Helping Hands

I have been keeping up with the 2016 World Series of Poker Main Event coverage on ESPN. I never watch them live, only picking them up on YouTube later -- much better without the commercials.

They’ve been rolling out a couple of episodes every Sunday, having gotten through eight so far. The last one this week finished partway through Day 6 with 51 players remaining.

I marvel at how good Lon McEachern and Norman Chad continue to be with their commentary. They do especially well pitching things in such a way that different kinds of viewers -- from the most casual fans to hardcore strategy-nerds -- can find something to focus on and enjoy. They work in plenty of grins, too, and I find myself genuinely laughing out loud a couple of times per hour either at the more overt jokes or sly “inside baseball” references occasionally snuck into the proceedings.

The first episode this week (Episode 7) began with the start of Day 6 and an interesting situation involving the player Jason McConnon. Returning to a about 25 big blinds, McConnon had brought to the feature table a “cheat sheet” ostensibly offering guidance for when to push or fold a short stack with certain hands in certain spots. You know, kind of a helping hand (pun intended).

Kenny Hallaert was sitting to McConnon’s left and mentioned to McConnon before they started how he wouldn’t be able to use the sheets during a hand. (Hallaert, who went on to make the November Nine, is a tournament director himself, likely to know something about the issue.) Then during the very first hand McConnon picked up ace-queen offsuit and pulled out the sheets to take a look. That led to a visit to the table by Tournament Director Jack Effel and a ruling that McConnon had to put his notes away while playing his hand.

There’s an article over on PokerNews today reviewing the situation and highlighting some of the WSOP’s rules that are pertinent. It actually sounds like a bit of a judgment call, though just stepping back from this particular situation I prefer players not using notes or other helpers during hands. On the broadcast Norman Chad offers a similar take as a humorous rant (made even funnier when his teleprompter “fails” him as he’s trying to finish).

The situation reminds a little of my teaching days when it did happen (rarely, but now and then) that I’d catch students trying to cheat in various ways. I’m vaguely recalling a little joke I’d make whenever passing out exams. I’d say something like, “Put your books away -- all you need is a pencil... and your brain.”

Back when I was teaching full-time, I didn’t have to deal with students being constantly online with smartphones and/or laptops, of course. Now that’s become part of the reality of the classroom, greatly affecting many instructors’ approaches to teaching and testing -- changing the pedagogical “game,” so to speak.

Some teachers ask students to put away all their electronics, kind of reverting back to a more “primitive” or even exotic-seeming situation of just simply talking to one another, perhaps with a book open and a pen and pad nearby for note-taking. I’d kind of like poker to be played that way, too -- with the phones and iPads put away and players interacting minus such interference.

But that’s not our world anymore, so I understand as well those who wouldn’t want to play that way.

Image: “110725-G-EM820-800,” US Coast Guard Academy. Public domain.

Backstory: Norman Chad on the Remko Report

Listening today to the latest “Remko Report” over on PokerNews in which Remko Rinkema has an entertaining and interesting conversation with Norman Chad, the longtime co-host of ESPN’s World Series of Poker broadcasts.

I’m a big fan of both of these guys. I’ve written here before (not too long ago) about how infectious Remko’s enthusiasm can be -- especially when it comes to poker. And Chad, too, has added a great deal to my enjoyment of the game, dating back of course to those first WSOP shows he and Lon McEachern hosted back in 2003 -- shows I vividly remember watching when they first aired and which get discussed at length on the podcast.

The pair cover a lot over the course of the show, including going back to his pre-poker days and start as a sports columnist at The Washington Post in 1984, a move to L.A. and Sports Illustrated in the early 1990s, then a fortuitous first trip to the poker rooms there in 1999.

They eventually come to Chad’s getting recruited by ESPN for that first seven-show series back in 2003, though before that is some interesting talk about Twitch and Twitter, creativity and writing/creating for an audience (and for oneself), different approaches to poker television (e.g., the “reality show” approach vs. the “poker as a sport” one), and the extent to which poker strategy and poker entertainment overlap (and are distinct).

I like hearing Chad’s discussion of the contributions of 441 Productions -- the group who produced ESPN’s WSOP broadcasts from 2003 through 2010 -- and his praise for how smartly they pulled together the shows, creating all of those many compelling stories and characters that hooked us all.

Chad also talks insightfully (and honestly) about the “creative curve” that exists with any endeavor, in his case referring to the challenge of finding ways to remain engaged and productive after 12-plus years of doing the same thing. (As someone who has kept a poker blog as long as I have, that discussion certainly resonated with me.)

There are a lot of interesting behind-the-scenes details shared regarding those early years at ESPN, and it’s funny to hear Chad confess to some initial (and, as it turned out, inaccurate) ideas about what they were up to, in particular his doubts about whether or not the shows would succeed. For example, his reasoning for why he thought Sam Farha would be a better winner than Moneymaker for poker in ’03 is both humorous and entirely understandable.

I’m kind of a sucker for this stuff -- heck, I was writing about looking back at these old WSOPs just last week. If you’re the same way or at all a fan of televised poker, check out the show.

Turn and Face the Strange

Poker’s a great game for helping a person realize how resistant we can be anything new. When something works for us once, we try it again. And if it works again, we try it a dozen more times. Then when it doesn’t work it takes us twice as long to get away from it and accept the idea of changing our ways.

Back on April Fool’s Day -- actually I think it might have been the night before -- ESPN changed the design of its website for the first time since 2009. The site had obviously been tweaked a lot over those six years, but that’s still a long time to go between overhauls for one of the most visited sites on the internet.

I read the article over on ESPN announcing the change, then clicked to see the comments afterwards. One of the changes made to the site, in fact, is that you have to click to read comments in a pop-up now, rather than just scroll down -- kind of makes comments less conspicuous, I’ve discovered, which I’ve also realized ain’t a bad thing.

