The Battle of Hastings

This past Sunday, poker pro Brian Hastings jumped on Twitter to allege an instance of angle shooting perpetrated by an opponent of his during a World Series of Poker event. Hastings has won two WSOP events this summer, and this incident occured at the final table of one of them, the $1,500 10-game mix.

“PSA,” tweeted Hastings. “Alexey Makarov aka Lucky Gump (I think) tried to angle shoot at 10 game FT. Floor ruled against him tho. Beware.”

Several sprang to Makarov’s defense as Hastings described a hand in which Makarov had asked for a misdeal following the awkward delivery of the first three cards in stud. Hastings believed Makarov only made the request after seeing everyone’s upcards, including the deuce Makarov had been dealt.

Before long Hastings was reporting that he “may have overreacted” and that “Alexey and I made up and are friends again.” In other words, it appeared a very minor episode and if it weren’t the WSOP where every little dust-up gets extra scrutiny, few would have noticed it.

Discussion about it, though, prompted David “Bakes” Baker -- one of those who has brought to the fore game integrity issues with the Modiano cards being used at the WSOP -- to complain that Hastings himself had been involved in some shenanigans during the weeks leading up to the series, having played high-stakes mixed games (including SCOOP events) on PokerStars under another person’s account.

“So after I FT’d the SCOOP 2k a bunch of well known pros messaged me telling me @brianchastings was behind the NoelHayes account on Stars,” tweeted Baker.

Hastings normally plays as “$tinger 88” on PokerStars, and indeed, a player registered in Ireland named “NoelHayes” had made one of the $2,100 NLHE final tables during SCOOP, finishing fourth and in fact knocking out Baker (a.k.a. “WhooooKidd”) in fifth.

Playing on a second account is of course against Stars’ Terms of Service which explicitly limits players to just one. “In the event that PokerStars becomes aware of additional accounts opened by a User,” says the applicable item in the TOC, “PokerStars may close such additional accounts without notice and may confiscate funds held in such additional accounts.”

Much noise ensued over Twitter as well as on Two Plus Two where a thread to discuss Baker’s allegation was swiftly begun. As some in the thread have noted, the story evokes a much older one involving Hastings and his huge $4.2 million winning session versus Viktor Blom on Full Tilt Poker in December 2009.

Blom -- that is, “Isildur1” (whose identity was unknown at the time) -- lost those millions versus Hastings, then the latter revealed in an interview how he had been supplied hand histories involving Blom compiled by his then CardRunners pro colleagues (something that also skirted close to crossing a line in FTP’s terms, although the site determined Hastings was not guilty of any violations). Here’s a post from then introducing that controversy, if you’re curious.

The 2+2 thread raged onward for a couple of days and more than 240 posts. One side issue brought up by some concerns the highly-publicized bracelet bets Hastings made prior to the start of the WSOP and the idea that some making those bets didn’t realize he’d been playing high-stakes mixed games online during the spring.

Early this morning -- just before 5 a.m. Vegas time -- Hastings chimed in with a fuel-on-the-fire contribution to the thread in which he pointedly avoids addressing the whole “NoelHayes” question.

After making clear “I have nothing to add to the conversation publicly” and dismissing “what strangers on the internet” have to say about him, Hastings laments “something like this being a major story in the poker world at a time in which the WSOP is in full force and we should be trying to promote and grow the game of poker, rather than drag it through the mud.”

He brings up the state of online poker in the U.S. and efforts to bring the game back, calling it “unfortunate that certain people have been on bad runs and choose to take their frustrations out outwardly” -- i.e., by criticizing his apparent multi-accounting. He adds “this will be my last post in this thread,” although he already has come back a couple of times to further the theme that efforts to uncover his misdeeds are hurtful to the game as a whole.

Needless to say, such a post was not received well at 2+2. Indeed it makes little sense as an argument, which for me comes off like Nixon in his 1974 State of the Union stressing the need to put an end to the Watergate investigations (“One year of Watergate is enough”) in order to allow the the nation and its government to start “devoting our full energies” to other important issues.

Certainly yet another story of high-stakes multi-accounting reflects somewhat badly on the game, but not acknowledging it or considering it worth looking into would obviously be much worse for poker. Compare the cheating allegation in the $10K Heads-Up event a few weeks ago (still apparently being investigated). Sure, even an accusation reflects badly on the game in general and the WSOP in particular, but the damage caused by a reputation hit hardly compares to harm caused by actual cheating.

Hard to tell, to be honest, amid all the back-and-forthing what exactly to think about what has been alleged, including whether or not some “may have overreacted” here as Hastings might have done with Makarov. Even so, it will be curious to follow where this battle proceeds next.

(EDIT [added 6/25/15, 6 p.m.]: The thread and story takes another turn, with Baker sharing a direct message from Hastings in which the latter admits to having played on Stars on the “NoelHayes” account [which some have pointed out would have to have been done from the U.S. via VPN, another big no-no]. If curious, click here.)

Remko’s Run

Last summer I remember listening to an episode of the Dope Stories Podcast, the one featuring Shane “Shaniac” Schleger and Dr. Pauly. It was their “last” episode, actually, titled “This Is The End,” although they’d get together for another reunion ep. after that one.

