Bags of Dreams

You might have heard something over the last few days about this strange eBay auction in which a seller has been attempting to find someone willing to purchase “FINAL TABLE 2008 World Series of Poker Main Event HEADS UP CHIP BAGS.” That’s right, the lot includes the two big plastic bags in which Peter Eastgate and Ivan Demidov collected their chips prior to their heads-up duel five years ago.

The seller, a fellow named Scott Neuman, created an elaborate eBay listing that features a couple of pictures of the bags and about a dozen of himself. Also included is the story of how Neuman secured these precious commodities, having bid on the bags himself in an auction for charity conducted by the WSOP following the conclusion of the 2008 Main Event.

Neuman’s auction probably wouldn’t have gotten much attention in the poker world if not for the fact that someone started a thread regarding it over in Two Plus Two. And that person probably wouldn’t have found the auction or started the thread if it weren’t for the fact that Neuman’s listing price for the two ripped open clear plastic bags was just a little higher than one might expect...

$15,000! No shinola.

Alas for Neuman, his auction concluded this morning without a sale. That is to say, he was left holding the bags.

It looks like there were two offers, both declined. It’s been a number of years since I bought or sold anything on eBay and so I’m not up on how things work there these days, but I assume the offers probably came in a bit below the asking price.

But wait... good news! He has relisted them! And still at the same bargain price!

Actually, reading the auction listing more carefully shows that Neuman appears to be attempting to sell the bags as an indirect way of drumming up a kind of backing for his right-on-the-verge-of-finally-breaking-through poker career. Actually, the whole scheme isn’t just indirect, it’s pretty much transparent.

You know, like the bags.

As he explains, he intends to use the $15,000 to buy into unspecified poker tournaments. Again, I’m not up on eBay’s policies at the moment, but I’m guessing offering the bags as the nominal sale item is a kind of work-around to simply asking for money to pay for entry fees.

Additionally, the person forking over the $15K not only gets the bags but the chance at scoring some percentage of Neuman’s winnings from those tourneys, too -- i.e., “a bonus that is completely up to me.” Of course, Neumann can’t specify the amount of that bonus. Nor can he even guarantee there would even be one. Indeed, as he says two times -- the second time using all caps for emphasis -- “I CAN NOT PROMISE I WILL CASH.”

Caveat emptor, then. The bonus isn’t in the bag.

Obviously there’s more to the story of this eccentric entrepreneur, and a few idle searches online make it sound like he’s been up to similar shenanigans for a number of years, with a couple of other weird-seeming sponsorship arrangements among his bag of tricks (and only a few modest results over that period).

Not too interested, really, to discover anything more about this particular character. That is to say, I don’t really care one way or the other what his bag really is.

Have to admit, though, it’s kind of inspired... this idea to try to sell bags full of nothing.

In Favor of Small Stakes

“No one ever abandons Poker that plays it on small limited stakes.”

So wrote John Blackbridge, a New York City lawyer, who in 1875 first published The Complete Poker-Player: A Practical Guide Book to the American National Game.

We read an excerpt this week from Blackbridge’s book in my “Poker in American Film and Culture” class. Kind of a strategy guide that also includes general observations about the state of poker ca. late-19th century as well as some wonky stuff about probabilities and the math of the game (talkin’ draw poker, natch).

The excerpt we read appears in the 2004 anthology of poker writings, Read ‘Em and Weep, edited by John Stravinsky. It begins with Blackbridge noting many examples of the various forms of cheating that were rampant in poker games of his day, then segues into more general advice about dealing with losing -- what we would call controlling “tilt” -- and the virtues of playing for small stakes.

Blackbridge offers a few different arguments on behalf of sticking to the smaller games, one of which being his conviction that the cheaters tend to leave such games alone, choosing to sit down at the larger games instead. It’s a point we’ve heard brought up time and again in the context of possible instances of online cheating, where many believe (naïvely or otherwise) the microstakes games are the least likely targets of the colluders and other modern-day “sharps.”

