Monday, December 29, 2014

End-of-Year Lists

With the end of the calendar year come a lot of those “top ten stories”-type lists to help us realize just how poor our short term memories really are. Have seen several poker-related ones, including the countdown of story recaps currently appearing one per day over on PokerNews.

I cast a vote for that PN list, and in past years actually compiled similar lists on my own (e.g., for Betfair Poker). Not as easy as it looks.

Like “best of” rankings, Hall of Fame votes, and other such exercises, lists of a given year’s top stories are always subjective and thus open to criticism and debate. That’s because they not only reflect the various predilections of those making the selections, but the criteria being followed when designating what a “top story” is can be pretty amorphous, too.

Poker, for instance, is a game around which several different subcultures exist, groups that overlap in some ways but are distinct, too, and thus can have very different interests or concerns. For example, the divide between online poker and live poker was once larger than it is today, but there still exist many issues which only affect one or the other, thus making stories exclusively about one either highly important or nearly irrelevant depending on the audience.

Stories about online poker legislation, then, might rate high on some lists or fail to chart on others, depending on who’s doing the listing. Same goes for poker tournament results -- they directly affect many who play poker and are of special interest to fans and those who follow it, but they can be largely meaningless to many others.

Industry news including items about casinos and online sites can often be more significant than many players and/or fans realize, but those stories don’t always capture the public’s attention. Meanwhile cheating scandals and other untoward activities always draw lots of rubberneckers, but sometimes aren’t as important as they seem. And while there may not be as many “poker celebrities” diverting us today as there were a decade ago, the words and actions of certain players and others still fascinate some, thus getting those “Did you hear what he/she said/did?!” stories a lot of play.

Looking back a few years, in 2009 Phil Ivey making the WSOP Main Event final table while winning two other bracelets was a consensus pick for top story that year. In 2010, Michael Mizrachi’s $50K PPC win and final-table run topped a few lists, although Harry Reid’s late-year failed online poker bill got a lot of play in the rankings, too (even topping some lists).

In 2011, Black Friday was the unchallenged choice for top poker story by practically everyone. In 2012, the PokerStars-DOJ-FTP deal provided a significant sequel that many rated that year’s most important poker story. Last year Daniel Negreanu’s big year topped some lists, while the reintroduction of online poker in the U.S. headed others.

So what poker story tops your list for 2014?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, October 31, 2014

Phil Ivey Pot Committed

There were a couple of items in the poker news this week involving Phil Ivey.

One was an announcement by Ivey Poker that they were suspending their free-money poker app on Facebook for the time being. The press release announcing the decision noted that while shutting down the app “may sound ominous” as far as the fate of Ivey Poker was concerned, “it’s actually just the first step in our evolution as we prepare to launch an even bigger and better gaming experience for you all in 2015.”

The Ivey Poker training site remains up and running. I’m not sure about the fate of its roster of pros, not mentioned in the presser. I thought I saw one of them tweet some kind of parting message wishing the company the best (or something), but I can’t track that down at the moment.

I’m not on Facebook, and so I never tried the app over there. I believe there was a version launched for the smart phone a little over a year ago, but I didn’t look into it. The site has been around for some time, seemingly poised initially to jump into some sort of regulated U.S. online cash play when it came to be although that hasn’t come to pass.

On the heels of that news was another item that Ivey was one of 26 applicants obtaining approval from Las Vegas City Council this week for a city permit to grow and sell medical marijuana. While the news about Ivey Poker’s app being shut down was hardly unexpected, I don’t think anyone saw this story coming.

The article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal is kind of funny to read insofar as it details all of the specifics of the hearings and approvals then at the very end of the article includes a short list of some of the applicants, with “professional poker player Phil Ivey” being the last one mentioned.

As the whole Ivey Poker experiment suggests (as does his significant involvement with Full Tilt Poker 1.0 before that), Ivey has long had an entrepreneurial urge, so I suppose the latter news isn’t completely without some context. Still kind of odd to encounter Ivey’s name in the list.

Those getting the approvals from the city could still be prevented from starting their medical marijuana businesses should the state health department decide against allowing them to do so. I guess Ivey and the others figured it’s a chance worth trying, with the reward outweighing what appears a not-so-huge risk.

I mean Ivey for one certainly knows all about pot odds. (Rim shot.)

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, October 10, 2014

Ivey Loses, Spin & Go Spins, and Johnny Carson’s Poker Game

Hello, weekend (almost). Looking back on the week in poker, there were three items I wish I’d had more time to explore with blog posts, but did not. Gonna just catalogue them here to invite comment, and perhaps next week if inspired I’ll get back into issues raised by one or two of them.

One was Phil Ivey losing his case against Crockfords Casino in Britain’s High Court. The case started on Monday, then two days later Judge John Mitting decided Ivey was not entitled to the £7.7 million he’d won playing Punto Banco and that Crockfords had withheld from paying out.

In Mitting’s view, the “edge sorting” technique Ivey employed “gave himself an advantage which the game precludes.” “This is in my view cheating,” he concluded, ruling in favor of Crockfords.

Last week I was mentioning Ivey’s appearance on the 60 Minutes Sports program (which was on Showtime this week, which I don’t get) where he defended himself against accusations of being a cheater. I also mentioned there how out in the non-poker world the stories of Ivey’s suit against Crockfords and more particularly the Borgata’s still-pending one against Ivey have suggested that “cheater” label for him in the minds of some.

The Two Plus Two thread about the case indicates most in the poker world were surprised by the ruling and disagreed with it, and that’s the general tenor of response over Twitter, too. Jeff Ma, a member of the MIT blackjack team back in the mid-1990s, has written an op-ed for ESPN’s poker page defending Ivey’s play as not unethical (while expressly forgoing talking about its legality as interpreted by the High Court).