On the show Pauly tells a funny story about working at the World Series of Poker several years back, with one of the story’s highlights (for me) having to do with our Dutch friend Remko Rinkema. I must’ve first met Remko at the 2008 WSOP when he was there reporting for PokerNews’ “NL” site, and we’ve had the chance to work together many times since then including most recently at the EPT Grand Final in Monaco.

I won’t rehearse all of Pauly’s story, but I will say it has to do with him having noticed something special about Remko. As the good doctor explains, his powers of perception had been heightened pharmaceutically, thereby enabling him to see more clearly than the rest of us Remko’s unrelentingly bright and positive aura. I’m remembering Remko back then often dressed in the orange jersey of his native country’s football squad, which I suppose only heightened the sunshiny effect Pauly was witnessing.

You can take Pauly’s story however you like, but anyone who knows Remko would readily agree that it is almost impossible not to pick up on the positive vibrations he consistently gives off. There are many others with whom I’ve had the good fortune to work at poker tournaments over the years who have also made my life brighter and funnier, and I’ll bet a lot of them -- like me -- would include Remko in that category of colleagues, too.

Thus was it especially fun to see Remko not only go deep in yesterday’s PokerStars’ Spring Championship of Online Poker Event #35-M, the $215 8-game mix, but actually come close to winning the sucker. He finished second out of 548, and in fact took away the largest share of the prize pool ($18,195.21) thanks to making a deal heads-up when he had the chip lead.

Even wilder, he outlasted both fourth-place finisher Dzmitry "Colisea" Urbanovich (who finished fourth) and Team PokerStars Pro Jason Mercier (who finished third), even knocking both of them out. Urbanovich is just coming off a series of European Poker Tour victories and earning EPT Player of the Year for Season 11, while Mercier has won three SCOOP titles over the last week-and-a-half. Seriously, what a barnburner!

When he and the eventual winner, a player named “Toby Work” from Denmark, were heads-up and getting the deal done, Remko’s opponent asked “u r journalist?” Remko didn’t hesitate before answering.

“I’m a top poker pro, I just write about poker so that the others have a chance to win,” he typed.

Remko’s many friends who were railing -- including both players and other poker media -- all laughed wherever they were around the world, each imagining hearing Remko delivering that line. (“Imagine how much funnier I am in Dutch,” Remko once told me. I believe it.)

I was glad a lot of us Remko fans got a chance last night to enjoy seeing him shine.

(EDIT [added 5/23/15]: To hear Remko tell the story of his run, check out the newest PokerNews podcast.)

One More Huge SCOOP

The 2014 Spring Championship of Online Poker (SCOOP) at PokerStars finishes up tonight with the completion of the last two-day events on the 135-tournament schedule. There were a lot of two-day tourneys this time -- 51 of them, in fact -- to accommodate the ever-swelling fields.

The guarantees added up to $40 million for all 135 tourneys, and were bested in each and every one of them. In fact, the total of all the prize pools ended up surging way, way past that mark to total $81,222,158.66, a SCOOP record.

The “High” version of the $10,300 Main Event also bested the previous all-time high, drawing 657 entrants, better than the 615 who played the same event in 2010, the last pre-Black Friday SCOOP.

I’ve written posts occasionally over the last three-plus years remarking on the recovery of PokerStars following the site’s losing the ability to accept players from the U.S. In May 2012 I was already remarking on how the SCOOP series as a whole had gotten back to the 2010 totals after a one-year dip, and of course now it is bigger than ever.

Both the SCOOP and the World Championship of Online Poker (WCOOP) in the fall pretty clearly now rate as not just the most important tournament series when it comes to online play, but also among the most significant poker events overall, challenging the biggest live tourneys and series of the year, too.

Hard to imagine how much bigger it would all be with the U.S. involved, too.

Play PlaySCOOP?

The Spring Championship of Online Poker is underway currently at PokerStars, the huge online series that is really positioned perfectly relative to the major tours’ ending and the World Series of Poker still a few weeks away.

That scheduling ensures tourney regulars are able to get on the SCOOP train and populate those “high” buy-in events, which in turn gives the series a lot of publicity and encourages others to play in the “low” and “medium” ones (which the regs play, too). And of course there are a large number of U.S.-based pros who find it worthwhile to relocate elsewhere for the two weeks, just as many do in the fall for the World Championship of Online Poker.

All of which keeps SCOOP and PokerStars fairly central on the poker landscape, generally speaking, even here in the U.S. despite the fact that we’re stuck on the rail.

That said, there are SCOOP events Americans can play this time around -- “PlaySCOOP” ones in which the buy-ins and prizes are play money. No shinola!

Like the regular SCOOPs, there are different levels of buy-ins (with play chips) for these -- in this case just “low” and “high” levels. There are 45 sets of tourneys, just like in the real money SCOOPs, with “low” ones featuring buy-ins of 20,000 or thereabouts and the “high” ones costing 2 million or so, meaning most who play the latter will have bought their play chips. If you’re curious, here is the full PlaySCOOP schedule.

I still play sit-n-gos now and then on Stars with my play money chips, having amassed a few million prior to getting involved in real money games on the site long ago. So I’m actually thinking about playing a few PlaySCOOPs. I’ve even thought about jumping into the “Sunday Billion” one week, too -- the play money version of the Sunday Million -- although part of me can’t really imagine actually sitting through many hours of a tourney for which the prize is just more play chips.

