Preserving One’s Tournament Life: The Aussie Millions Pregnancy Story & A Big Hand for the Little Lady

You might have heard about this story from the ongoing Aussie Millions where a woman playing in a preliminary event went into labor and had to leave the tournament. That in itself would be a somewhat unusual situation, but the story became even stranger as tournament officials actually allowed her husband to take over her stack and finish the event for her. No shinola!

The decision did follow one of those “discretion of the Tournament Director” rules that allow a lot of leeway for those who run tournaments, in this case one having to do with permitting a player to “transfer his/her entry to another person” as long as the new player wasn’t already in the event. In other words, there isn’t really much to debate over whether or not the husband could be allowed to take his wife’s place at the table, but rather over whether or not he should have been allowed to do so.

The woman, Katrina Sheary, began a Day 1 flight in the event before having to leave, at which point her husband, Peter Sheary, took over for her. He actually managed to make it all of the way to a 25th-place finish in the $1,150 tournament, cashing for $6,495 (AUD). Should put all of that straight into the college fund, I’d suggest.

Following some of the debate over the decision, it sounds like the general consensus is that while few are especially bothered by this specific situation, many aren’t crazy about this sort of thing happening again going forward. Esteemed tournament director Matt Savage summarized that response in his tweet about it yesterday: “Wonderful story and terrible precedent.”

I fall on the side of those who like Savage wouldn’t think to allow any substitution like this, regardless of the circumstances. Also, given how many seem likewise opposed to the idea of allowing substitutions, I can't imagine this turning into a meaningful “precedent” for tournament poker going forward.

Meanwhile the whole incident immediately reminded me of the plot of the 1966 western A Big Hand for the Little Lady (one I’ve written about here before in the past).

Those who’ve seen that film know how much of it revolves around a single hand of poker that lasts nearly the entire movie. It’s the once-a-year high-stakes cash game game in Laredo, Texas, and the naive-seeming Meredith (Henry Fonda) finds himself sitting in a game amid a bunch of savvy high rollers during a stop along the way to taking his family to San Antonio to buy a farm.

A huge hand of five-card draw develops involving all of the players, but before it can conclude Meredith suffers a heart attack and becomes incapacitated. Much drama follows, ending with the men reluctantly allowing his wife, Mary (Joanne Woodward), to take over for Meredith and complete the hand. There’s a lot else going on plot-wise, including more sketchy rulings regarding what is allowed and what is not in the game, but I’ll save those who haven’t seen the film from spoilers and instead recommend it as a fun couple of hours.

That fictional “precedent” makes me think of other stories of players dying at the poker table, some of which involve some wickedly black humor regarding others’ callousness and how the importance of playing out a hand to its conclusion gets elevated above the importance of someone’s life coming to a conclusion.

How would they have ruled at the Crown in Melbourne in the case of a player dying during a hand? Would that player’s stack be “dead,” too? If so, I guess there would be a certain symbolic symmetry when juxtaposing that situation with the one in which the stack of a player giving birth was allowed to remain “alive.”

Image: A Big Hand for the Little Lady (dir. Fielder Cook, 1966).

2015 Poker Hall of Fame Nominees Announced

The 10 finalists for this year’s Poker Hall of Fame have been announced, prompting a few in the poker world to spend a little effort once again thinking about what the PHOF represents and perhaps to debate once more about the challenge of trying to measure the worthiness of an individual to be recognized as a PHOFer.

There are currently 48 inductees, with Daniel Negreanu and Jack McClelland being the most recent to be awarded the honor last year. I believe something like 23 or so of those in the PHOF are still living. That group gets to vote on the 10 nominees along with an appointed group of poker media, with two nominees at most able to get the nod.

For several years I had the opportunity to vote for the Poker Hall of Fame and so have a bit of familiarity with the process. The 10 names are given to the voters, chosen by a group of folks at the WSOP from those submitted online. They aren’t the 10 most-nominated by the public, but rather the ones whom those doing the selecting think deserve to be finalists.

From there the “Blue Ribbon” committee of PHOFers and media have 10 points they are allowed to distributed among one, two, or three nominees. The points are then tallied, and the two getting the most are elected.

As I say, I had the privilege of voting for a few years there, and in fact if I hadn’t missed an email sent to an old, dormant account, I might still be part of the group voting. I didn’t mind losing my spot, however, for a couple of reasons. For one, I think any committee is benefited by changing members occasionally, if only to assure bringing in different views and perspectives. Secondly, people come and go a lot when it comes to the so-called “poker media,” which would also be a reason to revisit who is being included in that half of the group of voters.

I was also told at the time the WSOP was interested in getting more European media represented as voters, which I also thought was a good thing. In any case, it’s clear from the 10 names presented to voters this year that the WSOP is pushing to try to get some non-Americans voted in to the PHOF.

This year’s nominees are Chris Bjorin, David Chiu, Bruno Fitoussi, Jennifer Harman, John Juanda, Carlos Mortensen, Max Pescatori, Terry Rogers, Matt Savage, and Dave “Devilfish” Ulliott.

Bjorin’s a Swede, Fitoussi is French, Pescatori is Italian, and Mortensen was born in Ecuador and grew up in Spain. The two deceased nominees Rogers (Ireland) and Ulliott (England) are also non-U.S. Chiu was born in China and Juanda in Indonesia, though both are American. Meanwhile Harman and first-time nominee Matt Savage are both U.S. natives.