A second item popping up here at week’s end concerns those new Spin & Go games on PokerStars which I was trying out over on the play money side when they were first introduced. The new format has proven especially popular, so much so that some sit-n-go regs are not happy about the way they have affected traffic in other games. In fact, a petition “to demand a removal of these games” has been started by one disgruntled grinder -- an extreme-seeming response, to be sure.

The petition isn’t really that interesting to me, but some of the discussion that it has provoked both about the Spin & Go format and online poker in general has provided some worthwhile observations. One of the most thought-provoking came from Daniel Negreanu in a contribution to a 2+2 thread about the petition in which he points out that the full-timers (including the Supernovas and Supernova Elites) who are complaining about the way the format attracts recreational players and thus draws the “fish” away from their games are in fact themselves the greatest danger to the online poker’s survival.

“Do you know what kills games and destroys the poker ecosystem above and beyond all the things mentioned? Winning players,” explains Negreanu, who goes on to say how if the Spin & Go format does in fact deter pros from playing, that would be a positive as far as the survival of the “ecosystem” is concerned. Negreanu also says that if he were in charge of VIP systems he’d reward the losing players, not the winning ones. It’s an interesting read -- check it out.

Incidentally, with regard to “ecosystems” Darrel Plant authored an interesting article this week for PokerNews called “Circle of Life, Circle of Death: Depletion and Replenishment in Multi-Table Tournaments” that provides a nifty, math-based explanation of why poker needs new players (or at least new money). There’s also a very cool simulator embedded in the article which allows readers to input their own numbers to crunch to see how depletion and replenishment works in MTTs.

Finally, Martin Short was on Conan O’Brien’s late night talk show this week talking about a poker game he once played with Johnny Carson. Also part of the game were Carl Reiner, Neil Simon, Chevy Chase, and Steve Martin, along with some big-time agents and others. Short had actually never met Carson beforehand, and so was understandably intimidated when participating in the game.

As it turns out, there isn’t too much poker talk in the story, but it’s still contains a couple of grins -- you can watch the clip here. It does make me curious, though, to dig a little deeper into Carson’s poker-playing. Indeed, his having had Amarillo Slim Preston as a guest a dozen times in the early 1970s suggests Carson had more than just a passing interest in poker.

Like I say, I might get back one or two of these items next week, and if you have thoughts to share about any of them, fire away. Meanwhile, enjoy the weekend, everyone!

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, October 06, 2014

Betting the Under Down Under

Was mentioning on Friday all the tournaments happening this month all over the world. Just realized today the World Poker Tour has an Alpha8 event kicking off in London, too.

Today I’ve been watching the UKIPT Isle of Man Main Event final table on PokerStars.tv, enjoying as always the delayed live stream they provide. I haven’t yet managed to look in on any of the WSOP Asia-Pacific live streaming, nor have I really been able to do much more than read the recaps of the action from Melbourne thus far given the 15-hour time difference.

Because of that, I’ve found myself mainly interested in the turnouts for the WSOP ASAP events thus far and that WSOP Player of the Year race between Brandon Shack-Harris and George Danzer who are essentially even and also far enough ahead of the pack so as to be only ones still in the running.

The first four of 10 scheduled events have gotten going thus far in Melbourne, with a couple having completed.

Event No. 1, the A$ 1,100 No-Limit Hold’em Accumulator, drew 611 total entries, down more than 43% who played the same event there in the spring of 2013. Event No. 2 (A$ 2,200 NLHE) drew 215 entries; that one wasn’t offered the first time around. Meanwhile Event No. 3, the A$ 1,650 Pot-Limit Omaha, saw 123 enter, again down a little over 28% when compared to the 172 who played that one last year. Event No. 4 is also a new event, the A$ 1,650 NLHE “Terminator” (involving bounties), which drew 250.

So small fields again for the WSOP ASAP -- even smaller than the first time around -- which’ll lead to more talk about the bracelets’ relative value. Will be interesting to see how many play the bigger buy-in events, including the A$ 10,000 Main Event and the A$ 25,000 High Roller. The smallest turnout for any WSOP APAC in 2013 was 81 players for the A$ 2,200 won by Phil Ivey.

All of the rest of the prelims on this year’s 10-tourney schedule are unique when compared to the five played in 2013, so only the Main Event will offer a direct comparison when it comes. Daniel Negreanu won it last year when they drew 405. If that were the line this time, I think most would be betting the under.

Meanwhile on the WSOP POY front, both Shack-Harris and Danzer cashed in Event No. 1, with Danzer’s 22nd-place finish earning him a few more points than the min-cash Shack-Harris got for finishing 53rd. That put Danzer at 762.20, nudging him just ahead of Shack-Harris who has 760.50.

Neither cashed in Event Nos. 2 or 3, but Shack-Harris is in the money in Event No. 4 where the top 27 made the cash (all of whom return tonight/tomorrow). In fact, Shack-Harris knocked out Danzer in that event, collecting a $500 bounty while also ensuring his POY foe wouldn’t be gathering any points from his finish.

If I follow the formula correctly, I think Shack-Harris has assured himself at least 7 points out of Event No. 4, what he would get for finishing anywhere from 19th to 27th. If he wins the sucker, though, he grabs a bigger bounty of 140 points (I think) to assume a commanding lead.

Looks like the WSOP APAC live stream starts at 12:10 p.m. each day Melbourne time, which I believe is just after 9 p.m. my time (ET). One of the these nights I might try to tune in, probably when that Main Event rolls around.