Maybe I’ll try either the “Ante Up” one tomorrow or the “Big Antes” event on Friday. Will have to stick to the “low” buy-in version, though, as entering the “high” would represent a treacherous lack of play bankroll management. Unless of course I can play sell some of my play action.

Wondering... do winners get play watches?

Canada Brings Eh-Game to 2013 WSOP

Taking a quick trip today for a weekender up in Washington, DC. A little vacation before I head to Las Vegas a little over a week from now to join the PokerNews crew at the 2013 World Series of Poker.

I’ve been following some of the events and noting results from the WSOP thus far. The story standing out up to now would have to be the four bracelets won by Canadians already, with U.S. players having claimed the other seven won through last night. That total is one more than Canada won during the entire 2012 WSOP.

The U.S. dominated the bracelet race last year (as it usually does), winning 46 of the 61 total bracelets awarded in Las Vegas, with Canada’s three a distant second. France pulled into a tie with Canada with three overall after picking up a couple at the WSOPE last year.

I suppose with the WSOP APAC this year, Canada can count one more 2013 bracelet won with Daniel Negreanu’s triumph in the Main Event in Australia. The U.S. picked up three there as well (won by Bryan Piccioli, Jim Collopy, and Phil Ivey), so I guess the overall bracelet race this year currently has the U.S. leading with 10 and Canada next with five.

I’d noticed during this year’s Spring Championship of Online Poker at PokerStars that Canada was being represented especially well among the results, too, with players from Canada winning 18 of the 132 events (second behind the U.K.’s 19), while ranking first in final tables and third in overall cashes.

Of course, for the SCOOP those totals are skewed more than a little thanks to the fact that a number of those players listed as being from Canada are in fact American ex-pats having scurried over the border in order to be able to play on Stars.

Will be one story to keep an eye on, particularly if Canadians pick up any more bracelets going forward. Meanwhile, I’m going to see if I can’t disconnect a little over the next couple of days in our nation’s capital.

The Old Stall Re-Stall

Saw something kind of interesting I’m not sure I’d noticed before while following some of the SCOOP stuff over the weekend. Incidentally, thanks to the turnouts for the final events on Saturday and Sunday, PokerStars Spring Championship of Online Poker ended up exceeding pretty much all expectations regarding total prize pools to push past the $65 million mark, bettering the 2010 SCOOP and in fact becoming the biggest online poker tournament series ever.

I’ve written here before about the topic of players stalling as the money bubble approaches in online tourneys. The tactic isn’t of much use once they get to hand-to-hand, of course, but sometimes in the bigger field multi-table tourneys you’ll see short-stacked players letting their time banks run down when they get a couple of eliminations away from going hand-for-hand.

The stalling strategy comes up in regular tourneys now and then, for sure, but in SCOOPs and WCOOPs the prize pools are often quite large and so the stakes are higher for those looking at perhaps missing the money. Also, the time banks are usually increased as well for these events, which probably encourages stalling a bit more.

The two-day, $10,300 buy-in SCOOP Main Event kicked off yesterday and attracted 517 players to create a prize pool of more than $5 million. The top 63 got paid, with almost $1 million of that money due the winner. The schedule was to play 20 half-hour levels yesterday, and as they approached the end of Level 20 the field had in fact shrunk enough to approach the money bubble, getting down to 66 with about 20 minutes to go in the night.

There was some stalling happening as the next couple of bustouts happened, although it didn’t seem especially egregious. In any case, they got down to 64 and hand-for-hand, and as it happened a player busted on the very last hand of the night to ensure all of those who made it to today’s Day 2 also made the money.

Anyway, the slowdown that marked the end of the night reminded me of another, more conspicuous example of stalling occurring near the money bubble in an earlier SCOOP event, the $5,200 “high” version of the six-handed, fixed-limit hold’em event (Event No. 34).

Just 62 players played in that one, meaning only the top nine got paid. With 11 left the stalling began in earnest when Dan “djk123” Kelly, down to just over 8,000 chips (five big bets), dipped into his time bank for a good long stretch in a hand where it folded to him in middle position before the flop. Any sort of delay is all the more noticeable in an LHE game, of course, where the decisions aren’t usually as difficult as in no-limit.

Anyhow, at the time Kelly was essentially tied for 9th out of the final 11 with another short-stacked player at his five-handed table, while over at the other six-handed table one player sat in last place with less than 2,000 chips, and Sorel “zangbezan24” Mizzi also was on the short side with a little over 11,000.

Once I realized Kelly was going to be taking at least a couple of minutes before folding, I took a look at the other table where a similar scene was taking place. The action was on Bryn “BrynKenney” Kenney, who was sitting UTG with a comfortable-sized stack, and he, too, had dipped into his time bank before making any action. Conversation in both chat boxes clarified the situation.

“i got 300 seconds too,” typed Kenney over at Kelly’s table. He then explained to his table that “other table is stalling” and “otherwise i wouldn’t be,” adding further that “ive never stalled in my life.”