The idea of inviting the public to nominate 10 individuals for the PHOF and then have a committee vote to select inductees from that list began in 2009. Just for fun, here’s a rundown of who the finalists were for the six years prior to this one. The asterisks denote those inducted, and clicking the year gets you to a post written here about the PHOF class/winners from each:

2009: Tom Dwan, Barry Greenstein, Dan Harrington, Phil Ivey, Tom McEvoy, Daniel Negreanu, Men Nguyen, Scotty Nguyen, Erik Seidel, Mike Sexton*

2010: Chris Ferguson, Barry Greenstein, Jennifer Harman, Dan Harrington*, Phil Ivey, Linda Johnson, Tom McEvoy, Daniel Negreanu, Scotty Nguyen, Erik Seidel*

2011: Annie Duke, Barry Greenstein*, Jennifer Harman, Linda Johnson*, John Juanda, Marcel Luske, Jack McClelland, Tom McEvoy, Scotty Nguyen, Huckleberry Seed

2012: Chris Bjorin, David Chiu, Eric Drache*, Thor Hansen, George Hardie, Jennifer Harman, John Juanda, Tom McEvoy, Scotty Nguyen, Brian “Sailor” Roberts*

2013: Chris Bjorin, Humberto Brenes, David Chiu, Thor Hansen, Jennifer Harman, Mike Matusow, Tom McEvoy*, Carlos Mortensen, Scotty Nguyen*, Huckleberry Seed

2014: Chris Bjorin, Humberto Brenes, Bruno Fitoussi, Ted Forrest, Jennifer Harman, Bob Hooks, Mike Matusow, Jack McClelland*, Daniel Negreanu*, Huckleberry Seed

In 2009, Sexton was the only inductee. The voting process was different then, but a stipulation requiring a nominee to get at least 75% “yes” votes (like the MLB Hall of Fame) made it hard for more than one to get in that year (and in fact almost made it so no one could get in).

Also noteworthy from 2009 was how Tom Dwan -- then just 23 years old -- got picked by the public, and then was removed from the ballot by the WSOP.

In 2011 the so-called “Chip Reese Rule” was added, meaning no one under 40 years old could be nominated. That’s why Ivey and Negreanu were on the ballots before that date, and Negreanu only showed up again last year after turning 40. Ivey turns 40 next February, will be on the ballot next year, and will be inducted, no doubt.

Also, in 2012 Brian “Sailor” Roberts was not picked by the public to go on the ballot, but was a “write-in” nominee submitted by a PHOFer (I believe).

Gonna guess Ulliott, who passed away in April, gets in this year, with either Mortensen or Juanda nabbing the other spot. Who would you vote for, and who do you think gets in?

Reentry or No Reentry?

Yesterday the tournament director Matt Savage tweeted to his followers a fairly straightforward question, presented as having to do with a bet between himself and Allen Kessler.

“Do you prefer reentry or no reentry in your poker tournaments?” he asked.

I replied “no reentry.” Scrolling through others’ answers, it appeared responders were divided between preferring reentry, not liking reentry, or wanting to ignore the question and propose other options (e.g., single reentry or other qualifications).

I was answering as a player. I have always preferred freezeouts to tournaments that allow multiple entries. I think the main reason for me has to do with bankroll management and being on the nitty side. It’s not that I’m unwilling to fire more than once in a reentry, but I just feel more comfortable knowing at the start how much I am in for.

I think I also just prefer how the game is played when there is no possibility of coming back after busting -- both as a player and when following or reporting on events. In one unlimited reentry event a couple of years ago, I recall reporting “bustout” hands for the same player six times (no shinola). Talk about Groundhog Day. In such an environment, it’s like nothing that happens prior to the close of the reentry period has much meaning at all.

Reentry tournaments remind me of back yard wiffleball games as a kid and the “do over” play. You know, the old “I wasn’t ready” plea that seemed like it would come up at least once every game. They also remind me of all the challenge flags in the NFL, something I’ve complained about here before as making it necessary to withhold response to any play until after the opportunity to call it back has passed.

Of course, we could step back even further and talk about the culture as a whole as one constantly in the process of appealing every decision or judgment, never seeming to settle on anything in a satisfactory way. In this postmodern world, there’s always another perspective, another version of the “truth” to challenge the one that had been previously accepted.

That 72-event EPT Barcelona festival from which I’ve just returned featured a few reentry events scattered in the mix, but the great majority (including the Main Event) were freezeouts. In other words, in most cases if you wanted to buy back in and play more, you entered a different tournament.

I’m aware, of course, of how reentry events (in some cases) give players with bigger bankrolls an edge, and also how they can be especially advantageous for those staging the tournaments for potentially producing a lot more rake per player. I’m also aware of how in some cases making tournaments reentry genuinely adds to the fun, as in the case of the media event last week where having reentries meant no one had to leave within the first hour.

Forced to choose, though, I’m going with “no reentry.” And I’m sticking to that choice, too -- i.e., there will be no reasking or reanswering.

Tuning In: A Few Recent Poker Podcasts

Was doing some work in the barn today and listened to a few poker podcasts while I did.

I first went back about a month to hear Bill Chen’s segment on Episode 371 of the Two Plus Two Pokercast. Chen’s always an interesting one to listen to -- very relatable for me, not because of the depth of his analytical thinking, but for the place of poker in his life as something very important but not all-consuming.

Then I checked out the latest PokerNews podcast -- Episode 326 -- which started with some discussion from Donnie and Rich about the recently completed PokerStars Pro Tour in California and then featured a enjoyable conversation with WSOP National Championship winner Loni Harwood. All interesting and fun and a good quick catch-up on recent events in poker.

Finally I dialed up a podcast I hadn’t tuned into for a while -- Ante Up! -- which just last month made it a full decade’s worth of podcasting. I used to listen to these guys -- Chris Cosenza and Scott Long -- constantly back when they first started out and wrote about their shows here fairly frequently, too. Tuning in again, I had to grin at how much the show had remained the same with the familiar mix of personal anecdotes about their own play, a run-through of news items, and some strategy talk.

They aren’t numbering their shows, but 10-plus years’ worth of weekly podcasts must add up to well over 500 by this point. Kind of brings to mind the story of this blog (into its 10th year now) which I know by this point readers sometimes drift away from and then return occasionally, perhaps surprised to see things still chugging along as usual.

The episode I grabbed was from a couple of weeks back, the one in which they discussed Matt Savage’s recent Facebook poll and discussion inviting players to weigh in about what they thought constituted an excellent tournament structure -- the 7/30/15 episode.

