Fumbles That Hit You Right in the Feelings

Football season is in high gear, even if my Carolina Panthers are off to a woeful start.

Yesterday’s game versus the Atlanta Falcons was especially distressing, given how evident it was from the very beginning the defense wasn’t going to be able to stop Atlanta’s passing game. Reigning MVP Cam Newton going out in the second half after suffering a concussion just made things less pleasant.

The Panthers losing presents a specific problem for me in my Pigskin Pick’em pool (where we pick games straight up, not versus the spread), as I dislike picking against them. That bias wasn’t so much of an issue last year when they went 15-1, but it’s already earned me three “X” marks this year.

Otherwise I’ve done well so far with my picks, although yesterday got me thinking once more about the relative pain and pleasure that comes from various outcomes.

My buddy Robert Woolley, a.k.a. the “Poker Grump,” wrote a nice article for PokerNews recently titled “Mountains, Swinging, and the Fear of Loss in Poker” in which he shares some research regarding the way losing can hurt more than winning can feel good.

According to findings of the economist Robert cites in the article, the “loss aversion” ratio for most people is “in the range of 1.5 to 2.5.” In other words, for many it is somewhere either above or below being twice as painful to lose than it is pleasurable to win.

It was early in the NFL season last year I shared a hastily-created “pleasure-pain index” for Pigskin Pick’em, something I was reminded of by Robert’s article as well as by some of the results from yesterday. The index goes as follows:

most pain: making non-consensus choice (usually an underdog), being wrong

least pain: making consensus choice (usually a favorite), being wrong

least pleasure: making consensus choice (usually a favorite), being right

most pleasure: making non-consensus choice (usually an underdog), being right

After three weeks of following a relatively conservative path with my picks, I broke out of that yesterday somewhat by choosing a few unpopular dogs such as Jacksonville (who won) and the LOLJets (who lost). Those picks ended up evening out for the most part, although one game in particular -- San Diego’s miserable give-away of its game versus New Orleans -- got me thinking the index isn’t accounting for another factor significantly affecting the pleasure-pain measurement.

I picked San Diego over Indianapolis in Week 3, a game in which the Chargers had a 22-20 lead and a 2nd-and-3 at midfield with less than three minutes left, but couldn’t make a first down and lost the lead on a long TD.

The Chargers then got the ball back down four and promptly fumbled, then after getting it back one last time with almost no time left fumbled again. Indy won 26-22, with San Diego having gone from an 80.6% “win probability” (as ESPN is now measuring) with two minutes left to losing.

Despite the pain caused by that failed pick, I chose San Diego again yesterday in their home game against New Orleans, and with just under seven minutes left the Chargers were up 34-21 with possession of the football. Win probability? 98.5%. But they fumbled, and the Saints got a quick TD. Then they fumbled again, New Orleans got seven more, and the Chargers lost 35-34.

I didn’t actually see either game, save the last desperate minute yesterday when San Diego got the ball back one last time and lost 12 yards, then threw a pick. Reading box scores and play-by-play rundowns of the ends of these two games, the fumbles seem almost purposeful -- the surest way to lose the games. Bill Barnwell of ESPN even tweeted yesterday how San Diego was “trying so hard to lose this game,” and while I don’t actually think they were, it’s uncanny how efficiently they managed to let slip away an all-but-certain victory.

I’m realizing the pain is heightened when being on the wrong side of these games, and is much greater than the pleasure of winning them, in my experience. I’m referring to games in which as a person trying to predict winners the game concludes in such a way that you cannot help but view yourself as being either “lucky” or “unlucky” when choosing either side -- you know, games decided by unlikely late turnovers, odd or incorrect calls by referees, missed field goals, and the like.

I certainly like winning such games, but when that happens I can’t say I feel as though I’ve “earned” the check mark like I do when teams demonstrate less equivocally that I’ve chosen the right side (such as when I picked the Steelers last night and they crushed Kansas City 43-14). Meanwhile losing them feels especially bad, and even today I keep looking back and thinking how “undeserving” I am to have been rudely delivered that red “X” in the Chargers-Saints game.

Each of the four categories above, then, could be split into four more subcategories -- the “lucky” win, the “non-lucky” win, the “non-lucky” loss, and the “unlucky” loss -- with the relative pain-pleasure calibrated for each outcome. Hmm... this is getting complicated. I may have to create a table or graph to represent it all.

Silly stuff, I know. But the curious part of it is how what I’m describing is precisely the opposite of what happens (to me) in poker, where losing because of bad luck doesn’t hurt much at all, but losing because of my own poor decisions hurts significantly. Similarly, winning by getting lucky doesn’t bring as much pleasure as winning because of smart, skillful play.

Will keep monitoring it all. And we’ll see if I can ever bring myself to picking the Chargers again -- or perhaps if I can start picking against the Panthers -- and what sort of pain and/or pleasure those picks will produce.

Image: “fumble!” (adapted), Paul L Dineen. CC BY 2.0.

Something in the Wind

Took some time this Labor Day to take care of something I’d been meaning to do for a long time.

Ever since we moved to the farm a little over two-and-a-half years ago, we’ve been gradually making improvements to the property, including the barn. It’s a constant process, and it always seems like something needs added to or repairing.

You’d think perhaps you could just set everything up from the start and have a routine you can follow that takes care of everything, but there are always unexpected obstacles or challenges forcing you to do things differently. Or, more often, forcing you to learn how to handle something you haven’t had to deal with before.

The poker analogy is probably obvious -- I’m referring to the need always to work on your game and be ready for unexpected tests and situations as they arise at the tables. There’s also that feeling of just trying to break even and “stay in the action,” making sure everything is working as it should and -- most importantly -- the horses are all comfortable and getting what they need.

Anyhow, as that picture up top suggests, we’ve been missing something from the barn ever since we moved in -- not an essential item, but one that now that we have it makes the barn seem somehow more complete.

“Presently trying to find some direction,” I tweeted when sharing the above pic.

“I think your search is in vane,” quipped my buddy the Poker Grump in response.

WSOP-Related Reads on PokerNews

A few good reads over on PokerNews today, IMHO (as they say). All have something to do with the 2016 World Series of Poker, which starts in just about a week.

For one there’s the first part of PN’s annual predictions for the upcoming World Series of Poker, where I’m chiming in along with several others. We give thoughts about 10 different questions in this part, with more to come.

We guess who will win WSOP POY, who will win various marquee events, opine about how various pros will do, and weigh in as well on this question of whether or not Howard Lederer and/or Chris Ferguson will turn up at the Rio this summer.

I’m more or less okay with my predictions in this part, though I’m less confident about some of the ones I ventured in the second part. In any case, check out “2016 World Series of Poker Predictions, Part 1: Will Ferguson or Lederer Return?” and compare your own ideas about what’s going to happen this summer.

Two good strategy articles additionally went up today, also both relevant to the upcoming WSOP.

One is by Darrel Plant, who took a close look at the structures for the low buy-in events at this year’s WSOP and saw the early levels go much faster this time versus last year. The $565 buy-in Colossus gets most of the focus, and what Darrel has to say should be pretty interesting (and useful) to those playing in that one.

See “Playing the Colossus? Structure Changes to Early Levels Make Fast Start Crucial.”