Mizzi agreed with Kenney that “we alll have to,” and the pair continued to discuss the matter, with a third player, “MaiseE,” joining in as well.

zangbezan24: sick how its come to this
BrynKenney: its a joke always in all the high limit tourneys
MaiseE: ya i know just saying its pointless ;)
BrynKenney: when its 2-3 from the money
BrynKenney: everyone stalls like crazy
BrynKenney: and nobody has any chips after

Was kind of interesting to consider the whole stalling-to-combat-the-effect-of-stalling strategy. From Kenney’s perspective -- i.e., a player with a healthy stack of more than 25 big bets as the bubble approached -- he would rather have everyone play as usual so as to play more hands before the stakes increased and thus lessened (somewhat) the advantage of having a bigger stack.

I suppose, then, that Kenney’s stalling was primarily a tactic meant to discourage Kelly from doing it subsequently. In any case, it certainly negated whatever benefit Kelly was trying to get from stalling. I can’t remember whether or not it worked and Kelly no longer stalled after realizing Kenney (and perhaps others at the other table) were going to stall in return. In the end both Kelly and Kenney would cash, finishing third and fourth, respectively. Mizzi ended up finishing seventh for a min-cash, while those other two short-stacked players referred to above ended up bubbling.

Some players get quite animated over the issue, of course. See for example Daniel Negreanu’s response to stalling in that earlier post of mine on the topic. I also noticed some tweets last night during that final half-hour of play as well from players lamenting the stalling.

Dani “supernova9” Stern (who busted shy of the top 100 in the SCOOP ME), tweeted that the allowing of stalling meant “they are basically making it mandatory, or else you are losing on the bble.” And Jon “FatalError” Aguiar, who made it today’s Day 2 (18th of 63), tweeted “Stalling Championship of Online Poker #SCOOP @pokerstars.”

As Stern points out, by allowing the stalling it has become a somewhat unavoidable part of the game. I guess I’m less bothered by it than some, given how stalling is not presently against the rules (not yet, anyway). Then again, I’m a lifelong UNC Tarheel fan who remembers the days of Dean Smith’s pre-shot clock, “four corners” offense.

I remember the 1982 ACC tournament final between UNC and Virginia in which the Heels led 44-43 with eight minutes to go, went into the stall, wiped out most of the remaining clock, and managed to win the game 47-45.

I also barely remember that infamous 1979 game against Duke when the Heels went into the four corners at the beginning of the game and it didn’t work out so well, as the halftime score was 7-0 Blue Devils. (No shinola.) Of course, I have tried to forget that one over the years.

The “four corners” was usually effective, though. And was within the rules. Until they changed them.

On SCOOP, and the Stars-FTP-DOJ Scoop

A ton happening at the moment, both in the poker world at large and for your humble scribbler. As far as the latter is concerned, there’s a bit too much going on for me at the moment to spend too much time here today, I’m afraid.

One of the activities that has occupied me a lot over the last two weeks has been helping report on results of the PokerStars Spring Championship of Online Poker. Not too surprising to have seen this year’s SCOOP consistently draw huge fields for event after event, routinely crushing the conservative guarantees for each.

The overall guarantee for all 120 SCOOP events totaled $30 million. That figure was already eclipsed a few days ago, actually, having tripped up over $40 million for the first 90 events. And there’s $5 million worth of guarantees scheduled for the three Main Events alone (the "low," "medium," and "high") coming up this Sunday.

All of which means this year’s SCOOP series has already beaten the 2011 version in terms of total prize money, and may well ultimately produce a total that comes within shouting distance of the 2010 (pre-Black Friday) SCOOP in which 114 events featured prize pools adding up to $63,802,405.

Speaking of PokerStars thriving, I’m also kind of passively following those rumors about the Stars-FTP-DOJ deal possibly being finalized as early as next week. Like you, I imagine, I’ve clicked on some of those links to sites providing vaguely-collected inside dope regarding the status of the deal, yet in some cases stating in non-vague, even definitive-sounding terms when the announcement of a deal will be made.

I remain in “believe-it-when-I-see-it” mode. For those looking for more in-depth and more informed reporting on the matter, check out Haley Hintze’s two-part article from earlier in the week for the Kick Ass Poker blog titled “The Big Muddy.”

In Part 1, “Mixed Signals Everywhere on Possible Stars / Full Tilt / DOJ Deal,” Haley addresses both the rumors and those reporting them. Then in Part 2, “Fine Print in New Jersey Legislative Pact Emperils PokerStars Deal,” she steps back to consider the fate of the deal within a broader, constantly-changing context of legislative machinations, particularly with regard to recent moves in the Garden state.

And for more on the latter, check out Grange95’s discussion over on the crAAKKer blog as well, titled “A Poison Pill for PokerStars in New Jersey iPoker Bill?”

Will be very interesting, obviously, to see if anything comes of the possible deal next week -- or ever -- although as this year’s SCOOP success is once more confirming, one senses Stars is going to be okay either way.

PokerStars’ 2012 Spring Championship of Online Poker Starts Today

As evidenced by all of the excited tweets in my timeline this morning, PokerStars’ 2012 Spring Championship of Online Poker kicks off in just a couple of hours.

Am recalling that feeling back in early September 2011 when the first World Championship of Online Poker (the WCOOP) without Americans got going on PokerStars. Feeling a little bit of the same there’s-a-party-happening-and-we’re-not-invited vibe, I guess, although not as strongly as before.

