The Return of the $50K

The $50K “Poker Players Championship” event has circled back around at this year’s World Series of Poker, and in fact has already played down to a six-handed final table from a starting field of 91 players. Will probably have to tune in to watch the live stream a bit later today with this one.

A couple of former PPC winners are still in the mix -- Michael Mizrachi (who has won twice) and Brian Rast -- while Justin Bonomo is the chip leader.

That 91-entry field represents a slight increase from the 84 who took part last year when Mike Gorodinsky topped the smallest field ever for the tournament which began in 2006. Entries over the years (since 2006) have been 143, 148, 148, 95, 116, 128, 108, 132, 102, 84, and 91. (See this post from last summer for a summary of results from the tournament’s first decade, minus Gorodinsky’s win).

The tournament was switched back to an eight-game mix this time after experimenting with the 10-game format a year ago, with Badugi and 2-7 NL draw being dropped again from the rotation after being included for one year.

Hard to believe, actually, that the “$50K” (as it’s often called) has been around for more than a decade now, given how well I remember both the announcement of the first one and watching the final table play out on ESPN where David “Chip” Reese outlasted Andy Bloch in a marathon finish heads-up.

Was an altogether novel thing suddenly to introduce a preliminary event featuring a buy-in five times that of the Main, with a lot of talk at the time about how it could eclipse the Main in terms of prestige and even thoughts about who exactly would be considered poker’s “world champion” for a given year.

That latter discussion faded away long ago with regard to the $50K, despite the introduction of that “Poker Players Championship” name for it back in 2010. It’s now mostly regarded as another “high roller” -- one of many on the tournament calendar, although the only one to step outside of the no-limit hold’em circle to include other variants in the mix.

For that reason alone it continues to pique my interest, as I’m sure today’s finale will grab the attention of many.

Photo: PokerNews.

Ambiguous Images

Been vaguely following some of this poker-related, Twitter-y back-and-forthing over the last few days, instigated by frequent-center-of-attention Prahlad Friedman.

Friedman suddenly hopped on Twitter Saturday night to report “Isaac Haxton and Justin Bonomo share and switch accounts often. Was playing random guy and looked up his stats. Identical to Hax.” From there ensued several hours’ worth of claims and counterclaims, among them numerous instances of folks noting the obvious irony of a UB-sponsored player complaining about being cheated.

A sequel to that brouhaha then erupted yesterday, thanks to a thread-starting post by Jon “FatalError” Aguiar over on Two Plus Two. Aguiar had participated some in Saturday’s scuffles, defending Haxton and Bonomo against Friedman’s accusation. Sometime after, Joe Sebok apparently sent Aguiar a message asking him “to chill on the UB hate,” a note that also included reference to Aguiar and his girlfriend having “a skeleton or two that you wouldn’t want public.”

Aguiar took the message as indicating some sort of blackmail-like threat, and from there came lots more posts, more private messages made public, and tweets from Aguiar, Sebok, and others.

Like I say, I’ve followed some of the chatter, though not that actively. Kind of like overhearing a lurid cell phone conversation while stuck in public transit or something. Can’t quite shut it out, but can’t ignore it entirely either.

The latest machinations involving Sebok -- put together with some of his recent podcast appearances -- put me in mind of his initial decision back in September 2009 to sign with UltimateBet as a sponsored pro and “media and operations consultant.” I wrote a post here then titled “Sebok Surprise” in which I expressed some trepidation over the move, comparing it to sweating a friend who appeared to be playing a hand badly -- hoping it might work out, but not feeling optimistic that it would.

It also got me thinking about the significance of image in poker, and how things like Twitter, the forums, and other varieties of communication mediated by technology -- including the kind that happens in online poker -- can serve to complicate one’s image in so many ways. And I guess I’m talking both about one’s image at the table (of use to one’s play) and one’s image away from the table, too (perhaps better referred to as one’s “character” as understood by others).

Can be hard to build and maintain a successful image at the table. Can be difficult to do so away from the table as well, especially when we complicate the process with extra layers of ambiguity introduced by the way we sometimes choose to communicate. (Or miscommunicate.)