Also, our friend Robert Woolley, a.k.a. the “Poker Grump,” wrote what I think has to be the first strategy article I’ve seen that specifically focuses on seniors events such as the $1K one the WSOP has for players aged 50 and up.

Check it out: “Thinking of a Seniors Event? Tips to Make it Fun and Profitable.”

Photo: courtesy PokerNews.

Bright Ideas: Some Recommended Reading

Wanted today just to point to a few items over in the PokerNews Strategy section published this week that I think are especially interesting, for different reasons.

One is Bob Woolley’s lengthy response to the recently-revised Poker Tournament Directors Association rule book, titled “New Poker Tournament Rules You Need to Know.”

Bob (a.k.a. the Poker Grump) highlights 14 of the new additions/edits to rules for comment, serving both to inform readers of the rules and to give us something to think about when judging the changes as positive or otherwise. In most cases, Bob is in favor of what the Poker TDA has done, although there are a couple of exceptions. Check it out.

Another article I enjoyed was Nikolai Yakovenko’s discussion “Game Theory Optimal Solutions and Poker: A Few Thoughts.” It’s another long one, but well worth it if you’re at all interested in learning more about what “GTO” really is and what it has to do with poker.

Nikolai keeps it interesting throughout, and the discussion at the end about three-handed play between Daniel Negreanu, Dan Colman, and Christoph Vogelsang at the conclusion of the 2014 Big One for One Drop is enlightening, not to mention a helpful example with which to highlight some of the article’s main points.

Finally, I also liked Carlos Welch’s article from yesterday titled “Note to Self: If You’re Gonna Lose a Flip, At Least Lose It Right.” Carlos explores an interesting theory in that one, namely that since position is so important in poker, if you’re going to lose chips it is better to lose them to players on your right against whom you’ll have position and thus a better shot subsequently at getting those chips back.

Like the other two articles, there’s some genuinely original thought going on in Carlos’s article as he pursues this idea, the kind of thing that is sometimes hard to come by these days when it comes to poker strategy.

Indeed, for me all three of them feature actual “light bulb” moments. Check ’em out and see if they do for you, too.

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.

More to Learn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horse Play and Other Best Bets

Full-blown farm life around here these days now that our two horses, Sammy and Maggie, have arrived. Vera has had Sammy forever -- pretty much since we’ve been together -- and Maggie for a good while, too, making it especially nice to have both of them with us... right in the back yard!

I tweeted that pic to the left a few days ago, and Dr. Pauly -- a.k.a. “Ocelot Sports” -- immediately inquired if they were race horses. No, I explained, but “you can bet on who finishes feeding first.” At that he eyed the competitors and quickly calculated money lines.

“Sammy -130, Maggie +125,” he estimated.

“Sounds about right,” said Vera after I explained to her that Pauly had made Sammy the favorite. Sammy is part-thoroughbred and has quite the appetite, even if their diets technically are such that Maggie gets fed a little more each day and night.

Between the farm duties, starting a new semester of “Poker in American Film and Culture,” and Learn.PokerNews-related activities, I’ll admit I’ve been distracted more than a little from much else here lately.

Speaking of the latter, let me say I’m excited about the start of a new series of articles on “Casino Poker for Beginners” by Bob Woolley, a.k.a. the Poker Grump. Bob is the perfect person in my opinion to deliver this kind of advice to new players, and I’m psyched about being able to add him to the line-up of writers at Learn. See his first piece on “Getting Into the Game.” And here he gives a short intro to the series on the Poker Grump blog.

Meanwhile starting the class again is always fun, and I’m beginning to think I might try to share some of the content of the course over on Learn as well as we move through our narrative of poker’s prominent place in American history and culture. Need to ponder a little more on the best strategy for doing that, but I think it could be fun to share some of readings and clips in that way. I’ve had people ask me frequently if they could audit the class, and this could be a way to share some of what we’re doing with a wider audience.

Finally, while we’re on the subject of Learn stuff, I had the chance to read and review Tricia Cardner’s new book Positive Poker (with contributions from Jonathan Little) which I quite liked. She’s got a couple of doctorates including one in psychology, is a license psychotherapist, and a good poker player, too, which positions her well to deliver the mental game advice she does in the book. Read the review here, and if you’re further interested you can read an interview with Cardner as well here.

Like me, Cardner has taught a college course focusing on poker, in her case one on the psychology of poker. It was that class as well as her dissertation that provided the impetus for her book, as you can read about in both the review and interview.

That’s all for now as I have to go take care of my nightly duties to clean the stalls, feed and water, and take care of the barn cats, too. I keep joking with people about my stall-cleaning duties, and it’s funny how many seem to respond by saying how great it all sounds.

They’re right. It’s pretty awesome. And you don’t even have to place bets on Sammy and Maggie to enjoy watching them.

Travel Report: Season XII WPT bestbet Jacksonville Fall Poker Scramble, Day 4 -- Fast Finale

All done in Florida and now I’m back home after a quick, uneventful voyage back. Jared Jaffee took the World Poker Tour bestbet Jacksonville Fall Poker Scramble down without too much struggle yesterday after starting the final six-handed table with about a third of the chips in play.

Actually runner-up finisher Blake Purvis did manage to challege Jaffee briefly, even seizing the lead by less than a big blind to start heads-up play. But Jaffee won the first two hands between the pair to push back ahead, then whittled away for another hour before finally using -- our friend Poker Grump’s fave hand -- to crack Purvis’s pocket aces and secure the win.

It took 99 hands and just a few minutes under four hours for the final table to finish up. Many spoke of it being one of the fastest final days they could remember for a WPT final.

The length of levels were increased from 60 to 90 minutes after dinner on Day 2 and continued at 90 minutes through the long Day 3 when they played down from 26 to six. Then for the final table they reverted back to hour-long levels, then made it 30-minute levels when heads-up play began, all of which helped create conditions for that rapid finish.

I know back during the first few years of the WPT there was much talk about the structure not allowing for enough play at final tables. I’m remembering some changes being introduced around 2007 to slow things down at the end somewhat, then in 2009 another change was made to what I believe is this current format. A little too tired at the moment to look it all up. I’ll be at another WPT event in a couple of weeks (the Five Diamond at the Bellagio) and in fact will be working with longtime WPT reporter B.J. Nemeth at that one, so he can surely fill me in on the history of these structure changes.

Even if things got pushed along a little quickly at the end, Jaffee was certainly a worthy winner, breaking through to grab a WPT title after having made a couple of final tables and come up short before.

Now that I’m back I’m catching up a bit on the news, including the big story regarding New Jersey imminently joining the online poker game in the U.S. with licenses being approved and a “soft” launch of some sites happening tomorrow and the official start of things cranking up next week. Something else I’m going to have to read more about in the coming days. Gonna be very interesting to see WSOP.com, Ultimate Poker, and others getting up and running over here on the east coast.

For now, though, I’m going to try to grab some rest. Was a good time in Jacksonville working alongside friends old and new, and much thanks to the bestbet folks again for being so accommodating.

The Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show, Episode 21: Lucille Ball

Years later, my podcast has returned! Episode 21 of The Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show has now been posted. If you click over to the show’s blog you can see the entry with my “show notes.” You can download the show there (or just listen to it online), or you can just click here. It ought to be turning up in iTunes as well before too long, I imagine. (All of the previous 20 episodes are still there.)