But Blackbridge also has a lot to say about the importance of playing within one’s means, which allows one to retain a “contented mind,” minimizing emotion and thus thinking clearly at the table. “No man can play his game well if he feels that on the turn of a card depends his solvency,” writes Blackbridge. He doesn’t use the term “bankroll” or speak of the importance of managing such, but that’s precisely the lesson he’s teaching to his readers.

Such, then, is another argument in favor of sticking to “small limited stakes.” In Blackbridge’s experience, “Nearly all Poker-players that eventually abandon the game do so because they have suffered by large play,” having been either beaten out of their money fairly or having been cheated by a sharp.

It’s an interesting point the attorney is making. Of course, there are plenty of folks who give up poker without ever rising above the smallest stakes. But I suppose Blackbridge is persuasive when he suggests that it is much more likely those who stick to the low-stakes games will continue to play, finding enjoyment in the game that perhaps is not directly linked to the amount of money won or lost at it.

Couldn’t help but think a little of Blackbridge’s observation this week when I heard the news that 2008 WSOP Main Event champion Peter Eastgate would be coming out of his so-called “retirement” to play EPT Copenhagen and in the NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship in March. Not the first instance of a high-stakes player having announced he was “abandoning” poker. (Or of the player coming back, either.)

I wrote a little something about Eastgate -- as well as that Griffin-Qureshi prop bet discussed in yesterday’s post -- in a piece over on Betfair Poker today, titled “The Limits of Being Human in a No-Limit World.” Tried there to address the notion that these guys who play for the highest-stakes, while sometimes thought to be somehow greater than (or at least different from) us regular folk, are in fact as human as the rest of us.

And if you’re looking for something else to read, you can take a look at some of Blackbridge’s excerpt in this Google Books preview.

Have to pick up Stravinsky’s anthology to see the entire excerpt, I’m afraid. Or I suppose you could find an original copy of The Complete Poker-Player.

I’m gonna guess, though, that would be a bit too pricey for those of us who stick to “small limited stakes.”

On Eastgate and the Bracelet; or, Must WSOP Main Event Champs Do Our Bidding?

I haven’t used Ebay in quite some time. I have an account on there, and some years ago had fun buying a number of old vinyl copies of records I’d been seeking. Sold a few things on there as well, if I recall. But somewhere along the way Amazon and other outlets started offering used items on the cheap, and I found it easier just to pick up items there.

Ebay has somehow survived without my patronage, however, as I saw when I returned to the site this week. I went back because I was curious to see what was happening with Peter Eastgate’s 2008 World Series of Poker Main Event bracelet, which you might have heard the young Dane has decided to sell and give the proceeds to UNICEF.

Here’s the auction, if you’re curious. The bidding started at $16,000, I believe, and it looks like with a little under a week to go the current top bid is $45,100.

Not a lot of details there on the auction page about the bracelet itself, other than a note explaining that it has a total weight of 168 grams of 18k white gold with 291 small “brilliant” cut diamonds set onto it. I read somewhere that the net value of the sucker is somewhere around that $16,000 mark where the bidding began, though I’m not positive about that. I think it is probably safe to say, though, that the current bid is probably well above whatever the materials are worth.

Hard not to wonder a little about Eastgate’s decision to let go of the bracelet, the symbolic or “sentimental” value of which most certainly exceeds whatever value any appraiser might assign to it. Of course, we did hear a few months ago that Eastgate, now aged 24, had declared he was stepping away from poker, perhaps for a short while, or maybe even for good. Thus does the news of his selling of the bracelet perhaps come as a little bit less of a surprise.

That announcement came in July, just before the start of this year’s Main Event. “It was never my goal to spend the rest of my life as a professional poker player,” said Eastgate at the time, noting that since his victory he’d discovered that he had “lost [his] motivation for playing high-level poker.” Rather than continue doing something to which he was no longer dedicated, he decided to opt for a different path, seeking, as he put it, “to find out what I want to do with the rest of my life.” (Here’s the CardPlayer article sharing that news.)