The SCOOP, of course, is the one with three separate tournaments -- “low,” “medium,” and “high” stakes -- for each event. Event No. 1, a six-handed no-limit hold’em event, starts in about an hour with $22, $215, and $2,100 buy-ins. A little later today comes Event No. 2, a full-ring NLHE event, featuring the same buy-ins.

There are a total of 40 events scheduled, meaning 120 tournaments altogether, culminating in the big Main Event on May 20. Several of the tourneys are scheduled as two-day tournaments, and even the one-day tourneys look as though they’ll be attracting big fields and thus go on for many, many hours.

The overall guaranteed prize pool for the all of the 2012 SCOOP events totals $30 million. The 2011 series -- which happened just a few weeks after Black Friday -- had 114 total tourneys the prize pools for which added up to $43,165,800.

The 2011 SCOOP did feel the hit of Black Friday somewhat, as the previous year saw $63,802,405 in prize money awarded in 114 tourneys. The series began in 2009 when just 22 events (66 tourneys) were played with the prize pools adding up to $38,324,830.

A little over half of the SCOOP events are no-limit hold’em only, but all other games are in the mix as well, including stud, stud/8, Omaha/8, PLO, PLO/8, triple draw 2-7, razz, five-card draw, Badugi, and the mixed events (8-game, H.O.R.S.E.).

For a lot of non-Americans -- as well as those “expats” currently living abroad in order to play at PokerStars -- the SCOOP has become not just an important part of the online poker tourney calendar, but a meaningful warm-up for the World Series of Poker, too.

The WSOP continues to distinguish itself by including so many non-hold’em tourneys on the schedule, and for a lot of players getting to jump into some large field non-hold’em events with big prize pools during SCOOP provides a needed tune-up in those other games.

Can’t play myself, of course, although I’ll be following a lot of what happens with SCOOP over the next couple of weeks. I’m guessing those guarantees will probably be exceeded in most if not all 120 of the events this time around. Will be doing a bit of reporting on SCOOP here and there as well. Kind of a tune-up of my own, I suppose, as the plan is for me to be back in Vegas and reporting from the World Series of Poker this summer (more on that to come).

The “Boom” Eight Years Later

Saw a tweet from Bill Rini this morning reminding us all that today marks the eight-year anniversary of Chris Moneymaker’s World Series of Poker Main Event win back in 2003.

Yeah, I know. Eight years?!

At that time, the World Poker Tour was already on the air over on the Travel Channel, having debuted almost two months before. (Some time ago I wrote a little about the WPT’s debut here.) And really it wouldn’t be until later in the summer when ESPN aired its coverage of the 2003 WSOP ME in seven weekly installments in July and August that the “boom” truly ignited. At least that is how I remember it.

As we all know, Moneymaker -- playing as “Money800” -- won his $10,000 entry fee into the 2003 WSOP ME via a $39 satellite on PokerStars, the site for which he’d subsequently become a foremost representative.

You might have heard about this new documentary, BOOM: The Incredible True Story of Online Poker, currently in the works and scheduled for a 2012 release. It is an incredible true story. Will be especially challenging to tell it in just a couple of hours, too, I imagine.

That title, of course, is connected to Moneymaker’s triumph, a moment that brought together the truly awesome forces of Moneymaker’s everyman story (and convenient name), televised poker (newly energized by hole card cams), and the burgeoning industry of online poker.

It just so happens the first trailer for BOOM came out over the weekend, and it begins with Moneymaker’s magical moment. Check it out:



The trailer -- which I suppose represents an abridged version of the planned-for narrative of the film -- ends with Black Friday, a suitably dramatic twist to the story (and, perhaps, another possible meaning for the title). Here is the Facebook page for the film, for those of you who do the Facebook thing.

As it happens, I’ll be spending part of today’s anniversary following the Main Events of Stars’ Spring Championship of Online Poker. The three versions of the SCOOP Main Event attracted a total of almost 20,000 entrants (19,667) with the prize pools for all three adding up to nearly $8 million ($7,983,200). Interestingly, that total is almost the same as the prize pool for the 2003 Main Event ($7,802,700).

Looking back, eight of the nine players who made the final table at the 2003 WSOP Main Event were American, with sixth-place finisher Amir Vahedi of Iran the only exception. And 48 of the 63 players who cashed that year were from the U.S., too. Goes without saying that none of those cashing in the SCOOP Main Events or making today’s final tables will be American. Even Moneymaker, as a U.S. resident, has been precluded from participating.

By the way, Moneymaker’s colleague, Aussie Joe Hachem, the 2005 WSOP ME Champ about whom I was writing on Friday, is one of the final 22 in the “High” version of the Main Event, the one with an even bigger buy-in ($10,300) than the WSOP ME. (Worth noting, though, that recent scuttlebutt suggests online poker players in Australia may soon be encountering some difficulty, too.)

Seems like such a long, long time ago, the day Moneymaker won that last hand off of Sammy Farha. I was asked recently to try to picture what poker would be like ten years from now in 2021. I basically dodged the question, inviting the interviewer to think back ten years ago and consider how hard it would’ve been to predict the path poker took to 2011.