This episode features the great Lucille Ball and includes some stories about her and Desi Arnaz, a full episode of an old time radio show in which she starred, as well as a couple of funny poker-related excerpts from I Love Lucy. There’s also a pretty humorous (and catchy) song from the Andrews Sisters in there, too, called “Strip Polka.”

I started the podcast with great enthusiasm long ago, pumping out episodes every two weeks or so there at the beginning, then slowing down the pace but still getting all of the way to Episode 20 fairly quickly. Then a few months passed, I claimed the show was on “hiatus,” and before long it became clear I was drawing thin to ever revive the sucker.

Not really sure what exactly inspired me finally to pull together a new episode this week, other than having a little bit of free time in between tourney trips and other obligations.

I actually had ideas for new episodes on multiple occasions over that long period of procrastination, even recording segments and pursuing themes on a couple of occasions. Once my buddy the Poker Grump and I even recorded a conversation about A Streetcar Named Desire that I’d intended to use in an episode, but I never got around to bringing that idea to fruition.

We’d both written posts about the movie, which in fact incorporates poker in fairly significant ways. Incidentally, here’s his post about the film, titled “Poker, ‘this party of apes,’” and here’s mine, “Men, Women, and Poker in A Streetcar Named Desire.” We both discuss how the film uses poker as a context for exploring the movie’s broader themes regarding men and women and cultural expectations or “gender roles” for each.

That same topic actually comes up in the old time radio show I highlight in Episode 21, an episode of My Favorite Husband. As I explain on the podcast, the radio show which ran from 1948 to 1951 featured the same sort of situation that would later get picked up and used for the I Love Lucy show that premiered in 1951 -- that is, a domestic setting with Ball starring as a housewife and getting into funny situations with her working husband. In fact, the TV show even borrowed some of the plots from the radio show, including the one I play on the podcast.

As you might have guessed, the episode finds Lucy -- on the radio show playing a character named Liz Cooper -- jumping into her husband’s poker game, a men-only sphere in which her presence creates some conflict. However, unlike in A Streetcar Named Desire, the result of the conflict are lots of laughs and no tense-filled drama.

Anyhow, check out the show if you’re curious. Despite all the time passing, I basically made the episode without any significant change to the format and without even making too much of a deal of having let so much time go by between shows. The idea for the podcast all along has been to create shows that weren’t time-bound in any way, meaning you could listen to them at any time and they’d still make sense and be as interesting or entertaining as when they were first created.

If you do happen to listen, I’d love feedback either here on this post, over on the post on the HBPRS blog, or via reviews in iTunes. Would also like suggestions, too, for future shows, if anyone’s got ’em.

2011 WSOP, Day 38: Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall

The 2011 World Series of Poker Main Event kicked off yesterday with a modest-sized field of 897 turning out for Day 1a, the first of four consecutive Day Ones. Day 1a usually attracts the fewest entrants of the four, although yesterday’s total was down fairly significantly (about 20%) from last year’s Day 1a total (1,125).

The low turnout meant the entire Day 1a field could be seated inside the Amazon Room with a lot of tables to spare. With the big, bright “mothership” sitting there in the middle of the room taking up a lot of space, there are fewer tables in the Amazon this year than in years past. They did use the feature table there, but most of the time there were only two or three dozen spectators in the stands watching it. All of which made the vibe seem somewhat desolate yesterday, with lots of empty seats and tables surrounding the players, dealers, staff, and those of us covering what was going on.

Nor was there much fanfare, either, as far as the preliminaries went -- e.g., no UNLV marching band like in 2008 or anything close. Just a somewhat tired-seeming Doyle Brunson quickly delivering the “shuffle up and deal” instruction before shuffling himself over to the feature table where he lasted just a few hours more before being eliminated.

Nor was there much in the way of Main Event goofiness on the fashion side of things. Just a couple of crazy hats and one dude in a red velvet robe. It was almost refreshing to see one player, Richard Wyrick, surprisingly return from the dinner break dressed as Snow White, complete with outfit, makeup, and black wig. Had kind of a Divine-like thing going there, really, as he sat there behind his dwindling stack of chips.

Wyrick finished 27th in the WSOP ME in 2006, actually. Apparently he felt like things weren’t going too well during the first three levels, so he dressed up for the post-dinner poker in order to try to change his luck. He made it through the day, but will return to a super short stack on Monday (Day 2a). And perhaps in a different costume.

But that was really it as far as novelties went. Otherwise it was a lot of baseball caps, hoodies, sunglasses, and a few cowboy hats. Just a lot of dudes (and a few women here and there) playing cards. Was almost wishing I’d see the seven dwarfs arrive at some point to cheer on Wyrick, but Dopey, Bashful, Sneezy, and the rest were nowhere to be found.

Grumpy was there, though.

Many readers of this blog no doubt are familiar with the blog kept by Bob Woolley, a.k.a. “Poker Grump,” and thus probably know about how he managed to score a seat in the Main Event this year via that raffle conducted by Daniel “jungleman12” Cates. (See here for details.) As it happened, Bob was seated in my section yesterday and so I had the chance to follow his progress off-and-on during the day.

Of course, I would’ve been visiting Bob’s table frequently anyway, since he ended up drawing one of the more stacked tables in the room, one including Olivier Busquet, David “the Maven” Chicotsky, Tom Schneider, and Greg Raymer. No shinola! That photo of Bob, by the way, is courtesy of Ben over at Wasted Aces Poker. Check out his post from yesterday for some more shots from Bob’s table.

Bob managed to survive to the dinner break with roughly the starting stack, then lost some afterwards to finish the day on the short side. (Here’s Bob briefly describing his day; stay tuned to his blog as I’m sure he’ll be reporting further on it all.) In fact, Bob outlasted Chicotsky, Schneider, and Raymer -- all of whom busted yesterday -- to be one of the 560 who made it through to Day 2. (Busquet eventually was moved to another table.)

Bob actually knocked out Schneider, and I happened to be there to report on the hand. Pocket aces for Bob and pocket kings for a short-stacked Tom. Kind of poignant for me to write that one up, given that I’ve been friends with both guys for several years.

Long-time readers of the blog know how I met Tom way back in the spring of 2007, before his great run at that summer’s WSOP when he won two bracelets and WSOP Player of the Year. I had spoken with Schneider just before play started yesterday -- in fact, I’d gone over to the table, talked to him, and didn’t even notice Bob sitting a couple of seats away -- and he related to me how it had been a somewhat tough Series for him and he’d hoped the ME would turn things around.

I was over there later on to see him make an amazing fold versus Raymer, laying down a middle set of tens on the turn versus Raymer’s top set of queens. He was obviously playing well, but the cards just wouldn’t cooperate. (See this short piece by Otis on the PokerStars blog reflecting in part on Tom’s plight.)

Wasn’t the most thrilling day of poker I’ve covered, but certainly a memorable one. I’m currently fighting a touch of the “blogger flu” I think, and by night’s end my sinuses were on fire, my eyes bloodshot and moist, my head heavy. I took a look around at those remaining and found myself kind of weirdly identifying with everyone in the room, all of these hopefuls, just wanting to get through to the end with chips, to keep it going.