If you didn’t follow that whole discussion from Savage, the Ante Up! show is a good way to catch up with its particulars. (Indeed, as one of the few not on Facebook, I’ll admit I didn’t quite follow the entire structure discussion.) They get into it about the 12-minute mark and the discussion lasts about 15 minutes.

By the way, according to those responding to Savage’s poll, the most-important to least-important factors when it comes to creating an excellent structure were determined to be (1) time; (2) levels; (3) player ability; and (4) chips, or starting stack.

Savage agreed that of these four, the number of chips in the starting stack should be considered the least important -- since the length of levels and schedule of blinds/antes increases can obviously make a “deep” stack less deep, relatively speaking. Meanwhile, Savage agreed with the importance of having well measured levels (e.g., not skipping steps along the way), and that the length of levels does in fact have a lot to do with how great and/or appropriate a structure is.

Gonna have to get Ante Up! back into the regular rotation here. Have always enjoyed the way Chris and Scott approach all things poker, representing as they do the perspective of the great majority of us -- i.e., non-pros who greatly enjoy playing the game and following the stories surrounding it (including the stories involving those who are pros).

Short at SHRPO

Poker news over the three-day weekend focused largely on that Seminole Hard Rock Poker Open Championship, a $5,300 buy-in event with three Day 1 flights and unlimited reentries that sported a $10 million guarantee.

They ran a similar event last year right about this time, again culminating a long series of tournaments comprising the “SHRPO,” and after it drew 2,384 entries to build a $11,920,000 prize pool the tourney earned a lot of notice. I was there last year at the time, actually, helping cover the first World Poker Tour Alpha8 event that was happening that same week at the Hard Rock in Hollywood, Florida, and I recall the buzz surrounding the event which Blair Hinkle ultimately won to claim a hefty $1,745,245 first prize.

The return of the “$10 milly” was announced back in May and I remember Rich Ryan then spending one of his “Five Thoughts” looking forward to the sequel while commending the tourney’s organizers for scheduling it after EPT Barcelona (albeit by just a couple of days).

Barcelona ended up breaking all kinds of records, attendance-wise. Then the end of August ultimately became quite crowded on the poker calendar on this side of the pond with events in California (the WPT Legends of Poker), Oklahoma (the WinStar River Poker Series), Mississippi (Beau Rivage Gulf Coast Poker Championship), Colorado (Colorado Poker Championship), Ohio (Labor Day Deepstack), Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh Poker Open Summer Series), and Montreal (Playground Poker Montreal Festival). There might have been others, too, not to mention the WSOP Circuit stops happening on either side as well.

Even so, it was a little surprising to hear they only ultimately drew 1,499 entries for the SHRPO Main Event, meaning an enormous overlay of just over $2.5 million after the tourney organizers honored the $10 million guarantee. The tourney is now down to 18 players. The EPTLive folks will be live streaming the final table tomorrow, I believe, as well as the final table of the Super High Roller today with James Hartigan and Joe Stapleton handling the commentary.

Among the chatter over the last couple of days has been the observation that this represents biggest overlay in poker tourney history, exceeding even that International Stadiums Poker Tour (ISPT) event at Wembley last summer where €589,060 had to be put up to ensure a €1 million first prize. The Seminole’s big overlay has also spurred other interesting conversations about the current state of tournament poker.

Those who think the turnout coming up short at SHRPO indicates something dire about the state of tourney poker in the North America are wrong. The other events listed above all saw healthy turnouts and there’s hardly a shortage of players and/or interest in tournament poker here. Those wondering about the possible negative effects of unlimited entry tournaments upon non-professional players have a point, although I don’t think they really dissuade the non-pros from participating all that much. Meanwhile those speculating about the future of super-big guarantees have a point as well. In any case, one would think the Seminole will probably be a lot more cautious about trying another $10 milly event in the future.

I guess I’m most intrigued by how complicated the reaction to the SHRPO overlay has been. Rather than simply hearing from players rejoicing at free money in Florida, the angles of inquiry and subsequent discussion has gone in all sorts of directions, including some that seem constructive. The fact is, the overlay has highlighted several issues relevant to players, casinos, tourney organizers, and even the media who cover tourneys, bringing to the foreground concerns that have significance to anyone with an interest in tournament poker.

Tournament Director Matt Savage summed up the conversation well in a single tweet, I thought, when he noted that “Poker tournaments are a fragile ecosystem, we (Players, TD’s, and Casinos) need to work together to get them to survive and thrive.”

There is most certainly an “ecosystem” (or special “economy”) in poker, something the rise of tournament poker has made all the more conspicuous over the last decade. And everyone who is part of it affects it in some fashion, whether they work together or not.

The 2,170-Player Chop

Spent a short while today finally taking some time to read about the resolution of the Borgata brouhaha from January. As you’ll recall, the first event of the 2014 Borgata Winter Open was canceled with 27 players remaining thanks to allegations of cheating committed by one player, Christian Lusardi, by means of introducing counterfeit chips into the event.

Have to use that word “resolution” tentatively, I suppose, as it seems like there will be more to come from this one, namely potential lawsuits filed by unsatisified players. In any event, about 10 days ago the New Jersey Department of Gaming Enforcement released its “Final Order” directing the Borgata how to distribute both the $1,433,145 in prize money that had yet to be won in the tournament (i.e., the total of the prizes scheduled to go to the top 27 finishers) as well as $288,720 more in revenue the Borgata had collected from entrants.

That adds up to $1,721,805 total. Somewhat surprisingly, the DGE decided not just to award money to the final 27, but also to refund $560 entry fees to 2,143 other players “who may have been impaced by the alleged criminal conduct who were eliminated from the event” without cashing.

The refunds to eliminated players total just over $1.2 million, leaving about $521K for the final 27. The DGE directed the Borgata to distribute that money “in equal amounts of approximately $19,323 to each of the 27 entrants” who still were alive in the event at the moment it was canceled. The Borgata also issued a statement reiterating the DGE’s directive and making known its intention to comply.

Many have been critical of such a “resolution,” in particular pointing out how the final 27 players, otherwise due to play for over $1.43 million, together came away with just over a third of that total.