It was kind of hilarious to read what was clearly a loud, angry concensus of negative reaction. Absolutely no one seemed to like the new look of the site which besides having a brighter look now conforms more closely to how people experience the site on tablets and smartphones than before.

The most “liked” comments at the top were uniformly critical. “Change it back, the new site sucks.” “This is a mess.” “Can you please go back to the old format, this wasn’t what anyone wanted.” “Perfectly awful new design.” “Daily user for 10+ years. Am completely blown away by how bad the new site it.” And so on and on and on, with plenty of April Fool’s references peppered in along the way. Everyone commenting seemed to hate the new site.

This week Norman Chad -- whom poker fans are used to hearing on ESPN quite a bit (where, now that I think about it, WSOP coverage hasn’t experienced that much change over the last decade-plus) -- chimed in with his own negative review of the redesign in his weekly “Couch Slouch” column for The Washington Post. “There’s just too much going on — it feels like I’ve walked into a pinball machine,” writes Chad amid a characteristically funny rant that concludes with a self-deprecating admission that “the problem is me, not them.”

When I first loaded the site after the redesign, I, too, was vaguely annoyed at not being able to find the things I usually sought out. But to be honest it only took a few more visits to realize the new design is much, much better than what had been there before, with most of it being very intuitive and easy to navigate.

All of this is pretty subjective stuff, though. The overwhelmingly negative reaction at first seemed to suggest something meaningful about the culture as a whole. In his column Chad noted “I hate change in general,” and the chorus of comments appeared to confirm that most people feel similarly.

The reaction also perhaps says something about the subset of surfers who bother to comment on articles -- there, too, you’re often much more likely to find comments to be critical than praising. Then there’s that other echo-chamber phenomenon that often occurs online whereby the first responses get repeated ad infinitum, especially when there’s a easy target for everyone to point to with their downward thumbs.

That said, I’m hardly one to dispute the idea of being resistant to change. It took me about five years, I think, to change this site’s background from brooding black to grim gray, and it’s almost been another four years since (never mind having stuck with essentially the same layout throughout the run).

Gonna go think about how to change this sucker into a pinball machine.

2014 WSOP Main Event Final Table Hole Cards (Complete)

As I did in 2012 and 2013, I’ve once more gone through the final table of the World Series of Poker Main Event to chronicle all of the hole cards shown during ESPN’s broadcast. Unlike in the past, you can find this year’s list over on PokerNews in a handy table form with the added bonus of links to each of the hand reports. I have also added the players’ positions, something I didn’t do in past years.

Here it is: “Complete List of All Hole Cards Shown During the 2014 WSOP Main Event Final Table.”

This year ESPN handled the hole card thing a little differently, although some may not have realized it. In the past they’d only show hole cards after a hand completed, and only of the players who were still in the pot at the very end. This time they’d show cards whenever a player entered a pot voluntarily from the start of the hand.

Thus there was no guesswork when watching the hands regarding what cards players held, which changed the nature of the commentary quite a bit. I saw a lot of divisive commentary on Twitter on Monday and Tuesday nights about Antonio Esfandiari’s analyses. While I only listened to it in bits and pieces as I gathered hands today, I’m gonna say he, Lon McEachern, and Norman Chad all acquitted themselves just fine once again on that front -- a very challenging task, really.

While there could be errors in my list -- there were 328 hands all told -- I think it’s likely more accurate than my lists from the past two years, in part because I was able to use both my DVR recording and some backup from WatchESPN online to help with a few hands my recording didn’t catch. If you can believe it, I actually used an old school VCR before, which made putting the list together a lot more taxing.

Anyhow, I hope the list will be of use to some looking to analyze more deeply the play at the 2014 WSOP ME final table. Excuse me now if I step away from the keyboard for a while, as my fingers are tired and brain is a big bowl of mush at the moment.

Dispensing With the Drama: Watching the “One Drop”

“They really should just dispense with the drama and get to the business of chopping this pot.”

So says Norman Chad during ESPN’s presentation of what was in fact one of the more dramatic hands from this summer’s “Big One for One Drop,” the one from Day 2 that saw Cary Katz eliminate Connor Drinan in a hand in which both players were dealt pocket aces, but Katz won after four hearts appeared among the community cards to give him a flush.

Here’s the hand, already posted on YouTube:

Chad is joking, trying in post-production to add to the surprise a little by suggesting to the audience that the hand would be ending in a split pot as happens almost 96% of the time in such situations.

But watching the hand tonight on ESPN’s “One Drop” coverage, I couldn’t help but think that in fact nearly all of the drama had been dispensed with, despite the unusual outcome of the hand.

Why do I say this? A lot of reasons.

Some drama is removed when we know the players’ hole cards beforehand. The suspense experienced at the time leading up to Drinan’s all-in five-bet and Katz’s instacall is not shared by the viewer whatsoever. We know as soon as we see both players’ hands how the preflop action will end.

Then, of course, for many of us watching, we know how the postflop action will end, too. For us there is no suspense at all about the hand, nor even about its place in the tournament as a whole, resulting in Drinan’s ouster and helping boost Katz somewhat toward what will be an eighth-place finish (just inside the money).

Haralabos Voulgaris opined back when the tournament was playing out that “nobody cares who wins,” which I said then I thought was not entirely untrue. That said, knowing who does win makes it that much harder to care to watch it play out again a month later.

There are other reasons why the drama is diminished for this particular hand, including the lack of backstory regarding either of the two players involved. But even if we had that backstory, that might not have helped add drama either.