Coupled with that announcement, the selling of the bracelet appears to take on an additional significance, perhaps symbolizing for Eastgate a sincere commitment to his decision to move away from poker.

Some have expressed dismay over Eastgate’s decisions both to leave poker and to sell the much-coveted bracelet, now regarding him as one who has clearly failed to live up to those expectations many seem to have for WSOP Main Event champs to serve subsequently as “ambassadors” for the game. While I can’t say I share that view, I think I do understand from where it comes.

I remember way back in 2006 writing a post -- “Assessing the Gold Standard” -- in which I reacted to Jamie Gold’s victory in the Main Event and talked a little about the expectations awaiting him. There I said I believed “it should be understood that winning the bracelet need not require one to fill any particular, Miss-America-type diplomatic role.”

Like I say, I don’t really feel much differently about the issue today. However, I do recognize things have changed for poker since the summer of 2006. A lot.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, signed into law just a few short weeks after Gold’s WSOP win, is by most observers’ estimation a piece of legislation that has utterly failed in many, many regards. However, the UIGEA did succeed in accomplishing one thing, namely, to put online poker in particular -- and perhaps poker in general -- on the defensive.

Ever since the game’s introduction in the early 19th century, poker has been viewed by some (or many) as an illicit pursuit, and thus has always needed to be defended by those who think otherwise about the game and believe it is worthwhile to counter objections to it. But since the UIGEA became law (fully implemented -- finally -- in July of this year), that need to present to a mainstream audience that poker is indeed a legitimate pastime and/or pursuit has taken on additional urgency.

Such wasn’t the case in August 2006. With bigger fields than ever coming to that year’s WSOP -- and no apparent reason at the time to suspect poker’s astounding pattern of growth would ever be stopped -- it didn’t seem like we needed the champ to go out and “fight the good fight” on poker’s behalf. Poker would do just fine with or without such help.

Such is no longer the case. And thus comes the hand-wringing from some when a recent WSOP ME champ declares the game no longer satisfies his most meaningful desires, and therefore he’d rather do something else. Or when a November Niner (Joseph Cheong) says he’d rather not win the Main Event but would “prefer second,” since “that would bar me from [the perceived obligation of] being a poker ambassador.”

It is true, I guess. Winning the WSOP Main Event these days is like being elected to a political position. No one voted for you, but suddenly you’re their representative. Like it or not.

And whatever it is you end up doing will necessarily be interpreted as either successfully doing our bidding -- i.e., representing poker in a politically-favorable way -- or something else.

(EDIT [added 4 p.m.]: On a somewhat related note, here's an interesting 2+2 post from the 2010 ME champ, Jonathan Duhamel, in which he talks about a few big hands while also indicating his intentions for the coming year.)

Tom’s Adventures in Durrrrland

Barry Greenstein keeps what they call an “audio blog” over at Poker Road called “Tips from the Bear.” His entries come fairly infrequently, with some being genuine “tips” and others just recounting various hands or happenings. In the latest (dated 3/9/09), Greenstein discusses that amazing hand from the most recent episode of High Stakes Poker -- the final one of the episode primarily involving himself, reigning World Series of Poker Main Event champion Peter Eastgate, and the guy everybody’s talking about these days, Tom “durrrr” Dwan.

“This hand will be remembered for a long time,” Greenstein begins, using the same sober tone he always employs when doing these audio blogs. I think he’s right. Already been a bit of buzz on the intertubes about it, and I imagine the hand will continue to receive a lot of attention over the next couple of months as people discuss it even further on blogs, forums, podcasts, and elsewhere.