Then again, as I was talking about Friday, the EPT London Main happens then, too, and might use up all my poker-watching attention before the night comes around.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

His Side on the Edge Sorting: Ivey To Appear on 60 Minutes Sports

Saw that Phil Ivey is going to be on 60 Minutes Sports a week from today on Tuesday, October 7 (on Showtime). Here is a little teaser for the segment you can watch the CBS site (as they make it impossible to embed their slow-loading vids) -- a compelling, even fun three minutes of viewing.

Ivey is going to be on the show talking about his two “edge sorting” lawsuits which I’ve mentioned here before -- the one in which he’s suing Crockford’s Casino in London and the other in which the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa is suing him.

Interesting that Ivey is talking at all about the lawsuits, never mind doing so in such a mainstream public forum. Of course, I’m certain his prime motive is to clear suspicions among the non-poker playing public (and perhaps among some poker folks, too) that he’s not a cheater.

I wrote a post here back in May sharing a story of meeting someone who upon finding out what I did for a living said to me without prompting “I can’t believe Phil Ivey cheated!” That anecdote perhaps suggests a need for Ivey to want to acquit himself in the court of public opinion.

That was about a month after the news of the Borgata lawsuit had hit, their complaint having to do with Ivey employing edge sorting at their high-stakes baccarat tables. The Crockford’s lawsuit has Ivey suing the casino for his winnings at Punto Banco which they’ve withheld because of the edge sorting.

Speaking of Ivey, I did finally watch the first WSOP Main Event shows (as I was talking about last week). While they weren’t terribly exciting, it was interesting to see Ivey being almost gregarious at the feature table with his table talk. He was also almost jovial-seeming in his short interview with Kara Scott, which was fun to see.

Ivey is similarly engaging in the 60 Minutes clip. Go ahead -- see if you can watch it without grinning ear-to-ear.

Sort of an interesting hand Ivey has chosen to play. Will be interesting to see how he fares from it. Something tells me that just by playing it Ivey knows he has an edge going in.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Ivey in Front

You’ve no doubt noticed how out of 1,864 players left in the World Series of Poker Main Event to begin Day 3, the one with the most chips of any of them is none other than Phil Ivey with 505,000.

Amid my work this summer I’ve been writing up WSOP recaps and previews for PokerNews, and over the last couple of days for those I’ve been doing a little digging around regarding recent Main Event history.

As I noted yesterday, Ivey has cashed four times before in the Main Event, and in fact when making the money has never finished lower than 23rd. His best finish was of course his seventh-place showing in 2009, the last time he made the money.

Then today I spent a little time seeing how other start-of-Day-3 leaders have done in the WSOP over recent years, and doing so produced a kind of interesting list of players and results. Probably the most interesting Day 3 chip leader among the list (going back to 2000) was Sammy Farha who was on top after two days of the 2001 WSOP Main Event, then in fact didn’t last through Day 3 and missed the money altogether.

Last year Mark Kroon was on top heading into Day 3, but he’d crash in 458th relatively early on Day 4. But the previous two years saw deep runs from those players, as Gaelle Baumann would finish 10th and Ben Lamb third. None of those start-of-day-3 leaders ever won the Main Event (since 2000, anyway), but Julian Gardner did finish second in 2002 after having led after the first two days.

Ivey’s fast start certainly gives some focus to the early 2014 WSOP Main Event narratives. I heard that ESPN isn’t even going to pick up its coverage this year until Day 4, however, which is kind of a bummer. We’ll see if Ivey continues to be headlining once the event gets to that point.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, June 27, 2014

WSOP Stories Getting Big

The World Series of Poker seems to be building to a kind of crazy fever pitch at the moment. So many headlines and “big” events happening at once.

The $50K Poker Players Championship just concluded, normally a big highlight of the WSOP. Some interesting narratives came out of that one, including Melissa Burr becoming the first woman ever to cash in the nine-year history of the $50K (going back to its H.O.R.S.E. days) and winner John Hennigan cashing for a third straight year.

But really, the $50K is getting eclipsed by all of these other big stories building at the moment.

Today there’s the continuation of this crazily huge “Monster Stack” event that drew an amazing 7,864 players. That made the tournament the third-largest live event in history in terms of participants behind the 2006 WSOP Main Event (8,773) and this year’s “Millionaire Maker” (7,977). And it was the biggest ever for a tourney with just one starting day, although they split it up into a couple of flights on Thursday to make it physically possible to seat all of those runners.

Meanwhile the Ladies event gets going today, which usually draws a lot of headlines. Phil Ivey and Daniel Negreanu are both in the hunt with just 14 left in the $1,500 Eight-Game Mix (Event No. 50). And the “Big One for One Drop” is just around the corner, starting on Sunday.

And sheesh, the Main Event is almost here, too, starting just a week from tomorrow. The summer is flying by -- seems even faster, I think, than when I am out there, when the days always do zip by pretty quickly.

It’s going by so fast, it’s almost hard to stop and take stock of how it’s all going, and how the WSOP might be reflecting the overall health and growth of poker, a favorite topic each summer. Seems as though while some events are down in terms of numbers, overall the Series is clicking along at a similar pace to previous years and all will be considered another successful year in the desert.

Right now, though, it’s all kind of a blur. A big, big blur.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, April 11, 2014

Ivey on the Edge

The breaking story this afternoon in poker revolves around this new lawsuit brought by the Borgata versus Phil Ivey. Says PokerNews, the casino is suing Ivey for a whopping $9.6 million -- that is, more than the WSOP Main Event winners have been taking down over the last several years (although not this year with the new $10 million guarantee for first) -- an amount representing money won by Ivey at baccarat.