Bonomo Ban No Mo’

Last summer I had the chance to help cover the World Series of Poker for PokerNews, and the first final table I live blogged was a good one -- Event No. 4, the $5,000 Mixed No-Limit/Limit Hold’em event won by Erick Lindgren. The table went nearly 200 hands, the last 40 or so were heads up between Lindgren and Justin “ZeeJustin” Bonomo.

Was looking back at the blog, where Tropical Steve and I alternated reporting hands. Bonomo had the chip lead once it got to heads up (about 3-to-2), and at the time it looked a lot like he would probably take it down. Really, for most of the night it seemed as though Bonomo was the one in charge. Which was saying something, given who else was at that final table: David Williams, Howard Lederer, Isaac Haxton, Roland de Wolfe, David Rheem, Andrew Robl, and Pat Pezzin.

This was a televised FT, and when it was all over Lindgren was interviewed by Norman Chad. Those interviews generally end up going on for six or eight questions or so, from which ESPN chops out the little ten-second clip that gets tacked on to the end of the broadcast. In the blog I reported some from that interview, including relating how Lindgren noted that once he’d gotten the lead on Bonomo he remained worried his opponent might still come back on him, right up until the last river card was dealt.

I remember Lindgren also in there somewhere saying some nice things about his opponent, and stating very confidently that Bonomo was going to be winning multiple bracelets himself in the future. I think everyone there watching that final table was thoroughly convinced -- if they weren’t already -- that Bonomo was indeed a hell of a player.

Amid the buzz this week is the fact that Bonomo has been allowed back on PokerStars after being banned from the site for over three years (since February 2006) for having been caught entering tournaments multiple times with different accounts. This was shortly after Bonomo had been caught doing something similar over on PartyPoker, from which site he was banned as well.

Bonomo turned 21 later that year, and soon began tearing up the live tourney poker scene. He barely missed a WPT final table that December, finishing seventh at the Five Diamond World Poker Classic (the one Joe Hachem won). He made a final table at the 2007 WSOP in a NLHE event, where he also made a deep run in the $50K H.O.R.S.E. event, finishing 18th, just a couple of spots away from the money. He has already tripped up to over $1.5 million in tourney winnings. All of which further establishes Bonomo’s poker prowess.

If you’ve heard Bonomo interviewed on any of the podcasts or on his own show, All Strategy (which now may well be on a permanent hiatus), you know he’s articulate, too, and has a gift (I think) for communicating poker-related concepts. And he’s also obviously remorseful for what he did, never shying from questions about the cheating and accepting full responsibility (unlike some others have done). At least that has been the case every time I’ve heard him talk about the issue.

That being said, I guess I’m still scratching my head as to why PokerStars would make this decision to allow “ZeeJustin” back on the site. I’m not saying I don’t think Bonomo understands the gravity of his transgressions, and in fact I do believe that besides being a great player, he has a lot to contribute to the poker community as well. In fact, my wondering has nothing much to do with Bonomo at all -- I agree with the notion that his is something of a special case and therefore probably deserves to be considered differently than others.

I guess I just don’t quite see what exactly PokerStars has to gain here.

One PokerStars customer wrote the site to complain about the unbanning of Bonomo, and received a reply that pointed out how Bonomo had “accepted the consequences of his actions” and as far as PokerStars knew never “tried to circumvent his suspension.” The support person additionally notes how Bonomo has not only “expressed regret for his actions” but “has even become a crusader for fair play” since his banning.

A poll over on PocketFives currently has about 64% of respondents saying they agree with the decision to let Bonomo back on the site, with 36% saying it was not a “good move” by Stars to do so. On the TwoPlusTwo PokerCast this week, the hosts mentioned the thread on that forum discussing the matter, and estimated there, too, the split was about 60-40 in favor of the decision.

I suppose my instinctive response is negative, as I don’t like the idea of letting others believe there exists a (legit) avenue back onto an online site after one has been caught cheating in such a flagrant manner. (That’s ignoring the particulars of Bonomo’s case, I know.) I suppose it would be helpful if somehow Stars additionally provided a way for Bonomo to continue being “a crusader for fair play,” although I’m not sure exactly how that sort of “community service” could be done.

