Not Being Results Oriented; or, What Can You Do?

What a heartbreaker. It probably took me a full hour after the game was over for the heart rate to return to normal, and to be honest it wasn’t until this morning I felt actual disappointment that UNC wasn’t able to pull it out last night.

Have to confess I expended a lot of negative energy during the NCAA title game frustrated at the refereeing. The Heels were likely the victim of a few more bad calls (or no calls) than was Villanova, although I felt as though the refs were bad all around. Was a classic example of “look-at-me” reffing with nickel-dimers frequently called up top and everything goes down low.

But as the second half wore on, I found myself just as frequently shaking my head at ’Nova hitting yet another contested shot. Sure, they hit plenty of open ones, too (including treys), but at least a half-dozen times I had that “what can you do?” feeling at the end of a well-defensed possession that had concluded with the Wildcats hitting one more tough jumper.

A drought on the offensive end late in the second half caused Carolina to dig that 10-point hole, and it didn’t surprise me at all to see the team’s leader, Marcus Paige, lead the way to help UNC climb out of it. The double-clutch three-pointer to tie with 4.7 seconds left was stunning, sure, but for those who’ve been watching the team all year -- and Paige for the last four -- it didn’t feel at the time like something too crazy to occur.

It was a not improbable event, you might say. The one that followed was not improbable, either.

When Kris Jenkins rose to shoot the game-winner, I actually blinked very slowly, kind of accepting before the fact that the shot -- unlike so many others, a clean, open look -- was likely to be a good one. It did hit the mark (doing so as time expired), and as happened with Paige’s shot, I was slow to react.

So was Villanova coach Jay Wright. Have already seen a number of outlets -- including non-poker ones -- refer to his “poker face” following the shot. It was a good one.

Wright watches the shot fall, and with zero expression at all turns to the right and begins walking to shake hands with Roy Williams. There might be a slight grimace there -- kind of a “what can you do?” look, now that I think about it -- then as he sees Williams walking towards him he holds his arms outward and looks like he’s about to shrug while assistants begin to hug him from behind.

Here's a Vine of Wright's response, via The Cauldron:

It very much resembled a poker player who was all in and hit a needed card to win, then immediately faced having to console the opponent whom he’d beaten. The shot could go in -- and as I said, it wasn’t improbable that it would -- and when it did, well, that was that. It was kind of an extreme mini-illustration of that oft-recommended advice not to be “results oriented,” or so it seemed.

Such a cool shot. And a cool response, too.

Like I say, I’m only now feeling disappointed, although that last note sounded by Wright -- so matter-of-fact, and sportsmanlike -- is somehow helping prevent the pain from feeling too intense. Sure, there are lots of “what if?” questions lingering, but the way the game ended really did feel like both teams played their hands pretty well. And the last card went ’Nova’s way.

Second Guessing and the Media

Gearing up here for this NCAA Final tonight between the North Carolina Tar Heels and Villanova Wildcats. I actually had Villanova making it this far in my bracket -- which is otherwise a dumpster fire -- although I didn’t think my Heels would be there, too.

I can say “my” Heels as an alum and lifelong fan. Perhaps I was too close this year to recognize UNC’s strengths -- namely a deeper roster than most as well as a big size advantage that here at the end of the season has routinely translated into a big edge on the boards. Of course, ‘Nova has shot lights out over the last three weeks, a trend that tends to make rebounding less important. I’m leaning toward thinking the Wildcats have a small edge as tip-off nears, but who knows?

Amid the lead-up came a diverting quote from UNC head coach Roy Williams, something that gave the sports talk shows something to focus on today. It came after the win versus Syracuse on Saturday night during the postgame presser, and it kind of reminded me of some of the poker-related jibber jabber from last week.

Williams actually started the press conference in a bit of an ornery mood, early on cutting off any questions about whether or not the 65-year-old coach plans to retire any time soon. (The answer is no.) Later, after the players took their questions, it was Williams’s turn, and the first question came from John McCann of the Durham-based newspaper The Herald Sun.