Today I listened to respected Tournament Director Matt Savage (not the TD at the Borgata) on the latest Two Plus Two Pokercast explaining why he found the resolution unsatisfactory and also troubling in terms of how it might affect tournament poker going forward. Savage’s point was that given such a resolution, players aware of cheating in future tournaments may well become reluctant to make their awareness known to tournament officials out of fear that they may themselves lose potential winnings should the tournament be canceled.

I said back in January that there didn’t seem to me any wholly satisfactory way to resolve the situation that would prove satisfying to all concerned, but it does seem as though there were several different ways it might have been resolved that would have been preferable to the one chosen. And as Mike Johnson and Adam Schwartz pointed out on the Pokercast, of all the possible scenarios imagined by both players and observers prior to the DGE’s order, few (none?) ever considered the possibility that nearly two-thirds of the unawarded prize money would not only not go to the players still alive in the event (and due to divide it up), but would go to eliminated players instead.

Anyhow, for more on the “Final Order” and what it lacks, check out Savage on the Two Plus Two Pokercast (he appears during the first hour) as well as Haley Hintze’s discussion over on Flushdraw.

“May All of Your Cards Be Live...”

I mentioned how this most recent trip of mine culminated with that WPT final table at the Bellagio which was a “TV” one. Not all WPT events are shot for later broadcast (on Fox Sports), but quite a few are. Since this was the first time I’d actually been present at one of these, I thought I’d share a few quick impressions.

Anyone who has attended a WPT final table that was scheduled to be televised probably will be familiar with everything I’m sharing here. That is to say, it isn’t as though anything I noticed as someone there reporting on the event is that different from what anyone else in attendance gets to see, too.

In fact, for poker fans who happen to be where a WPT televised final table is taking place, I recommend checking it out. The entire day I was thinking of a good friend of mine who loves to watch poker on TV -- still (!) -- and who is always asking me about players he sees. I realized how much of a kick he’d get out of seeing one of these shows being created.

I knew before that Mike Sexton and Vince Van Patten were present at these final tables, but I hadn’t necessarily realized how they actually are commentating quite a bit as the hands go by. I know they’ll go back and do more in post-production, but I hadn’t necessarily appreciated from watching the WPT on television that some or even most of what we hear from those two comes during the actual playing of the final table.

The desk at which they sat was far enough away from the table -- and from the crowd and those of us reporting -- that you couldn’t hear every word they said. But you could definitely pick up on the excited responses as Sexton and Van Patten both reacted to a big river card or other crucial moments at the final table (of which there were several), which added an extra bit of fun to the proceedings.

Meanwhile, Lynn Gilmartin is now doing the anchoring for the WPT shows, and she, too, was shooting a lot of her segments as the final table was being played.

I’ve known Lynn for a while now thanks to her long association with PokerNews and PokerStars, and so am well familiar with how great she is in front of the camera. In fact, I’ve joined her a few times for brief vids from the LAPT -- here’s one from last year -- on which the contrast between our relative levels of ease only further underscores her skills.

Lynn was positioned at an elevated table over to the side where she could be heard introducing returns to action or taking us to commercial breaks, interspersing questions of Mike and Vince. Then we also saw WPT Executive Tour Director Matt Savage interviewing players to the side of the stage, too, both before play began and after bustouts.

Watching both reminded me of sitting in the press box at the WSOP while Kara Scott would shoot segments and marveling at how cool they all are, often able to move through the segments in one take and sound great doing it.

As someone who has spent a lot of time standing in front of classrooms full of students, I’m not necessarily shy about talking to groups. But the challenges faced and conquered by these folks whose jobs put them in front of the camera still impresses me, and I can’t imagine how much work it would take to get to the point they seem to be.

The play moved rather quickly without a lot of delays for setting up for certain shots or for other production-related reasons. I suppose that defied my expectations a little, too, after having worked a lot of events on other tours where there would be frequent stoppages of play related to the broadcasts being shot or streamed. By contrast, they kept things moving pretty quickly throughout yesterday, no doubt in part because of a desire not to keep the extensive crew working longer than necessary.

All of the other elements of the TV show were there, too -- the Royal Flush girls and their “bar,” the trophy presentation, and so on. There were nice recognitions of Jack McClelland made both before and after the final table as well, as this was the last event for the Bellagio’s retiring tournament director.

All of it kind of took me back to the days of being a big “poker fan” -- i.e., a decade ago when I was right there with everyone else discovering the WPT on television for the first time and becoming instantly fascinated with the show, the game, and the people who were part of it.

I know the WPT doesn’t quite occupy the central place in poker’s subculture today as it did back then. But it is still an important part of the overall scene and I think still brings a lot that’s good for the game as a whole when it comes to promoting the game to a wider audience. And they continue to put on a good show that ultimately seems more than anything to underscore that sense that poker really can be a fun time.

FCOTD

Have slipped back into almost-too-busy-to-post mode today, I’m afraid, and so I’m just going to share a short observation here before getting back to other duties. In fact, I’m finally just about committed to doing what I’ve suggested I might do several times over the past year or so, namely scaling back to a less intensive posting schedule whereby instead of publishing every weekday I’m going to adopt a three-post-a-week routine for the near term at least.

I might on those off-days indulge in tweeting links to some older posts which might be interesting or entertaining to some readers. With over 2,000 of them, there are a few that could be worth reprising I think, including some that relate to current poker news or ongoing debates.

Speaking of, I’m kind of amazed at the legs this whole “first card off the deck” discussion has had over the last week, an issue that had earned some scant attention prior to EPT Barcelona, then thanks to Daniel Negreanu’s FCOTD-related blow-up in the High Roller event suddenly became the hot topic for poker writers and players looking for op-ed topics.

“FCOTD” has definitely replaced “OFC” as the most popular poker acronym of late.

