“Poker Twitter”

Spent the day taking care of the usual business while also readying the farm for a get-together tomorrow where we’ll be hosting a lot of family and friends. It’s kind of turned into an annual thing here every spring, a fun way to get everyone together, eat some barbecue, and just relax.

Had too much to do to spend that much time following the Twitter stuff today, but I noticed enough to see the some of the griping back and forth in anticipation of the World Series of Poker (which gets started in a little over a week). A lot of personal beefs being played out before an audience again, with the WSOP also getting in there and bothering people with some of its tweets, too (as they’ve done before).

You’ve probably heard our friend Kevmath has been hired by the WSOP to take over their Twitter account starting May 31, finally officially being awarded a job he’s been handling on his own for years. I don’t envy Kevmath the task he’s taken on, although I’ve no doubt he’s going to do it well.

I was thinking today about one of the conversations I was having with my buds at LAPT Panama about social media -- Twitter, specifically -- and how often those who interact on there misinterpret others’ meanings or intentions, fail to appreciate context (or irony/sarcasm), or otherwise misread each other, often leading to the spectacle-creating argument and vitriol we’re so used to seeing scroll past.

I made an observation -- perhaps insightful, perhaps not -- that since poker is a game full of misdirection and purposefully misleading plays, actions, and/or verbal exchanges, it’s only natural for “poker Twitter” (as it were) to be full of the same sort of challenges to clear, direct communication.

I’ve made that observation here on the blog before how some treat Twitter like a game, viewing others as like opponents with whom to battle over some unspecified prize. I guess this point is a slightly different one, as I don’t think everyone engaging in “poker Twitter” looks at it as a contest. Rather (I’m suggesting) I think it might be more likely than not that poker people are going to be less than direct with their communications in public (such as over Twitter), busy as they often are with building images and looking for edges.

Dunno if that point is clear or not, but I guess it can be summarized as a general recommendation to take pretty much everything you read over “poker Twitter” with a grain of salt, if you can, and not react too quickly without looking a little further into context and or intention. Also know you don’t always have to call or raise, even if you’re pretty sure someone’s probably bluffing.

I think Kevmath has good instincts in that regard, which’ll help him once the barrage of questions (and criticisms, probably) come his way starting at the end of the month.

Me? I’m just hoping it doesn’t rain tomorrow. That’s all. No, really... no hidden message or irony. Let’s just have some sunshine!

Image: “Twitter icon,” Jurgen Appelo. CC BY 2.0.

Tuning In: The 2015 WSOP Main Event Begins on ESPN

Saw our friend Kevmath tweeting a little earlier about viewers for last night’s initial two episodes from ESPN of their 2015 World Series of Poker Main Event coverage.

I was watching ESPN last night, although not the WSOP. Looking over at Sports TV Ratings’ numbers from Monday night, I was part of the group of 13.56 million watching the night’s first NFL game (Philadelphia at Atlanta) as well as part of the 14.33 million looking in on the second one (Minnesota at San Francisco).

I was also enduring some of that agony I was talking about yesterday after having picked both games incorrectly (in both cases going with “consensus” picks). (Argh!)

The episodes of the WSOP aired over on ESPN2 at 8 and 9 p.m. Looks like 245,000 were watching that first hour, then 414,000 tuned in for the second hour.

Instead of watching live, I DVR’d the poker and watched this afternoon. Was entertaining, I thought, in large part because of Phil Hellmuth being on the feature table for the entire two hours, then Daniel Negreanu getting seated there for the last 45 minutes or so of hour no. 2.

I also liked the snippets of talk from various players talking about what it meant to play the Main. That helped broaden things in such a way that it was possible to think of the larger context for the various hands that were shown. (Otherwise, it was hard -- as usual -- to think about how the tournament as a whole was going.)

Speaking of the number of people watching, at the end of one hand during the first part of the first hour, Hellmuth made a reference to his hand after being folded to, and when asked if he was telling the truth he said if he weren’t he’d “just lied in front a million people.”

Then he recalculated.

“Gonna be five million people watching this, at least.”