McCann began by saying “we love to second guess you, coach,” then asked kind of a pointed question that if you think about it more or less challenged the idea that the coach has has any idea at all about the decisions he makes.

Noting how Williams had “stuck to [his] guns” as far as line-up choices went this year, McCann asked “How much of that during the season was total confidence in your guys versus a coach hoping that his guys would get it together?”

“Well, John, take this the way it’s intended,” Williams began. “Not to be as critical, but I’m a hell of a lot smarter about basketball than you guys are. I mean, I’m serious. What do you do after basketball season’s over with? You cover baseball. What do you do after baseball’s over with? You cover football. I don’t take any breaks.”

From there Williams stepped back to add a more general observation about the media’s relationship to the sports they cover, in particular with regard to college hoops.

“This year more than ever I heard announcers and writers question things... more than I’ve ever heard. And one of the other guys said ‘you know, we’re not in the locker room, we’re not at practice every day....’ If you asked me if I’m as smart a sports fan as you, I’d say probably not, ’cause I don’t work on those other sports. But I do see our guys in the locker room every single day....”

From there Williams pointed out how the team has had 98 practices this year, and after polling the room he determined a couple of the reporters had each been to one of them. “I would never criticize somebody about something that they know a heck of a lot more about.... But it is, it’s journalism to a certain degree today.”

“So it wasn’t stubbornness,” he concluded, alluding back to the larger question about line-up decisions. “It was intelligence.”

As a UNC fan, I find myself questioning Williams’s coaching decisions plenty of times. A lot, even, and certainly a lot more than I questioned Dean Smith when he was on the Heels’ bench. But all fans do that, especially when it comes to the teams for which they root and therefore (likely) have a kind of inherent bias affecting their judgment. It’s part of what makes following sports fun to do.

I do like his point, though, about the sports media tending toward “hot takes” and angrily forwarded criticisms that more often than not aren’t based in well intentioned argument supported by good reasoning and supporting evidence, but rather just designed to “stir the pot” (and perhaps gets some extra clicks online).

I say Williams’s response got me thinking a little of some of the back-and-forthing from last week regarding the so-called “poker media” and its relationship to those they cover. That’s a discussion I couldn’t care less about, really, and not just because I consider myself a guy who writes about people who play cards (to again evoke Benjo DiMeo’s line) and not full-fledged “media.”

No, I don’t find the topic that meaningful because I instinctively adopt the position of humility being recommended by Williams, at least when it comes to reporting on poker players and what they do at the tables. One of the detours in last week’s convo had to do with the relative poker knowledge among those reporting on tourneys. I’d agree it’s a requisite. I’d also agree that possessing something less than the knowledge of those being reported about should automatically suppress the impulse to “second guess.”

Not only do I not second guess, I don’t guess anything at all. Doing so would be more akin to reporting on yourself than someone else.

Photo: “Roy Williams at a Press Conference for the University of North Carolina Tarheels” (adapted), Zeke Smith. CC BY-SA 2.0.

Poorly Played On All Streets

I have at least one more “poker’s precursors” post I want to do -- perhaps a couple, actually -- but am taking a break again here today for a quick reflection on the amazing end of that Northern Iowa-Texas A&M game Sunday night.

Once upon a time -- especially around these parts -- the classic “never give up” example from college basketball was the 1974 Duke-UNC game in which the Heels came back from eight points down with 17 seconds to go, needing a long buzzer beater from Walter Davis (banked in!) to tie before going on to win in overtime.

“Eight points in 17 seconds” became kind of a mantra we’d always hear time and again at the end of ACC games thereafter, a shorthand reminder to viewers not to shut off the television early. There have been more remarkable comebacks over the last four decades, but that one continued to hold on as a commonly-evoked referent (with the lack of a three-point shot then making it even more noteworthy).