In that interview -- appearing over on CheckRaze -- I also admitted that while I always played cards, it really wasn’t until 2003 and after the “boom” that I got caught up in poker in a serious way. I can still remember watching ESPN that summer, like many being fairly well spellbound by what I was seeing.

Who knew how much the events of May 23, 2003 would affect the lives of so many of us? I sure didn’t.

Talk About the Passion

Mentioned yesterday that “Inside SCOOP” show, the daily web program hosted by Joe Stapleton and Nick Wealthall throughout PokerStars’ Spring Championship of Online Poker. I’ve gotten a big kick out of following the show these last couple of weeks, surprised, really, that a show about an online poker series -- one in which I cannot even participate, no less -- is not just holding my attention, but making me laugh repeatedly, too.

For those of you who’ve watched it, you know what I mean about the funnies. If you haven’t, I’m not really going to try to explain why the show is so entertaining, but rather just recommend you check it out yourself. I will, however, mention one of my favorite parts of the show is when the pair offer faux strategy advice during the “Tough Spot” hands they present and at other moments here and there.

One great exchange came a few episodes ago when they were discussing upcoming events, one of which was pot-limit Omaha. “Omaha is great,” said Stapleton. “Four cards, a million combinations... you literally can play every hand!”

“You literally cannot go wrong,” deadpanned Wealthall in response.

Each episode also features brief interviews, often with Team PokerStars Pros but also with others who are having success in SCOOP events. On the 5/18 show the pair had 2005 WSOP Main Event champion Joe Hachem on, and he was asked a question about what it has been like to have been an “ambassador” for poker for the last six years. In his answer, Hachem made an observation about how the poker world has changed over that period that I found interesting and thus thought worth sharing.

“From the very outset for me it was... I hate to sound corny, but it was like an honor, you know?” said Hachem, responding to the question. He added that he considered it a “privilege” to have been put into the position of having to represent poker, because he loved the game so much.

Stapleton cracked that Hachem was giving the “perfect ambassador answer,” but Hachem interrupted him, wanting to clarify what he meant.

“Let me tell you something fellas,” he began. “I think a lot has changed in the last few years in poker.... Most of the people who are in poker today are in poker for the wrong reason.” Hachem then made a distinction of sorts between his generation of players -- or at least those who had come into poker at some point prior to the “boom” of 2003-2006 -- and those who have come into the game more recently.

“We came into poker because we love the game,” said Hachem. “And eventually it turned into something that we could make money out of, like real money. [However,] a lot of the people who come into the game today are coming in strictly because... their friends told them they can make money out of it if they do A-B-C-D -- you know, they’ll be a profitable player [if they follow certain steps]. Where’s the passion in that?”

The show’s somewhat rapid-fire format didn’t really allow for the trio to discuss the point further, and thus they moved on to a different topic. But I found myself thinking afterwards about what Hachem was saying.

It was kind of an odd-seeming statement, essentially suggesting that getting into poker for the money was somehow a less-than-honorable reason for doing so. If I understand his meaning correctly, I think his point was to emphasize the value of competition and challenging oneself -- that is, to think constructively about the game in terms that aren’t necessarily financially-based.

I don’t think Hachem was dismissing the goal of earning money altogether, just demoting it from its position as an all-encompassing goal -- i.e., pointing out that there is a lot else about poker to be enjoyed and from which we can benefit than making ourselves some cabbage. As he says, the “love” or “passion” for the game came first for him (and others like him), and only later did it “turn into something that we could make money out of.”

Some might recall an earlier, somewhat similar statement by Hachem about the young generation of players near the end his deep run in the 2009 Main Event (in which he finished 103rd). Kind of got blown up a bit, but Hachem was complaining about some players’ predilection for overly aggressive bluffs and risk-taking, even going so far as to say things like “these guys have no right being at the World Series” and “should be playing $2 sit-and-gos online.”

Hachem would scale back those criticisms somewhat the next day after he busted from the ME, referring to his genuine love for the game and how being so “passionate” caused him to be a little less than rational with his commentary the day before. “Everyone has the right to play poker however they want,” said Hachem, sort of recasting his previous comments inside the context of his petitioning for “respect for the game.”

All of that from a couple of years ago was perhaps a bit dubious, and while I think Hachem’s comments on “Inside SCOOP” were not unrelated, I feel like he’s was really making a different point there about what it means to be “passionate” about poker.

Hachem may well be correct to some extent when he says there are those who get into poker -- either as players or in other ways -- who aren’t necessarily in it because they love the game but for other reasons. And while there might be something lamentable about that, we all have to accept the fact that just as everyone has the “right” to play poker however he or she wishes, people can get into poker for all sorts of reasons, too.

In any case, as I say, I found that brief discussion on “Inside SCOOP” interesting enough to think about afterwards -- a momentary bit of seriousness amid the show’s shenanigans.

I dunno... I guess I am always intrigued when I hear someone talk about their passion. I’m sure Hachem knows, though, that not everyone can carry the weight of the world...

Booked Up

Not a lot of time today for posting, I’m afraid. Have been fairly occupied over the last two weeks helping recap various events in PokerStars’ Spring Championship of Online Poker, which has cut into both writing time and sleeping time here of late.