I believe last year’s Main Event final table -- the “almost live” November Nine, that is -- drew something like 1.15 million viewers, with the episodes leading up to it drawing considerably fewer. About a month ago I looked up some of these stats, finding that the 2008 WSOP ME final table had 2.364 million watching (the most of the Nov. 9 era).

This old PokerNews article from a decade ago lists some stats for ESPN’s WSOP episodes from back in the glory days. The article says in 2003 the average was 1 million viewers (for those seven Main Event episodes), in 2004 it was 1.5 million (for 22 hrs. of coverage, including non-ME shows), and in 2005 it was 1.1 million (for 32 hrs. of coverage).

No surprise to find that five million people watching a poker show didn’t happen even at the height of the poker boom. Nor is it to hear Hellmuth imagining five million are watching him.

Catching Up with Kevmath

Spent the afternoon in the cold and wet, driving posts around the perimeter of the “back forty” as part of the new fence we are building back there.

The conditions are actually ideal, as the ground is soft and thus easier to breach with the tall, green metal T-posts I’m hammering down into them. Got about halfway around the sucker before the skies opened up for real, chasing me from the pasture and under cover.

Progress was made, however slowly, one post at a time. Kind of like this blog, I suppose, where I have been planting post after post after post for a good while now.

Listened to tunes for much of the time I was working, although early on I finished listening to the latest installment of the Thinking Poker podcast hosted by Andrew Brokos and Nate Meyvis. They’re up over 100 eps now, and this week after talking strategy for a while (as usual) they had Kevin “Kevmath” Mathers on as a guest.

On the show Kevin tells the story of how he first got involved in poker in the early 2000s, as well as the interesting path that led him to become known as the “answer guy” on Two Plus Two where he posted frequently and eventually became a moderator. It was a post-after-post-after-post life for Kevin, too, for several years before he finally found his way into poker media, eventually becoming the Manager of Poker Information for BLUFF.

Along the way Kevin tells about being interviewed by Tatjana Pasalic back in the fall of 2010, the first time a lot of us finally got to see him after years of interacting with him online. He also describes the experience of covering the 2011 WSOP for BLUFF. I remember getting to meet Kevin in the person for the first time that summer, although I knew him well before that. In fact, when listening to him talk about that interview with Tattytats I remembered having interviewed Kevin some months before for Betfair Poker.

I went searching for that interview today, but discovered it doesn’t appear to be on the Betfair Poker site anymore. So as a supplement to this week’s Thinking Poker podcast (and as a quick trip down memory lane), I thought I’d repost that interview here.

Thanks again, Kevin, for the interview! And thanks as well for everything else you do to for the poker community.

* * * * * “Kevmath Adds It Up: A Chat with the Poker Forum Moderator”
[Originally published at Betfair Poker, 19 February 2010]

The internet provides endless opportunities for people with common interests -- like those of us who enjoy poker -- to find each other and swap stories, share information and strategy, and engage in other types of socializing. Just as the online game has affected how live poker is played, the internet as a whole has changed the way poker can function as an occasion for social interaction, too.

Online poker forums are one such example of a place where poker people can virtually mix and mingle, with those over at Two Plus Two being far and away the most popular choice for many.

I occasionally participate in the discussions over on 2+2, though when visiting I’m more likely to read than post. I tend to follow forums such as News, Views, and Gossip (or NVG), Beats, Brags, and Variance (BBV), Tournament Circuit, Internet Poker, Poker Legislation, Televised Poker, and Books and Publications. I’ll also occasionally stop in over in the Limit Hold’em section and Small Stakes PLO forum to eavesdrop on strategy talk, or goof around in the Other Topics section where one can easily waste a lot of time.

Like just about everyone who visits the 2+2 forums, I often run across contributions by the poster “Kevmath,” a.k.a. Kevin Mathers, a frequent poster and moderator at 2+2. Mathers can also be found posting from time to time over at the especially-informative Pokerati blog, and has additionally written articles for PokerNews. Last summer I had the chance to work a few times with Kevmath during the WSOP when he did some behind-the-scenes stuff to help out those of us who were reporting on the Series.