Most of the players in the “One Drop” sold significant action, something alluded to in passing in the show. Drinan actually won his seat via a $25,300 satellite, then sold action afterwards to guarantee himself a profit from the tournament regardless of his finish. In other words, he certainly didn’t lose $1 million in the hand (although he did lose the chance to continue onward to play for the millions awaiting those making the final table).

And while Katz and Drinan both show some emotion, that, too, is pretty muted. “If I lose like this, whatever,” says Drinan after the flop brings two hearts to give Katz a freeroll. Then it happens, and even though there is a reaction from the crowd, both players, and observer Antonio Esfandiari saying it’s “so sick,” it’s all still kind of overwhelmingly “whatever.”

I mentioned back when the “One Drop” was playing out how lamentable it was that there was no live stream of the event. Recall how Kevmath fielded endless questions about it, then began referring followers to another Twitter account -- @NoOneDropStream -- with a single tweet delivering the bad news.

The WSOP Main Event coverage will crank up soon, and again the inherent problem of delayed coverage diminishing suspense will be evident. The live presentation of the final table should be compelling, I think, but really I can’t find myself wanting to bother with any of the edited shows in between.

We are more than a decade into this format for televised poker. It’s a format for which the drama was dispensed long, long ago.

The Long-Distance Rail

They are approaching the halfway mark now of this year’s World Series of Poker. If I had followed the pattern of the last three years, this would have been right about the day I would have been flying out to Las Vegas to start another four-week stint in the desert helping cover the WSOP for PokerNews.

As I’ve mentioned here a few times, I’m sticking close to the farm this time around. A good thing, too, as there’s a lot to take care of around here and it wouldn’t have done very well to leave Vera to all of it.

Snapped that picture above the other day of one of our neighbors. The four-legged ones, I mean. Sticking her head right through the fence like it isn’t even there. They often will come over to the edge of our property for a snack, being very “grass is greener” that way.

I haven’t necessarily missed being away from home -- never really something I liked having to do for such extended periods -- although I do miss being there and hanging with all of the many cool cats (including a lot of good friends) who work and play in Las Vegas every summer. I feel very in tune with it all, however, thanks to keeping in close touch with a lot of those who are there.

I’ve also been writing up daily recaps and previews (among other tasks), which has led to my being a lot more aware at this point of the summer what has happened thus far in all of the events than I probably would’ve been otherwise.

Been kind of intrigued by all of these $10K events thus, particularly the non-hold’em ones.

George Danzer -- winner of Event No. 18, the $10,000 Razz Championship -- is going for a second bracelet today in another of the $10K events, the Seven-Card Hi-Low, and has jumped out in front in the WSOP Player of the Year race as well. Kind of glad to be seeing Danzer break through this year after having come close to bracelets many times before. Or not “seeing” I guess, but following from afar.

I remember covering one of his near-misses two years ago when the German took runner-up in the $2,500 Omaha/Stud Hi-Low event to Oleksii Kovalchuk of Ukraine. Every spring and fall he also routinely final tables (and sometimes wins) SCOOP and WCOOP events, so wasn’t surprised at all to see him going deep in events again.

As I write they’ve just gotten down to seven players and the official table of Event No. 38, the $10,000 Stud Hi-Low Championship, meaning out of 11 career WSOP cashes Danzer has made eight final tables.

Norman Chad finished 10th in this one earlier tonight, reminding me also of that same event from 2012 where he final tabled along with Danzer, going out in sixth. Was tweeting a couple of funny hand reports from that night earlier this week that involved Chad -- the “fortune cookie hand” and the “credit card hand” -- that are worth clicking through to read for some grins.

Speaking of the “credit card hand” (in which Chad jokingly tried to raise with his Visa), the Poker Grump contributed a good article to Learn.PokerNews recently that referred to it as well as part of his discussion of table stakes. Check it out: “No, You Can’t Bet Your Covered Wagon: Talking ‘Table Stakes.’”

Okay, gonna get back to the virtual railing. Would be fun to be there, but the grass is plenty green here, too.

No Need for Introductions

Listened in on the brief conference call today conducted by ESPN concerning next week’s WSOP Main Event final table. The call featured ESPN VP of Original Programming and Production Jamie Horowitz, commentators Lon McEachern and Norman Chad, and producer Dan Gotti of Poker PROductions fielding questions from what turned out to be just a small handful of reporters.

The call only lasted a little over 20 minutes, and really there wasn’t much in the way of news to come from it aside from a confirmation of the fact that the programs next week will again feature all Main Event final table hands shown on just a 15-minute delay. The procedure for showing hole cards will be the same as employed last year, with cards only shown after the hands conclude and only those players still involved at hand’s end having their cards revealed.

On Monday, November 4, the show will begin at 5 p.m. PT/8 p.m. ET on ESPN2, which means cards are going in the air at 4:45 p.m. local time. They’ll play down from nine players to three and stop, then the last three players will return on Tuesday, November 5 with play resuming at 5:45 p.m. local time and the show getting underway at 6 p.m. Pacific/9 p.m. Eastern on ESPN. Antonio Esfandiari will be providing analysis to assist McEachern and Chad, and Phil Hellmuth will be involved again, too, it sounds like.

That was about it, news-wise. There was some fun at the end of the call as reference was made to Chad’s WSOP final table from a year ago -- an event I had a chance to help cover -- as well as McEachern’s WSOP Circuit final table this week (he finished fourth in a WSOP-C prelim at Harveys Lake Tahoe).

“We’ve been trying to school the audience for years that it’s a game of skill,” complained Chad, joking that McEachern making a WSOP-C final table offered serious counter-evidence to that argument.

Earlier McEachern did make an interesting point about the effect of having a delayed final table and the whole “November Nine” format, something I’d been aware of but hadn’t thought too much about before.

