblazers.

One especially cool nugget highlighted by Jessica is a hand-for-hand account by Sims of the 1997 WSOP Main Event final table at which Stu Ungar won his third title. She also highlights another interesting item from that year’s WSOP Main Event, “The Andy Bloch Project” in which Sims and Bloch worked together to report all 648 hands Bloch played in that year’s ME.

Both reports are fascinating in their thoroughness. I think it’s probably safe to say nothing quite like it had been tried before -- not on such a scale, anyway -- and thus was Sims (and in the latter case, Sims and Bloch) challenged to establish both a methodology for keeping track of the info as well as devise a system for presenting it.

There to the left is a little snippet of Sims’s hand-for-hand reporting from the 1997 ME final table, with abbreviations indicating players, positions, and actions. As he himself explains in his “Post-Mortem” that appears as a sidebar to his reporting, he dictated hands into a microcassette recorder as they occurred, then transcribed it all to post online by the next day. (Jessica mentions in her post the poker player Melissa Hayden confirming this method adopted by Sims.)

Jessica praises Sims highly, and I can’t help but agree with her that he’s left something especially valuable in his report. Jessica calls Sims’s 1997 ME final table report “one of the most compelling, colorful, and thorough pieces of content” she’s ever read, and even goes so far as to suggest that between that report and “The Andy Bloch Project,” “his efforts... have more long-term value than any of the coverage generated at this year’s series.”

I’ll continue to agree with Jessica regarding Sims’s reports being “compelling” and “thorough.” And while the hand-for-hand stuff is not really that “colorful,” the “Daily Report” Sims filed to go as part of his 1997 ME final table reporting is indeed terrific, setting the stage nicely and really capturing the unusual scene at the only WSOP Main Event final table every to have been played outdoors (on Fremont Street, in front of Binion’s Horseshoe Casino).

I’m not going to go as far as Jessica and suggest the wealth of coverage from the 2012 WSOP somehow has less long-term value than Sims’s ’97 reports. I do think Jessica means more to praise Sims than denigrate more recent reporting efforts, and in fact her main point (as mentioned above) is really to advocate for hand-for-hand reporting from all WSOP final tables -- i.e., not just the Main Event -- so future readers and students of the WSOP can enjoy a record as thorough as the one Sims created 15 years ago.

In other words, I appreciate what she’s saying about the need for hand-for-hand coverage. From 2005-2006, CardPlayer occasionally provided hand-for-hand reports from WSOP final tables. PokerNews continued to try to do so from 2007-2008, and every once in a while in 2009. I was there with PN in ’08 and ’09, and so helped produce some of those reports and thus have had experience live blogging hand-for-hand. But from 2009 onward I believe the only hand-for-hand reporting from final tables that has been done at the WSOP happened at Main Events and the big buy-in events like the $50K Player’s Championship and the “Big One for One Drop.”

However, with regard to hand-for-hand reporting, let me point out a few issues Jessica doesn’t mention in her post.

She refers to the WPT’s reporting of final tables (which she helped with up until taking her position with the WSOP) and the standard set there for hand-for-hand reporting. “As a result,” notes Jessica, the WPT is “able to offer a wealth of statistical information that can only be estimated on other tours and at the WSOP.”

She’s right. It’s a little like having complete box scores for one league’s games, but only partially complete statistics for another. And like I say, I like the point she’s making about there needing to be more thorough “box scores” at the WSOP. As she notes, “these updates are the official record of these events and have a shelf life and utility that extends beyond the day of the final table,” and thus the more thorough the reports are, the more useful they can be.

Of course, the WPT’s final tables are exclusively no-limit hold’em, whereas at the WSOP many non-hold’em events present particular challenges when it comes to hand-for-hand reporting.

Pot-limit Omaha with pot-limit betting and two extra hole cards requires an extra bit of mental cogitation to chronicle hands at showdown. Stud games present more problems, with even more cards to keep up with, shifting betting order, and fixed-limit betting often speeding up the action. And of course, split-pot games add still more difficulty with multiple winning hands, split and quartered pots, and so on.

That’s not to say hand-for-hand coverage isn’t possible for non-hold’em events. But it is easier said than done. In fact, I’d suggest even an especially quick and talented reporter with a microcassette recorder (or today, an iPad) would find producing a complete hand-for-hand report from a Stud/8 final table an incredibly difficult task.

Speaking of Sims’s microcassette recorder, we might also point out that Sims didn’t “live blog” the 1997 WSOP Main Event final table, but rather filed a report the next day. Still a quick turnaround, but it’s probably worth noting that Sims didn’t face the same deadline -- i.e., right now -- that today’s live bloggers do.