I said last week that I’m ambivalent about the “At Your Seat” rule which requires players to be seated (or “at” their seats, however that is interpreted) when the first card of a hand is dealt or have their hands declared dead. A different rule -- followed widely in the past -- had the “At Your Seat” requirement coincide with the last card of the hand being dealt, meaning players could loiter about, notice the hand starting to be dealt from a neighboring table, then rush back in time to avoid missing a hand. But now it’s FCOTD and everyone seems to be either A-OK or WTF.

I should say I am not indifferent about a rule requiring players actually to be at the table in order to play their hands. That is needed (as I think most would agree). Beyond that, though, I’m not really that concerned about when the decisive at-your-seat-or-lose-your-hand moment occurs, although I do think it whenever that moment is should be understood by all with the rule applied consistently.

For both an explanation of FCOTD and thorough “pro” and “con” takes on it, see the pieces on PokerNews by tournament director Matt Savage in favor of the rule and player Dan O’Brien who is against it. Both make some good points, and both seem fairly firm in their opposing positions.

Meanwhile, like I say, I’m not moved very much in either direction. If anything, I appreciate the point those in favor of the rule (like Savage) make about it preventing players catching a glimpse of opponents’ cards while walking around the table during a deal. That said, I also see what the objectors (like O’Brien) are saying about this issue not coming up often if at all.

I noted before how when I play, I’m usually so glad to be at the table I don’t want to miss a second of it. I never get up except during breaks, and rarely will pull out my phone to check messages. I want to be there, and fully there, from the first card off the deck right through to the point when all of the cards are delivered back to the dealer.

Of course, as a recreational player, I see the time at the table as recreation, and thus rarely if ever am looking for respite from that. From a certain perspective, arguing about when and how often to be able to leave the table almost sounds like players saying they don’t want to play (if that makes sense).

Alas, I haven’t any extra respite at the moment to think about it further. Probably just as well, as everyone else has provided plenty on the topic already.

Partouche Postscript

“They paid it!”

So tweeted Matt Savage, serving as tournament director for the Partouche Poker Tour in Cannes, France this week. Savage was caught in the middle of this week’s controversy over the failure to honor a purported €5 million guarantee for the PPT’s Main Event.

Yesterday PPT’s CEO Patrick Partouche confirmed that from the organizers’ point of view there never had been such a guarantee, and thus the prize pool of about €4.26 million would stand. Partouche further announced that this fifth year of the PPT would be the last, a decision seemingly prompted by distaste at players’ negative response to the news there would be no overlay.

Today we learn the decision has been made by the PPT to add the more than 700,000 Euros to make the prize pool €5 million after all. Such was the news tweeted by Savage.

Again the announcement of the change was made by Patrick Partouche prior to his delivery of the charge to “shuffle up and deal.” A letter including his comments has also begun to circulate, including being posted over on Two Plus Two.

There Partouche reiterates that the tournament’s official rules never included anything about a €5 million guarantee, although he acknowledges some were misled “by the way this event was promoted in the media and the confusion that since followed.” He then notes that he’s “asked the Partouche group to bear the consequences and make up the difference” and add €736,880 to the prize pool.

There is a French law, apparently, that limits the amount of money a casino can add to a prize pool in this way, so that will have to be sorted out somehow. (That law also makes the whole idea of a “guaranteed” prize pool theoretically hard to fathom.) In any event, players are glad -- especially those who have now made the money, as the cash bubble has already burst.

Just like yesterday’s announcement that the PPT was finished, today’s news caught most by surprise. My friend Benjo -- who like Savage was also kind of caught in the middle yesterday in his role as a reporter -- tweeted when he arrived for Day 4: “Just got in the Cannes casino, got welcomed with the news that Partouche is actually honoring the €5M prize-pool. #wow #rewow”

The letter containing the announcement continues, with Partouche (pictured at left) adding a few more statements of support for his colleagues (or “troops”) and recognizing that all are prone to mistakes.

“That being said,” he adds, “I cannot now go back on my word and therefore my decision stands and the PPT will be no more.” That reaffirmation remains sad news for many, including staff and media for whom the PPT provided not insignificant employment opportunities.

As I concluded yesterday, it is difficult to judge or assign blame here, although there was obviously a lot of miscommunication regarding the terms of the tournament and that led to significant problems with how it has proceeded this week.

Some are reacting to the news by citing the many other recent examples of miscommunication and/or false (or misleading) “guarantees” such as exemplified by online sites like Full Tilt Poker, UltimateBet, and Absolute Poker, the debacle that was Epic Poker League, and countless other scandals involving various companies and individuals. I don’t really think this incident belongs in the same category of those other egregious failures, actually, although I can understand the inclination to step back and once again talk about poker as a whole being plagued by such.

Just as money is a crucial element of the game -- as some insist, the game is meaningless without it -- perhaps that very fact ensures that conflict and (sometimes) controversy will necessarily ensue. After all, the game itself is a kind of fight over money, one the very rules of which encourage combatants to mislead one another with false promises and deceit.

Travel Report: WPT Marrakech, Day 1a

“Anyone who wants the results emailed to them, put your name and address on this list.”

So said Matt Savage, Executive Tournament Director of the World Poker Tour, to a group of media around three o’clock Sunday morning, holding up a sheet of white paper as he did.

“So you know who won already?” cracked some wiseacre in response. It might have been me.

Yes, we were still having fun, despite having at that point been at the Casino de Marrakech for 14 hours or so covering Day 1a of the WPT Marrakech event presented by Chilipoker. Was a long, long day, and perhaps seemed even longer given the still somewhat-fatigued state of your humble world traveler. Things went well overall, though, and we managed to chronicle quite a bit as the 137 players who began the day gradually whittled themselves down to just 51.

I should go back to the night before -- Friday -- and mention the enjoyable dinner we had. Mickey, Elissa, and I joined fellow bloggers Vanda, Ivan, some representatives of Chilipoker, and Matt and Maryann Savage for a fun, lengthy meal at a nearby restaurant.

I had couscous (natch), topped with a variety of tasty meats, with a fairly decadent toffee dessert and coffee to follow. We stuck around afterwards while a sequence of energetic bellydancers made their way through the room, moving with agility between the tables, a couple of whom especially impressed us by balancing elaborate arrangements of lit candles atop their heads while they danced.

