Podcast Recommendations: Alan Boston on Thinking Poker & Kara Scott on the Remko Report

Had a chance over the weekend to listen to a couple of poker podcasts which I found very interesting and entertaining, so I wanted to pass them along here.

One was the most recent episode of The Thinking Poker Podcast, co-hosted by Andrew Brokos and Nate Meyvis. I’ve mentioned the TPP show here many times before -- and in fact appeared on that one a couple of times, once very early when they had just started, then again more recently.

Last week they had as a guest the poker player and sports bettor Alan Dvorkis -- better known as Alan Boston. I’ve often enjoyed hearing Boston talk about sports betting on other podcasts, and he’s an entertaining follow on Twitter for sure, especially when expressing misery and/or vitriol regarding bets gone wrong.

Other than exchanging a few tweets with him about Todd Rundgren on Twitter, I haven’t really interacted with Boston that much -- one hilarious exchange at the WSOP from a few years back comes to mind -- but I’ve always found him an interesting, thoughtful guy whenever he’s interviewed.

On the TPP show the interview was divided between some stud strategy talk (including some anecdotes about Danny Robison and Stu Ungar), and discussion of helping others with mental issues (and dealing with one’s own). All pretty engaging and not what you typically hear on poker podcasts.

The other was the latest “Remko Report” on which Remko Rinkema interviewed Kara Scott. Besides being friends with both Remko and Kara, I’m a big fan of both as well. As you might imagine from two people so good at talking and expressing themselves, their conversation is highly enjoyable.

The first half or more of the episode is poker-focused, with some good discussion about various things including the ongoing struggle to introduce poker to larger audiences, some good talk about Joe McKeehen and this whole (overdone) topic of WSOP Main Event champions needing to be “ambassadors” (Kara and I agree they don’t), and some further discussion about how the WSOP Main Event is currently covered and what could be changed.

They also share notes on the challenges of interviewing poker players, something I think both do very well in part because they are both so interested in examining more closely what goes into making a good, engaging interview. (It’s a lot harder than it looks or sounds, as they both are well aware.)

From there they cover some of Kara’s life before becoming a poker presenter. Some of this story I knew before, in part from having interviewed Kara myself several years ago for Betfair Poker. (That’s another one of those interviews that has now disappeared from the internet -- and which I may try to recover and republish here at some point, as I’ve done with some of the other ones.)

I knew about her background as a teacher, something I very much enjoyed talking to her about given how that’s an experience we have in common. I knew a bit about her growing up in Canada and moving to England, as well as her transition from teaching to training in Muay Thai and then becoming a presenter for a martial arts show. Which eventually led (along with some acting gigs on the side) to her getting involved with poker television.

There were other things discussed with which I was less familiar, including some having to do with how getting involved with poker and the poker community helped Kara at a time in her life when such help was really needed. Here the show reminded me a little of Boston’s appearance on TPP, if only for the way both interviewees got across the message of how important it is to have support from others, especially during difficult times.

If you have a couple of hours when you’re driving or cleaning barn stalls or doing something else where you need some interesting audio to fill that noggin’, check out both shows:

Thinking Poker Podcast Episode #186: Alan Boston

Remko Report #45: Kara Scott Opens Up About Her Life Before Poker

Photos: Alan Boston courtesy PokerNews; “Kara Scott at the Main Event of the World Series of Poker 2015,” Dutch Boyd, CC BY 2.0.

Teaming Up

I mentioned yesterday how I’d be keeping an eye on that $50K Poker Players Championship, and indeed I ended up spending some time with it seeing Brian Rast win his second career PPC.

Had a chance to chat a little bit with Rast last year at the LAPT Grand Final in São Paulo and find him a friendly, likable guy, so was glad to see him take it down in the end. The fact that Howard Lederer essentially bubbled the event (finishing 17th when 14 paid) made Rast’s win a suitably karmic bookend, you could say.

To be honest, though, I gave nearly as much attention to that first-ever “tag team” event that started yesterday, the $1K buy-in tournament in which teams of two to four players are allowed to “tag” in for one another. I thought this sounded like a potentially interesting format to try, and to hear what those who participated were saying it sounded like a winner all around.

The event appears to have attracted a healthy mix of top pros and absolute beginners, with the teams themselves in many cases being a mix of the two.