There have been some interesting moments along the way in these SCOOP tourneys, some of which have been discussed in the daily web-based show “Inside SCOOP” on PokerStars.tv. Hosts Joe Stapleton and Nick Wealthall are a riot, too, making the show even more fun to watch.

Meanwhile, when the time to do so finally becomes available, I have three new poker books to read. Well, one of them is new, anyway (as in recently published). But all three are new to me.

The one that is just coming out is Tommy Angelo’s second book, titled A Rubber Band Story and other Poker Tales. Following up his terrific Elements of Poker (reviewed here), this one collects several essays, articles, and blog posts that Angelo has written over the last decade-plus, also adding a number of new items, too.

Am really looking forward to this one, a book I first heard about from Angelo himself when I interviewed him for Betfair poker back in December 2010.

Another book I’ve been wanting to read for a long time is one of David Apostolico’s titles, Machiavellian Poker Strategy: How to Play Like a Prince and Rule the Poker Table, first published in 2005. The Prince is a book I am actually very familiar with, one that I not only studied in school but also had the chance to teach several times in various “Great Books” classes. It’s a great one for introducing that transition from the faith-based medieval period to the modern, secular age. It’s also strikes me as a book with a lot of immediately applicable precepts to poker.

I really like Apostolico’s introduction, where he suggests poker may well provide a “perfect arena” in which to explore the many ideas and lessons of the early 16th-century guidebook for would-be rulers. Am intrigued to see how Apostolico draws connections between Machiavelli’s advice and poker strategy/theory.

Finally, I recently ordered a copy of Brandon Adams’ 2008 book Broke: A Poker Novel. I don’t know a lot about it, but was intrigued after hearing Adams on the Two Plus Two Pokercast back in April (Episode 167, 4/12/11) where the book did come up.

I’ll be teaching my “Poker in American Film and Culture” class again next fall, and while I plan to keep Jesse May’s Shut Up and Deal on the syllabus -- a book which Adams recommended highly on the 2+2 show, incidentally -- it’s possible I could add other novels, too, and so will be thinking about that possibility as I read Broke.

Like I say, though, I have a few other things to attend to before I can pick up these. Am eyeing that space between the end of SCOOP and the start of the WSOP (just a week-and-a-half away!) as a nice quiet space in which to curl up and read.

I Got Rhythm

The PokerStars Spring Championship of Online Poker concluded on Monday evening. Drizz and I did a live blog for the Main Event’s final table, which actually went much faster than it seemed like it should have.

In the live blog, Drizz made a note once they’d gotten down to three-handed (around 9:15 p.m. ET) of how ridiculously deep each player was in terms of big blinds (166, 119, and 95 respectively). Find a comfortable seat and grab some popcorn, was his advice.

Indeed, as we’d both experienced several times over during the course of SCOOP, we were expecting a long, long time of it, especially with the 30-minute levels. On top of that, the final three couldn’t come to terms regarding a deal. First awarded $1,162,350, second $851,775, and third $627,300. The trio’s discussion had been amiable, but one player preferred to play it out, and so they did. With more than half a million dollars separating first and third, it surely felt like no one would be in too big of a hurry to gamble it up.

However, it was just a few minutes later we’d see one player surprisingly bluff off his entire stack. Then after 15-20 minutes or so of heads-up the two remaining players were both dealt pocket pairs, they got it all in preflop, and BOOM we were done before 10 o’clock.

I spent another hour or so finishing up the last wrap of SCOOP (detailing all of Day 2 of the Main Event), and hit the sack. Was dead to the world just a few minutes later.

But by 1 a.m. I was wide awake. And hungry. Next thing I know I’m up making myself a roast beef sandwich.

Now it’s Wednesday morning and I’m still feeling like the body rhythms are a bit skewy. Am I tired? Am I hungry? I can’t tell.

Thankfully I’ve got one more week here to get everything back into some semblance of normal before heading out to Las Vegas to help cover the World Series of Poker once again. Will be taking off early next week, then the first events begin on Friday, May 28. I’ll be there for the start, then will have a one-week excursion down to Lima, Peru to help cover the Latin American Poker Tour event there (first week of June). Then I’ll be back in Vegas for the remainder of the Series.

It goes without saying I’m excited (and grateful) to be heading back out for a third go-round at the WSOP.

Long time readers recall my reporting on my first trip out in 2008. All was brand new, fresh, stirring.

Last year’s return tour of duty was also fun and satisfying, although necessarily the experience was different -- perhaps a little more routinized in some respects, although still pretty fascinating to be there helping chronicle the spectacle that is the WSOP.

I expect this year will be still different, with a lot that’s familiar, but a lot that will have changed, too. Mentally speaking, I’m already settling into a “go with the flow”-type, open-minded approach to it all. Not unlike a player sitting down at a table full of new opponents. The game is the same, but let’s just play a round or two and see what we’re dealing with here, why don’t we?

I mentioned rhythms above. It is fascinating how the human animal seeks out these patterns, rhythms, what have you -- almost as part of that complicated survival instinct we all possess (I’d say). That’s something I already know I’ll have to be ready for this time around, whenever something ain’t exactly as it was before (which will happen, no doubt).