It only takes reading a few posts from “Kevmath” to recognize him as a highly reliable “answer man” when it comes to all things poker. As such, I thought he’d be a good person to field a few questions, both about 2+2 and the poker world in general.

Short-Stacked Shamus: What forums do you moderate over at 2+2?

Kevin Mathers: I moderate the TV poker forum, the Tournament Circuit/WSOP forums, and with others moderate News, Views, and Gossip (NVG).

SSS: NVG is the most popular, yes?

Kevmath: Yes, News, Views, and Gossip is considered “the forums” by most people, as that’s where most of the discussion of events going on in the poker world takes place. It’s a mish-mash of information from the poker media, public opinions, and other hilarity all rolled up into one central location.

SSS: What exactly is a moderator’s responsibility at 2+2?

Kevmath: Posters who make valued contributions to a particular forum are often considered for elevation to moderator status if they are interested. My role as one of the moderators is to help enforce the rules in the forum, and attempt to keep things in control without being too overbearing. NVG in particular generates a lot of traffic, and sometimes two or more people come up with the same idea for a thread, or someone decides to spam or post something really inappropriate. So it’s the moderator’s job to merge threads, delete threads that are just really stupid or inappropriate, or move them to a more appropriate forum.

SSS: Kind of like herding cats at times, I’ll bet.

Kevmath: Yeah, it’s often difficult to moderate effectively, as you’re trying to keep things as civil as possible without being too overbearing to those who are likely to be negative about a certain topic.

SSS: Poker forums -- and 2+2 in particular -- obviously play an important role in poker today. How would you characterize 2+2 forums’ contribution to poker?

Kevmath: 2+2 is great for just about everyone who has an involvement in poker. If you’re looking for strategy, there are plenty of forums dedicated to all forms of poker, and broken down even further by the stakes you’re playing. There are forums dedicated to major tournaments, as well as finding information on tournaments that are focused more towards players at a casino near them. Another large part of 2+2 are the many forums about topics unrelated to poker (sports, politics, business and investing, health and fitness, travel, Vegas, etc.).

SSS: What sort of topics tend to get the most attention? That is, which threads end up attracting the most posts and views?

Kevmath: Probably the monthly High Stakes threads, especially if someone who is unknown makes an appearance (Martonas, Isildur1, etc.). The latest antics of FullFlush, Hellmuth, Negreanu or any major poker professional also usually get a lot of looks.

SSS: What is the most memorable or significant thread since you joined 2+2?

Kevmath: Definitely the ones detailing the scandals at Ultimate Bet and Absolute Poker (summarized in the UB sticky in NVG).

SSS: How about the funniest or most outrageous thread?

Kevmath: The funniest threads I’ve read have been the various photoshop threads that turn up in NVG, such as “If They Never Played Poker...“ or “French businessman in Bobby’s Room“ (a.k.a., the “Cyril” thread). Since I’m not as familiar with the strategy side of 2+2, I’d suggest readers to take a look at “The Best of Two Plus Two“ forum, which features several classic threads from across 2+2.

SSS: In what other ways do you follow the latest poker news?

Kevmath: I’m usually following the larger poker blogs, poker news sites, and stuff that turns up on my Twitter feed.

SSS: What are your thoughts about the current state of “poker media”?

Kevmath: Too often, the poker media appears to be more focused towards the sites that fund the magazine through their advertising, and avoid being too critical. Another part of poker media I’m not a fan of is the need to be the “exclusive” provider of live updates. While it helps draw traffic to the site, the updates often focus on a select group of players (e.g., people they know, etc.). When those players are gone, they’re struggling.

SSS: Okay, one last question... speaking of the media, what poker stories and/or issues do you foresee being the most written about and discussed in 2010?

Kevmath: The regulating of online poker worldwide, especially the U.S., will be a big one. It will be interesting also to see how the World Series of Poker will do without Jeffrey Pollack as Commissioner. Other stories to watch should include watching how PartyPoker does with the World Poker Tour, seeing whether PokerStars can continue their world domination of tournament poker with the new North American Poker Tour, and Annette Obrestad’s WSOP debut this summer. And whatever major scandal (real or perceived) may come to light.

Much thanks to Kevin Mathers for taking the time.