If you have not seen the hand, I don’t want to spoil it for you. Before reading any further, take a look:

As Greenstein points out in his audio blog commentary, stack sizes are very significant here. Greenstein says he was one of the shorter stacks at the table with about $230,000. Meanwhile, Eastgate had bought in deep (and had won a few pots), and so had about $500,000 in front of him when the hand began. Dwan also had something in the neighborhood of a half a million. All of which means we’re talking hundreds of big blinds in each stack -- nearly 300 or something for the Bear, and twice that for Eastgate and Dwan.

To describe the action: The blinds are $400/$800 with a $200 ante. Greenstein picks up under the gun and open-raises to $2,500. Incredibly, all seven of his opponents call the raise. Dwan starts it by calling from UTG+1 with . Then David Benyamine calls with , Eli Elezra with , Ilari Sahamies with , Daniel Negreanu (button) with , Eastgate (small blind) with , and Doyle Brunson (big blind) with . Total pot is $21,600.

“Who opened this pot that got seven callers, that’s all I want to know,” says a sheepish-looking Greenstein.

The flop comes . As Greenstein says on his audio blog, about as good a flop as he could hope for (aside from flopping a set) when holding pocket aces and facing a table full of opponents. Eastgate checks his trips, Brunson checks, and Greenstein leads out for $10,000 -- just under half the pot. Dwan, who has paired his ten, then raises to $37,300. “I don’t know what he’s doing,” says Gabe Kaplan on the commentary. “He’s gotta know that Barry’s really got a hand here.” It folds around to Eastgate who silently calls Dwan’s raise. Greenstein calls, too. Pot now $133,500.

The comes on the turn, and both Eastgate and Greenstein check. Dwan (who has the weakest hand of the three) considers for a good while, then fires out $104,200. Eastgate folds, perhaps worried that Dwan has ace-deuce or something, and a very pained-looking Greenstein also folds. Dwan wins the pot.

Once the hand is over, Elezra pipes up to say “Barry fold the best hand.” Technically true, as Eastgate had gotten out, but I am not sure what Elezra thought Eastgate might have had. “Well, he had the best hand,” says Dwan, pointing to Eastgate as he stacks his chips. Dwan goes on to say he’ll make a side bet that Eastgate had the best hand, and it sounds like Brunson takes him up on it. Kaplan rounds out the commentary saying the only other player he could imagine making a play like Dwan’s would have been the late Stu Ungar.

I’m not even going to pretend to try to analyze this hand. For that, go listen to Greenstein, whose 17-minute commentary in his audio blog gives us novices a lot of other things to think about here. Instead, let me just list three reasons why this hand is so friggin’ fascinating to small-time punters like myself.

For one, the action is especially peculiar, utterly unlike anything we’ve ever seen previously when it comes to poker on television. The majority of televised poker is tournaments, where such “family pots” rarely occur (and are even more rarely shown). They don’t occur in cash games that much, either, especially high stakes games. As Greenstein says in his narrative of the hand, he open-raised and “something happened to me that has never happened to me before in an eight-handed game,” namely, the whole table called. Things get even weirder post-flop, and seem even more so to a lot of us given that we see the hole cards. So the sheer novelty of the hand is one element here.

Secondly, seeing the worst hand manage to push out not one but two better hands is also something most of us find amazing to watch. Those of us who call ourselves recreational players (or amateurs) watch a hand like this and with all three players discover that we are probably not personally capable of having acted the way each of them act. Take just the turn action: most of us cannot imagine ourselves betting out like Dwan, nor folding trips like Eastgate, nor folding pocket rockets like Greenstein. The whole hand thus has an “uncanny” feel to it wherein we recognize it is the same game we play, but we also recognize what we are watching is wholly unfamiliar to us.