Jonathan Little and his parents formed a team, as did George Danzer, his girlfriend, and his father. Rast played, too, on team with Jeff Gross and Antonio Esfandiari.

The Mizrachi brothers formed a team, natch, while Jamie Gold and Montel Williams entered together. David Williams, Daniel Negreanu, Vanessa Selbst, and Maria Ho all entered as a group.

Probably one of my favorite team-ups was Niall Farrell teaming up with Safiya Umerova who just a couple of nights ago beat him heads-up for a bracelet. “If you can’t beat them...” he tweeted, letting his followers know he’d entered with her.

Over and over players tweeting from the event kept repeating how it was the most fun they’d ever had in a poker tournament, and it was easy to guess why that might be the case. Poker is fundamentally an individual sport, of course, but the “tag team” idea seems a reasonable way to add in the camaraderie of competing with others as well as against opponents.

Thinking Poker Podcast co-hosts Andrew Brokos and Nate Meyvis also entered as a team, and Andrew wrote up a nice summary of how positive the experience was over on his blog -- check it out.

Image: “Working Together Teamwork Puzzle Concept,” lumaxart. CC BY-SA 2.0.

Dialing Up Some Poker Podcasts

Was writing a little last week about the Thinking Poker Podcast, which got me thinking once again about poker and podcasts (natch) and which ones have moved up to the front of the queue for me of late.

To be honest I no longer listen to any single one regularly, although the Thinking Poker Podcast is one I tend to catch fairly frequently. It’s a good mix of strategy discussion and “lifestyle”-type discussions prompted by the guests Andrew Brokos and Nate Meyvis have on the show.

While the strategy sessions can be kind of intense (with a single hand occasionally being enough to encourage a half-hour’s worth of discussion or more), I very much like the way the show allows guests to stray over a wide range of topics, with poker being kind of a jumping off point for all sorts of interesting discussions.

The European Poker Tour Prague stop is nearing its conclusion and I’ve been tuning in again to EPT Live as the Main Event is now down to just three tables. That puts me in mind of the EPT Not Live podcast, which comes around about once a week in between EPT events (and during them, too, I think).

I’m a huge fan of James Hartigan and Joe Stapleton and the shows feature them being their usually humorous selves along with an array of guests. This “Best of” episode from near the end of the summer might be a good place to start with the show, if you haven’t heard it before.

Another podcast I find myself listening to almost every week is Todd Witteles’s Poker Fraud Alert. Sometimes I’ll listen live if up late on the night he’s doing a show, while other times I’ll find shows in the arCHives (to which the above link goes). Those of you who’ve listened know how Witteles’s shows are usually made up of lengthy segments in which he responds to various poker and gambling news of the week, as well as other topics of interest to him. He has co-hosts occasionally, although often is on his own for what can become marathon episodes lasting five or more hours.

Witteles is a thoughtful guy and nearly always adopts reasonable positions on various issues of the day. His show also provides something kind of unique in poker as far as its editorial freedom goes. He provides show notes for each episode, so you can skip ahead and find topics of particular interest if you like rather than listening the whole way.

Also on my list of regular listens is the Remko Report over on PokerNews where my friend Remko Rinkema similarly takes his time interviewing guests from the poker world with each show usually taking an hour or so. It has been a few weeks since I’ve listened, but some relatively recent ones I’ve enjoyed have included his interviews with Talal Shakerchi, Martin Jacobson, and Joe McKeehen (a couple of weeks before his victory).

I’ve written here before about Remko’s enthusiasm for poker and how infectious it can be if you spend any time at all around him, something listeners of the show surely pick up on as well, I imagine, via his often inspired questions. You can find the Remko Report among other PokerNews podcasts by clicking here -- I also often enjoy the regular “PN Pod” and this fall have dutifully listened to (and enjoyed) the BookieSmash SuperContest shows as well.

Finally I’ve only lately started tuning into to Joey Ingram’s Poker Life shows, which like Remko’s often are focused around lengthy interviews with a single guest. He does his live over on YouTube, so there’s a video component with the shows, although you can get to ’em via iTunes as well. Most recently he had on both Daniel Negreanu and Dani Stern to discuss the PokerStars VIP changes, one of a few instances of late of the show jumping on a hot and trending poker-related topic to provide something interesting for those following the stories.