Bob’s playing yesterday might’ve had something to do with my being possessed by such feelings. Although he’s certainly a more experienced and accomplished player than I am, I still kind of think of him as a peer of sorts and thus his playing makes the idea of me taking a Main Event seat seem less fantastic. Thus (perhaps) I was thinking more specifically about the players’ perspective yesterday than I would have otherwise. Tom’s hard luck day might’ve also affected me in a similar way. Such a good guy, and terrific player. But the cards don’t care about how good anyone is -- as people or as players.

Or maybe it was Snow White sitting over there that made everyone seem just a tad more vulnerable. Who knows?

It’s an odd thing, the WSOP Main Event. I suppose it’s like the Queen’s magic mirror. The poker world looks into it year after year, asking for some sort of validation or truth or something of use in its ongoing quest for self-definition.

Still a couple more weeks for us to look and see. And ask.

Winning, Losing, Wanting to Be Great

Yesterday I rewatched The Hustler, the 1961 film starring Paul Newman, George C. Scott, Piper Laurie, and Jackie Gleason that many consider to be one of the all-time best gambling films ever made.

Some even go so far as to consider The Hustler a great poker film, despite the fact that it really contains very little poker at all -- just a couple of incidental shots, really, of a game being played. The central game is pool, of course, and while I can’t say I’ve seen a ton of pool-related films, I imagine The Hustler heads most lists of the best films in which that game is central.

But the movie really does give poker players a lot to think about. In fact, in Total Poker (1977), David Spanier, in his chapter about “Movies,” idiosyncratically promotes the film as “the best film about poker” in his estimation for the way it depicts winning and losing and the struggles and challenges often faced at the tables. The Poker Grump did a nifty job a while back explaining the many “poker lessons” in The Hustler, too. Check out his post here.

It had been a few years since I’d seen The Hustler. Definitely a riveting, well-acted story with a lot of “hard-boiled” elements. And like I say, and as both Spanier and the Grump argue, the “poker” stuff is all there right on the surface. There were a couple of other elements of the film that stood out for me on this viewing, though. Or a couple of characters, rather.

Newman as Fast Eddie, Scott as the slimy Bert Gordon, Myron McCormick as Eddie’s partner, Charlie -- all are certainly great performances and well-wrought characters. But also compelling are Sarah, Eddie’s girl, played by Laurie, and, of course, Minnesota Fats, portrayed by Gleason.

Sarah reminds me a lot of certain troubled female characters populating novels by Jim Thompson, Charles Willeford, and the like. Her ailments, addictions, and neuroses seem to mirror Eddie’s own considerable flaws, a fact which I’m sure many who’ve analyzed the film have pointed out many times over.

Fats, meanwhile, stands in sharp contrast to Eddie, a man utterly confident, comfortable, and content. He represents a figure Eddie wishes he could be but cannot. For Eddie, “the Fat man” is larger than life, a kind of ideal player who has all of the things -- ability, style, and most importantly, character -- Eddie lacks.

But Fats is human, too. He can lose. He’s not really larger than life. We can (I think) “play” like he does, given enough experience and commitment to whatever game it is we choose to play.

I love Gleason’s look there during the final scene as he listens to Gordon and Eddie arguing with each other over both the money and the meaning of everything that has transpired. Been there. Done that. He’s Phil Ivey enduring a horrendously bad beat at the hands of an amateur. It’s an inspiring image, I think, upon which Eddie -- amid all of the emotions and disturbance of his argument with Gordon -- cannot help but comment before leaving.

“Fat man,” he says. “You shoot a great game of pool.”

It’s what we all want to do. We want to win, sure. And we don’t like losing. But really, more than anything, we all want to be great.

2010 WSOP, Day 18: Beating 2-4

Relatively speaking, yesterday was one of the less hectic days at the WSOP in terms of number of events being played. Whereas on Saturday (say), there were six different events going on throughout the day, with two final tables, yesterday there were just four and one final table.

Of course, I ain’t gonna say anything remotely resembling that it was not a busy day at the WSOP too loudly around my buds F-Train and Donnie Peters. That is because those two were assigned to cover the one final table yesterday for Event No. 25, the $10,000 Omaha Hi-Low Split-8 or Better Championship. Which only ended like a half-hour ago. Looks like even the otherwise indefatigable Dr. Pauly had to give up and go to bed before the sucker finally concluded.

F-Train and Donnie knew the deal when things first got started for them mid-afternoon on Sunday. As F-Train’s Day 3 intro post notes, they had 23 players coming back yesterday, and so knew it was going to be a long, long day from the beginning. I haven’t checked the schedule, but I’m hoping for both those guys’ sakes they have today off, or at least aren’t to come in until later in the afternoon.

Meanwhile, I ran well yesterday -- in a couple of ways.

For one, I had the day off, and so for the first time since the WSOP started -- save that week-long Peru excursion for LAPT Lima -- I did not set foot in the Rio. Took care of some day-to-day stuff, including getting ready for Vera’s visit later in the week by renting a car (something I’ve held off doing until now).

Also got to visit with my friend the Poker Grump, having a delicious early dinner at Bachi Burger, an “Asian Inspired BBQ Burger restaurant.” I had the Banh-Mi burger, garlic salt & pepper french fries, and a strawberry Boba drink. Just awesome. Vera and I may be going back there when she comes. (Here’s a page full of photos of dishes and the menu, if you are curious.)

Then Bob and I went for a short session of low limit hold’em afterwards at the MGM, where I ran well again. Couple of full houses, a few other one-pair hands holding up, and even a hand in which I somehow -- incredibly -- beat Bob’s .

Readers of the Grump are well aware of his long-time championing of the “Mighty Deuce-Four.” I explained to the Grump after that hand that as strong as the deuce-four is normally, in $2-$4 it gets cracked all the time.

Anyhow, things get busy again today, both for me personally and the WSOP in general. At least five or six events will be going on every day this week.

For the next three days, I’ll be helping report on Event No. 28, the $2,500 Pot-Limit Omaha event. I might have anticipated Sammy Farha -- the Omaha king -- perhaps to show up for this one, but he was up late last night, too, winning that Event No. 25 (his third Omaha bracelet). Also, Farha doesn’t tend to play the lower buy-in events, anyway.

We’ll see, though. Check in over at PokerNews’ live reporting for news from all five events happening today.

Poker Blogs, ca. 2010

Writing that post earlier this week marking four years of Hard-Boiled Poker got me thinking once again about poker blogs -- most specifically how the poker “blogosphere” has changed over that period. I mentioned there how when I started mine there were a number of poker blogs already out there to serve as possible models. Back then it seemed just about anyone who played poker and enjoyed writing even just a little had a blog goin’.

I remember writing a post very early on -- titled “An Existential Pause” -- in which after just a few months of blogging I tried to explain the various purposes I thought a poker blog could serve. I had heard an interesting conversation on the old Lord Admiral Card Club podcast between Cincinnati Sean and Iggy, a.k.a. the “Blogfather” of poker blogs thanks to his long-running Guinness and Poker blog. I took their conversation as a cue to offer my own thoughts about what a poker blog was, or could be.