GG, Mike: Farewell Episode Up

Just saw that the new episode of the Two Plus Two Pokercast is now available, the final one featuring co-host Mike Johnson. Sucker’s more than three hours long, but it should be well worth listening to for a few reasons.

I know the show contains a ton of “call backs” to earlier episodes which ought to make it fun as a kind of mini-history lesson of the last decade of poker. Looks like our buddy Kevmath made a guest appearance, too, for a trivia challenge with Mike, which ought to be fun to hear. And lots of different people from the poker world appear live as guests as well as with recorded farewells, too. (There might even be one in there from this longtime fan.)

When I heard Mike was going to leave the show about a month ago, I wrote a post here. I mentioned how sorry I was to hear Mike was leaving the show, but how I also well understood the desire to step away from the constant grind of talking about poker after doing it for so many years.

The show will be continuing with Adam Schwartz who is going to be bringing in different folks to sit alongside him going forward, although there’ll be no replacing Mike.

I’m just starting up the episode, and I’m hearing they began it with the intro to the old Rounders, the Poker Show, the original show Mike and Adam began on the Vancouver sports talk station way back in 2005. Ah, I remember that. This should be fun.

Click here to listen.

Stirring Things Up

I’ve written here before -- although it’s been a while -- about Dashiel Hammett’s unnamed detective the Continental Op who appears in about two dozen stories and a couple of novels by the hard-boiled writer.

Most of the stories follow a similar trajectory in which the Op is given some sort of assignment that often seems relatively simple, then discovers early on the particulars are more complicated than had been earlier suggested. From there, a favorite response by the Op is to introduce some further, often creative complication -- kind of like putting in a surprising check-raise -- to see how others will react and thus perhaps reveal their motives. Or crimes.

The Op often benignly describes this strategy as “stirring things up.” For example, “The House in Turk Street” (1924) is a weird little story in which the Op finds himself accidentally holed up with a gang of bank robbers whom he notices gradually starting to turn on each other. Despite being their prisoner and tied to a chair, he nurtures their growing conflict himself at one point -- in fact, he uses a poker analogy when he refers to having “led my ace” with one false statement, something which he subsequently refers to as “my little lie that was meant to stir things up.”

When I brought up the phrase here before, in was in the context of talking about poker strategy, referring to the choice “to stir things up” with a bet or raise or anything that takes one out of one’s typical style or approach. Doing so can sometimes be worthwhile, a means to improve one’s game and prevent falling into predictable patterns that others can exploit.

Over the last week or so I have been thinking of the phrase in a different way, though, as there have been a lot of examples of people “stirring things up” in the poker world, with several different debates flying about concerning a host of topics.

I’m thinking of course about the recent brouhaha following Daniel Colman’s victory in the “Big One for One Drop” and his subsequent decision not to go through the usual picture-taking and interviewing, with various op-eds popping up in response, then Colman’s own provoking “I don’t owe poker a single thing” explanation.

Also from this week I’m thinking about the back-and-forthing instigated by Greg Merson regarding the World Poker Tour scheduling a low buy-in event at the Aria during the WSOP Main Event. Jeff Walsh summarizes that one at F5 Poker, covering most of the discussion except for a few WPT-directed blasts fired by WSOP Executive Director Ty Stewart along the way.

Then yesterday came another quasi-tempest when Earl Burton wrote an op-ed complaining about Kevin “Kevmath” Mathers of Bluff getting bought into the Main Event by some poker pros wishing to give something back to Kev after he’s given so much to the community for several years. Haley Hintze does a good job explaining that one and responding to it, too, over at Flushdraw.

There are real issues at the heart of all of these conversations, involving poker as it played, organized, and reported upon and discussed. Not to be too elusive about my own positions on all of these matters, but I’m finding myself almost more interested to observe how others are responding to the “stirring up” that to be inspired to respond myself, with some in a few cases revealing themselves like characters in Hammett’s stories.

To tip my hand a little... Colman certainly overlooks most of the positives about poker, while others have overlooked some of the negatives. Those running competing poker tours and series should feel free to compete with each other, but should also find ways to communicate and respect each other, too. And the indefatigable Kevmath more than deserves whatever the poker community wishes to give him by way of gratitude, while most discussions of “journalistic ethics” in poker reporting tend to forget that most of it doesn’t really qualify as journalism, anyway.