Finally, I’d like to share some of what Tom Sims himself had to say about the innovative experiment of trying to report every hand from the 1997 WSOP Main Event final table. Interestingly, while he’s clearly proud of what he achieved with his report, he’s much less quick to praise his work and hold it up as a model of reporting than is Jessica.

Sims starts his “Post-Mortem” reflection on his reporting thusly: “The 1997 WSOP is now history, and while I am generally satisfied with my role in Conjelco’s coverage of this annual classic, I think I could have done better.”

The next paragraph then describes his process a little further while explaining why exactly he believed his reporting was somehow lacking.

As I have related previously, I was a reluctant participant, and it took numerous invitations by Chuck Weinstock before I relented and consented, much against my better judgment. I really didn’t need the hassle of what turned out to be an unrealistic commitment on my part. Also, as I now realize, I violated an old maxim of mine: I put the “em-PHAW-sis” on the wrong “syl-LABBLE”, by focusing on recording the play-by-play data and getting it on the net the next day. I only did the Daily Report narrative because of Chuck’s urging, had little time nor mind-frame to do it justice, and relied on the coded, hard to read, play-by-play data to provide most of the meat of my reportorial efforts. This was a big mistake. Making the play-by-play data a public record was my prime motivation, but I should have highlighted more of the color and important hands at the daily Final Tables, and done the tedious transcribing of play-by-play data at my leisure, after the WSOP. If I ever undertake another Poker reportorial [sic] assignment, I will skip the hand-by-hand data (I’ve made my contribution!), or do it on a “to follow at my leisure” basis, and devote a lot more time and effort to what’s going on.

Sims is much too hard on himself here, particularly with regard to his “Daily Report” which is quite engaging and highlights plenty of color (even if it doesn’t really talk about important hands). And despite what he says about abandoning the experiment, it appears he did provide one more hand-for-hand report for the 1998 WSOP Main Event final table as well.

Still, the reservations he expresses about hand-for-hand reporting are worth noting.

Interestingly, while he certainly believes that the “play-by-play data” he’s produced is valuable -- and with great prescience has an idea of a “public record” to which he’s contributing -- he laments that by producing the hand-for-hand report he’s largely missed out on being able to share the larger story of that year’s final table. Recognizing his own limitations as an individual reporter, he consciously chooses to forgo the hand-for-hand experiment going forward in favor of stepping back and being able to report “what’s going on.”

I present Sims’s own self-criticism as more food for thought to those who like Jessica would like to see future WSOP coverage model itself after what he accomplished.

One way of ensuring the creation of such a “box score”-like report from every WSOP final table would be for the WSOP to assign one person (or perhaps two for non-hold’em events) to do what Sims did and simply stand nearby and chronicle every hand -- not reporting it immediately like the live bloggers do, but taking the time afterwards to reassemble the notes into a readable format.

Of course, PokerNews (or another media outlet) could assign reporters to perform this task. And not to speak for PN, but I’d imagine they’d happily do so if the WSOP insisted that was the kind of coverage they required from them as part of their arrangement. But as Sims himself points out, producing such “play-by-play data” necessarily means the reporter(s) engaged in doing so aren’t going to be able to do much else.

I’ll end the post here, having already run on much longer than intended. I haven’t even gotten into the larger debate between the relative “value” or “shelf life” of unembellished hand-for-hand reporting and more imaginative narratives about what happens at a poker tournament -- an argument that if taken far enough starts to resemble debates about the relative worth of scientific explanations of the world versus artistic responses to it.

Anyhow, as a “word guy,” you probably already suspect where I lean on that one. So I’ll stop here and invite you to share your own words about it all.

WSOP and POV

Had an especially enjoyable weekend, spent with family while occasionally following the WSOP coverage at PokerNews and WSOP.com.

My birthday was on Saturday, and thus it was nice to be able to hang out at home to celebrate the day for a change rather than spend it 2,500 or so miles away.

Got to visit with my Mom and brother some. From my brother I learned about two new things. First he told me all about the Wilhelm scream. Then he taught me what a trebuchet was. He said he wanted one. I asked him what that was and he explained it to me. Then I asked him why he wanted one.

“Have some stuff I want to launch,” he said.

The WSOP launched nearly two weeks ago, and they are already up to starting Event Nos. 22 and 23 today. (See the full day-by-day schedule here.) After having been right in the thick of it there at the Rio from start to finish for the last several years, it is interesting -- and useful, I think -- to observe the Series from afar as it has progressed through these first couple of weeks.