He was responding to a question about players perhaps lacking personality and thus not being especially entertaining to watch. McEachern didn’t directly address that judgment, but did say that “a bonus” that has come from the delayed final table format is that it does, in fact, create conditions for the nine players to get to know one another during the intervening months, which can lead to more openness and interaction at the tables.

“The November Nine concept allows the players to spend a lot more time together,” said McEachern, noting how several who made it to the WSOP Europe in France were seen dining out or sight-seeing with each other. “So they get to know each other better, and I think that will help, as it were, ‘break the ice’ as we get to the final table.”

The shared experience of making the WSOP Main Event final table likely encourages a kind of bond, which in turn increases the chances that these guys are connecting during the nearly four-month delay. And while that may or may not translate into more table talk or entertaining-to-watch poker, I get what McEachern is saying.

For those of us for whom the poker will provide enough to keep us engaged, we aren’t worried so much about the players entertaining us in other ways. After all, if it goes nearly 400 hands like last year, it’s only reasonable to anticipate some down time.

Everything Is Wild: On the Packers-Seahawks Game; or, Simultaneous Botch

With about eight-and-a-half minutes left to go in the fourth quarter of the NFL game between the Green Bay Packers and the Seattle Seahawks last night, Seattle got the ball on their own 20 down 12-7, hoping to begin a long late-game drive to victory.

On the first play of that drive, quarterback Russell Wilson threw a pass down the right sideline that was intercepted by Packers cornerback Jerron Williams, a play which appeared as though it might help lock up a win for Green Bay. But a penalty against the Packers’ Eric Walden for roughing the passer nullified the interception, and Seattle retained possession.

The call had been highly sketchy-looking. The quarterback Wilson had been running with the ball, and Williams lunged at his feet to tackle him as he threw. It definitely looked as though it should not have been a penalty.

But I wasn’t that surprised by the flag. That’s because I had just watched yet another weekend’s worth of crazy, unpredictable, and flat-out incorrect calls by the so-called “replacement referees,” the ones working games while the regular, experienced refs are locked out from working over a labor dispute.

That is to say, like many fans, I had started to become accustomed used to such weirdness -- e.g., unexpected flags, surprising calls, etc. I realized I’d instinctively begun to temper all responses to plays, delaying my reaction as I waited to see whether or not what I had just seen would be called back, or a ruling would be revised, or a challenge would be upheld, and so on.

I wasn’t even pulling for either team, especially. I picked the Packers to win in Pauly’s Pub “pick ’em” pool, but so did most everyone else, which meant a win or loss wouldn’t really affect the standings. But I nonetheless realized I was starting to get weary of all the uncertainty that came with trying to follow the game.

Others on my Twitter feed had been commenting on the game and the poor officiating throughout the night. That’s when I thought I’d weigh in, too.

“The NFL has turned into a game of do-overs and didn't-counts,” I tweeted. “No play ever is as it appears.”

Little did I realize what was to come. And how that observation would subsequently apply.

Another blunder from the refs would follow, an incredible, obviously wrong call of defensive pass interference that gave Seattle 30-plus yards of field position. Seattle ultimately saw their drive stall deep in Green Bay territory, the Packers had to punt it back with less than a minute to go, and the Seahawks drove down to the Packer 24-yard-line. Three incomplete passes later, they faced a fourth down with just eight seconds left. Seattle would have to throw into the endzone on what was likely going to be the last play of the game.

You know what happened next. Wilson threw the pass. Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings went up above a crowd to catch it. Seattle receiver Golden Tate pushed Packer defensive back Sam Shields to the ground, jumped for the ball and landed next to Jennings, kinda sorta jamming his hands where Jennings held it against his chest. Two referees -- neither of whom had been close to the area of the catch -- rushed over, took a quick look, then at the same time one signaled touchback (an interception) while the other signaled touchdown.

Madness ensued, punctuated by a reiteration of the touchdown call, a very rapid replay review to confirm, a much-delayed extra point by Seattle, and a 14-12 Seahawks win. Norman Chad swiftly tweeted a jokey comparison to the infamous conclusion to the 1972 Olympic gold medal basketball game between the U.S.-U.S.S.R., which was actually quite apt.

“No play is ever as it appears” I had said. This one clearly appeared one way, was ruled differently, and as a result the wrong team won the game.

It was not a “simultaneous catch” (that thus goes to the offensive player). It was a simultaneous botch.

Football is a game that like most involves a certain element of chance. Having referees fail to enforce rules consistently or accurately adds significantly to that chance element. The obvious analogy from poker would be to introduce certain changes in the rules or to create a variant which necessarily heightens the luck of the game -- i.e., which lessens players’ ability to affect outcomes.

Just a couple of minutes after my tweet, political commentator and comedian Bill Maher offered an analogy from poker to characterize how odd NFL football had become. “So the NFL with replacement refs is now like a card game with Jokers included as wild cards,” he said. “Every 10 plays or so it just makes no sense.”

Maher really is making two different points, the first of which corresponds to the one I’m saying about chance in poker. Adding wild cards certainly does increase the luck element in poker. As John Lukacs wrote in his 1963 essay “Poker and American Character,” poker becomes more of a “gambling game” as more wild cards are introduced. “It is a contest not between human personalities who represent themselves through money and cards,” complains Lukacs, “but between cards held fortuitously by certain individuals.”

Maher’s second point is more like the sentiment I had just tweeted. And distinct from what he’s saying about playing with jokers which is kind of a tangential idea referring to how players unfamiliar with wild-card games find them confusing. From a spectator’s point of view (I was saying of the NFL), the game frequently “makes no sense” with all the “do-overs” and “didn’t counts.”

And, of course, plays that aren’t as they appear.