It’s a funny world, the one surrounding poker. To be in it sometimes feels like sitting among a mob on the run, listening to them argue back and forth about what their next step will be.

What Is Poker? (Talking OFCP)

I didn’t get a chance to listen to today’s World Series of Poker Conference Call, although did follow the blow-by-blow from Rich Ryan and Kevmath over Twitter as it occurred. Besides the talk of frisbees and dog shows, there was one item that came up during the call-concluding Q&A that caught my attention.

A question arose (I believe) regarding open-face Chinese poker and the possibility of it being introduced sooner or later as a bracelet event. It sounded like WSOP Executive Director Ty Stewart addressed the issue with some reference to the history of the WSOP, adding also that while they don’t fear innovation, there was perhaps some question about OFCP even being “poker” per se. (I’m paraphrasing Kevmath’s paraphrase.)

I remember first learning Chinese Poker and having a similar thought that the game seemed a lot more like gin or even spades or hearts than poker. Others have brought up further points to suggest that OFCP isn’t like other poker games, including the fact that no one bets (in the usual sense) nor are there really opportunities to bluff, with the latter being what some believe to be a fundamental element of the game.

I wrote a little about this debate here back in December when the 2014 schedule was still being made and there was a lot of discussion back and forth about the idea of an OFCP bracelet event. I posted something on Learn.PokerNews as well about it, kind of summarizing the debate as it was being conducted at the time.

Since then I read an interesting point about OFCP made by Ivan Demidov in a post he recently wrote for the PokerStars blog in which he was addressing why the game was so popular.

“A lot of players like the fact that you never have to fold a hand in open-face Chinese poker,” says Demidov.

It’s kind of an obvious point, but a meaningful one, I think. It’s also perhaps another reason why OFCP isn’t so much a “poker” game, as no folding makes it more like other gambling games in which the option not to play is not available. That said, it still shares a lot of affinities including the goal of making hands according to poker hand rankings.

I liked Stewart’s response and how it showed the WSOP seriously thinks about what exactly “poker” is as well as the importance of moving forward with an appropriate reverence for the past.

Meanwhile, what was this about frisbees and dog shows, again?

Linking Out

Dealing with an overstuffed inbox at the moment, so I thought I’d post something today linking out to a few items worth checking out elsewhere.

Brad Willis penned an interesting op-ed for the PokerStars blog today titled “Before the bubble” occasioned by the anniversary of his playing his first ever WSOP event back in 2005. Brad does a nice job recounting the wonder associated with that experience, then moves into some observations about the current status of both his own poker playing and the tourney scene, generally speaking.

It’s a thoughtful piece that gives poker players much to consider regarding some of the reasons why we got into this game in the first place, and why it’s important now and then to remember those reasons particularly when encountering others just coming into the game as we once did.

Also worth reading is James McManus’s review for The Wall Street Journal of Ben Mezrich’s new book, Straight Flush, which weirdly celebrates the fraudster founders of Absolute Poker.

Last August I wrote about having seen Mezrich pop up on CNBC for a brief segment in which he previewed his plans to write the book, noting then how worrisome it seemed that he apparently either misunderstood or was willfully diminishing the frankly villainous behavior of his story’s principals, people responsible for the first major online poker cheating scandal (and cover-up), who caused the loss of millions by investors, who committed bank and wire fraud, who violated the UIGEA, and who failed (along with UB) to return player funds post-Black Friday.

I’ve yet to read Straight Flush, but from McManus’s review it sounds as though Mezrich has followed through on his plans to champion the “brilliant kids” of AP. As McManus states in his review, it’s “a story of failure, tendered as almost its opposite.” The review is titled “Bluffers and Bandits” -- probably a more appropriate title for the sordid saga -- and ultimately calls out Mezrich for being motivated by an ethically compromised greed not unlike that of his subjects.

Haley Hintze is also working through in greater detail several problem areas presented by Mezrich’s book in a multi-part series over on Flushdraw that is doing a great job explaining both the AP story as it actually happened and Mezrich’s numerous deviations from it.