Finally, the fact that the hand involves these particular players makes it all the more interesting. Thanks to his frequent participation over on Poker Road and on the forums, his well-regarded book Ace on the River, his long-term record of solid play, and his humor and generosity, Greenstein rightly occupies a fairly central position in our little poker world. When we watch High Stakes Poker, we’re usually more intrigued by a hand involving the Bear than a hand, say, between Benyamine and Elezra. Eastgate also fascinates, thanks to his youth and status as the 2008 WSOP Main Event champ. For a variety of reasons, we want to see how this youngster is going to handle himself on this difficult, challenging stage.

Then there’s Dwan. Of the “Durrrr Challenge.” Cover boy of the February 2009 Bluff. “He posterized me,” says a humble Greenstein in his commentary. Indeed, Dwan is poker’s current Michael Jordan. Dwan makes this hand happen, of course. But his involvement ensures it fascinates, too.

Earlier in the episode, in response to a false claim from Dwan regarding the strength of a hand he had folded, Kaplan cracks “He lives in a little cabin in Durrrrland.”

Dunno where that is. But, like Alice, I think we’re all becoming curiouser and curiouser!

Spoilers! (the 2008 WSOP Main Event final table)

I listened for a good while after the dinner break last night, hearing Darus Suharto’s elimination in sixth place and Scott Montgomery go out in fifth.

That Montgomery elimination was a killer, although he’d put himself in a bad way having shoved with five hands earlier only to get called by Ivan Demidov’s pocket kings. That tumbled Montgomery back down to 7 million or so.

Even so, Montgomery’s elimination hand was a bit more than brutal. He’d pushed with and was called by Peter Eastgate who had pocket sixes. An ace flopped, another turned, but a six popped out on the river. And that after Dennis Phillips had said he’d folded the other six!

Of course, earlier in the day Montgomery had delivered a similar heartbreaker to Craig Marquis to eliminate Marquis in ninth, catching an improbable runner-runner straight to overtake Marquis’ flopped set of sevens. Talk about spoilers!

Scanning through the hands played after I fell asleep, I see a couple of interesting ones but nothing nearly as intriguing as the one from early in the evening -- Hand No. 18 -- when Phillips dropped 12.5 million to Demidov (discussed a bit here).

After Ylon Schwartz went out in fourth (did anyone check to see if he subsequently leaped off the Rio roof?), I’m seeing there was another much smaller confrontation between Phillips and Demidov in which Phillips again had to fold the turn (Hand No. 164). Then, in Hand No. 169, it looks like Phillips made an unfornately-timed push after Eastgate had flopped a set of threes, knocking Phillips out in third place.

Was glad to see Phillips turn it back around yesterday and make the deep run. Chances are good (I think) that while he lost a lot more on that Hand No. 18 than he should have, he probably did fold the second-best hand. But we’ll see on Tuesday!

Meanwhile, we’ve got the Russian and the Dane heads-up tonight. Have to say, I’m not too surprised at any of the finishes, nor at who we have left standing.

There will be a number of hands worth seeing on Tuesday night, even knowing the result ahead of time. With only two hours of programming (which really only adds up to 90 minutes or so), they’ll only be able to show a couple dozen hands, although I think they won’t have a hard time selecting twenty or so from the 169 played yesterday.

However, they may have a much harder time selecting hands from tonight’s battle between Eastgate and Demidov. That’s because ESPN will probably only leave themselves space to show a couple of hands, but heads up could go on much, much longer than that.

Right now, Eastgate has the chip advantage with 79.5 million to Demidov’s 57.7 million. Looks like they are well into Level 37, with blinds of 300,000/600,000 and 75,000 antes. That’s over a million in the middle preflop for every hand, which seems like a lot. But let’s compare the situation to what they had over in London at the WSOPE a month ago.

When heads up began there, John Juanda had 4.42 million and Stanislav Alekhin 2.85 million. The blinds were 20,000/40,000 with 5,000 antes. Even though Harrington’s “M” doesn’t mean as much in heads up, let’s use it as a way of estimating the relative sizes of the chip stacks. In London, Juanda had an M of about 63 when heads up began, while Alekhin’s M was just under 41. They were playing two-hour levels there just like they are at the WSOP Main Event. And Juanda and Alekhin went on for 242 more hands -- about seven more hours.