“The Borgata lawsuit alleges that Ivey exploited manufacturing flaws in playing cards during four sessions” of the gambling game that took place back in 2012. The claim is that Ivey used a method called “edge sorting” to exploit flaws in the cards used in the game.

Thus the Borgata is suing him, his “partner” who accompanied him during the sessions (Cheng Yin Sun), and the card manufacturers, too, with the charges including racketeering, fraud, breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and something called unjust enrichment.

If it all sounds familiar, that’s because we all already learned about “edge sorting” thanks to a similar dispute involving Ivey and the Crockfords Casino in London involving some sessions of Punto Banco (another baccarat variant) also taking place in 2012. Only there it is Ivey suing the casino who decided to withhold £7.8 million of his winnings after they suspected him of something similar. (Of note, Ivey admitted to “edge sorting” there, but still wants his winnings.)

I wrote about that situation here last spring, talking a little about this funny little 1966 Bond-ripoff called Kaleidoscope starring Warren Beatty with which the story seemed to evoke some parallels.

The immediate reaction to the Borgata lawsuit is very similar to how many were responding to the earlier story regarding Ivey’s suing Crockfords, namely, folks pointing out how it seems the casino’s responsibility to protect themselves against something like “edge sorting” by ensuring the integrity of their games.

Of course, the pattern suggested here is intriguing as well. What had seemed like a unique situation happening at Crockfords involving some poorly manufactured cards reads a little differently now that it appears the same sort of problem happened elsewhere. I suppose there’s another pattern lurking as well suggested by another “cheating” incident (this one alleged) involving the materials with which games at the Borgata are played (the earlier one involving chips, of course).

The Crockfords case has yet to be decided, and this one assuredly will take some time in the “sorting” too (pun intended). Will be curious to see where both end up, as well as whether or not Ivey comes out ahead in both of these legal games.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Looking at Ivey Through Kaleidoscope

Among the poker headlines coming through the reader yesterday was a Punto Banco story. That’s right, another interesting chapter in that situation involving Phil Ivey and the Crockfords Casino in London.

Recall how we heard Ivey had visited the Mayfair casino last August, transferring a cool £1 million into the casino’s bank account while accompanied by a mysterious Chinese woman (styled “a beautiful Oriental female” in most of the U.K. reports where the adjective isn’t considered non-PC the way it is in the States). Then over a couple of evenings Ivey proceeded to play high-stakes Punto Banco, a variant of baccarat, for about seven hours altogether.

On the first night Ivey started out betting £50,000 per hand, then was allowed to increase the stakes to £150,000. After initially finding himself down nearly £500,000, the momentum swung back Ivey’s way and he ended the evening £2.3 million up. He then came back the next night and his streak continued, enabling him to leave £7.8 million ahead -- i.e., a win of almost $12 million or the equivalent of Jamie Gold’s 2006 WSOP Main Event first prize (the largest ever for the ME).

Ivey’s session immediately made headlines in the Daily Mail, with the initial reports also noting how Crockfords had not paid Ivey his winnings right away. Then came word of the casino’s plan to investigate casino footage, interview staff, and inspect the cards and dealing shoe used during the two sessions before paying Ivey. Another item of potential interest was the fact that the woman accompanying Ivey had been banned from another London casino previously.

Soon it became apparent that Crockfords might not be willing to pay Ivey his winnings at all.

Crockfords did allow Ivey to withdraw the £1 million with which he’d started, but otherwise they were resisting paying Ivey the rest. By the time the situation had dragged on into the fall, it was apparent the case may end up in the High Court, and indeed last week news came that Ivey was suing Crockfords in an effort to claim his winnings in what will surely be a huge, sensational legal story.

Then yesterday the Daily Mail reported that in response to Ivey’s lawsuit, Crockfords is now alleging that rather than having enjoyed a streak of good fortune in the chance-based game, Ivey “exploited tiny flaws in the card design” as he played, and thus was able to bet accordingly. According to the article, “the cards were flawed because of a mistake during the cutting process at an overseas manufacturing plant.”

Thus the allegation is that Ivey somehow knew about or discovered the flaw, with his request to the dealer that the cards (while face down) be turned in such a way that would enable him to spot the distinctive characteristics more easily and thus know what cards had (or hadn’t) been dealt.

From the outside, the casino’s case sounds sketchy, given that Ivey obviously had nothing to do with the cards being used in the game. Anyhow, it’s all very eyebrow-raising in an “international-man-of-mystery” kind of way, and the Mail and other outlets have routinely brought up by way of comparison James Bond and his game of baccarat in the original Casino Royale to help their stories more readily catch the reader’s eye.

Another film frequently mentioned in these articles is the 1966 Bond-like comic caper Kaleidoscope starring Warren Beatty and Susannah York. Coincidentally it was last August -- around the time Ivey visited Crockfords -- when I wrote up a “Pop Poker” column for PokerListings about the film, which often gets mentioned in those “best poker movies” lists one sees popping up from time to time around the web.

Those comparisons are being made because the plot of Kaleidoscope involves Beatty’s character, Barney Lincoln, pursuing an elaborate scheme whereby he doctors the plates from which the Kaleidoscope brand playing cards are printed. The cards are used in casinos all over Europe, and thus we see Lincoln spend the first half of the film enjoying win after win as he plays Chemin de Fer (another baccarat variant), wearing a conspicuous pair of thick-framed eyeglasses as he does to help him see the markings.

Lincoln is eventually found out in the film, and the plot takes a turn as he gets recruited by Scotland Yard to help them capture a villainous crime lord, Harry Dominion, played in over-the-top fashion by Eric Porter. The latter half of the film features a high-stakes game of five-card stud involving Lincoln and Dominion, and does include a few interesting moments -- particularly after a deck change introduces non-Kaleidoscope cards into the game.