Finally, BLUFF Magazine this afternoon debuted a new video feature called “Stump the Kevmath” featuring our favorite poker Twitterer doing his best to take on some WSOP-related trivia challenges. Guaranteed to produce a few grins.

Okay, now I have filled your inbox... get to it.

What If Farha Calls?

A couple of days ago, our friend Kevmath casually tweeted a question to his followers that had been inspired by a conversation between himself and his BLUFF colleague Tim “Timtern” Fiorvanti, a.k.a. “tim00.”

“Me and @tim00 were discussing this in #BluffHQ,” wrote Kev. “What are some of the biggest ‘What if’ moments in poker?”

The thought experiment inspired a lot of response with possible examples, with Sam Farha calling Chris Moneymaker’s “bluff of the century” (rather than folding) during heads-up play at the 2003 World Series of Poker Main Event by far the most commonly referenced “What if?” moment.

You remember it, of course. We’ve seen it so many times...



That was also the first “What if” moment that came to my mind upon reading Kevmath’s tweet, but by then a few minutes had passed and a half-dozen others had already suggested it, so I didn’t bother. I spent a couple of minutes idly trying to think of others, but to be honest all seemed so much less meaningful when compared to Farha’s fold I soon stopped trying.

So I thought back to the hand itself. If Farha had called, he would not have won the tournament right there, as Moneymaker had him covered. Indeed, for Farha to have called and discovered Moneymaker had better than his top pair of nines would have meant elimination for the pro, a factor that obviously influenced his decision. But his nines were good, and so calling would’ve meant a big double-up for Farha.

The pair had begun heads-up play with Moneymaker leading with 5.49 million to Farha’s 2.9 million. I believe the blinds were 20,000/40,000 when they began (with a 5,000 ante, unless they’d jettisoned the antes for heads-up), meaning Moneymaker had about 130 BBs and Farha more than 70 BBs at the moment Dan Harrington had gone out in third.

Ultimately heads-up play lasted for 28 hands, just three of which made it to TV. We see Farha win a 570,000 pot, then we are told what the stacks are just before the big bluff hand begins -- Moneymaker 4.62 million, Farha 3.77 million.

The pot Moneymaker won in that hand ended up being 1.8 million, and as a result essentially put their stacks back to where they were to begin heads-up play. If Farha had called, he would have had a stack of more than 7.5 million while Moneymaker would’ve slipped all of the way down to 850,000.

At some point later came the final hand (the third shown) in which Farha flopped top pair of jacks but Moneymaker made bottom two pair with 5-4. The money went in on the flop, and Moneymaker’s hand held up, improving to a full house by the river.

All of which is to say, one answer to the question “What if Farha calls?” is that Farha very likely would have won the 2003 WSOP Main Event.

But the mind can’t help but leap from there to consider other possible answers as one begins imaginatively to construct a Philip K. Dick-like alternate past in which the popularity of poker and the online poker industry followed a different course post-2003. And some of us -- including your humble scribbler -- can’t help but think about how what had once been a hobby strangely evolved into a full-time profession, and perhaps wonder whether that would have been the case had Moneymaker finished runner-up in 2003.

I suppose a lot of what did happen following Moneymaker’s win probably would have happened anyway, though perhaps less quickly. The WSOP would have continued to attract larger turnouts, online poker would have continued to expand, and televised poker would have probably evolved similarly, too. One can’t help also but contemplate whether or not the UIGEA would have become law in 2006 had there not been such rapid, conspicuous growth in online poker’s popularity in the U.S. during the three years prior. And whether some other legislative course might have been taken instead.

Poker is always presenting us with these seemingly crucial moments that inspire thoughts about how a particular card or action becomes yet another turning point in the garden of forking paths. Only makes sense, then, that we’d sometimes be inspired to think about poker’s history similarly and ask “What if?”

Kevmath Adds Up Points to Become Hard-Boiled Poker Home Games Player of the Season (Season 2)

Was a fun Sunday, filled with football and poker.