At a time when I was still trying to figure out what kind of blog mine would be, I suggested “a blog can be any number of things -- a personal diary, a virtual soapbox, a promotional tool, a news outlet, a discussion-starter, a confessional . . . you name it,” concluding that, “ultimately, a blog shapes itself according to the personality of its creator.”

I also added at the end that I had already found the process of writing the blog to have been somewhat illuminating, insofar as it required a bit more self-study than I might have otherwise performed. I was speaking mainly about my poker game, really, although the idea would obviously apply more generally. “Writing a poker blog is like being a detective,” I suggested. “Raymond Chandler once described the detective story as ‘a man’s adventure in search of hidden truth.’ All poker bloggers are shamuses, really. Investigating themselves.”

I continue to subscribe to a number of poker blogs today, although if I had to generalize I’d say that the idea of starting and maintaining a poker blog occurs much less frequently now to players than it did four years ago. Folks are much more likely to start Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, or find other ways to satisfy that impulse to chronicle and/or communicate their adventures, if they have that impulse.

Still, there are plenty of good ones out there, demonstrating that same variety of approaches and angles to all things poker that keeps me following along. Just to give a small sample, let me mention ten bloggers who are among those I tend to click on first over in the reader whenever I see they have published something new. While I’m at it, I’ll mention particular, relatively recent posts from each which are indicative of why I like following ’em.

I always click on a new post from Tommy Angelo whenever I see he’s added something to his blog. Gonna reach back a few weeks to March to point you to a little poker anecdote-slash-riddle of his, which itself saw Angelo reaching back several years to share the story: “You No Gamble” (March 15). Speaking of Angelo, Episode 13 of the Gambling Tales Podcast went up earlier this week and on that one I joined Special K and Falstaff to discuss Angelo’s book, Elements of Poker. Check it out.

Amy Calistri has sort of moved out of the “poker blogging” game, having entered the so-called “straight world” of business investing. She still commments from time to time on the poker/gambling world, though, bringing with her the perspective of someone with a lot of poker reporting experience. Earlier this month she wrote a neat post titled “Frugal Detective Work” (April 4) which wasn’t really about poker (although it begins with an anecdote about Andy Beal), but provided a nifty little example of puzzle-solving that I think should appeal to poker players. And fans of detective stories, too.

Julius Goat’s blog is a great one for fans of the TV show “Lost” and/or video clips demonstrating examples of “awesome” or “crazy.” Other fun stuff there, too, including a new installment of his long-running, award-winning Stupid System strategy guide, “Stupid System 013: Rush Poker” (April 7). Okay, I made that up about the award. Although really, I think anyone who has been following the series would agree the sucker deserves some sort of recognition for its important contribution to our collective poker knowledge.

Most of you know the prolific Poker Grump, I assume. Lots of good stuff from him again this month, including more stories from his adventures at dozens of different Vegas cardrooms. I especially liked one such recent tale, “Beware the Newbie” (April 16), which concerns his having recently played with an absolute novice. The newbie experienced some especially good fortune in the session, thereby producing some very entertaining moments along the way. A well-chosen picture of Mr. Magoo illustrates that one.

Pokerati celebrated its sixth birthday not too long ago. Dan Michalski’s site (to which I occasionally try to contribute) is a great one for breaking poker news, one recent example being his post reporting “Rogue Payment Processor Arrested in Las Vegas Accused of Laundering Full Tilt, PokerStars, UB Money” (April 17). Many times the comments to posts over there add quite a bit to the stories, such as was the case with that post.

Dr. Pauly’s Tao of Poker is of course always a must read, for many reasons. I’ll point you to his “Dispatches from the Mohegan Sun” from a couple of weeks ago: Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3. Kind of a preview of the sort of thing we can probably expect to see from Dr. P. once again from the WSOP -- namely, the sort of off-the-beaten-path, stuff-you-can’t-get-elsewhere reporting on poker that often reveals much more about what really happened at a given event than one can get through the usual channels.

F-Train is another blogger whose posts are consistently thoughtful and thought-provoking. He’s also one who will sometimes report or comment on matters one doesn’t generally find being talked about elsewhere. For example, his recent post titled “Tilt Transfer OK?” was an eyebrow-raiser, I thought. There he commented some on Full Tilt Poker’s current legal tribulations, most specifically that federal grand jury investigation we heard about a few weeks back.

There have been a few more eyebrow-raisers over on Haley Hintze’s blog over the past week, too. Haley continues to add to her “Just Conjecturin’” series regarding the insider cheating scandals at Absolute Poker and UB. In the past week, she’s moved over to provide some startling evidence regarding the AP scandal in “Just Conjecturin’, Volume 11: Meanwhile, Over at Absolute Poker, It Seems Scott Tom Really Did It” (April 24) and “Just Conjecturin', Volume 12: The Absolute Scandal and the Day Occam Rolled Over in His Grave” (April 28). I know I’m not the only one hastily clicking on her feed whenever a new post arrives.

Since having covered the NAPT Venetian back in February, I’ve been enjoying following Thomas “gnightmoon” Fuller’s blog. Fuller made the final table of the Main Event there, which finally turned up on ESPN2 earlier this week. He took that occasion to write a little something about the experience in “NAPT Venetian TV Premiere” (April 25).

Finally, I also like checking in over at the ESPN Poker Club to read what their bloggers, including Gary Wise and Andrew Feldman, have to say. Yesterday Feldman opined a bit on the low turnout at the WSOP Circuit event at Caesars Palace this week in “WSOP Circuit Continues to Struggle” (April 29), providing some insights into what’s going on with that tour and with the professional tourney circuit, generally speaking.

That by no means covers all of the blogs I’ve been following of late, but those were some posts that kind of stood out for me as particularly interesting and/or entertaining.

Two more blogger-related bits of news to pass along. One, I am working on creating a separate page here for my ever-growing “Blogroll.” Have a few too many outgoing links here on the main page, and so am doing a little bit of tidying up. Will keep you updated on that.

Also, in the near future my weekly Betfair poker column will be including some contributions from a number of your favorite poker bloggers offering their thoughts about the upcoming WSOP. Will let you know about that, too.

Meanwhile, click on some of them links above and enjoy yourself. Then go have a good weekend.

Persona Problems

Was a busy end of February here at Hard-Boiled Poker, highlighted by that trip to help cover the NAPT Venetian. Spent the weekend catching up on various things, including reading through emails and listening to a few poker podcasts.

Among the latter was that highly disappointing 2/25/10 episode of PokerRoad Radio in which the “B-Team” (Jimmy Fricke, Bryan Devonshire, and Court Harrington) kicked off the show by offering a mostly misleading, unfocused criticism of some of the reporting done from the NAPT Venetian.

Am not gonna rehearse all of the details of what was said, nor explain the obvious irony of trying to support a charge of unprofessionalism with misquotes, misattributions, and profanity. (Also, I’m probably a little too close to the situation here to be entirely objective about it, anyway.) Read here for details, and see the comments, too, for further reaction/apologies/etc.

Speaking of misfires, there was another one among the items I found when going back through my email box. Again, others have commented on this one at length and so I’m not planning to do much more than just mention it here -- that recent “special invite” to bloggers from PokerStars to write some posts about the upcoming Spring Championship of Online Poker in exchange for a ticket to play in an event. (By the way, click here to see the newly-revised schedule of SCOOP events, which takes place May 2-16.)