There was a pre-tourney party afterwards at the club adjacent to the Casino de Marrakech, but by then I was going on something like 40 hours with only a brief, one-hour nap, and had to head back to the room for some shut-eye. Slept reasonably well -- aside from having to field a wrong number at 4:30 a.m. -- and was rested and ready to go by the time we headed back over to the casino for the start of Day 1a.

The casino is quite large, and the poker room big also, containing somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-45 tables. The tourney was set up on one side, with only 15 tables being used. The media room had been set up on the opposite side -- in fact, inside a tent-like structure attached outside of the poker room proper. While I believe PokerNews might be the only English media here, there is nevertheless quite a large contingent of reporters on hand, perhaps 30-35 reporters in all. That made things very tight inside the tent, with all of us jammed close together around the few tables.

The tourney began a short while after the scheduled 2 p.m. start time, and while we experienced a little trouble with maintaining internet connectivity, things seemed to be going well enough at the start. That’s when the rain and wind outside began to pick up, and soon the tent began to shake and rattle. Another huge gust whooshed through and suddenly it appeared as though the whole arrangement was about to crash down on top of us.

Within minutes we all quickly relocated inside the poker room, setting up on the far row of unused tables opposite the tourney. And that’s where we remained -- safe and dry -- for the rest of the day. (That picture is of the area where we had originally set up; there had been sheets enclosing the area, but they are no longer present here.)

As far as the event itself goes, we encountered a field consisting of a lot of French and Moroccan players, as well as a few from other European countries. At one point later in the day Matt Savage and I chatted about the fact that neither of us had spotted a single American in the field.

Unsurprisingly, then, there were not too many familiar faces to us among the 137 who began, with only Antoine Saout, Nicolas Levi, Alexandre Gomes, and a few others being recognizable to us as we began. Eventually we came to learn the names of a few dozen more, aided at times by our colleagues from other outlets, or in some cases by the players themselves.

As the tourney organizers’ quick response to the media tent situation demonstrated, we were taken care of quite well yesterday. There was finger food (pastries, bite-sized sandwhiches, bread) and drink supplied at every break, and a nice buffet for dinner, all available both to the players and the media. Helped us make it through the day, for sure.

Didn’t get back to the room until something like 4 a.m., then I ended up waking early this morning to go walk down to the city center and explore a bit. Will try to share details of that trip tomorrow.

Meanwhile, we’re close to getting started with Day 1b. We’re expecting a few more big names to show today, too, including Carlos Mortensen, David Benyamine, Ludovic Lacay, among others. Check over at PokerNews for details.

Are WSOPE Bracelets “Real”?

The World Series of Poker Europe Main Event concluded yesterday, with James Bord of England besting an especially tough field of 346. Thus ends the five-event series, at which five WSOP gold bracelets were awarded.

Not coincidentally, there has been a lot of discussion of late over whether or not WSOPE bracelets are “real” World Series bracelets and/or should be counted in that “most bracelets, all-time” list currently led by Phil Hellmuth (with 11) and Doyle Brunson (10) and Johnny Chan (10).

The Entities over at Wicked Chops helped stir things up regarding this topic yesterday by drawing attention to a comment made by WPT Executive Tour Director Matt Savage last week on their excellent weekly show, This Week in Poker (the 9/21/10 episode). (If you’re not familiar with TWiP, click here for a quick overview.)

The question to Savage -- sent in by Jay “whojedi” Newnum -- was “How do you feel about bracelets being awarded outside of Vegas?” Savage answered without hesitation. “I don’t like it,” he said. “I don’t think it’s like a real bracelet.”

Savage then alluded to how the WSOP could very well start applying its brand elsewhere (“they could have WSOP Asia, WSOP Latin America,” etc.), the implication being that doing so would further devalue the bracelets’ significance. “I mean, the WSOP was founded in Las Vegas,” added Savage. “That’s kind of what it’s about, so I don’t think those bracelets [i.e., the ones awarded in London at the WSOPE] are as valuable.”

The post over at Wicked Chops yesterday quickly drew a comment from Harrah’s/WSOP Vice President Ty Stewart, who strongly disagreed with Savage’s position while also foregrounding the competition that exists between the WPT and WSOP, especially in Europe. “It doesn’t take an investigative journalist to understand Mr. Savage’s parent company is motivated to be antagonistic to other activities in the European marketplace,” writes Stewart.

What Stewart suggests, of course, is that Savage’s devaluing of non-Vegas WSOP bracelets is connected to the WPT’s efforts to compete with the WSOP in places like London, and may or may not represent a sincere view to which Savage personally subscribes.

While I’m well aware that there indeed exists genuine competition between the WSOP and WPT -- being fought on several fronts at once -- I still think Savage’s comment was sincere and represents his personal opinion on the subject. And the fact is, there are many other folks (including players, media, and fans) who aren’t tied to the WPT or groups in competition with the WSOP who share Savage’s view that indeed the WSOPE bracelets aren’t as “real” or prestigious as the ones won in Vegas.

Another person who doesn’t believe the WSOPE bracelets are equal to the ones won in Vegas is the fellow with the most bracelets of all, Phil Hellmuth. The Poker Brat was a guest on the most recent Hardcore Poker Show podcast (the 9/27/10 episode) where he was asked the same question Savage was about the relative significance of winning a WSOPE bracelet.

“Honestly, it’s not the same thing,” Hellmuth began. “I have a feeling that if I had won a bracelet over there [at WSOP Europe], there would have been a lot of people stepping up saying ‘It’s not the same thing,’ and it would’ve been hard for me to argue against that.”

The conversation continued for a few more minutes, with Hellmuth elaborating on some of the reasons why he believes the WSOPE bracelets can't really be considered on the same level as those won at the World Series in Vegas.