The football went well, as I managed to have my best week of the year with my picks, going 14-2 to gain three full games on the leaders. Still leaves me four out with just one week to go, but I’m close enough to keep caring about how things turn out. Was most proud to see my two “hero picks” both come through yesterday (Minnesota and Baltimore). Also took Seattle in the late game, and so enjoyed watching their dominating romp over the 49ers.

Meanwhile, the last two events of Season 2 of the Hard-Boiled Poker Home Games series on PokerStars played out last night. The first one, Event No. 19, was a “deep-stacked” no-limit hold’em event that Mickey won and I took second. I joked with Mickey once we reached heads-up, asking him if we could just split the play money and stop there (as we saw happen earlier in the week at Sands Bethlehem).

Mickey managed to win the second event last night as well, Event No. 20, a H.O.R.S.E. one. Despite that late surge, he didn’t quite crack the top three in the Season 2 standings to win a book.

In the end, Kevmath ended up taking the top spot, winning two of the 20 events along the way while finishing in the top three seven times. (Points were earned by finishing in the top third of a given event, which generally meant making the top 3-5 as the fields ranged from 10-15 players.)

Nasal_Drip took runner-up in Season 2, having won three events out of the 20, tying with Mickey for the most wins of anyone in Season 2. And Season 1 winner thejim2020 finished third, having won a couple of the tournaments this time around, too. (Click the pic to enlarge and see the full standings.)

I’ll be sending each of those three books for their finishes. (See this post for details.) ’Tis the season, after all. Thanks again to Mike Fasso and Zach Elwood for donating books for me to award as prizes. And thanks as well to everyone for playing in the HBP Home Games. Big fun all around.

Meanwhile, we’ll run a Season 3 starting in January. I’ll probably stick to a similar schedule (Sunday nights), which I know makes it hard for our European friends to play but I suppose I’m mainly trying to offer something for us poor Yanks to do while we wait for online poker to return for us. By the way, I mentioned on Friday how I’m trying to move my funds from the now-dormant Hero Poker over to Carbon, but I still await a response to my request. Have a feeling it’s going to take a while.

Finally, if anyone has any poker and/or gambling books (or DVDs or anything else) that might work as prizes and you’re willing to donate them, let me know. Anyone wanting to join up, the info for doing so is over in the right-hand sidebar.

2012 WSOP, Day 45: H.O.R.S.E. Play

Was another day off yesterday for your humble scribbler, the last I’ll have this summer.

I did follow what was happening at the WSOP yesterday during that Day “2a/2b” from which Gaelle Baumann of France emerged as the chip leader. Baumann did well in the Ladies event this summer, leading after Day 2 before ultimately finishing 14th. Seeing her as a front-runner in that event made me less surprised to see her at the top of the counts yesterday, but there’s a long way to go.

By the early evening, though, my attention had mostly turned to the $120 H.O.R.S.E. tourney over at the MGM. I’d thought about trying this one when I first arrived in Vegas three-plus weeks ago, but ended up skipping out on it. But this time I’d talked to my buds Mickey and Kevmath who both wanted to play, and PokerGrump said he’d probably come over to join in as well. We had also heard Norman Chad and Lon McEachern would be playing, too, all of which meant I couldn’t pass up the chance this time around.

Mickey, Kevmath, and I arrived early, spotting Chad and McEachern already there and chatting with a small circle of people near the front of the poker room. I’ve spoken with each before, although had never really introduced myself to either, and so took the opportunity to do so.

I spoke to McEachern first, and we talked about how the WSOP has gone thus far, including discussing the turnout for the Main Event and how each year the WSOP seems to find a way more or less to keep pace with the previous year. We also talked about Chad’s final table in Event No. 42, the $2,500 Omaha/8-Stud/8 tourney where he finished sixth. McEachern clearly got a kick out of following that one online as he’d yet to come to Vegas.

I then approached Chad. “You look familiar,” he said with a sidelong squint, and I explained to him how I’d been one of those hovering around the tables during Event No. 42 helping report on it all for PokerNews.