The fact is, it is often difficult to have any sort of broader perspective at all about the WSOP when there. Especially when immersed in the business of closely covering a single event, which has generally been the case for me since I started covering the sucker in 2008. Point of view gets all narrowed down and blinkered.

One writer whose perspective I have particularly enjoyed following thus far is that of Dr. Pauly. Pauly gets a lot of accolades for his WSOP reports on Tao of Poker, so my chiming in (again) and adding another clapping of hands to the already loud applause ain’t gonna make a lot of difference. Indeed, anyone wandering over here during these first couple of weeks to see what I might be writing about prior to heading out to the WSOP is certainly already following Tao and so knows already how good it gets over there.

But if somehow you aren’t already reading Tao of Poker -- and if you have an interest in following what’s happening at the WSOP -- let me encourage you to go over and read Pauly’s account of the scene during the Event No. 16 final table from Saturday night: “2011 WSOP Day 12: Hellmuth Chokes and Prohibition Ends at the Mothership.” That was the $10,000 2-7 Draw Lowball (No-Limit) Championship in which John Juanda denied Phil Hellmuth his 12th WSOP bracelet.

There you will find...

considered commentary on the make-up of the field (a mix of old school mixed-game vets and online-trained neophytes)

a few behind-the-scenes tidbits regarding those who made the final day

an account of the food-and-beverage-prohibition subplot at the so-called “Mothership,” theatrically lifted once play reached heads-up

anecdotal sketches of various crowd characters, all of which add up to a comprehensive portrait of the audience’s attitude toward watching poker played with no community or “up” cards

a glimpse at side action between ultra-keen bookmaker Neil Channing and underdog Benjo

the shifts of momentum and mood during heads-up play

And more. Then comes a postscript covering other WSOP events plus extracurricular activities at the Rio sportsbook and elsewhere, again peppered with lots of fun, generally unseen stuff that helps convey what it’s like to be there.

There are a few others whose WSOP reports I find myself actively seeking out day-after-day in addition to checking in on the usual news outlets. These include (but are not limited to) Jesse May’s Poker Farm posts, Snoopy’s articles and blog posts over on Black Belt Poker, Jess Welman’s nifty “WSOP By the Numbers” pieces on the BLUFF site (here’s the latest), and Nolan Dalla’s always awesome WSOP.com reports and wraps.

Am also every day checking out PKRGSSP’s great compilation posts, too, which often point me to other stuff worthy of attention. (I wonder if PKRGSSP knows he has successfully revived a tradition begun by the erstwhile Blogfather, Iggy, with his “uberposts” each weekday?)

But to get back to Pauly, it’s that ability to combine close details and “big picture” stuff that makes his reports special, one of many reasons why they are so worthwhile. Like I say, it’s hard enough to have any kind of larger perspective at all when there, let alone successfully convey it to an audience in a way that makes sense (and is entertaining, too).

Have about a week more to try to appreciate the “big picture” before I launch myself Vegas-ward. Looking forward to it, for sure, but also have been glad to have had this chance to “see” it all from afar via others’ POVs.

Well Played, WPT

Have really been enjoying the latest addition to our already loaded menu of poker-related goodness on the interwebs, the short video recaps done by our friends Jessica Welman and B.J. Nemeth over on the World Poker Tour site.

The WPT has always done a nifty job reporting from its events, thanks in large part to people like B.J. and Jess, both of whom bring a lot of experience and know-how to poker reporting. Video content has always been part of the WPT site, too, mostly in the form of player interviews. But as far as I know B.J. & Jess’ show is something a bit new.

This week saw the Festa al Lago event play out at the Bellagio, won yesterday by Randal Flowers (his second WPT title). At the end of each day’s play, Welman and Nemeth recorded videos recapping the action and making predictions about how the tournament would continue to play out. The vids generally last 8-12 minutes and afford the viewer both a quick rundown of what’s happening in the tourney as well as some grins, too.

For each event, then, the WPT provides all sorts of content -- videos, B.J.’s photo blogs, hand reports, and more -- thereby making it possible to follow a given tourney quite closely from afar. The site is also smartly organized. It’s a simple matter to look up past events, stats, and all sorts of info related to the World Poker Tour’s history.

My sense is the WPT is doing well thus far in Season 9, in terms of both attracting players and successfully producing a general buzz around the tour and its stops. Goes without saying that having a good handle on the reporting/promotion side of things helps a lot when it comes to keeping the WPT relevant and in the minds of us poker fans.