I’ll still dial up the Two Plus Two Pokercast now and then, usually depending on whether or not there’s a guest I’m interested in hearing. I mentioned House of Cards here not long ago, too, as one to which I sometimes listen. There are others, too, I’ll happen upon now and then. If you are curious to see what all is out there, PokerFuse keeps track of many poker podcasts as they appear on this page.

You still listen to any poker podcasts? If so, which ones do you like?

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.

More to Learn

Swamped again here on the farm and thus out of time to write much today. However, I did want to recommend some cool new posts that have appeared on Learn.PokerNews for those who might be interested.

Nate Meyvis returned today with a smart strategy piece titled “A Planning Exercise: What If I Get Ace-King?”

In the article Nate recommends spending time between hands thinking about how you might play A-K should it be dealt to you -- as the title suggests, kind of a mental exercise that forces you to think specifically about your opponents and their tendencies, stack sizes, and other factors in a preparatory way.

I really like the way he explains the exercise as well as the concrete questions and issues he invites the reader to consider while thinking about how he or she might play Big Slick.

I’ve done exactly the same thing before at the tables, not necessarily thinking about A-K specifically but just how I would next play a premium hand or a hand with which I’d likely want to open-raise. But I can’t claim I ever thought too carefully about how just going through the steps of thinking ahead in this way forces you to concentrate more on your opponents, your own image, and other important factors affecting table dynamics.

Also going up today on Learn was another one by Robert Woolley, a.k.a. the “Poker Grump,” in his “Casino Poker for Beginners” series. He’s writing about buttons right now -- not just the dealer’s button, but all of the many different ones used at the table (e.g., the absent button, the missed blinds buttons, etc.), and explaining their purpose and use.

I’m finding all of Bob’s “CFB” articles enjoyable to read, and with each one am thinking to myself “I wish I’d known” as I read through them. In fact each one also tends to include at least something I still didn’t know about (or was at least a little fuzzy on), and he presents it all in an interesting and entertaining way, too. So check out all of the “CFB” articles if you haven’t already, and I’ll bet you find something interesting and informative.

And while I’m at it, if you missed Tommy Angelo’s latest about the “Cinderella Syndrome” in poker (hint: it has to do with knowing when to quit), take a look at that, too.

Latest on Learn

Just a quick note tonight to point you to some new pieces over on the Learn.PokerNews site.

Tommy Angelo has returned with another installment of his “Tilt for Beginners” series, this time telling a short anecdote from a recent visit to the Casino Montreal where he encountered French-style playing cards. That meant he was dealt some Rs, Vs, and Ds and responded with some understandable bafflement.

The article is titled “Miffed in Montreal.” Click to read, and also check out the ultra-cool photo illustrating the piece.

Nate Meyvis, co-host of the Thinking Poker podcast along with Andrew Brokos, has contributed two great articles under the heading of “Fighting Back.” Both address the situation of an experienced player targeting a less savvy new player with specific tactics designed to unnerve, and Meyvis offers some concrete pointers the newer player having to deal with such.

Check ’em out: Part I covers aggression while Part II talks about how to respond to players using talking and trapping as tactics.

Finally, Jim Dixon is a writer who has been contributing some cool pieces as of late.

One called “All I Really Need to Know About Poker I Learned From Sherlock Holmes” does some sleuthing through some A.C. Doyle stories to discover some poker-related advice.

And another one today by Jim called “Mastering Luck: It’s Not the Same As Being Lucky” that talks about the importance of not letting bad fortune at the tables beat you down, with another literary source providing some inspiration again -- Jesse May’s Shut Up and Deal.

Picking Your Spots, Finding Your Targets

Just wanted to post a short one today pointing to a new piece over on Learn.PokerNews by Nate Meyvis, co-host of the great Thinking Poker podcast with Andrew Brokos. Am feeling pretty good about the quality of contributors we’ve gotten over at Learn over the last couple of months, and Nate again brings some great ideas and good writing to help up the overall quality over there.

In his article titled “Seven Attention Targets for Beginning Poker Players,” Nate points out how it’s obviously good to try to pay attention at the tables -- a much-repeated maxim we’ve all heard -- but it’s also important (or more so) to be paying attention in ways that are actually constructive. That is to say, following the action and not “checking out” mentally when not involved in a hand is all well and good, but you should also be looking for some specific actions and behaviors, too, as you gather information about your opponents.