But what happened Sunday night was just mind-boggling. I didn’t shut the TV off, but I did walk away from it when NIU had a double-digit lead with about five minutes left. Spent the next half-hour or so up at the barn occupied with feeding some horses and other things, then walked back in the house to discover the game had reached double OT.

That’s when I picked up on the chatter about the Aggies’ big comeback. Was I hearing it correctly? Were they really saying they’d been 12 points down with less than a minute left and somehow had tied the game? How in the what in the who?

I immediately scrolled back on my teevee to watch that last minute play out again (here’s a condensed clip of what I saw). A follow-up basket with 34 seconds left cut the lead to 10, at which point Northern Iowa took their last timeout -- a seemingly innocuous decision that proved meaningful a little later once things began unraveling.

NIU would swiftly turn the ball over on the next three possessions, with Texas A&M converting each time right away, including knocking down a three. That suddenly cut it to 69-66 with 20 seconds left.

Then Northern Iowa scored on a breakaway dunk to make it 71-66 with 17 seconds left, and A&M responded immediately with a layup, with NIU getting called for a foul (perhaps questionably) on the shot. The free throw was converted, and the lead was just two with 12 seconds to go. Then NIU turned the ball over a fourth time, leading to the tying basket.

It happened so quickly, it wasn’t until later I realized the comeback had been achieved without A&M having to foul intentionally a single time. That the Aggies went on to win in double OT was predictable (and anticlimactic) -- I’m just surprised NIU managed to hold it together to compete during that first overtime period.

When I chatted with my buddy Dr. Pauly about the game afterwards, he provided what I thought was a good poker analogy for what had happened.

“Poorly played on all streets,” he said.

I suppose it was a bit like picking up a pair of aces, having been up by a dozen with less than a minute to go. Passive play then let the Aggies get to the flop cheaply, and missteps thereafter worrisomely bloated the pot while allowing Texas A&M to fill a wildly unlikely backdoor draw, paid off for the near maximum by NIU. I say “near maximum” because NIU didn’t bust, but essentially allowed Texas A&M a full double-up to survive before they rose up and finished off the Panthers.

“Twelve points in 44 seconds” will be the new rallying cry for those seeking the basketball equivalent of one-outers going forward, I guess.

(I’m just realizing -- the title of this post essentially describes my busted bracket, too. I played the preflop okay, I suppose, doing fair on Thursday, but mangled the hand terribly thereafter.)

Photo: “Aggie Hoop” (adapted), Stuart Seeger. CC BY 2.0.

63 Winners, 63 Losers

Taking another short break again today from my survey of poker “precursors” -- that is, card games (mostly European) that preceded poker’s initial appearance in the early 19th century. Have so far discussed mus (Spain), poch (Germany), primiera (Italy), and brag (England), and have at least a couple of more I’d like to add to the list next week.

Today I’m distracted, though -- like most of my readers, I imagine -- by the start of the NCAA tournament and another entry into a pool. Writing here at the start of the second half of the round of 64, I survived yesterday in decent shape and so am still enthused about the prospects of maybe winning the sucker (as I once luckboxed my way into doing a few years ago). In other words, I haven’t burned my bracket just yet.

Incidentally, inspired by picking all of the games and the sort of faux “favorite/upset” dichotomy created by NCAA seeds, I wrote a strategy article yesterday for PokerNews titled “Pumping Up the Variance Against Better-Skilled Opponents,” if you’re curious. The idea I explored there had to do with the way lesser-skilled players in poker can sometimes reduce an opponent’s edge by making larger bets and raises and generally trying to play “big pot” poker and increase the luck factor. You know -- bigger preflop raises, more all-ins, and so on to reduce the decisions after the flop. I also mentioned how faster-structured tournaments function similarly, reducing the number of hands per level and making the stacks more shallow more quickly.

The fact that the NCAA changed the shot clock from 35 to 30 seconds this year has encouraged many to observe that the underdogs (theoretically) should have less of a chance of topping the favorites because there are now more possessions per game (about five more per team). I suggest that is analogous to playing more hands and thus giving better-skilled performers more chances to benefit from their edge.