On their final installment from Festa al Lago, B.J. and Jess asked for suggestions for a title of their show:



I actually enjoyed the running gag this week in which a new title was introduced each day. Even so, I understand the need to settle on some way to refer to the show, and thus have a suggestion, one that simultaneously evokes B.J.’s love of Coca-Cola products, Jess’ fondness for Starbucks, and a favorite term of WPT co-host Vince Van Patten...

“Wired Pair.”

If you have a better ideer, send it their way via Twitter @JessAndBJ.

2010 WSOP, Day 27: Boom Boom (Out Go the Lights)

Was reporting on the last day of Event No. 39, the $1,500 No-Limit Hold’em Shootout yesterday. Actually the event had turned into something other than a “shootout” since 14 players had made it through the first two rounds, so we were basically looking at a 14-person sit-n-go, eventually won by Steven Kelly around 2 a.m. this morning.

Event No. 39 was attracting a bit of attention during the first part of the day yesterday since both J.C. Tran and Annette Obrestad were part of the final day field. But both went out early -- boom, boom -- shy of the final table, and thus a lot of the potential drama for the event was eliminated with them.

Tran ran into some hard luck during the first couple of levels and went out in 13th. Meanwhile, Obrestad had the chip lead briefly early on, but doubled up a short stack twice in short succession, thereby becoming a short stack herself.

Then came a hand in which Derric Haynie opened from the button, Obrestad reraised all in from the small blind, then Michael Pesek reshoved from the big blind. Haynie thought a bit, then called (having both covered), turning over pocket tens. Pesek had , and Obrestad was in a tough spot with . “Sevens!” was the yell from the rail, but none came and Haynie scored a double-knockout when his tens held.

We then scurried over to the main stage, where the remaining nine were quickly in their seats and awaiting a restart. As I got over there and began to set up, I heard the players laughing about something one of them had said a little while earlier. Soon I realized they were referring to a post I had written in which I’d reported some humorous table talk.

Michael Cooper, who ultimately finished eighth, had said something funny after surviving an all-in situation versus Dustin Dirksen, and I think Dirksen had read the post on his iPhone and shared it with the table. Here’s that post, if you are curious.

Last summer I wrote more than once about the whole Twitter-texting phenomenon in a post called “Land of a 1000 Reporters.” There I was remarking on how others -- namely the players themselves -- were also “reporting” on the event. Of course, once a tournament reaches the money players are made to put away those electronic devices, although they can pull them out during breaks and write or read to their heart’s content.

This was something a little different, though -- players reading and responding to what I had reported. Kind of uncanny, actually, to have the players on whom one is reporting almost immediately aware of what one writes about them. A little later in the evening we had a couple of final table spectators -- including the Hinkle brothers (Grant and Blair) -- let us know they were reading our reports, too.

Last summer I concluded that I didn’t mind all the Tweeting so much, regarding it more as a complement to the coverage we were trying to provide rather than competition. Feel the same way this year about it, and I also don’t mind so much that the players are themselves following the coverage as the tourney goes.

It is a little weird to think about, though. Compare any other sporting event and try to imagine those competing also directly interacting with the reporting on their event as it goes.

Our tourney eventually ended about 2 a.m., and as we were putting up the last post of the night the power unexpectedly went out in the Amazon Room. We heard it went out all over the Rio, and perhaps elsewhere on the strip, although those reports could have been exaggerated, I think.

Was a weird scene, having been suddenly plunged into total darkness. Not to mention a brief moment of total silence as the hum of all the machines had abruptly stopped. The quiet didn’t last long, however, as a loud roar soon went up, with someone loudly pleading “Cover your chips!” over the top.

About 15 seconds later some lights had come back on, and within about five minutes order seemed mostly restored, although for the tourneys still going they had to go on an unscheduled break to set things completely aright. That picture to the left is of WSOP Media Director Nolan Dalla and Bluff Magazine’s Jessica Welman with our event’s winner, Kelly, just after the brief blackout. Their interviewing of Kelly had been interrupted momentarily, and there they are trying to get back on track.

Luckily for us, we were done already so I got back to the hotel in time to spend one last night with Vera before taking her to the airport this morning. Tough stuff, this being apart, and as I mentioned last week this will probably be the last summer I spend entirely out here in Vegas. More likely in the future I look for a way just to come for a couple of weeks, perhaps for the Main Event only.

No time off for your humble gumshoe, as I’m back in the Rio again today to help with another event, Event No. 44, the $2,500 Mixed Limit/No-Limit Hold’em event. Join the players and people on the rail and follow the coverage yourselves over at PokerNews.