The list of “attention targets” Nate provides includes a few I hadn’t really considered before. Like I say check it out, and maybe click around a little, too, just to see what else has been happening over on the site. Still somewhat in “building” mode over there (and I expect will be for a while), but there have been several good contributions there already and I’m optimistic about what’s to come.

I’ve mentioned before here how the Learn site -- directed primarily toward newer players although also meant to be of value, too, to those with some experience -- has gotten me thinking more and more frequently about getting started with poker and the many questions I had then, as well as all of the things that made the game seem so fascinating and appealing to play, read and talk about, and watch.

Nate’s topic reminded me how in a lot of cases my own study of the game during those early days was without any real focus, nor was it even conducted with any specific goal in mind. Not usually, anyway. What I mean is I would read and watch everything without much idea how to discriminate between information that was genuinely useful or content that was without much value at all. Kind of like when you are a kid and first start recognizing songs on the radio -- you pretty much liked them all, right?

As my understanding of the game grew, so, too, did my ability to be more selective about strategy advice and to get an idea of what worked and what didn’t, or what was original and what wasn’t. I guess on one level it was good to have that open mind at the start that didn’t automatically refuse certain types of content based on received prejudices. But after a while it became apparent that not everything written about how to play poker was necessarily helpful.

I guess I’m alluding to at least three stages of learning that likely happen for most players -- an initial one in which we start playing without even thinking about strategy or the need to study, a second stage in which we get introduced to studying and want to take in everything, and a third in which we’ve learned enough to begin to differentiate between different types of study and determine which are the most useful to us.

Nate, I think, is addressing those who are moving into that third stage who know it’s good to pay attention -- and want to do so -- but are still working out where it is best to focus that attention. Like I say, check out his list of “attention targets” and see if one or more of them prove useful to you.

2013 WSOP, Day 39: Nitcast Meet-Up, Shuffling Up and Dealing, and Turtling Up

Super long day yesterday. Ended up over at the Rio for something like 17 hours, working about the last 14 of that helping cover the last preliminary event of the summer, the $10,000 PLO (Event No. 61) over in the Pavilion ballroom, while the Main Event kicked off down the hall in the Amazon.

I went in early yesterday, arriving late morning for an enjoyable gathering of the hosts, some guests, and some listeners of the Thinking Poker podcast at Starbucks -- or, as they dubbed it, the Nitcast Meet-Up. Andrew Brokos and Nate Meyvis who host the show had the idea for the get-together, scheduling it the morning of the Main Event’s first flight so as to increase the chances of more people attending.

Had lots of fun spending more than an hour visiting with those two and meeting others, among them Mike Gentile of Pokerfuse, Nicole “SGT RJ” Rejiester, Russ Fox, Jared Tendler, Leo Wolpert, and Adrienne “Talonchick” Rowsome. There was some strategy talk, but a lot of other “life stuff” discussed as well, not unlike happens on the show. (If anyone’s curious and missed it, I was a guest back on Episode No. 4.)

Several there were readying to play in the Main Event, including Andrew and Nate. Indeed, some of the talk was about which of the three Day 1 flights was best to play both in terms of the relative strength of the fields and the need to plot a strategy that enables one to get the needed rest in preparation for the long grind of a deep run -- something Andrew has managed to do several times and Nate has done as well.

It was just after noon when I left, meaning defending champ Greg Merson had already delivered the announcement to “shuffle up and deal” and sat down at a secondary feature table for the start of this year’s ME. Tim Fiorvanti would spend the day tracking Merson’s progress for BLUFF and delivering a full report on his strong first day that saw him spin his starting stack of 30,000 up to 81,650.

The mood in the Amazon during that first hour seemed fairly reserved. The rails were certainly more crowded with onlookers than during the last few weeks. But there was little fanfare to suggest the tournament was that different from other ones that have been happening in the spacious ballroom, seeming even more spacious with the (relatively) small Day 1a field of 943. Brad Willis and Stephen Bartley are here now and they offered their thoughts throughout the day on the PokerStars blog regarding the fire raging at nearby Mt. Charleston, the day’s relative calm, and the overall lack of weirdos showing up for the Main Event.