Like I say, you can check out the article to see how I explain all of that and decide whether or not there’s something to the observation. Meanwhile, let me share a couple of other thoughts that occurred to me as I filled out this year’s bracket.

I found myself looking very closely this year at how the teams who made the tournament have performed in the NCAA recently, looking specifically over the last five years. Just felt like I’d been burned a few times picking some team to make the Elite Eight and then realizing as they were getting smoked in the first round they’d never gotten out of the first weekend before.

Interestingly, out of all 68 teams there are only nine who have played in the NCAA each of the last five years -- Michigan State, Gonzaga, UNC, Wisconsin, Duke, Cincinnati, VCU, Kansas, and Villanova. The average for all the teams was only a bit more than two NCAA appearances out of the last five years.

Ultimately I just used that as one factor that in a few cases swayed me one way or the other when making a selection. That said, I did pick a team to make the final four who has lost in the first round the last three years’ running, and didn’t even make the tournament the two years before that (Oklahoma).

To be honest, even after putting in the effort to figure out every team’s recent history, I couldn’t make myself actually adhere to those findings in any sort of systematic way. As I think pretty much all poker players know, it’s hard to let go of “feel” and give yourself completely over to what math and logic are telling you is the right play to make. That’s not to say recent NCAA history is going to be an infallible predictor of success, but even if it were close to being so, I think it would be hard for me to subtract my own “gut” entirely from the equation.

One other kind of weird thing about my bracket. Partly motivated by the impression that there are a number of teams this year that can win it all -- perhaps more than most years -- I ended up going against the grain in another big way by not having any No. 1 seeds in my final four, and four No. 2 seeds. I didn’t plan for that, but when that’s how it ended up I decided it was weird enough to try, if only as an experiment. Haven’t looked, but I’d be surprised if there were any other final fours in the pool comprised of Villanova, Oklahoma, Xavier, and Michigan State.

All four of those teams play today, so if one or two fall I will be doing some burning.

(EDIT [added 5 p.m. ET]: Oh well, it was a fun few hours, anyway -- my chosen winner, Michigan State, dropped their first-round game this afternoon, the first time in a quarter-century of filling out these pools my winner was out so soon.)

Staying Put for the Super Bowl

I remember some twenty-plus years ago living in Chapel Hill and going to graduate school. After getting an undergraduate degree there I continued on for the M.A., then would make a change for the doctorate afterwards (going to Indiana). Several years later I would return to my home state of North Carolina to live and teach.

In other words I’d been a lifelong Tarheel fan by the time the ’93-’94 season came around. The team’s run to a championship that year remains vivid in my memory, something I wrote a little about over on Ocelot Sports a couple of years ago and also chatted with Dr. Pauly about on a podcast we did for the 20th anniversary of the final game between UNC and Michigan.

One part of that memory that stands out was the way my friends not only found it necessary to watch all of the tournament games at the same place (one friend’s apartment), but for all of us to sit in the same seats as well as the Heels kept winning each game.

I recall more and more people joining us as they proceeded through the tournament, with about 20 crammed in the small living room for the final. But the core group all kept our same seats so as not to disturb the spell of Carolina’s streak. As my buddy the host explained, “You can’t prove it doesn’t have an effect.”

At the time I vaguely thought about the logic class I’d taken as an undergrad and phrases like “proving a negative” and “proof of impossibility” and “correlation does not imply causation.” I played cards occasionally then, but this was before I’d get heavily into poker and the study of the game, and so I don’t think I knew about the “gambler’s fallacy” then, or I’d have probably thought of that, too.

My buddy Bob (a.k.a. the “Poker Grump”) who regularly writes strategy articles for PokerNews has written smartly about the latter. In “What is the ‘Gambler’s Fallacy’ and How Does It Apply to Poker?” he explains how it works, starting with the example of a roulette player allowing the phenomenon of a ball landing on red nine straight times influence him to think that has something to do with what will happen on spin number ten.