Hellmuth made some good points, actually -- kind of surprising how uncharacteristically balanced and aware he sounds here, really -- including drawing attention to the fact that when it comes to his race with the current leaders in all-time bracelets, neither Brunson nor Chan even made the trip to the WSOPE this year.

“Everybody knows that it’s not really a bracelet,” Hellmuth concludes, adding that when it comes to record-keeping, the WSOP should establish different categories for bracelets won outside of Vegas, thereby referring to someone as having one a certain number of each rather than compiling all together.

Click here to listen to the interview, if you’re curious. Hellmuth comes on about 17 minutes into the show, and the conversation about bracelets begins a little after the 23-minute mark.

As the comments on the Wicked Chops post further show, opinions over this issue are divided. Questions about the “legitimacy” or relative significance of the WSOPE bracelets have been asked since before the first WSOPE in 2007. I recounted some of that debate in a Betfair piece a couple of weeks ago which talks a little about the short history of the WSOPE, “London Calling: 2010 WSOP Europe Coming Soon.”

In that column I alluded to some of the early questioning, then added the comment that “by now that debate has subsided somewhat, thanks in large part to the high quality of player fields the WSOPE has attracted during its first three years.” (Perhaps I spoke to soon!)

So do I think WSOPE bracelets are “real”? Well, sure.

I think it is fine -- and perhaps inevitable -- for us all to debate whether, say, Gus Hansen’s victory in WSOPE Event No. 4, the £10,350 no-limit hold’em heads-up event, is as great an achievement as Ayaz Mahmood’s in WSOP Event No. 35, the $10,000 NLHE heads-up event in Vegas. The tourneys were the same in some ways, but different in many, many more.

Indeed, I think if one were to try to compare any two WSOP tournaments, the list of relevant factors making the two events different would be so long it would rapidly become evident that it is a little silly to try to claim any two tourneys are the “same thing.” In fact, one could argue differences between the 2010 WSOPE events and those played in Vegas at the 2010 WSOP are much less significant than the differences between the 2010 WSOP events and those played in the 1970s and 1980s at the WSOP.

So, yeah, I think WSOPE bracelets are “real” bracelets. I also think that for a variety of reasons they continue to carry less prestige, ultimately, than do the ones won in Vegas. But that’s true of bracelets won in Vegas, too, with some being more esteemed than others.

That said, I acknowledge that others can decide for themselves what is “real” and what isn’t. I am an existentialist, after all.

2010 WSOP, Day 44: The Return of the World Poker Tour

Yesterday I enjoyed another day off and so ended up staying away from the Rio for Day 2b of the 2010 World Series of Poker Main Event. Today (Sunday) is another day of rest for all of the WSOP, then the entire remaining field -- something like 2,600 or so, I believe -- comes back tomorrow for Day 3. (I’ll be back helping with the coverage over at PokerNews every day this week as the tourney plays down to 27 on Friday.)

Knowing I was going to be off yesterday, I had made plans earlier in the week with my friend and colleague Jen Newell to have lunch. She was going to this World Poker Tour press conference scheduled over at the Bellagio yesterday morning. So I met her there and went to the presser, too, and we then went afterwards for a delicious meal and enjoyable conversation over at the Cafe Bellagio. (Maryland Crab Cakes Benedict FTW!)

I ended up being very glad I went to the press conference, as it became a chance for me to meet a lot of different folks in the poker world whom I hadn’t spoken to face-to-face before.

As far as the conference itself goes, the WPT was announcing its Season 9 yesterday, although it sounds like they aren’t quite ready to list all of the stops and schedule. Mike Sexton did open things up, however, by saying there would be “six, seven, [or] eight” events in the U.S. and Europe this year.

Then World Poker Tour CEO Steve Heller said a few things, including noting the WPT’s intention “to put more show in the show” by incorporating “more information, more context, [and] more entertainment.” Part of that effort will include hosts Mike Sexton and Vince Van Patten being at the events from Day 1, and having some segments from prior to the final table included in the broadcast, so as to give viewers a better feel for how those who made the final table got there.

Adam Pliska, President of WPT, then spoke briefly, introducing Matt Savage as the WPT’s new “Executive Tour Director,” a position in which Savage will act as a liaison with the various casinos and their tournament directors to help “harmonize” the events on the tour. (Savage will also continue to be the TD for a couple of WPT stops, too, e.g., at the Commerce and Bay 101.)

Savage noted how there was a kind of excitement surrounding the WPT at the moment, so much so that he said it “feels like Season 1.” Seemed to me like others in the room -- including the media -- were picking up on this excitement a bit, too. There is a lot of competition out there among the various pro circuits, but I believe most probably agree that it would be good for poker, generally speaking, for the WPT to start thriving once again.

Pliska then introduced Kimberly Lansing -- a hostess for the show back on Season 6 of the WPT -- as the new “anchor” for the show. The position, explained Pliska, would be sort of like Bob Costas at the Olympics, and would help the show in its efforts to incorporate more context and commentary, as well as to “change the look and feel” so as to make it even more like a sporting event.

Lansing said just a few words, then Van Patten was given the task of introducing one other new aspect of the WPT show, the Royal Flush Girls. Sort of seems like they are continuing the same hostess-type role originated by Shana Hiatt and later filled by Lansing and others, only now they’ll be rotating six different women to do the occasional on-camera stuff, including interviewing players.

The conference proper then concluded with photos and one-on-one interviews while Marcel Luske and Carlos Mortensen played a heads-up match as part of a prop bet.

Luske is from Amsterdam, and so will be supporting the Netherlands today in the World Cup final. Mortensen, meanwhile, is from Madrid, and so naturally is going to be pulling for Spain. Each wore his country’s jersey to the match, and the loser has to wear the other team’s jersey today during the final.

That match was still going on when Jen and I left, but before we did I got the chance to chat with several people there. Ended up talking with both Sexton and Van Patten. As it happened, both were in my section on Saturday playing Day 2a of the Main Event, and so I spoke with each about reporting on them and their days.