Thinking back to the respect Lindgren expressed for Bonomo after that WSOP final table, I think it’s pretty clear E-dog wouldn’t have been so generous about his opponent if Bonomo had been previously caught cheating in a live setting.

But he wasn’t. More evidence in support of the thesis that everything is different online.

The Name Game

Last week, Gary Wise posted a two-part article about online poker “tells” over on the ESPN Poker Club. In the first part, Wise talks to Justin “ZeeJustin” Bonomo, Isaac “philivey2694” Haxton, and Todd “DanDruff” Witteles about bet-sizing, timing tells (or “click tells”), and screen names. In the second part, Matt “DaProfessor” Hawrilenko and Mike “Schneids” Schneider also join in to say a bit more about bet-sizing and timing, and even speculate about the significance of a player’s city.

The issue of screen names and their significance is one that’s been discussed before. John Vorhaus wrote about screen names in his Killer Poker Online: Crushing the Internet Game (2003). There Vorhaus encouraged readers to choose neutral monickers that “give no hint as to your age, gender, geographical location, level of expertise, or philosophy of play.” As it happens, I think I have done just that with all of my screen names, although as an experiment I did specifically choose a female username for one site. “Over time your choice of screen name probably won’t make a huge money difference,” writes Vorhaus, “but why give anything away?” Others have written on the subject as well, including Dr. Pauly whose “Guide to Online Poker Screen Names” appeared in Poker Player last summer (although I think he wrote about it some time before that).

Anyhow, Haxton says he varies his play “radically” against an unknown based on a player’s screen name. He then lists a number of assumptions he tends to make about names. Says Haxton, someone with a name like “shipmonieslol” or the like “is probably under 30 and probably reads poker forums” and is thus to be regarded as at least a “winning amateur.” Players who choose names of cars, cigars, or drinks (like “laphroaig,” a kind of scotch) are probably over 30. Of such a player, says Haxton (betraying a bit of age-based prejudice, perhaps), “there is a higher than normal chance that he is a fish.”

Certain off-color handles (e.g., those that include crotch jokes) and/or names featuring wacky capitalization (e.g., “AcEsFuLL4346385”) connote aggression for Haxton. He says names including words like “gamble” or “fish” or “rock” are more often than not accurately self-descriptive.

Finally, while not exactly referring to screen names, Haxton believes “anyone who has a picture of their baby as their avatar is terrible at poker.” I suppose Haxton must play a lot on PokerStars, then, the site Wicked Chops dubbed “Best Online Poker Site if You Like Pictures of Children and Dogs” earlier this month.

Following Haxton’s catalogue, Bonomo chimes in to disagree. “A screen name is not a tell,” Bonomo insists, but rather just an occasional encouragement to “stereotype” players (rightly or wrongly). Says Bonomo, screen names are better described as “personality/play style indicators” than as tells.

If I had to choose, I’d lean toward Bonomo’s line here, although frankly I would say most screen names aren’t “indicators” of much at all, with a few exceptions, perhaps. I suppose names containing “1989” or “pimp” or “420” may well tell us something about the player which may or may not relate to how he or she plays poker. But generally I’m not going to fashion a strategy -- or vary my play “radically” -- based solely on the nick.

I will admit, however, that certain names do occasionally suggest something to me about the player’s level of education and/or intelligence. Have played several sessions of H.O.R.S.E. over the last few weeks with a guy named after a Dostoevsky character. A decent player, as far as I can tell, although I’d already been inclined to think he had something going on upstairs just from his name.

A couple of months ago I played with someone named “rhizome.” If I remember correctly, he asked me something about my avatar, and after a bit he and I ended up in a brief chat about the late Gilles Deleuze. Again, even before our chat I’d already suspected the guy might’ve picked up a book once in a while.

Not saying, of course, that if someone’s screen name happens to be a character from a Russian novel or a term used by a French philosopher that automatically means that person knows how to play poker. But I tend to assume these folks are thinkers, at least. And thinkers usually have a better chance at figuring out how to play poker than most.

Then again, there are certain things about which one can probably think too much.