I told him how fun it was covering that event, and he agreed that playing with folks like Tom Schneider, Bryan Devonshire, and others helped make it so, kind of reiterating an idea he brought up in a Washington Post column a few weeks back titled “World Series of Poker: It’s time for civil behavior from the pokerati.” (My buddy Rich Ryan elaborated further on Chad’s argument in a PokerNews op-ed, “Norman Chad Whamboozled the Anti-Socialness of Poker.”)

Soon I was being recruited to take a picture of Chad, McEachern, and the group with whom they’d been talking, and Chad mentioned something about how I was playing the role of media again as I took the camera and snapped some shots. It wasn’t much longer after that we were all seated and the tourney began.

I drew a seat just to the left of PokerGrump and across the table from Kevmath. We began short-handed, then the seats filled to eight-handed, and we ultimately played nine-handed for much of the night.

I started fairly well, picking up pots in the hold’em and O/8 rounds including one Omaha hand in which I flopped quad kings and actually made a couple of bets. That put me above average early on, then Kevmath scooped an O/8 pot against me to put me back to the starting stack of 10,000. Made it to the first break (after five 20-minute levels) with 8,850.

During the break I chatted with Brian Ali, also playing in the tourney. Ali had won the WSOP Circuit event in Atlantic City that I’d help cover back in the spring of 2011, and so like Chad he, too, had a “you look familiar” moment with me once I’d introduced myself.

Ali had kind of run over that final table, knocking out nearly all of the opponents including a fellow named Jeff Frazier, and I told him how we reporters were all excited about the invitation to employ boxing metaphors. He said he loved all the reporting and of course the whole tourney was a great experience for him. Cool, friendly guy, and it was neat to take a few minutes to remember that week from a year-and-a-half ago with him.

Soon we were back at the tables. Ultimately they drew 64 players, which meant the top eight places paid and there was a cool $1,920 up top. The limits started to climb rapidly, and over the next few levels I let my stack dwindle until about 25 had busted. Finally a stud/8 hand arose in which I was all in by fourth street against four opponents, two of whom would be all in themselves by sixth.

I’d started [][] / , then picked up three low cards (including one club), meaning by the time seventh street was dealt I needed any club for a flush and was drawing to a 7-4-2-A low. But my last card was another deuce (not a club), and I think I was the only one of the five of us not to claim some share of the chips scattered all about the table in separate piles.

I played okay, I thought, although probably should’ve taken my chances a few times and played more hands, especially in the early rounds. Was definitely fun and different, and despite the fast-moving structure I still got to play three hours’ worth of poker without even coming close to the cash.

Bob had busted shortly before I did, and Mickey would shortly after, so we went over to the Stage Deli to grab sandwiches and visit for a while. I liked getting the chance to talk to Bob as he’s been out of town and we hadn’t been able to previously. As we ate, Kevmath DM’d me that he was down to three big bets and figured his exit to be imminent, and soon we were stepping back over to the poker room to see how he was doing.

By the time we’d gotten there, he’d run his stack back up to have average chips with 19 left. Bob would soon depart, but Mickey and I hung out to root Kevmath on and chat about various aspects of covering the WSOP.

When it comes to the PokerNews folks, me, Mickey, and Donnie Peters are pretty much the only ones left from 2008, the first year all three of us came to Vegas to help cover the WSOP for PN. In fact, I don’t think there’s anyone at all left from 2007, the first year PN covered the Series (when I did some behind-the-scenes stuff for them from home).

Kevmath finally busted in 14th, a few spots shy of the money, and the three of us walked back to the car continuing the conversation about coverage Mickey and I had begun.

As we drove back I thought about how fun the night had been, made more so by getting to hang out with all sorts of folks with whom I’ve shared a lot of this weird, fascinating poker-related journey over the past several years.

The journey continues today, as I get up from my seat and resume my usual role pacing around and between the tables, watching others try to build stacks and position themselves to make the money and perhaps a deep run in the 2012 WSOP Main Event.

Yesterday those making it through Days 1a and 1b all played together but separately, with 860 or so of them surviving to return for tomorrow’s Day 3. Today the 2,300 who made it out of Day 1c will be playing Day 2c, and I imagine something like 900 of them will still have chips after today’s five two-hour levels.

And from there more characters will emerge. And stories to tell.