That short visit during the first hour of Day 1a was all I’d see of the Main Event yesterday, though, although during the day I’d hear about the fellow managing to get eliminated in the first level after attempting the much-fabled triple check-raise as well as the five-way all-in hand that happened later in the evening. Those stories I’d hear while in the Pavilion covering with the $10K PLO played out from 2 p.m. until about 3 a.m. There are still 32 players left in the sucker, which means Rich and I are likely in for another long one today as we see this one through to the end.

Ended up watching and reporting on NBA star Paul Pierce a few times during the day, which was entertaining at times. (Pierce was eliminated just before dinner and shy of the cash.) Also entertaining was the lengthy period of hand-for-hand play when Jamie Pickering made a couple of surprising folds, turtling up big time to preserve a teeny weeny stack while on the stone bubble.

Pickering called preflop raises a couple of times then folded afterwards and once the blinds passed him again he was down to just 3,000 chips (less than one big blind). A huge crowd gathered on the rail, and Pickering played to them a bit although it was his tablemate Jared Bleznick getting the most laughs as he commented on Pickering’s play.

For me the scene recalled one I seem to recall a lot when at the WSOP, namely that crazy final table back in 2008 that saw Pickering finish runner-up to Vanessa Selbst in the $1,500 PLO event. That’s the one where Pickering had mostly kept quiet throughout the final table, then suddenly began ordering drinks and making pot-sized raises and reraises without looking at his hole cards in an effort to gamble his way to a win versus Selbst.

Here there was again a somewhat raucous rail, but Pickering’s play was in sharp contrast from what I’d seen six years ago, with the him being as loose as one can possibly get then, and as tight as is possible yesterday. Alas for the Aussie, when the big blind reached him again he bubbled in a four-way limped pot that was checked down to the end. That’s Pickering above in the foreground on the right, having already stood and donned his jacket after seeing the uncooperative community cards on his final hand.

Like I say, I’ll be back over on the $10K PLO today, then move over to help with Main Event after that. Kind of a stacked field still left in our event, with players from 12 different countries among the final 32. As always, check over at PokerNews to see how both Event No. 61 and Day 1b of the ME play out today.

Family in Florida

About to take a quick trip down to Florida to see my Pop and hopefully relax a little. Has become an annual thing for Vera and me each spring to go down, as there is a dressage event she likes to go to near West Palm Beach.

I’ve played at the Palm Beach Kennel Club a few times in the past when we’ve gone, too. The trip is always timed, it seems, just after the WSOP-Circuit makes its stop down there, and indeed they just finished up again last weekend.

From there the WSOP-C moves up the east coast to Caesars Atlantic City, and I’ve made that trip once before in the past as well, writing about it here (Pregame, Arrival, Day 1, Day 2, Day 3). And in fact I’ll be making that same trip again as well next weekend, which is another reason why I’m looking forward to seeing Pop and taking it easy a bit over the next few days.

Speaking of visiting family in Florida, I was just listening to the latest Thinking Poker podcast with Andrew Brokos and Nate Meyvis. The show continues to be a great one, with good strategy talk and a nifty line-up of guests since I made a visit on there back on Episode 4. The fellas are up to Episode 21 now, which means they’ve now managed to make it past the 20 Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Shows I did. (I continue to reserve the right to revive the HBPRS, by the way, so I could theoretically catch up with Andrew and Nate.)

Anyhow, this latest episode of Thinking Poker finds Andrew having visited and interviewed his grandmother in Florida. The subject of their talk was her brother, who happened to be a nightclub comedian and singer who performed back in the ’50s and ’60s as Tubby Boots. He also happened to be about 400 pounds and would sometimes wear ladies clothes during his act. As is mentioned on the show, “Uncle Tubby” additionally liked to gamble, and so that kind of ties his story in with the usual talk about poker.

I’m a fan of old comedy LPs and so had heard of Tubby Boots thanks to the fact that he made four or so albums way back in the day. I own none, but had heard him before, and thus can say he was laugh out loud funny (and also more than a little risque and not at all PC).

Anyhow, as I ready for my trip down to Florida to visit with family, let me recommend this latest Thinking Poker show to you where you can hear some of Andrew’s visit with his grandmother, Sylvia Brokos, and their talk about a highly interesting member of their family.

The Thinking Poker Podcast

I’d been meaning to write a post for a couple of weeks now pointing everyone to a new podcast hosted by Andrew “Foucault” Brokos and Nate Meyvis, the Thinking Poker Podcast (so named after Brokos’s excellent blog).