I might draw a poker analogy from James Thurber’s great 1932 short story “Everything Is Wild” that features a character named Mr. Brush inventing a poker variant on the spot he claims goes by the names of “Soap-in-Your-Eye” and “Kick-in-the-Pants.” (Hear the story read on episode 13 of the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show.)

The game is utterly incomprehensible, with multiple (and changing) wild cards and plays foreign to other variants. As a result no one other than Brush has any idea what is going on as they play. (There’s a partial explanation in the paragraph to the left.)

Of course, the game that Brush invents is not designed to be a context for actual competition -- it is a big ruse fashioned by himself for his own amusement and to get back at others whom he believes are too enamored with wild-card games.

Players and coaches in these NFL games are very much in the position of Brush’s opponents right now, with rules being misinterpreted and misapplied with such frequency that it feels like the game itself is becoming something other than the one they’d formerly played, a game in which outcomes are being controlled less and less by what they do.

To say the NFL has become a “wild-card game” at present is an understatement. I can’t imagine having to play it right now for high stakes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012 WSOP, Day 44: And Doyle Makes 6,598

Numbers geeks (a group to which I occasionally admit belonging) watched the final tally closely yesterday, tracking the number playing Day 1c of the 2012 World Series of Poker Main Event, the last of the three Day 1 flights.

Once late registration finally closed a total of 3,418 came to play on Monday, making the overall turnout for the 2012 WSOP ME add up to 6,598. That’s a bit shy of last year’s 6,865, which was also down a touch from the 7,319 that played in 2010. Still a huge number, and really we might as well say the ME has essentially been holding steady attendance-wise throughout the post-UIGEA era (2007-onward).

I was writing yesterday about the relative lack of spectacle at the Main Event compared to years past. In part I was thinking about the goofy, sideshow stuff such as players coming dressed as Snow White and the like. I suppose I was also remembering the first time I came to the WSOP, when the UNLV marching band wound through the Amazon room playing “Viva Las Vegas” with Wayne Newton singing and announcing “Shuffle up and deal.”

Yesterday’s Day 1c did see some of that. There was a player with yellow crime scene tape wrapped around his head like a bandana. Another came dressed as a large banana. And Spider-Man played, that is, a dude dressed in a Spider-Man get-up, not Tobey Maguire (who has played and cashed in the Main Event in the past).

Speaking of actors, Jason Alexander played yesterday, sporting a “porn stache” and sideburns thanks to his being in the middle of shooting a film set in the ’70s. The director Mars Callahan was there, as was cricket player Shane Warne and basketballer Earl Barron.

Jonathan Duhamel was awarded a new bracelet for his 2010 WSOP Main Event win, the original having been damaged after that scary home invasion and robbery that included the bracelet being stolen and recovered. And Antonio Esfandiari was given a big comedy check for $18,346,673 for his win in the $1,000,000 buy-in “Big One for One Drop.”

Our buddy Kevin Mathers also played yesterday, lasting most of the day until running pocket queens into Jamie Kerstetter’s pocket aces to go out during the last level. Kevmath had a ton of support from those recognizing his significant contributions to the poker community, and I know I got a kick out of his getting to play the ME.

Of all the stories yesterday, though, Doyle Brunson changing his mind and deciding to play this year’s Main Event was the one that stood out for me yesterday (photo: Joe Giron/WSOP.com). As I mentioned yesterday, he’d earlier tweeted his intention not to play this time around, but mid-afternoon sent a note saying he was having “second thoughts” since the ME was “such a great event.”

Finally he did join the thousands of Day 1c entrants and took a seat, managing to build the starting stack of 30,000 up to 81,400 by day’s end. That means he’ll be there for the second Day 2 flight tomorrow, when I’ll be back on the reporting beat.

Brunson is the only one of the 6,598 playing in the 2012 WSOP Main Event who was around for the very first WSOP back in 1970. He’s played in every ME since except during the period from 1999-2001. (He sat out during those years amid the family feud that saw Becky Binion-Behnen take over control of the Horseshoe and institute a number of changes to the WSOP.)

While there are dozens in poker who might justly be regarded as “ambassadors” for the game, Brunson transcends them all.

Sure, his longevity is remarkable, and being able to play the game at such a high level for more than half a century certainly distinguishes him from pretty much all of his contemporaries. But Brunson has always been much more than just a great player. While he’d shrug off such grandiose claims, he really is a “living legend,” and over the decades has come to represent numerous positive aspects of the game, including the way it rewards skill and demands integrity.

Of course, besides being a symbol or icon, he’s a real person, too, with plenty of flaws just like the rest of us. Just read his memoir, The Godfather of Poker, where he confesses to many.

He’d said he wasn’t going to play the Main Event this year because he was “really tired after 6 weeks of tough cash games, playing 10-12 hours every day.” That explanation made me think of how I, too, began this year’s Main Event feeling tired after many long days that were taxing both physically and mentally. But Brunson is nearly twice my age, and this year I’ve only been here at the WSOP half as long.

All of which is to say, I lamented Brunson’s skipping the ME, but certainly understood the decision if he were not to play. But I’m glad he changed his mind and decided to play. And I look forward to seeing him sit down again on Wednesday and continue to try to work up that stack to which he’s coming back.

I’m off again today, but will be on every day from Wednesday through the end when they play down to the final table next Monday.

Am thinking I might get back over to the MGM today for that weekly H.O.R.S.E. tourney. I hear Norman Chad might be playing as well, which provides further incentive to play. Wouldn’t want to miss an opportunity to get whamboozled in a stud/8 hand versus the graduate of University of Maryland, home of the Ragin’ Cajuns.

2012 WSOP, Day 29: Adults Playing Games

“Pretty good deal, if you think about it,” I said to Jessica Welman late yesterday afternoon. “Adults playing games.”