If you’re curious about the film, check out my discussion over on PokerListings. There you’ll see I was kind of lukewarm on it, not really being that entertained although I can see some fans of Bond and/or Bond parodies perhaps getting into it. It’s also cool for those who enjoy swinging ’60s fashion, U.K. style.

It’s sort of funny to compare Kaleidoscope to the Ivey-versus-Crockfords situation, since doing so invites us to imagine Ivey as some kind of supervillain-cat-burglar type breaking into card manufacturing plants and manipulating the printing process in order to set up his big score later on. Obviously that’s not what is being alleged, but still, it’s a funny image, perhaps even easier to entertain for those of us who have gotten to know Ivey as a larger-than-life figure.

More pertinently, those of us who know Ivey and his high-roller ways also find his enjoying a winning streak of 40-50 bets’ worth at a chance-based game to be much less remarkable than is the case for Crockfords’ owners. Then again, as we’ve been thinking about a lot over the last few days with regard to the revival of the UB cheating scandal, being able to know all of the cards that have been dealt is a sure way to increase one’s chance of winning.

Here is the groovy title sequence for Kaleidoscope:

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

To the Victor Go the Spoils

These last two weekends I’ve been away at the World Series of Poker Circuit stops, helping report on the Main Events (at Foxwoods and at Harrah’s Cherokee) for PokerNews. Thus was I mostly distracted from all of the happenings down under at the World Series of Poker Asia Pacific which came to a close on Monday.

We did call up the live stream right at the end of the WSOP APAC Main Event on Monday, seeing Daniel Negreanu finally finish off Daniel Marton to win the title. Kind of uncanny to think of Negreanu and Phil Hellmuth winning the last two non-Vegas WSOP Main Events, although the fact that they did kind of highlights how different those MEs are from the one that plays out at the Rio each summer. So far -- and likely for the foreseeable future -- WSOP Main Events in Europe, Australia, or elsewhere are necessarily going to feature smaller fields and more “name” pros.

I wrote a little last week about “Bracelets and Rings” and the whole debate over trying to discover ways to compare and relate the achievements of those who win WSOP events, wherever they happen to take place.

While at the WSOP-C Main Event at Harrah’s Cherokee, we couldn’t help but make note of the fact that the prize pool there ($1.284 million) exceeded that of each of the first four bracelet events at WSOP APAC. And how the winner John Bowman took away a first prize ($250,380) that was more than what any of those bracelet winners had won, in fact nearly five times what Ivey got for his victory in the $2,200 (AUD) mixed event.

The debate over bracelets -- as well as the WSOP POY race, in which the WSOP APAC results count -- gets amplified a little thanks to Ivey and Negreanu having each succeeded in bringing another one out of Australia. Negreanu picked up his fifth bracelet, and first since 2008. It was also his first no-limit hold’em bracelet, incidentally.

Negreanu’s also already pretty mindful of the POY race, tweeting out a link to the standings yesterday. Greg Mueller tweeted congrats to Negreanu in response, but added “Its kind of blown [sic] being 400 points behind before event #1 at rio.”

Meanwhile Ivey’s racing Hellmuth now, his nine still well behind the Poker Brat’s 13. Kind of weirdly, none of Ivey’s bracelets have come in hold’em events. By the way, F-Train has provided an interesting breakdown of Ivey’s WSOP performances over the years for Flushdraw.

As a fan of tournament poker and someone who at times likes to follow the big tourneys as though they were sporting events, I can’t help but be a little intrigued by the various ways of marking achievements -- bracelets, rings, points, etc. The players are clearly motivated by such extra rewards, too. Bracelets and rings possess some tangible value, while POY points may or may not have any at all. (I’m not even sure the WSOP POY wins anything anymore.)

I’m reminded of a funny exchange at the final table of the WSOP-C Main Event at Harrah’s Cherokee. It came at a point when Kory Kilpatrick and Hugh Henderson were both battling with short stacks while Weaver was leading with more than twice the chips of anyone else.

Kilpatrick asked Weaver what he was going to do with the first-prize money, and Weaver said he’d put it in the bank. Then Henderson asked if he was at least going to buy something nice first, and Weaver said he wasn’t interested in doing so.

“No,” he said, “I just want the ring or the bracelet... whatever they have here.”

That led to some more funny banter, including Kilpatrick and Henderson saying they’d gladly let Weaver have the ring if they could have the money. But that wasn’t really Weaver’s point, I don’t think. He wasn’t saying he only wanted the jewelry and wasn’t interested in the cash, just that he wasn’t eager to spend whatever money he might win on material goods.

It was one of several humorous moments at that final table, some of which frankly stemmed from the not-always-perfect communication happening between the elder Weaver and the others. It kind of highlighted, though, all of the different reasons why people play the tournaments, and how the various rewards more or less figure into everyone’s thinking, although not uniformly so.

No, just as money has different significance to each individual, so, too, do other spoils like rings or bracelets or points or even the intangible benefits of challenging oneself and competing with others all signify differently, depending on the person.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Bracelets and Rings

Got back home in one piece yesterday from my Foxwoods trip, sorta kinda napped a little bit before engaging in some more late night work, then today I’m looking at a full day of handling more business before I drive tomorrow to Cherokee, North Carolina for the next WSOP Circuit Main Event.

As I was up late last night, I followed along with the PokerListings hand-for-hand coverage of that WSOP Asia Pacific Event No. 3 final table (the 8-game mixed event) featuring both Daniel Negreanu and Phil Ivey, with Ivey eventually winning his ninth bracelet. Even dipped into the live stream from time to time, although since I was doing other things I couldn’t really follow it that closely, particularly during the non-flop games.

