Writing and Playing

A thread was started over on Two Plus Two last week by a poster complaining about commentary regarding a particular player on a poker broadcast. The poster was specifically talking about Dan Shak and referring to some commentary on EPTLive.

The poster had some things to say about how some players might be discussed more favorably as players when compared to others, although might have been a little unfair in this particular instance as the subsequent discussion helped point out.

In fact EPTLive co-host James Hartigan posted a few times to help clarify some of the commentary highlighted by the original poster, with his response being both interesting to read and constructive. From there the short thread moved on to talk more broadly about poker commentary before winding down a few days later.

One of the more interesting points made in the thread came from Jimmy “Gobboboy” Fricke who contributes to the EPTLive shows and for that reason was encouraged to join in the discussion. He spoke humbly about the challenge to produce good, insightful strategic commentary on poker, noting how easy it is to be wrong with one’s read of a situation or player.

“Writing about poker correctly is a lot like playing poker,” Fricke then added.

Fricke mainly refers to writing (or discussing) strategy, and what he says makes a lot of sense. Commenting on hands well presents a challenge very similar to playing them well.

I was tempted, anyway, to apply the point more broadly to other kinds of poker-related writing which likewise can require technical knowledge, analytical ability, and creative thinking. You could even take the analogy further and talk about how writing about poker well also involves being able to read others, understanding how stories are put together and affect others, and even sometimes enjoying luck in the form of good timing or other external factors that lie outside one’s “skill.”

In what other ways is writing about poker like playing poker?

Little Did He Realize

What is this? Online poker’s version of The Golden Goose?

Yesterday a post appeared over on the Full Tilt Poker forum announcing that Jonathan Little would no longer be representing the online poker site. According to the post, Little “violated the terms and conditions of Full Tilt Poker by allowing other players to play his account.”

As a site rep, Little’s name appeared in red whenever he sat down at one of the virtual tables. According to the higher-ups, “When a player on Full Tilt Poker plays against and chats with a red pro on the site, it is imperative that they [sic] be able to trust that it is really the advertised pro playing the account.” Once Little began allowing others to play under his account -- and his doing so became known -- Full Tilt decided to part ways with him. (This thread on Pocket Fives from early last month appears to be where hints at something nefarious going on were first publicized.)

Little’s violation looks as though it was primarily motivated by profit. As a Full Tilt pro, Little received 100% rakeback (among other perks), thereby increasing his incentive to put in a high volume of hands. By sharing his account with others, “Little” apparently was able to log a whopping 1,200-plus SNGs in the first week of February -- an early clue, perhaps, that something illicit might be afoot.

A lot of folks are having fun on forums and elsewhere with Little’s online nick -- “FieryJustice” -- and its newly ironic connotation. The sudden loss of sponsorship represents an unexpected fender bender in a career that had recently been racing in high-gear. Little won the WPT Mirage Poker Showdown last May and placed 2nd in the WPT North American Poker Championship in Ontario last October. He also just finished making the round of 8 in the NBC Heads-Up Poker Championship over the weekend.

The news regarding Little revived previous stories -- of varying degrees of authenticity -- of other Full Tilt pros having acted similarly in the past. A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned hearing Mike Matusow blithely recount his having taken over for a friend late in an online tournament (though he purposely omitted mentioning the site on which the account-sharing occurred). While that story did not specifically involve the pro allowing others to play under his account, some have suggested instances where they have witnessed pros playing live while also somehow playing online at the same time. (See, for instance, Jimmy “Gobboboy” Fricke’s post about Matusow.)

Not quite sure what Little was thinking here. A pretty serious misstep, it seems. Especially for a guy who otherwise has demonstrated such proficiency at determining risk-reward ratios.