Jessica, who this year has moved into a position as Managing Editor of WSOP.com, had stopped by the event I was helping cover, Event No. 42, the $2,500 Omaha/Seven-Card Stud Hi-Low Split-8 or Better event that had reached its final day. Was one of those scenes worth stopping for.

No, Jessica and I weren’t watching poker being played. It was another mulit-player game, Achtung, for the iPad.

They’d reached the first 20-minute break of the day, with 15 of the 22 players who’d started the day still with chips. I spent the first half of the break chatting and catching up with my friend Tom Schneider, one of the 15.

That’s when Bryan Devonshire, sporting a wide-brimmed cowboy hat, strolled over with his iPad. “C’mon,” he said to Schneider. “Yeah, yeah... I’m in,” said Schneider.

Soon Schneider and a couple of other players still alive in the tourney, Perry Friedman and Mike Krescanko, were huddled around the iPad with Devonshire, all playing Achtung, a game in which each directs a glowing line around the screen with arrows in the corner, trying to cut each other off to be the last one standing. Not unlike the goal of the tourney itself, although the reward for winning was a little different.

Eventually others jumped in to take turns, including my blogging partner Rich, and I stepped back to snap a pic. Finally the break ended, and the other game -- the one with cards and chips -- resumed.

It was the kind of day that reminded one how despite all the drama and seriousness that necessarily will accompany any contest in which participants’ money is put at risk, we are, essentially, watching adults playing games.

Seemed like most of the players who’d made it to those last two tables in Event No. 42 were having a good time. Helped that a number of them are witty, personable guys, too, such as Devonshire, Schneider, and Friedman. Lots of fun table talk punctuated the play throughout the day and evening, with those guys involved a lot of the time.

At one point Devonshire strolled over to Schneider’s table between hands to ask him how things were going. “Want to go fishing?” he added, and Schneider laughed. “I’m kinda bored.”

Meanwhile Friedman had ’em chuckling back at Devo’s table with his self-deprecating (and tongue-in-cheek) analysis of his own play. After winning an Omaha/8 hand in which he’d defended his big blind with a subpar starter, then stubbornly called down to eek out half the pot with a weak high hand, he half-jokingly explained how it had been his experience as a Full Tilt Poker red pro that made him such a calling station.

“Players always tried to bluff me, so I got used to calling a lot,” explained Friedman, wearing a green t-shirt with “NO SOUP FOR YOU” in big white block letters on the front. “I should’ve gotten over that after more than a year, though,” he grinned.

None of those guys would make it to the final table, going out successively in 13th (Schneider), 12th (Friedman), and 11th (Devonshire). But another who also brought the funny did make it that far, long time poker commentator Norman Chad.

Chad actually began the final eight-handed table with a second-place stack, though ultimately saw his run end in sixth place (out of 393 entrants).

Chad wasn’t always cracking wise during play, and in fact was mostly quite serious. But once he got short stacked with six players left, the fun really began.

First came a Stud/8 hand in which a player completed, another called, and the action was on Chad. As he considered what to do, he fished out a fortune cookie, opened it, and began to eat as he read.

“Within the week you will receive an unexpected gift,” he said, sharing what the slip of paper said. “That’s kind of vague,” he decided, and then folded.

It was the Omaha/8 round when Chad finally decided to commit his last chips. I’d noticed a hand or two before Chad had his wallet out underneath the table, and so had a feeling he was planning something else mischievous.

Sure enough, when betting in his last chips, Chad additionally produced a VISA card as well as his AAA card and pushed them forward. “This one has a $50,000 limit,” he deadpanned, pointing to the VISA and suggesting he’d like to use some credit to increase his bet. (Those pictures above of Chad playing his last hand was snapped by always-on-the-spot Joe Giron for PokerNews.)

Fun stuff. And a final table, too. Gotta give the man some credit (rim shot).

After Chad’s elimination things did grow relatively more serious until the young Ukrainian Oleksii Kovalchuk finally took the last of George Danzer’s chips to give the 22-year-old his second WSOP bracelet in two years.

There were probably 30 or so people there cheering Kovalchuk on, and when the final Omaha/8 card fell on the river, they came up to the table and surrounded him, all hugging and cheering.

Soon they were actually lifting him up and throwing him aloft -- no shinola -- something I don’t think I’ve ever seen happen at a tourney before. They weren’t too agile about it, actually dropping him on the floor which led to more laughter. But he was back on his feet in an instant to receive more hugs and congratulations.

It was a suitable conclusion to a day filled with grins from beginning to end. With reminders, too, that at the heart of it, we’re mostly a bunch of adults playing games here. And that really is a pretty good deal.

To Vegas, To Friends

Am sitting in a terminal, awaiting the call to board my flight to Las Vegas where I’ll be for the next month helping to cover the World Series of Poker.

At this moment, I am amid hundreds of others, their conversations, the occasional toddlers’ cries, and a steady stream of updates and announcements filling the upholstered, air-conditioned space we all share.

I’m surrounded. I’m also alone.

A little while ago, Vera dropped me off at the airport on her way to work. She’ll be coming out to visit for a few days in early July. No fun to leave her, but the fact that I’m going out for just four weeks -- and she’ll be there in a little over two -- made the goodbye stuff a little easier this time.

Spent most of the morning finishing the business of packing for a month away from home. Have become increasingly proficient at paring down over the years, managing this time to get it all in one large suitcase to check and a shoulder bag to carry. Even so, as I sit here waiting, I can’t help but be stricken off and on by thoughts of having forgotten some vital something or other.

Not too worrying, though. If it’s really important, Vera can either mail it or bring it when she comes. And when it comes down to it, there ain’t all that much in the way of the stuff we pack up and carry around with us that’s really important.