I’d noticed this email in passing last week, but only read it more carefully after the Poker Grump told me more about it when I saw him at the Venetian. The title of the Grump’s explanation and response -- “Thanks but no thanks” -- gives an idea of what he thinks of the promotion. Readers of this blog have no doubt already read the reactions of other poker bloggers, too, to the invitation to write not one but five separate posts containing particular phrases (with links) in return for a $22 SCOOP ticket.

Most of those who have written about the offer appear to have concluded the invite didn’t seem to represent a fair exchange -- i.e., less than $5 per post (and we’re not even talking about actual money, but a non-transferable tourney ticket). Some additionally pointed out how the offer implies a kind of disregard for poker blogs’ editorial integrity -- as though these were just so many words fired off into the intertubes, the primary purpose of which is to affect search engines or attract click-throughs and not to communicate actual thoughts or ideas.

Again, as with the PokerRoad incident, my instinct here is both to be disappointed and to recognize that having come into the debate a little late, I’m not seeing a lot of point in participating further in the piling on.

There is one common theme in both items, though, that might be worth pointing out. Something to do with that weird disconnect that occurs when people communicate online -- via blogs, emails, podcasts, news sites, what have you. This is going to be hard to put into words, I think, but I’ll try nonetheless.

When we read or hear something online, it often seems like it takes a conscious, extra effort to appreciate the “reality” of the person communicating those words and ideas. That is to say, our instinctive response is not the same as occurs in more direct forms of interaction, but rather to take what we are reading or hearing as the product of a “persona” or “character” or something not necessarily fully human but mediated in some fashion that necessarily affects how we react.

I fully realize, by the way, that I am trying to communicate this idea to you via a persona (Shamus). Bear with me, though, and believe that what I’m saying represents a real idea thought up by a real human being.

Because of this “ethos displacement effect” or whatever you want to call it, people are much more willing to criticize or fail to appreciate the significance of a real live human “author” whose thoughts and ideas are represented by the words. The same effect tends to fuel the flame wars in forums, or cause chat box crack-ups. Not believing you’re communicating with a real live human tends to lessen the urgency to be humane.

Seems to me both of the examples of less-than-ideal-communication listed above could be said to have demonstrated this phenomenon in different ways.

Travel Report, NAPT Venetian: Arrival

Today’s the day. The second big North American Poker Tour event (NAPT) -- and first in the U.S. -- begins at noon at the Venetian. Lot of buzz surrounding this one, for various reasons, with many interested to see just what the turnout will be, who comes to play, and how it all plays out.

Flight out was routine, the nearly one-hour delay before departure the only notable diversion from the ordinary. I peripherally followed the progress of my two seatmates as they became fast friends, traded whisky shots, turned predictably rambunctious, then predictably sleepy. Meanwhile, I read two-thirds of Dashiell Hammett’s most insane novel, The Dain Curse. Had been awhile, and I'd forgotten just how nuts that one is.

Finally put the book down shortly after poor Eric Collinson went over the cliff, and ended up spending the last part of the trip listening to Here Come the Sonics. “Have love... whoa baby, will travel...”

Landed at McCarran around nine-ish, and the Poker Grump was there to meet me. He and I created a funny scene there outside of the secured area, both on our phones trying to describe to each other our locations, then realizing we were practically standing right in front of one another.

We rode to Venetian, and soon got me checked in. I hadn't eaten dinner, so we hit the Grand Lux Cafe where I enjoyed a plate of pasta and clams while the Poker Grump impressively demolished an oversized chocolate cake dessert. Was fun visiting and definitely nice to begin the trip hangin’ some with a bud.

I expect I’ll be seeing a lot of other familiar faces soon. I arrived too late last night for the partyin’ at Tao. Was too tired anyway, really, although I'd end up only sleeping a few hours before waking this morning. Body will catch up, clock-wise, about time I leave I expect.

I’ll get an idea in just a little bit what the next few days will be like. The Main Event, a $4,750+$250 tourney, gets underway at noon today, and it looks like according to the schedule the plan is to play down to 24 players by the end of Day 3 (Monday), then eight (Tuesday), then the final table plays out Wednesday. Meanwhile, there’s also a “High Roller Bounty Shootout” event with a $25,000+$600 buy-in taking place on Tues. and Thurs. I believe I’m gonna be helping with the first day of that, too, although as I say I’ll find out for sure in a little while.

You can get all the info about the NAPT Venetian schedule over at the tour’s website. Meanwhile, coverage has already begun over on the PokerStars blog, where Otis wrote up details of yesterday’s celebrity charity tourney and the party (see here).

Be sure to check in on the PS blog to follow the coverage of today’s action. Meanwhile, I need to spend some more time getting acclimated to my new computer.

Ceci n’est pas a coin flip

Noticed this morning that the Poker Grump had directed us to an interesting article that explained how coin flips -- not the ones in poker, but real tosses of a coin -- are not, in fact, the absolute “50-50” propositions they are usually cited as being.

The article, which appears on the website called The Big Money (via Slate), explains that “research into coin flips has discovered that the laws of mechanics determine the outcome of coin tosses: The startling finding is they aren’t random. Instead, for natural flips, the chance of a coin coming up on the same side as it started is about 51 percent.”

Further explanation follows, including a bit about methodology and consequences. As far as the latter goes, it really doesn’t matter much that a coin is slightly more likely to end up on one side or the other if no one knows which side of the coin is right side up prior to the flip. In other words, if one is wagering on the outcome, it wouldn’t do for the person doing the flipping to be the one calling heads or tails, since that person could have an advantage by knowing which side of the coin was up prior to the flip, and thus which way the coin was slightly more likely to fall.

The article reminded me of a section in a book called Confessions of a Crossroad Gambler written by Gentleman Jack Newton. Newton is one of those old-timers who spent about a half-century (from the Great Depression on up through the 1970s) gambling all over creation -- in the United States, Mexico, the Caribbean, Europe, and South Africa. Last spring when I was visiting Vegas CK (a.k.a. the BWoP) gave me a copy of the book, which was published some time in 2008.

Newton includes several “how-to”-type discussions of various cheats, including a section on “Coin Flip Control.” There he describes how he taught himself as a teenager to flip coins so they appeared to be turning over when in fact they weren’t. They’d wobble, but wouldn’t tumble, and thus he could know how it would land. Wouldn’t work on concrete or some other hard surface, but would do best on dirt or even wood floors. As Newton explains, “I knew if I could control my coin flip on some fraction of my throws, I would win at the end of the day.” In fact, it was better only to try coin flip control now and then, as doing it too often would attract notice.

Thus would Gentleman Jack exploit his edge even further as the flipper of the coin, not settling for the apparent 51-49 advantage physics already gave him.

The article also put me in mind of so-called “coin flips” in poker, of course, almost all of which also are not exactly 50-50 situations. For example, let’s say you’re in a no-limit hold’em tournament and it is still early -- the antes haven’t kicked in. You lost some chips during the first couple of levels are looking to double up right now. The table folds to you sitting in the small blind with and you raise all in. Your neighbor in the big blind is holding and decides to call. According to Two Dimes, he’s 49.78% to win, you’re 49.67% to win, and there’s a 0.56% chance the hand will end in a tie.