How do the stacks of Eastgate and Demidov compare, M-wise? Looks like Eastgate’s M is just under 76, while Demidov’s is right around 55 -- i.e., higher than what they had in London. And while anything can happen in heads-up play -- they could get it all in at any moment -- both of these guys strike me as tough competitors who will be more than willing to take their time.

All of which means I surely won’t be following the action tonight, as it will largely take place while I’m counting sheep. First hand is scheduled for 10 p.m. Vegas time (1 a.m. over here on the other coast), meaning that if they follow form there at the Rio, it will probably go off an hour later.

Hell, they may still be playing when I wake up tomorrow morning. And when I do, I will surely head over to PokerNews for their live reports.

2008 WSOP Main Event Final Table Resumes Tomorrow

In just a little over 24 hours they will be gathering over at the Penn & Teller Theater at the Rio to resume the 2008 World Series of Poker Main Event final table. Almost forgot all about it, didn’t you?

As one who regularly follows podcasts, reads forums and blogs, and keeps up with other varieties of poker media, I suppose I’ve become somewhat familiar with the nine players’ personalities over the last 100-plus days. Can’t really claim to have that much knowledge of playing styles beyond the few hands we saw on the ESPN shows. While I was there covering the action up through Day 5 this summer -- and I watched the feature table for a few hours on both Day 6 and Day 7 -- I can’t really claim to have picked up all that much extra information that yr average ESPN viewer wouldn’t already have.

My limited knowledge ain’t gonna stop me, though, from offering a few thoughts about the remaining players here on the eve of the final table.

1. Dennis Phillips (26,295,000) -- The 53-year-old account manager for Broadway Truck Centers in St. Louis will most definitely be easy to root for tomorrow. His humble nature and dedication to charity work has won him a lot of fans during the long lead-up to tomorrow’s final table. He definitely caught some cards during those last two days of play in July -- we all saw him flop a couple of flushes there in the ESPN telecasts. But we also saw him get paid on those hands, and show a willingness to bluff (and catch others’ bluffs), too. I definitely like Phillips’ chances, though a lot depends on the table draw (not to mention how the cards go). In any event, he’s certainly one of about five players who will be seriously gunning for the bracelet and not merely to finish in the top five or six. (Check out my interview with Phillips here.)

2. Ivan Demidov (24,400,000) -- His big chip stack and third-place finish in the World Series of Poker Europe Main Event most certainly affords Demidov some extra credibility as a contender tomorrow. Some have mentioned how good it would be for poker should the 27-year-old from Moscow -- or one of the other three non-Americans still alve -- manage to take the bracelet. The fact that he played 242 hands at that WSOPE final table might mean his opponents tomorrow have gained a bit of extra knowledge about how he approaches the endgame, although without knowing hole cards it is hard to estimate the significance of such information. I’d expect Demidov to maintain his healthy chip stack early on, although he has expressed in at least one interview a willingness to flip with a shorter-stack, especially if it is with a more formidable opponent like Rheem.

3. Scott Montgomery (19,690,000) -- We all saw Montgomery luck out a couple of times on ESPN to survive, but so did most of the other nine at some point in their respective journeys. The 26-year-old Canadian finished fifth in the WPT L.A. Poker Classic early in the year. He has a mathematics degree and has done some teaching (in Japan, actually), so has a bit of smarts about him. Also has a winning, self-effacing personality, too, as evidenced on ESPN and on the 10/30/08 episode of the Pocket Fives podcast. Seems willing to take some chances and gamble it up, and so might be a target for the short stacks early on.