Superstitions among sports fans aren’t quite the same thing, although they share a common lack of rationality. A poll conducted by Associated Press-Ipsos several years ago found that a little more than 20% of sports fans “say they do things in an attempt to bring good luck to their favorite team or avoid jinxing them.”

The Super Bowl is Sunday, and Vera and I have already been invited to a couple of viewing parties. As readers of the blog surely have picked up on by now, I have a rooting interest in the game, one that matches where I was with the Heels back in the spring of 1994. In this case my fandom has also been building for decades and through a long, exciting season’s worth of games, most of which have gone my team’s way.

I’ve watched all of those games this year from the couch here -- from the same side, actually, where I’m sitting and typing this post.

I’m thinking it might be nice just to stay at home on the farm on Sunday.

Some Moments Are More Important Than Others

For those of us in the anti-Dook Blue Devil camp -- and there are a lot of us, with UNC-Chapel Hill alums like me just part of a subset -- last night’s championship game in which the Devils beat the Wisconsin Badgers 68-63 was a bit agonizing.

So, too, was it a painful one for the Wisconsin fans who saw their team sitting pretty up nine with 13 minutes to go and both of Duke’s big men, Jahlil Okafor and Justise Winslow, on the bench in foul trouble. That’s when Duke frosh Grayson Allen -- who averaged four points a game this year -- scored eight in a row while the Badgers only scored three, and suddenly all was in doubt again.

It was a game full of such surges, and in truth it felt all along like whichever team happened to be on the high end of the see-saw as they entered the endgame was likely to come away with the win. That’s how it turned out, albeit with a few key calls down the stretch that helped the Devils, all involving Winslow.

The first came with just over nine minutes left when Wisconsin was up 54-50. Duje Dukan (who seems like he should have been playing for the other team with that name) was called for a blocking foul after colliding with Winslow in the lane, one of those to-MAY-to/to-MAH-to judgment calls that always looks a certain way depending on the team for which you’re rooting. Okafor had just been benched again after collecting his fourth foul, and a charge would’ve meant four on Winslow, too. But it went Dook’s way and after Winslow sank two free throws the lead was down to two.

The second occurred after the Blue Devils had moved in front by a point, 59-58. With about three-and-a-half minutes to go, Winslow grabbed an offensive rebound and then appeared to step on the endline, but the refs missed it. Okafor would score on that possession to make the lead three. Bad break again for the Badgers.

The third one then came a little after that, not long after the Blue Devils had pushed out ahead to lead 63-58. This one involved an out-of-bounds play that occurred with just a little under two minutes to go, with the on-court call being Dook ball but with enough doubt for the refs to review the replay. We watched, too, and this time it was obvious -- Winslow was the last player to touch the ball (that’s a freeze-frame of the play above; click to embiggen). But somehow the refs didn’t see it that way, Dook retained possession, and seconds later hit a three-pointer to push the lead to eight.

Even so, the latter was one of those calls (or non-calls) that like the previous two can also be put in the category of “variance” -- i.e., like other manifestations of luck that occur in the game, the whims (and occasional failings) of the refs also have to be considered similarly. Still, since all three of these came at such potentially tide-turning moments, it’s hard not to assign them extra signficance.

A couple of weeks ago a long, interesting profile of poker pro Brian Rast by Chad Holloway was posted over on PokerNews, and the article included the story of Rast’s victory in the $50K Poker Players Championship at the 2011 WSOP. Recall how that tournament ended with Rast battling Phil Hellmuth heads-up, a duel that involved not one but three huge “coin-flip” type events, all of which went Rast’s way.

Hellmuth had built a 4.5-to-1 chip lead when the first happened, one in which Rast was all in with A-K on a ten-high flop versus Hellmuth’s flush draw, and neither the turn nor the river brought the flush. Then came another hand in which Rast flopped top pair versus another Hellmuth flush draw, the chips went in again, and Rast’s hand held a second time.