So not quite even money, but essentially so. Each player is putting exactly half of the money in the middle, and each has just about the same chance of winning the whole pot. A coin flip.

But it’s not a coin flip. And I’m not just talking about the slight edge one hand has over another. You pushed all in first, thus forcing the big blind to decide whether or not to call. There’s a chance he’ll fold, and you’ll win his blind. A pittance, sure, but there’s some likelihood -- some percentage, perhaps quite high -- that he ain’t gonna gamble with his ten-nine suited here.

So there’s an additional advantage afforded to the person who acts first here -- sort of like the one enjoyed by the guy flipping the coin (as the article explains), though perhaps greater than just an extra 1%. In other words, in poker the relative willingness of players to take a roughly 50-50 gamble is a factor that affects the “coin toss.” Or, to be more exact, whether the coin gets “tossed” at all.

Further evidence, I suppose, that poker is not strictly gambling -- is not ever precisely like betting on coin flips, not even metaphorically.

2009 WSOP, Day 15: Live from the Rio

Yesterday’s final day of Event No. 19, the $2,500 No-Limit Hold’em Six-Handed event, was one of the more intriguing ones, poker-wise, I think I have covered this summer. Particularly the final six-handed table, where there were several interesting hands and moments along the way. Amazingly, Brock Parker, who won his first WSOP bracelet last Sunday in a short-handed limit event (Event No. 14), won this one, too.

I wanted to share a few thoughts about that final table here, both about the play and my helping cover it for PokerNews. I also wanted to write something today about the subject of puns (as I alluded to in yesterday’s post). I am off today, and so I think I might come back on here more than once this afternoon to write about these topics in separate posts. Wanted to pass along a couple of messages first, though.

During a break yesterday I appeared as a guest on the Hardcore Poker Show (the 6/10/09 episode) to talk for a short while from the Rio about the WSOP. That show goes out live on Sirius radio, then is made available as a podcast.

If yr curious to hear me, click here to get to the segment on which I appear. This is the first half of the show, and I’m on there right at the end for the last five minutes or so. Thanks to hosts Chris Tessaro and Rob Pizzo for having me on -- it was a blast.

Incidentally, when I told my blogging partner, Homer, last night that I was going to be on the show and explained that it appears on the Sirius network, you can guess what his response was.

“Oh, that’s the network where they never make any jokes, right?”

Like I say, more on puns later.

Finally, I want to send good vibes to my friend the Poker Grump who is taking a seat in today’s Event No. 24, the $1,500 No-Limit Hold’em event that starts up in just a little while at noon today. That picture to the left is a live action shot of him running good in the PokerListings’ Run Good Challenge 3: WSOP Edition last month where he won his seat in today’s event. We’ll all get to read about his experience on his excellent blog later on.

Back in a while.

2009 WSOP, Day 13: The Dollar Ain’t What It Used to Be

Was a good day off yesterday. Did not go to the Rio. Mostly just hung out at the home-away-from-home, doing some reading and writing. In the evening I went for dinner with the Poker Grump and Cardgrrl at the Grand Lux Café at the Venetian where we had a delicious meal and enjoyable conversation. Many topics arose, including the Grump’s upcoming shot at a WSOP event this Thursday.

Quick little anecdote about my trip over to the Venetian...

If yr gonna come to Vegas, you need to be ready to do a lot of tipping. And if yr short-stacked like me, you want one-dollar bills for that purpose, as five is too much for you to drop each time.

As I was leaving for dinner, I realized I didn’t have any singles and so went over to ask the fellow manning the hotel desk if he could change a five spot for me. As he was counting out the bills, I was uncrumpling my fiver to hand to him. Grabbed both ends, gave a little tug, and damned if the sucker didn’t tear right in half!

He handed me the bills and I sheepishly held out the two pieces to him. No problem. He had some scotch tape right there at the desk and quickly made the needed repair. As he did, I started to slip the ones in my wallet when I noticed one of them was damaged -- it was only about two-thirds what it should have been.

I laughingly handed the bill back to him for another. “Wow, the dollar sure isn’t as strong as it used to be,” I said as he fished out a fresh one for me. He wordlessly nodded. Not quite sure my little quip landed.

I drove over to the Venetian and as I was walking from the parking deck inside I noticed on the ground three one-dollar bills in the middle of the walkway. I looked around. No one in sight. So I scooped ’em up. I wondered how many people had passed by without even bothering to bend over and pick up the ones.

“An orphaned pot,” the Grump would say later when I related the story.

Cardgrrl asked me during dinner for my thoughts regarding turnouts thus far at the WSOP, and I realized I didn’t have much of a feel for how things were going in that area. I knew some tourneys, like that $1,000 No-Limit Hold’em “Stimulus Special,” had attracted the maximum (or more), but didn’t really know whether any larger trends had emerged as yet.

Exactly one-third of the 57 bracelet events have gotten underway by now, so I thought it would be semi-interesting to compare field sizes from 2008 and 2009 thus far.

Of the 19 events that have started, four are technically “new” events insofar as there was not an equivalent game/buy-in last year. Of the remaining 15 events, nine attracted fewer entrants, and six attracted more.

Some of what you see here is a bit skewed. For example, I’m comparing Event No. 7 to the first $1,500 NLHE event last year, which was at the start of the schedule last year. Obviously many of those who would’ve played in that one opted instead for the “Stimulus Special” this year. That column listing “projections” comes from the WSOP Staff Resource Guide -- they nailed some of the projections with uncanny accuracy, while others were off more than a little.

Not really enough here yet from which to draw conclusions, so I’ll keep tallying this as we go. I think overall, though, it is starting to shape up as many expected -- namely, not a lot of growth or decline, but a year in which the WSOP essentially holds steady.

Which I think, given all of the current economic woes, would be a definite triumph. As we poker players know, sometimes walking away even is a victory in and of itself.

I go back to the Rio today to help cover the second day of Event No. 19, the $2,500 No-Limit Hold’em Six-Handed event. Follow along over on PokerNews’ live reporting page.

Grump Runs Good in RGC 3 (WSOP Edition)

Pictured above is an exclusive, live action photo taken during the first of two events scheduled for the PokerListings Run Good Challenge 3: WSOP Edition (click to enlarge). That’s the Poker Grump out in the lead. He’d end up taking it down, thereby winning an entry into a $1,500 preliminary event at this summer’s WSOP. The Spaceman is close behind; he’d finish runner-up. And there are F-Train, Michele Lewis, and the others trailing.

That’s me in the back with the fedora. I’d finish an ignominious 20th (out of 25 runners). Lasted into the third level, and really, all told only had a single hand where afterwards I found myself thinking if I could’ve possibly done something differently to alter my fate.

There were eight players at my starting table. Going counterclockwise, we were seated as follows: myself, Benjo, Bruechips, Dan Skolovy, the Poker Grump, Spaceman, CarmenSinCity, and Pokerati Dan. I’d played with most of these folks before in previous Challenges, having butted heads most significantly with Dan Skolovy, the strategy writer over on PokerListings.