Speaking of what is important, I am also starting to think about all the friends and colleagues I’ll be seeing soon. While I’m excited about seeing some poker and helping tell the story of this year’s WSOP, I’m also looking forward to all of the reunions, reconnections, and rendez-vous.

Poker does that, you know. Brings folks together, I mean. The idea came up briefly in Norman Chad’s most recent Washington Post column, although his primary purpose was to defend poker against its many detractors. The piece carries the somewhat bland title “World Series of Poker celebrates the great American game,” although you might’ve seen it syndicated elsewhere with alternate headlines like “We poker players deserve respect.”

It’s probably better to describe Chad as having taken the offensive, too, not just countering others’ criticisms but adopting that tried-and-true table strategy of being more aggressive. Perhaps he has been emboldened by that 12th-place finish in Event No. 25, the $1,500 Seven-Card Stud Hi-Low Split-8 or Better event.

“We’re tired of getting pushed around and treated like outcasts when we’re doing nothing wrong,” writes Chad. “Poker is as American as baseball and apple pie, and the game involves math, psychology, money management and a variety of other nuanced skills that make hitting a 90-mph fastball look simple.”

Check out the piece yourself to see how Chad furthers his argument for poker, not just promoting the game to sports’ level of cultural acceptance, but even higher.

Like I say, Chad also talks about poker bringing folks together. Early on, Chad speaks of his annual trek to Vegas. “I come here for the desert calm, the dry heat, the scent of gambling” he begins, noting a little later how he likes to “gather with kindred souls from around the world trying to outwit and outluck each other.”

That’s a big part of poker’s appeal, of course, the way it provides a means for like-minded types to find one another and connect. Same goes for the reporters, I’d say, among whom I know I’ll be finding a number of “kindred souls” once I arrive.

So I’m alone, for now. But not lonely.

Still, I have this Andrew Gold song stuck in my head. The ’70s pop star sadly passed away a couple of weeks ago, and as a result a few of his hits have resurfaced amid the chatter and noise of contemporary life. You might remember “Thank You for Being a Friend.” But the one I keep thinking of is the super-catchy “Lonely Boy,” the one with the weird, out-of-step rhythm. Another great one for the mix tape.

Like I say, I ain’t lonely. But I think I’ll spin this one anyway while I wait here by myself.

Talkin’ WSOP on ESPN

Yesterday I had the opportunity to participate in a conference call conducted by the WSOP and ESPN in which the topic of discussion was the upcoming Main Event final table. Hard to believe that’ll finally be happening in a little over a week!

For a full write-up of the call (which lasted about 45 minutes), head to Betfair Poker where I’ve sorted out into topics most of the items that were discussed.

When my turn arose, I asked a couple of questions. The first was about the logo/patch situation. I mentioned in yesterday’s post how Full Tilt Poker has seven sponsored players among the November Nine, yet there is that WSOP rule regarding televised tables that limits sponsors to having just three players sport their logos.

I was curious about the issue because earlier in the week on “This Week in Poker” one of those seven players -- John Racener -- had indicated he was under the impression that all seven would be wearing Full Tilt patches. But Ty Stewart, VP of Harrah’s/WSOP, confirmed yesterday that the rule would certainly be enforced.

I noted yesterday how it seemed curious that even the players being sponsored by FTP didn’t know which three among them would be patched. On the same show, Victory Poker CEO Dan Fleyshman recognized Full Tilt Poker’s strategy here -- by not announcing early which three players will be representing the site, all seven players remain identified with Full Tilt Poker right up until the start of the final table.

I wonder, though, if this strategy might negatively affect the chances for the four players who will not be wearing FTP logos to score alternate deals?

I directed my second question to Lon McEachern and Norman Chad, the commentators for ESPN’s WSOP coverage. I asked them to talk about the fact that they’ve been doing this same gig for more than seven years now.

Since I didn’t cover that question over on Betfair, I thought I’d share their response here. McEachern was the first to answer.

“You know, honestly, as Norman has mentioned a number of times, it was his dream as a kid to sit around and watch people play poker,” McEachern cracked.

“That’s all of our dreams!” I said jokingly. “Yeah, exactly!” said McEachern with a laugh. Then came the real response.

“For myself,” said McEachern, “I was doing a lot of niche sports with ESPN for a number of years, and that was kind of my bailiwick to do some oddball sports. Baseball, football, basketball... that was all taken up. So when [the chance to cover the WSOP arose], I had the foothold. I was the only one at ESPN doing it.”

McEachern went on speak with humility about how the pair has yet to “screw it up” thus far, and in fact have “grown in the role” and gotten better as the years have passed.

This “right-place-right-time” theme was something Chad touched upon as well in his response.

“As far as the ‘poker boom’ goes and ESPN’s success with the World Series of Poker [is concerned], Lon and I are just passengers in the getaway car,” said Chad. “This all would have happened with or without us, and we just happened to be there and as Lon mentioned we haven’t screwed up.... We’ve somehow stayed there since it began in ’03, but it’s just happenstance. It was a piano falling out of the sky for me, and instead of crushing me it landed next to me. And I knew how to play the piano.”

I liked their responses, and especially Chad’s choice of metaphors. Made me think a lot about the good fortune I’ve enjoyed thus far writing about poker and the opportunities that have come my way. Also made me think a little about poker, too, and how luck so often plays an important role there.

Stewart then chimed in to add a few words of praise for McEachern and Chad, noting how in his opinion “their longevity is a testament to the fact that they’re the best and they’re true professionals.”

Stewart noted how he’d been with the WSOP for five years now, and how early on he “made the mistake” of checking out “Two Plus Two and some of those other crazy poker sites.” He saw how those sites do feature a lot of critical commentary on all things poker, but recognized that “people universally agree” that McEachern and Chad do a terrific job.