As it happened, I was invited to appear as a guest on the most recent episode of the show, and so what was going to be selfless promotion of others’ efforts might now sound a little more like someone saying “Look at me!” But really, it’s a cool, smart show and should be of interest to anyone who enjoys playing and thinking about poker.

(Also, look at me!)

The Thinking Poker podcast debuted about a month ago. As the pair explained on the first episode, the purpose of the show is to provide “intelligent discussion of any aspect of poker -- the strategy, the news, the culture, the ethics” and more -- in other words, to explore the world of poker and the interesting people who inhabit it.

They’ve already had some interesting guests on the first few shows. Shane “Shaniac” Schleger appeared on the first one, discussing among other topics life as an itinerant online poker player going down to Mexico frequently in order to play. Tommy Angelo was the guest on the second episode, talking about his books and other fun stuff. And Jason Strasser was on for Episode 3, drawing some comparisons between online poker and options trading.

On Episode 4, the pair begin with some emails and a short strategy segment (as usual), then I come on to talk about tourney reporting, my “Poker in American Film and Culture” class, freelancing, the WSOP, and other aspects of poker in culture.

Andrew and Nate asked some great questions and we ended up having an interesting conversation that I think fits well into what they’re trying to do with the show -- namely, provide some thoughtful poker talk that’s perhaps a little off the beaten path.

So check out the show. You can grab it over in iTunes. Or download right here. And after you listen, let Andrew and Nate know what you’re thinking about Thinking Poker with some feedback over on Andrew’s blog.

2011 WSOP, Day 47: Thinking Poker

I was stationed over at the two feature tables yesterday -- the ones being shown on ESPN2 on a half-hour delay -- and thus spent the day racing back and forth between them catching hands. Ended up being a very busy day for me, and kind of interesting, too, as I was able to get an up-close look at the ESPN production team at work as they managed the broadcast.

If you happened to have watched yesterday, you saw a lot of high-level poker being played on both tables. Among those seated at the main feature table yesterday were Jean-Robert Bellande, Daniel Negreanu, Carter King, Allen Cunningham, and Sebastian Ruthenberg.

The secondary table -- where my access was less ideal -- was probably exciting to watch as well, as start-of-day chip leader Manoj Viswanathan managed to lose his entire stack before the dinner break, then Ben Lamb (who it seems has been at the top of the counts all summer, regardless of the event) came over after dinner to terrorize the table.

My favorite part of the day, however, was probably the dinner break when I had the chance to sit down with Andrew “Foucault” Brokos (of the Thinking Poker blog) and Nate Meyvis for a nice meal at Gaylord Indian Restaurant there in the Rio.

I’d been a fan of Brokos’ blog for some time, and finally had the chance to meet him the day before. Was a great treat to get to spend a little more time getting to know both him and Meyvis, both of whom were (and are) still alive in the Main Event.

Brokos has incredibly cashed in the ME five of the last six years, his best finish being 35th in 2008. This marks Meyvis’ second straight year of cashing in the ME as well. Brokos returns today to a stack of 1.572 million (a touch above the average with 142 players left), while Meyvis has 900,000 even.

Brokos has a philosophy degree and Meyvis is working on one, and so despite the fact that I was the only one of us not alive and with chips in the WSOP Main Event, we still had a lot of common ground between us (poker, academics, writing, teaching, Two Plus Two). Definitely fun to spend time with such smart (and witty) people, although I find myself getting to do that quite a bit whenever I spend time in the poker world.

I found myself marveling a bit at how cool they both were about their current status in the event. Brokos, of course, has been in this position several times now, which obviously helps immensely when it comes to handling the pressures of going deep.

Shouldn’t be that much of a surprise, really, to see guys like Brokos, Jean-Robert Bellande, and Joseph Cheong making it to Day 6 yet again. Indeed, just glance up and down the list of the 142 remaining players and you see a lot of familiar names, guys who have time and time again negotiated large fields to make final tables and/or win these suckers. While most of us are merely playing the game, these guys really are “thinking poker” all the time, and with much greater depth than is the case for most.

Check back over at PokerNews today to see how Brokos, Meyvis, and everyone else fares. And remember ESPN2 is airing many hours of coverage every day now (on a half-hour delay), so check in over there, too, if you can.