Ivey and Brandon Wong ended up playing a heads-up for quite some time -- 180 hands, if my math is correct -- before Ivey finally won the sucker. All of this happened in the wee hours over here in America, of course, since Melbourne is 14 hours ahead of those of us on the east coast (I believe).

Event No. 3 was a $2,200 buy-in event (AUD, which is worth just a little more than USD right now), and only 81 players took part. Ivey’s win will certainly once again spur debates about the relative value of WSOP bracelets, reprising the arguments about (1) non-Vegas WSOP events vs. those won elsewhere; (2) the ballooning number of bracelets (75 total this year); and (3) bracelets won in low buy-in and/or small field events vs. others. The fact that Ivey has won all nine of his bracelets in events other than no-limit hold’em will also inspire some discussion, too, I imagine.

I might have begun to be affected somewhat by hanging around the WSOP Circuit more lately, but I’m becoming less and less bothered by the preponderance of bracelets and the whole “devaluing” argument.

There are 20 WSOP-C stops this year with a dozen events at each, with the winners all getting a ring along with their first place prizes. That’s 240 rings going out in a single year, and thus there are many who play who have multiple rings. Right now Alex Masek has the all-time lead in that race with six.

Comparing bracelets and rating their relative value has always been the equivalent of sports-bar type arguments over the ranking of players or teams from different eras. Of course, even within the same WSOP, no two events are really the equivalent of each other, even if they feature the same buy-in and game.

The debates, though, can still be interesting and even constructive when it comes to producing new ideas about valuing players’ abilities. And I think the added layer of competition that comes with chasing bracelets (or rings) clearly motivates many players and adds another level of entertainment to those who follow these things.

It’s obvious at every WSOP-C stop that many are mindful of both the number of rings players have won as well as the WSOP-C points standings that land players spots in the year-end National Championship as well as determine the “Casino Champion” at each stop. Some might want to argue the extra incentives are mainly there to exploit the players, but I think on the whole most who play like having them.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Travel Report: APPT Macau, ACOP Main Event, Day 4

Was a short one, relatively speaking, at the Asia Championship of Poker Main Event yesterday, with the penultimate day of play lasting around seven hours to conclude around 10 p.m. Michael Kanaan of Australia leads with nine to go, with four different continents and eight nationalities represented among the final tablists.

There’s a “High Rollers” event happening this weekend as well, one featuring a $250,000 (HKD) buy-in which equals something like $32K USD. All of the big pros who I’ve seen in other events were playing in that one, plus someone I hadn’t seen this week yet, Phil Ivey.

Sort of interesting to see Ivey in this setting, where unlike at the WSOP there really doesn’t seem to be as much stargazing and hoopla surrounding his presence. Indeed, there are others in the High Rollers who’ve participated in those huge cash games with Ivey here in Macau.

Alan Sass, who has made the final table of the Main Event, has played in those games, too. Sass also played with Ivey in that crazy $2 million (HKD) buy-in “Macau High Stakes Challenge Super High Roller” back in August, finishing ninth while Ivey took eighth.

As I was talking about earlier in the week after visiting the Venetian Macao Casino and witnessing the huge amounts being gambled nonchalantly all around, it’s an environment where a “high roller” is perhaps necessarily a less conspicuous entity. In other words, we’re in a place where Phil Ivey actually has what could be considered “peers” gambling-wise, if you can believe that.

Was kind of hoping to get out for a real sit-down meal last night, even tentatively arranging to do so when it looked like play might end early enough for us to be getting out somewhere near the dinner hour. But alas they went on a little too long, then I was saddled with some extra writing at night’s end that got in the way.

Such is the way it often goes on these trips, where there might be short windows of opportunity to get out and explore here and there, but a lot of the time is taken up working the event and thus mostly experiencing different places and cultures from inside relatively familiar-looking poker rooms.

A week ago I was relating how my flight here (from Chicago to Hong Kong) had been canceled and rescheduled for a day later. That meant rather than arrive here a day early -- and perhaps experience something other than poker -- I was arriving just as the first tournament I was due to cover was getting started. So it was straight to work. And while I have gotten out a couple of times to see the city over the days since, most of those days have been occupied by work.

And I fly in the morning, which’ll mean an early start on Monday to catch the ferry back to Hong Kong. I expect today’s final day to be a long one, too, with the average chip stack more than 60 big blinds to start play this afternoon.

Still, I’m enjoying the experience and grateful for seeing what I have thus far. And for meeting the people I have, too, which has made the trip all the better. Makes the big scary world seem a little smaller and easier to manage. I suppose it’s like Ivey somehow seeming less intimidating when sitting among the other high rollers, the world as a whole becomes a less daunting place the more you see of it.

(Ivey photo via Hong Kong portrait photographer Kenneth Lim.)

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, June 21, 2012

2012 WSOP, Day 25: Chasing Dreams

Laptop in flightWoke up this morning from a dream in which I was chasing a little boy around a large yard. He was tossing my laptop around like it was a frisbee. He’d gleefully throw it several yards, chase it down, pick it up, and throw it again. Meanwhile I couldn’t catch up to him, nor could I seem to shout loudly enough to get his attention.

Might be tempting to psychoanalyze this one. You know, to come up with theories about work-related anxiety, self-identity, the creative process, the inner child, what have you. But I think it came mainly from the background image on my desktop, a picture of me and my three-year-old nephew -- not the little demon in my dream -- tossing a ball in his back yard.

Then again, I can’t say for sure what caused the dream. Hey, I’m just a reporter.

Spent a lot of yesterday at the Rio, despite not being officially working. Got there around two o’clock, just as the final table of Event No. 35, the $2,500 mixed hold’em event, was starting. That was the one with Phil Ivey among the final nine, having made his fifth final table of the summer.