Of course, one doesn’t have to hunt around very long on Two Plus Two to find criticisms of ESPN and the commentators. But I think Stewart is basically right to point out that McEachern and Chad are liked by many, and on the whole do receive a lot more praise than censure. I know I am a fan of both, for sure.

Like I say, for more on the conference call, click on over to Betfair Poker.

Talking WSOP Main Event Final Table: ESPN Conference Call

Had a very enjoyable conversation with Jim McManus yesterday, whose new book, Cowboys Full: The Story of Poker, has finally come out this week. I wrote a little something about the book here last week. I’ve also been invited to review it for a couple of other places, and my interview of McManus will additionally be appearing on a website near you -- not this one -- in the not-too-distant future. (More on that to come!)

We talked a lot about the new book, as well poker writing in general. I had a list of questions and got through just about all of them, although I noticed afterwards one question had gone unasked. Since McManus is not only a person who has studied World Series of Poker history, but has helped write it and, in fact, is part of that history himself (having made the WSOP Main Event final table back in 2000), I had meant to ask him his thoughts regarding the current state of the WSOP Main Event, in particular his opinion on the delayed final table. But we’d gotten onto other things and that one fell through the cracks.

As it happened, around the time I was chatting with McManus, ESPN was having a conference call with the media to talk about the upcoming final table, which finally will be getting started in just a little over a week. George McNeilly, Senior Director of Corporate and Consumer Communications for ESPN, moderated the call, with Lon McEachern and Norman Chad, the WSOP show commentators, and Doug White, the Senior Director of Programming and Acquisitions for ESPN, offering their thoughts and fielding the questions. I had a chance to listen to that call later on, thanks to our buds over at Pokerati.

Things began with McNeilly noting that there will be a live blog over on ESPN.com (kept by Andrew Feldman, I’m assuming), as well as a “poker pick’em” game with trivia questions about the final table. Chad noted early on that he was particularly focused on the storylines of Phil Ivey, Joe Cada (trying to become the youngest ME winner ever), and “the logger coming out of the woods,” Darvin Moon. Later on Chad would say the presence of these three players and their stories made this year’s FT the “most fascinating” for him “since we started doing it in 2003.” Later a reporter from The Washington Post tried to characterize these nine players as “one of the least charismatic groups you’ll ever see,” but both Chad and McEachern begged to differ.

The first questions concerned coaching -- it appears Jeff Shulman is the only one of the players thus far to have publicly acknowledged having hired a coach (Phil Hellmuth) -- and the effect of the delay. Then Stephen Murphy of Card Player asked an interesting question about that Phil Ivey hand aired earlier this week, the one in which Ivey mucked the winner at showdown.

“My first reaction was somehow something was wrong with the tape,” said Chad, who called it “a stunning thing to see.” McEachern added that Ivey’s gaffe proved “this [kind of mistake] does happen even to the best, because the grind tests every fiber of a player’s mind and spirit.” They added that as far as they knew, Ivey may not have known he had made the mistake until the show aired this week. Would they ask him about it? Of course, said Chad, who guessed that Ivey would probably say “‘Thank goodness it didn’t happen in the Big Game.’”

Midway through the call they took a break to give summaries of all nine players. One interesting point made by Chad was the fact that of these nine, there are three players in their 20s, three in their 30s, and three in their 40s and 50s. McEachern said he favors Eric Buchman to win it all, and Chad said he thought Moon would not bully the table with his big stack but instead play it conservatively so as to guarantee himself a finish in the top four or five.

Dan Cypra of Poker News Daily asked about the pros and cons of a Moon victory, as well as that of an Ivey win. McEachern said there was “a huge upside for both players winning,” speaking particularly of a Moneymaker-like effect should Moon take it down. “The stuff of storybooks,” said Chad of a possible Moon victory, sort of echoing himself from earlier ESPN broadcasts. Near the end of the call, they talked a bit more about Moon and the fact that he has yet to accept any sponsorship deals. Chad suspects he will ultimately take a one-day deal and be wearing a logo of some sort at the FT, though thinks it would be cool if he didn’t.

Gary Trask of Casino City Media asked about the production of the final table and whether ESPN had learned anything from last year. “We heard our fans loud and clear,” said Doug White, adding that they were “hoping to show a little bit more of heads-up play” this time around. Along those lines, we also heard reports yesterday -- not in the conference call, but elsewhere -- that ESPN Senior Producer Jamie Horowitz is saying that ESPN is reserving the possibility of extending its programming on Tuesday night (November 10) beyond the scheduled two hours so as to show more of heads-up play.

Answering another question, White said he did think the ratings for this year’s final table would exceed last year’s, and he also intimated that the plan for 2010 will likely be to follow a similar schedule as we saw this year, with a lot of shows devoted to the Main Event (and not so many to the prelims).

There will be no preview show this year, but as McEachern pointed out “we’ve already introduced all of the players to America already” and so ESPN won’t be taking away from showing hands in order to bother too much with that during the final table show. There will be a feature on Phil Ivey next Tuesday night on ESPN’s “E:60” show (at 7:00 p.m. Eastern time).

Those were the highlights. Not too much in the way of news, really, and in fact, the only real news of the day didn’t come from the conference call, but in that report in which Horowitz said they might show more than two hours of coverage on November 10.

I may well follow up with McManus to ask him his thoughts regarding the Main Event final table. I’m remembering that the year he made the ME final table -- 2000 -- where he finished fifth, Jeff Shulman also went deep, being eliminated in 7th. (The televised final table was six-handed that year, the last year before the switch to a nine-handed FT.)

In any event, I’m sure that like the rest of us, he, too, will be curious to see how this next chapter of “the story of poker” plays out.

Have a good weekend, all.