The third time it happened, Hellmuth was the one all in on the flop -- again with a flush draw -- and this time Rast had flopped even more strongly with a straight. For a third time Hellmuth couldn’t complete the flush, and Rast won.

All three weren’t exactly coin flips -- Rast’s edges were about 52%, 60%, and 63% in those hands when the money went in -- but to win all three was certainly fortunate for him. Just as having all three of those moments go Dook’s way was fortunate for them.

In both last night’s game and the Rast-Hellmuth finale, those moments were only relatively small instances within the larger competitions, though their effect on the final outcomes was much larger than was the case for all of the other instances. The players weren’t in control of how those moments played out in either case, but that can’t be a complaint -- because that’s how the games are played.

Short-Stacked Again

Enjoying March Madness this afternoon, despite the fact that one of my Final Four picks has already been thrown over the side before the tournament was even three hours old.

Of course, with the two big upsets this afternoon -- UAB over Iowa State (my Final Four team) and Georgia State over Baylor -- “busted bracket” is already the theme all over. Saw a stat a short while ago that after the first three of 63 games were done, just 86,737 of the 11.57 million entries in the ESPN Tournament Challenge had picked all three winners.

The analogy between the NCAA tournament and a poker tournament doesn’t really work, unless, of course, we’re talking about a heads-up event. But those of us in NCAA pools are very much like competitors in a poker tournament, with the “stacks” (or possible points) all starting out even and then instantly beginning to differentiate with the completion of each game.

A few years ago I remember coming on here and whimpering a little about having dropped to the bottom of the “counts” after the first two rounds. But with all four of my Final Four teams still intact and seven Elite Eight teams still alive, I was short-stacked but still competitive -- kind of like being below the average in chips but still okay in terms of big blinds.

Meanwhile, just like in a poker tournament, those leading after the first rounds (or “levels”) are hardly guaranteed to win or even make the money. Picking later round games correctly earns more points as well, just like the pots later on are bigger and the significance of winning or losing has a greater impact on ultimate results.

And while my poor start doesn’t make me want to consider it that closely, it’s certainly possible to bust altogether early on if one has played (or picked) badly enough -- or suffers enough bad fortune.

Bracket Brooding

Was a weekend filled watching college basketball, as well as that I Hate Christian Laettner doc on ESPN last night which managed to provide some entertainment to this Tarheel despite the fact that it was impossible for the program to articulate anything I hadn’t thought or felt before.

And now with the NCAA bracket announced I’m finding myself already spending odd moments contemplating matchups and how I might fill the sucker out.

Am remembering a year ago when I was in Chile hastily filling out a sheet. Not sure having more time to look over matchups will help me too much, really -- when I won the pool a few years ago, I think I took all of 15 minutes to complete my bracket. But I like having a chance at least to fool myself into thinking I’m improving my chances.

I’ve not watched as much college basketball this year as in the past, my interest waning more and more each year because of a variety of factors. One is the “one-and-done” phenomenon that ensures I don’t even know the starting five for my own team (UNC-Chapel Hill) from year to year. Another is conference expansion and restructuring, with the ACC now bloated with 15 teams, nearly half of which weren’t in the league just over a decade ago.

The main reason, though, is the level of play, which for the most part has declined considerably over the last 10-15 years (it seems to me). Compared to the NBA -- which I much prefer to watch -- the game is so far removed, skill-wise, it has often become tedious to watch. I suppose the poker analogy would be a player having graduated to higher stakes being made to go back down a level or three, then finding it hard to take the game as seriously as before.

But the tourney does introduce some excitement, even if contrived.

The seeding of teams creates that automatic favorite-vs.-underdog dynamic that isn’t always even accurate but nonetheless adds an affecting layer of drama.

And, of course, while I don’t care for “one-and-done” among the players, the “one-and-done” format of the tournament adds curiosity with every game. Especially if you’ve tried to pick the winners.