They were in the “mothership,” slightly modified from last summer although essentially the same arena-like structure positioned in the center of the Amazon Room. There were quite a few there to watch at the start. The Dutchman Joep van den Bijgaart began the day as chip leader, with Ivey coming in with a relative short stack in seventh position.

I was curious about the odds to bet on those making the final day, a new thing they’ve added over in the Rio Race and Sports Book this year. Here’s what they had for each of the final nine:

1. Joep van den Bijgaart (605,000) -- 3/2
2. Samuel Golbuff (526,000) -- 2/1
3. Michael Gathy (418,000) -- 5/2
4. Erik Cajelais (368,000) -- 3/1
5. Chris Tryba (347,000) - 7/2
6. Salman Behbahani (347,000) -- 5/1
7. Phil Ivey (169,000) -- 5/1
8. Brent Wheeler (158,000) -- 9/1
9. Michael Foti (105,000) -- 12/1

In the sports bookCan’t say any of those bets seemed especially appealing to me. Even as someone with a bit more knowledge than the average punter about some of the players not named Ivey -- e.g., I knew Gathy had won a bracelet this summer, that Cajelais was tough (and a bracelet holder), that van den Bijgaart had been a Team PokerStars Pro -- I didn’t feel like the reward for any of those bets came close to the risk. (What do you think?)

Tryba ended up winning, hitting a straight flush on the last hand versus Cajelais. Van den Bijgaart finished fourth. And Ivey was knocked out in eighth not long after a nutty hand with Golbuff in which the latter claimed most of Ivey’s stack.

It was a couple of hours in, during which stretch Golbuff had sunk down in the counts after having lost a lot in a limit hand versus Tryba. In that one Golbuff had raised preflop, bet the flop, then checked the turn as the board came J-4-4-8. A queen fell on the river, and when Tryba bet Golbuff raised. Tryba tanked, finally calling with K-Q, and Golbuff showed 5h2h.

The game had switched back to no-limit when Ivey -- still with about the same stack he’d started the day with (around 170,000) -- opened with a min-raise from the cutoff, then Golbuff shoved all in from the button for 159,000 or almost 16 big blinds. It folded back and Ivey quickly called, tabling pocket eights. Golbuff then sheepishly showed his 6h2s.

But the board ran out 5c3c2hKs4s, the river giving Golbuff a straight and leaving Ivey with just 11,000 and an open-mouthed look wordlessly indicating “WTF?” All in on the next hand against three opponents, Ivey was soon out the door. As were a lot of those in attendance.

Gonna venture to say my dream was a lot easier to figure out than that one.

Later in the evening I spent a little while over at Day 1 of Event No. 38, one of the $1,500 NLHE events before taking off. Got to assist Josh Bell for a couple of hours as he covered that one, mainly just to get myself reoriented a little before starting back today for real.

Kind of a scaled-back staff this year as far as PokerNews goes, which means the Day 1 coverage can’t be as thorough as in past years. In fact, most of the time only a single blogger is being assigned on these first days, which will be the case for me tonight with Event No. 40, the $2,500 6-max. limit hold’em event.

PokeratiThat same “scaling back” is true for most of the poker media this year, I think. Met up with Dan Michalski of Pokerati yesterday and among the things we chatted about was the relatively empty media box and how things have changed over the years with regard to WSOP coverage.

Dan pointed out how not long ago -- before Twitter, live streams, and so on -- those reporting on the WSOP were delivering information to an audience that couldn’t really receive it any other way.

But now everyone is kind of reporting on themselves (and each other), a phenomenon that is affecting what the media -- already needing to be judicious about resources -- chooses to do with its reporting. I wrote something about this trend three summers ago in a post titled “Land of 1000 Reporters,” well before everyone (it seems) was on Twitter.

Last year this same $2,500 LHE event attracted a relatively small group of 354 players -- a lot for one reporter, but not nearly as daunting as the big field of 2,500-plus Josh was tasked with covering yesterday.

Follow along over on PokerNews’ live reporting page, if you’re curious to see what I come up with as I chase back and forth, trying to catch hands and give an idea what is happening as some stacks go up and others disappear.

Don’t expect it to be too difficult. Unless of course that kid shows up and gets ahold of my laptop.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

2012 WSOP, Day 24: Easing In

The temporary location for the MGM poker roomAs I mentioned at the end of yesterday’s post, Tuesday was a day of errands and trying to set up shop here at the home-away-from-home. Got some groceries. Unpacked (finally). Settled in.

I did swing by the Rio for a quick visit to say hello to folks and see what was happening. Phil Ivey was busy making another final table. He’s currently seventh in chips among the final nine in Event No. 35, the $2,500 mixed hold’em event.

That’s Ivey’s sixth cash so far this year, and fifth final table. At those other final tables he finished seventh, fifth, third, and second.

A little bit of buzz this morning about Ivey being more “aloof” than usual this year. See, for example, this CardPlayer article on the subject. Also note this interesting post about Ivey and Brian Hastings by Donnie Peters from the coverage yesterday, which Jessie May juxtaposed with the CP piece in a tweet late last night.

Keeping a low profile is tough when making so many deep runs. In fact, Ivey’s success this summer is adding to that impression that he’s not being as involved with the media or even other players as some would like -- after all, it’s seems like he’s been playing on the main stage in the “mothership” at a final table every other night.

I know with Ivey there’s this added sense that he somehow “owes” others something, especially after his declaration last summer that he wasn’t playing in the WSOP because other players had money still tied up on Full Tilt Poker, the site he had represented. (Still the case, of course.)