4. Peter Eastgate (18,375,000) -- The youngest (aged 22) of the nine, and looks it. Eastgate is the only one of the group I don’t believe I’ve actually listened to being interviewed. On the few hands shown on ESPN telecasts, he appeared to have the sort of bold, aggressive style you’d expect of a young internet-trained player. Being from Denmark, expect a lot more comparisons with Gus Hansen to be thrown around tomorrow, especially if Eastgate goes deep (which I think is very likely). Has an effective, non-expressive poker face, too, which helped him in the hand in which he knocked out Tiffany Michelle. Would not be surprised at all to see Eastgate playing on Monday when they return for heads up.

5. Ylon Schwartz (12,525,000) -- The 38-year-old chess master from Brooklyn was probably the most idiosyncratic-seeming of the nine in interviews, tossing off strange, off-the-wall comments that suggested he either wasn’t affected by the whole delayed-final-table spectacle or was pretending such. When Phil Gordon asked him what his future plans were on The Poker Edge, Schwartz responded with something about jumping off the Rio roof if he didn’t win. (As I wrote about yesterday, Schwartz also has some interesting things to say about how chess compares to poker.) From what I saw on Day 7 when watching from the stands, Schwartz was playing uber-tight in an effort to make the final table -- probably only Kelly Kim was tighter there at the end. While many think he’ll continue in that vein tomorrow and be content to finish in the top five, I’m thinking he could surprise people and play more aggressively early on. Not in a wild Jerry Yang-fashion, but be active enough that he could well accumulate chips and be around to contend at the end.

6. Darus Suharto (12,520,000) -- I heard Suharto interviewed on The Poker Edge about a month back. The 39-year-old Canadian was back at his accounting job and in fact sounded as though his job had a much more prominent place in his life than did poker or even the WSOP. The impression might be misleading, however. Even though Suharto is an amateur who only plays part-time, he has gathered some experience here lately at the EPT London and the North American Poker Championship. Even so, of all the final nine, he seems to me the most likely to sit tight from the beginning tomorrow and just try to survive the first couple of eliminations.

7. David Rheem (10,230,000) -- The Los Angeles pro was easily the most prominent of the nine both on the ESPN shows and elsewhere, thanks both to his earlier poker successes (including one televised final table at this year’s WSOP) and that bit of news about his having had an outstanding arrest warrant. Until Demidov’s deep WSOPE run, the 28-year-old seemed to be a favorite pick among many to win, but with the relatively-shorter starting stack his fate depends heavily on his being fortunate whenever he decides to make that first big gamble tomorrow. I don’t see Rheem being content to sit on his below-average stack very long tomorrow. Indeed, Rheem seems to me the most likely of the remaining players to make a Philip Hilm-like early exit.

8. Craig Marquis (10,210,000) -- The 24-year-old from Arlington, Texas was most conspicuous at the ten-handed table in July, showing an obvious willingness to go busto in his effort to exploit what had been hyped as the biggest bubble in poker tourney history. Seems like a smart, funny guy. Is a prominent contributor over on Two Plus Two where he started a Q&A thread about a month ago titled “Ask a member of the November Nine.” He didn’t answer all of the questions posed there, but did respond to many (perhaps too many, actually). A complete wild card, really, who could flame out early or gather chips and go deep.

9. Kelly Kim (2,620,000) -- The 31-year-old Californian endured a lot of ups and downs during the seven days of play, nearly busting right at the money bubble (and on a few other occasions), then limping to the finish at the very end. Sounds like a savvy tourney player who may well endure into the top six or seven spots, should he manage to double up during the first orbit or two (and then hang on after that).

I’ve established already that I’m pulling for Phillips to take it down, although as I say above I think the table draw has a lot to do with how things will go for him. Thought a little about making predictions, but taking a page from Phillips’ book of humility, I’m gonna refrain other than to say I think the non-Americans are all gonna do well tomorrow.

Unless you plan to keep yr head in the sand until the ESPN “plausibly live” show on Tuesday night, be sure to head over to PokerNews’ live reporting tomorrow to follow all of the action.