Back to the bracket. Now how does Dook get a No. 1 seed after not winning the conference, losing in the semis of the conference tournament, and losing first-round games in the NCAA to No. 14 and No. 15 seeds within the last three years?

Travel Report: 2012-13 WSOP-C Foxwoods Main Event, Day 1 -- Zen and the Art of Tourney Reporting

I write this morning from my hotel room in Mystic, Connecticut, about a half-hour’s drive from the Foxwoods Resort Casino on the Manshantucket Pequot Indian Reservation where I spent nearly 16 hours yesterday helping cover the sprawling Day 1 of the WSOP Circuit Main Event.

It’s been a somewhat strenuous journey already, as I flew into Providence, Rhode Island, then had to drive close to an hour to get to Mystic. Got off the plane in RI and as I made my way to the rental car counter I spotted a fellow sitting on a bench looking very relaxed and holding a sign. Obviously he was a driver waiting on an arrival, although looking a little too laid back for the part.

Then I read his sign -- Providence Zen Center -- and decided he did look the part after all. And I took a cue from his seemingly serene state going forward, going with flow as it hurtled me down I-95 toward my destination.

I’ve never really visited this part of the country before. In fact, I can’t remember ever having set foot in the country’s smallest state, not that I was there for very long on Friday. I do think I’ve been through Connecticut before, but never to Mystic which seems a friendly, tiny seaport.

I did spot the Mystic Pizza, although rather than think of the film after which it was named the town always makes me think of a random line from a fake news report on The Firesign Theatre’s Don’t Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers comedy LP...

“And there’s hamburger all over the highway in Mystic, Connecticut.”

Got together with my blogging partner Chad on Friday and the two of us reunited with Jay (a.k.a. “WhoJedi”) who’s here covering things for the WSOP. Then yesterday our intrepid trio together reported all day and night on the two Day 1 flights, which as mentioned took up most of our waking hours.

It wasn’t until a few hours into play that Chad and I realized the two flights -- each comprised of a dozen 40-minute levels -- would actually be overlapping rather than there being a break in between. Which of course meant no dinner break for us, although we each managed to get away for a quick bite anyway so we could sustain ourselves adequately until things finally wound down sometime after 1:30 a.m.

There was some interesting poker along the way, probably the most interesting hands watched by your humble scribbler coming between Andy Frankenberger and Danny “Middleboro” Smith near the end of the first Day 1 flight. I won’t rewrite both hands, but you can read about them here and here. The second was actually kind of a standard cooler that saw Smith get eliminated, but the first saw Smith interestingly decide to fold bottom set on the flop.

Was a little distracted a couple of times yesterday as those two NCAA semifinal games -- both nail-biters -- came to their respective conclusions. The players were predictably into those games as well, which briefly made for a sorta giddy atmosphere as everyone “oohed” and “aahed” at the plays on the big teevee screens.

Meanwhile there was a lot of talk during the day about how big the field turned out to be -- 578 entries total, with the possibility of a few more jumping in before play resumes at noon today. And there was a lot of scattered conversation as well about what’s been happening this week down in Cherokee, North Carolina, where the fields have been tremendous for the preliminary events and the Main promises to be huge as well.

Speaking of, Greg Raymer is here, and I spoke with him a little yesterday about whether or not he was planning to attend the Cherokee event. As most know, he lives in North Carolina, and I was glad to hear him tell me he thought he probably would make it to the WSOP-C event week. We obviously didn’t talk about the recent NC-based news about him, nor did anyone else it appeared as he was his usual friendly, chatty self at the tables. (He comes back to an above-average stack today.)

There will be around 200 players back to start things today, and it’ll be another lengthy one as the schedule calls for three more 40-minute levels, then 10 (gulp) more one-hour levels before play will be halted. Of course, we might again find things today turn out a little differently than planned, so we’ll be ready for any change-ups.

You know, trying to continue with the Zen thing going forward. And if somehow I’m unable to, I now know of a place nearby where I can go work on that.