Sexton was eliminated on Saturday. I reported the hand in which he was short-stacked and all in with pocket kings versus two players. His opponents both had pocket pairs, too -- queens and nines -- but unfortunately for Sexton a nine flopped and he couldn’t catch up. “That’s poker,” Sexton said to me yesterday as he talked about the hand. We also chatted some about his time in North Carolina (my home state), where he lived for 15 years playing underground games before going to Vegas.

Van Patten fared better on Day 2a. I reported on a couple of his hands early on, too, when he was mainly holding steady with about 75,000 chips. But near the end of the day he picked up a couple of big pots and bumped way up to 174,200, which I believe is a bit more than twice the average heading into Day 3. We talked a bit about his day and he asked me some questions about the reporting.

I’ll admit to being a little fascinated by Van Patten. I remember him first for his acting career. That horror movie Hell Night in which he co-starred in the early 1980s was one of those late night cable flicks I recall seeing as a kid. He was in Rock ‘n’ Roll High School, too, which I’m making a mental note to see again soon. Van Patten was also an accomplished tennis player, once ranked as high as 25th in the world and beating the likes of Vitas Gerulaitis and John McEnroe. (No shinola.)

Anyhow, I found him a very friendly guy and will confess to have gotten a kick out of all of his questions of me about the reporting side of things.

I spoke with Matt Savage some, too, and he added a couple of other items about how the WPT events will go which I found interesting. He said that when they get to the final tables they will roll back the blinds if they are too high. He also said that at each WPT event they would be running bustout tourneys that would serve as satellites to the next WPT Main Event on the tour, which sounded like a cool idea to me.

I also had the pleasure yesterday to meet and chat with Jesse May, author of the great Shut Up and Deal, which I just happened to have brought with me this summer to reread during those rare moments when I’ve had the time. We chatted about a few things, including his entertaining poker podcast and our mutual friends Kevmath and Dr. Pauly.

Later in the day I met up with another friend, James, who has come to Vegas for what has now become an annual visit for him to see the WSOP and play some golf. He and I had dinner at the Hard Rock (the Pink Taco), and he then went over to watch some poker at the Rio. I passed on the latter -- have seen my share of poker lately, dontcha know -- instead making an early evening of it.

Today will be taken up with what should be more fun times. There’s the WSOP Media tournament at noon in which it looks like something like 130 folks will be playing (perhaps more). Then later in the day PokerNews is also having its annual freeroll, too, in which I also plan to play, barring some crazy deep run in the WSOP Media event.

Should be a fun day -- a good way to kick off my last week in Vegas. Hope you get a chance to relax and enjoy your Sunday, too.

A Heads Up for the WSOP (Courtesy the L.A. Poker Classic)

Been following the live reports and various news items emanating from the L.A. Poker Classic currently going on over at the Commerce. It’s a helluva series, lasting for six weeks and including 35 different events. As this year’s Tournament Director Matt Savage noted over on PokerRoad Radio over the weekend (the 2/21/09 episode), the LAPC is starting to rival the World Series of Poker in terms of its variety of offerings.

The series schedule included a number of non-standard events. There were eight non-hold’em events, including that $10,000 H.O.R.S.E. event won by Scotty Nguyen. The Main Event (also a $10,000 buy-in) attracted 696 entrants. They have now completed three days of play in that one, with three more days to go.

There was one other $10,000 event in the series, Event No. 32, the Heads Up Championship, won by Vivek Rajkumar. That one was originally capped at 64, with the original plan being to allow any additional entrants to play $5,000 play-in matches so as to participate. I’m not quite sure how that would have worked, but they eventually attracted a total of 111 players, and thus ended up eliminating the $5K prelim rounds.

The event was planned all along to be a double-elimination tournament, and they kept that format, somehow figuring out how to make it work for 111 players. There was a draw on Day 1 (last Wednesday) to determine the first-round matches as well as which players -- 17 in all -- would be receiving first-round byes. Once the first-round matches were complete, the winners and those who received byes then moved to the “winners’ bracket” (a total of 64 players) while the 47 losers all met up over in the “losers’ bracket.”

Since the losers’ bracket had that odd number, they had to draw again to determine who got byes. Seventeen got byes, while the other 30 played matches. The 15 losers of those matches, having lost twice, were done. That left 32 players, each with one loss apiece, over on the losers’ side. If I follow it correctly, the 32 losers from the winner’s bracket then came over to play these guys, and so on and so forth, until Chris Moore, the lone player remaining on the winners’ side, faced Rajkumar who emerged from the losers’ side. Rajkumar then had to beat Moore twice to take the title.

If you’re curious about the event and want to try to piece together the entire bracket, you can go over to the World Poker Tour page and read through B.J. Nemeth’s excellent live updates from the Heads Up event.

Have to say I very much like the use of a double-elimination format as a means to lessen the overall effect of drawing for byes. I’m remembering the fiasco at the 2007 World Series of Poker, the first time the WSOP tried a heads up tournament. 392 players signed up for that $5,000 buy-in event. If I remember correctly, officials had hoped to attract 512 and didn’t get there, and so they drew and 120 players got byes into the second round, meaning the unlucky 272 who didn’t had to play an extra match. Not too cool when you consider everyone had to pay the same entry fee for the sucker.

Last year the WSOP tried it again and this time capped it at 256 (and made it a $10,000 event), thus avoiding the issue altogether. That worked out okay, if I remember correctly, although some players who wanted to play the event got closed out, including Doyle Brunson. “Unbelievable!” wrote Brunson on his blog. “To think they would limit the number of players in a WSOP tournament. I am aware of the structure but they should change it, make another bracket, have alternatives, or something!”

The Heads Up event is part of the 2009 WSOP as well, again as a $10,000 “Championship” event (Event No. 29, to start June 13th). Structures/formats have not been announced as yet for this summer’s WSOP, but I’d think the WSOP might consider taking a cue from the LAPC and try out a double elimination format this time around.

Of course, it simply might not be feasible for the WSOP to pull off a double-elimination tourney (which would require dealing about twice as many matches) during the three days they have allotted for the event. Still, I think it is definitely an idea worth considering, if it can be managed.