Back last fall in the first Run Good Challenge, PokerListings Dan knocked me out of the first event in fourth when his A-J outran my pocket jacks. Then in the second event, I made it to heads-up only to fall to PL Dan again. I won the third event of that first challenge, though have to say my triumph was helped somewhat by the fact that PL Dan went out early in that one.

Knowing PL Dan is an aggressive player, I didn’t care too much to see him a couple of seats to my left. (In fact, during previous RG Challenges we’d joked about how he always seemed to be seated on my left.) When I was in the cutoff, he’d be in the big blind, meaning it wouldn’t be such a simple matter to steal should the opportunity arise.

Still, I managed to win a few small pots early on without catching any real cards, then found it necessary to fold to preflop reraises a couple of times, causing me to slip down below the 1,500-chip starting stack. Was sitting at 1,485 near the end of level 2 when the following hand arose -- to me, the only real interesting one in which I was involved.

It folded to me sitting in the cutoff with . I decided to raise to 100 (a little over 3x). Then Benjo flat-called my raise from the button, which I didn’t care for too much.

When Bruechips folded his small blind, I knew instantly what PL Dan -- sitting there in the big blind with a below average stack of 955 chips -- was going to do. He shoved, and I had a decision. I might’ve considered gambling with PL Dan, since I know his range is very wide here, but with Benjo lurking behind (not to mention having me outchipped), I decided not to risk it. I got out of the way, and Benjo called.

PL Dan had K-9 offsuit, and Benjo pocket sixes. A jack did flop (que sera, sera). Benjo’s pocket pair held up, and PL Dan hit the rail. “Knew he wuz gonna do that” I typed, referring to PL Dan’s attempted squeeze.

Wasn’t long after that when I’d slipped down to an even 1,000 chips. The Poker Grump, our eventual champion, had been the short stack with around 650 chips, having been gutted early on when Spaceman’s outdrew his pocket kings. But then he managed to double up with pocket rockets. It was actually the second time he’d gotten ’em in one orbit, though he didn’t get any action the first time. He’d chipped up a little more to 1,675 when we reached what would prove my last hand.

With the blinds 25/50, I was sitting UTG where I was dealt . Raised to 200, and my only caller was Grump from the button. The flop came all babies -- . I shoved, and PRESTO Grump called, showing pocket fives for the flopped set. No jack came to save me, and I was toast.

I shot PG an email shortly afterwards telling him he now had to take the sucker down. A little while later he sent me a reply telling me he’d fulfilled my request. Have to say I’m especially excited for him, as I would have been for anyone who had emerged victorious in this here winner-take-all tourney. Gonna definitely be fun to see how he does in the WSOP event, whichever one he chooses to enter.

We all have one more chance this Saturday in the second and final event of Run Good Challenge 3. Big thanks again to Matt S. and the PokerListings guys for hosting!

Shamus in Vegas: Episode 3 -- Food for Thought

“Poor Vera. Dinner with five poker bloggers?”

So said the Poker Grump to me as we arranged our outing at the Grand Luxe Café at the Venetian. Would be the two of us, Cardgrrl, F-Train, BWoP, and Vera Valmore. Vera isn’t a poker player, but as I’ve documented here before has a lot of patience with those of us who like to tell poker stories. Of course, thinking back to the Wednesday Poker Discussion Group, I later joked with Vera about how she might not have liked a “hand of the day” that lasted two hours.

Vera knew the Grump, F-Train, and BWoP from last summer, and we were both looking forward to meeting Cardgrrl. Dinner was a lot of fun and really there wasn’t as much poker talk as one might have expected. Vera was quizzed a bit about the World Cup. Cardgrrl talked about her adventures in DC and her “year of risky business.” BWoP shared some about her non-pokery work. Poker Grump also told us a bit of his former life in the “straight world.” And F-Train filled us in on his upcoming trip to San Remo and Monte Carlo.

F-Train also told us about a recent incident where some kids had thrown rocks at he and BWoP’s house, breaking a window. That led to a funny discussion of children. You know, children? Those little people who look like us but aren’t as strong and don’t seem to be quite as smart?

Some of the details of F-Train’s story reminded me of one my earliest memories in which I got caught throwing rocks at passing cars. Hey, I was a little person. Not too bright. And unduly influenced by a neighbor girl named Eva. (Insert obvious scriptural allusion here.) In an uncanny prefiguring of F-Train’s account of what happened when he confronted the rock-throwing kids, I recalled how one driver had stopped to confront me and Eva. When he got out of his vehicle -- “$5,000!” I remember him yelling, which gives you an idea how long ago we’re talking -- Eva had suddenly vanished, scampering back to her house and leaving me to face the big person’s wrath. I suppose Adam was in a slightly tougher spot back in the garden, but little Shamus’ predicament was not to be envied, lemme tell ya.

We called it a night by about 10 p.m. Both Poker Grump and BWoP had books for me (thanks!), and since the meals were so oversized we also had take out to carry, too. So we took several bundles, as well as the memory of a fun time, back to the hotel.

On Thursday, Vera went back over to the show while I met Al Schoonmaker and Jim Brier for lunch over at the Palms buffet. I’ve already related some about our meeting, so I won’t repeat too much here. It was Dr. Al who had recommended the Wednesday Poker Discussion Group to me before (he regularly attends those meetings), and so we talked a bit about that and its history. We also talked some about the differences between limit and no-limit hold’em, as both Schoonmaker and Brier were essentially limit players up until recently. Most of you are probably familiar with Dr. Al’s books on poker psychology. Brier, too, is a poker author, and once co-wrote with Bob Ciaffone a well-regarded strategy text called Middle Limit Hold’em Poker (2002). In fact, Brier has been credited by several for the whole idea of emphasizing hand samples in poker strategy texts, such as one finds in his book with Ciaffone, the Harrington on Hold’em books, and many other publications.

The three of us also discussed the prospects for computers or “poker bots” to become advanced enough to compete in no-limit hold’em. Brier and I were of the opinion it would be a long time, if ever, for that to come to pass, but Schoonmaker seemed to think a bit more of the possibility. After an hour-and-a-half, we parted in the Palms parking lot, and that’s when I decided to head over to the Gold Coast to see if I could again squeeze in another short session. I did manage to find a game, and so will talk about that tomorrow.

Before signing off today, though, I have to mention how sad it was to hear yesterday of Justin Shronk’s passing. I met Shronk last summer at the World Series of Poker, and like everyone else found him a funny, friendly, smart dude whose presence added significantly to the poker reporting scene. Others knew him a lot better than I did, so I’ll let you find their thoughts about Shronk on other sites and blogs.

I was at the Bellagio last Saturday as the WPT World Championship was getting started, and I swear I thought I saw Shronk, although I must’ve been mistaken. I have a feeling a lot of people are going to experience similar moments at tour stops over the next few months -- thinking he’s there when he isn’t. ’Cause, well, Shronk belongs there. And it’ll be hard to accept that he won’t be. So my very best to those who were closest to him, especially those over at PokerRoad, where the traveling is going to be a bit tougher for a while.

However, as these stories of my meals in Vegas with poker writers attest, this here “poker community” is a great group with which to be involved. So I know that everyone is going to be there for each other, just like Shronk was always there for them.