While I’m one to appreciate players making themselves available and doing what they can to support the game and the community surrounding it, I’ve never thought players should be made to feel as though they “owe” others anything along these lines.

I remember writing something way, way back in 2006 to that effect after Jamie Gold won the WSOP Main Event and everyone wondered whether he’d follow the “ambassador” model set by the most recent champs. “He needn’t feel it necessary to live up to the ‘standard’ established by Moneymaker, Raymer, and Hachem,” I said of Gold. “Nor should his actions over the next year be regarded as any ‘standard’ for future winners to follow.”

Phil Ivey in Event No. 32It would be different if this were a game (or “sport,” as some would have it) in which the players weren’t themselves providing the prize money. That is to say, it seems reasonable to me that -- for example -- the NBA makes LeBron James, Kevin Durant, and others answer questions from the media following NBA finals games.

But for poker players, that sort of thing should be their own choice. Even the socializing and engaging with other players is optional. Like tipping dealers, the players can decide for themselves how much they want to give.

I did get a chance to play a little poker myself yesterday. Late in the afternoon I wandered over to the MGM where I had ideas I might play the weekly $120 H.O.R.S.E. tournament they have each Tuesday. Kevmath had arrived in Vegas earlier in the day and he and I had talked about playing it, although by the time I went over he was saying he might be late and/or might not make it at all.

I decided to kill time at a 2-4 LHE table while deciding whether or not to stick around for the evening tourney. I walked through the MGM to the spot where the poker room used to be to find the space emptied out. Signs pointing to another room across from the buffet led me around the slot machines and to the room’s current, temporary location. I’d ask later and was told the original space was being renovated, with plans to move back this fall.

The new location was just fine, I thought (that is a picture of it up above). In fact, the new spot was much quieter and more pleasant for playing. Before there had always been this loud cacophony erupting every half-hour near the poker room that I think involved some sort of Coyote Ugly-type dancing on a bar or something. Was never very pleasant given how it made hearing each other or anything else impossible for the few minutes it lasted.

It turned out to be a fun session in which I came away with what amounted to a modest hourly rate for a profit. A few grins per hour, too.

A woman sitting to my left lasted approximately 45 minutes, leaving $50 down and three vodka tonics up. A young Englishman from near Manchester, Ian, took her seat, and over the course of the next couple of hours he and I had enjoyable conversation, made more so by the fact that we were both steadily chipping up.

DocOne other character who’d initially sat on my left then moved to my right introduced himself to me as Doc. He’d moved in order to see the board better, claiming he was half-blind despite pulling out a paperback to read between hands and asking for the Red Sox game on one of the television screens.

Doc definitely had trouble seeing the board, though, as was proven to me early when he lost a hand to me after claiming to be chasing a flush draw that wasn’t there. Another hand developed shortly thereafter between Doc and Bob who sat across from us in which Doc made the same mistake, although that one ended a bit more dramatically.

I’m pretty sure Bob raised and got a few callers who all saw a flop come something like AdJc8s. Bob bet the flop and I believe only Doc called. The turn was the 4c, and when Bob bet this time Doc quickly raised and Bob called. The river was the 2d and Bob decided to lead out once more, with Doc again raising without much hesitation.

Bob called again, and Doc somewhat confusingly called out “all black” before tabling his 5c3c for a rivered wheel. Bob shook his head and with a wry grin turned over his AsAh. He’d flopped top set, but Doc had made runner-runner to make his straight.

As the dealer pushed him the chips, Doc took a closer look at the board and began apologizing -- he’d thought he flopped a club flush draw, then hit it on the turn, which explained his play.

Doc was kind of a character, it turned out, tossing out various one-liners here and there. “My wife calls me a prince among men,” he said. “Only she spells prince with a ‘k’. Might be missing a couple of other letters, too.”

On our end of the table we were calling the bad beat Doc had delivered to Bob “hand of the day” until another arose to challenge it, one which also involved a flopped set getting undermined by a runner-runner comeback.

MGM GrandIn that one a player straddled from UTG, and sitting a couple of seats over I looked down at KhKd. I made it three bets, a short-stacked elderly gentleman in the cutoff cold-called, the woman in the big blind called, and the straddler called as well.

There were four of us, then, to see the flop come KcJh8h. It checked to me and I bet, and the cutoff and big blind called. The turn was the 4h, I bet again and both called, putting the man in the cutoff seat all in. The river brought a fourth heart, the 2h, and when my lone remaining opponent checked to me I ventured one more bet which she called.

The woman in the big blind turned over her hole cards, one of which was the Qh. I showed my king-high flush to beat hers. Then the all-in player in the cutoff turned over his -- AcAh!

Was something like a $60 pot in the end, a little bit of which I did get back thanks to the fact that the winner had run out of chips on the turn. Afterwards I thought to myself how if I’d won the hand I’d have been approaching the buy-in for the $120 tourney (no shinola), not something I necessarily had anticipated being able to pull off at a 2-4 table. Also thought how on a hand with a straddle -- actually the only time anyone had done so the entire session -- pocket kings and pocket aces had been dealt.

I ended up bailing, another exchange of messages with Kevmath making it seem like he wasn’t going to make it. He did, ultimately, as did a few others I knew, which made me later wish I’d stuck around. But in truth I was feeling a little fatigued and had some other work to take care of. Besides, I liked leaving the poker room with more cabbage than I’d had when I entered.

Today it appears I’ll head back to the Rio, probably joining with the PokerNews coverage for a couple of hours before I start in earnest tomorrow with a full shift. You know, starting slow. Easing in.

Labels: , , , ,


Older Posts

Copyright © 2006-2021 Hard-Boiled Poker.
All Rights Reserved.