In my detective novel, Same Difference (which has nothing to do with poker, by the way), I tried to make that facet of human nature -- the way we seek & slip into patterns -- a theme of sorts. It is at least a recurring motif, I suppose -- namely, the notion that we have these rhythms, routines, patterns that help us organize our ideas of ourselves.

In fact, the title -- which has a couple of different connotations -- is partly meant to refer to how the detective looks for patterns in people’s behavior, i.e., searches for that “same difference” coming up more than once, thereby becoming meaningful (like a clue). You know, like when we notice a poker player looking back at his stack of chips when an especially good river card lands. A new, different behavior, that when repeated becomes significant.

Anyhow, as I say, I am greatly looking forward to finding my rhythm once again when back on the WSOP beat. Who could ask for anything more?

Talkin’ Tourneys

Had an interesting weekend full of tourney watching & reporting. And playing!

The PokerStars Spring Championship of Online Poker is winding down at last, meaning I’ll have a week or so to recharge before heading Vegas-ward for another summer of WSOP.

Was another all-night affair last night, this time spent chronicling the Main Event -- the two-day, $10,300 buy-in, no-limit hold’em tourney the winner of which is scheduled to earn $1,162,350 (barring a final table deal) as well as the 114th (!) SCOOP winner’s watch. There are 27 players left in that one (out of the starting field of 615). Click here to read all about Day 1.

I say I played some as well this weekend. As noted here before, tourneys aren’t normally my thing. But they may become so. Hard to be reporting on these suckers constantly without desiring to jump into the fray now and then.

SCOOP Satellite (I run good)

Momentarily possessed with a mild case of SCOOP fever, on Friday I jumped into one of those hyped-up, turbo-style, rebuy satellites to the “Low” version of the Main Event (with a $109 buy-in). The tourney was just $1.10 to enter, and as it happened I had a few T$ (tourney dollars) in my account, so ended up using exactly $3.13 worth of those as I rebought once and took the add-on.

There were 257 entered, and after all of the rebuyin’ and add-onin’ it worked out that the the top 11 would win tickets, with the 12th-place finisher taking $85 or so. After about 90 minutes there were 24 players left, and somehow I’d zigzagged my way to 15th with a slightly below-average stack. At that point pretty much everyone was in shove-or-fold territory. In fact, looking back, aside from the very start of the tourney, I don’t think I ever had much more than 20 big blinds, and usually was sitting with less than 10.

Couldn’t pick up a hand for a while, and soon found myself dead last -- 17th of 17 -- and looking like I’d be bubbling. But I won a hand or two, including one especially lucky hand where I’d shoved with K-J and got called by a fellow holding K-Q. The flop came A-Q-10, the turn was another 10, then the river brought a surprising king to give me the straight. I don’t think I played a single hand after that, and eventually made it into the top 11 and won my seat.

It did cross my mind just to take the $109 worth of tourney cabbage and run, but those thoughts didn’t last long. Had happened before where I’d won a seat into the Sunday Million on the cheap, but decided to cash out. Considering this was essentially a freeroll, I thought I’d go for it.

SCOOP Main Event (I run not so good)

As it happened, when the tourney cranked up late Sunday afternoon my attention was divided as I was simultaneously writing a recap of another SCOOP event, so conditions weren’t ideal for concentrating on my table. Still, I chipped up a bit during the first few levels, then fell back to the starting stack of 10,000 or so. Wasn’t picking up hands to speak of, really, although did get A-A in the big blind the one time I was given a walk (no shinola).

Bled a few more chips after an unsuccessful steal or three. Then it was during hour three that the pivotal hand came up for me. Sorry I don’t have the hand history handy, but I remember it fairly well.

I had about 8,200 when I managed to pick up pocket aces again in middle position. I raised 3x, and only the fellow on my left called. He’d done a lot of calling, including showing down hands as light as ace-high, and as a result was down around 5,500. The flop came Q-J-6 rainbow and I continued for about two-thirds pot. When he quickly called, I thought he’d probably paired the queen or jack. I also thought he’d keep calling with just that lone pair.

The turn was a five, and again I bet something like half the pot. He again called, leaving himself less than 3,000. The river was a four, I bet about half of his stack, and he quickly pushed all in. I had something like 1,500 more to call with the pot around 10,000, so I did.

He turned over 8-7 (sooted). He’d flopped a gutshot, turned an open-ender, and got there. Now I was down under 3,000, and feeling not-so-great about my luck. Or my skill.

I did double up once before finally going out. Ironically, I ended up pushing a stack of about 10 big blinds with K-J and was called by K-Q (just like in the satellite). No miracles for me this time, though, and I was done in around 11,000th of the 19,188 who played.

BBT5 (all good again)

By then the BBT5 -- the Battle of the Bloggers 5 Invitational -- had gotten started. There were 112 entered in that one. I won’t bore you with all of the details, but I ended up making it through to the money (top 18) and then the final table.

When that final table started, I typed “let’s stop the tournament and finish up in November.” Then added, “I want a shot at some sponsorships!” Seemed like a good idea, but we ended up playing it out anyway.

At that point I was short-stacked (natch), but so were about five or six others. Ended up lasting to seventh for a modest cash, which made the miserable SCOOP performance go away pretty quickly. Thanks again to AlCantHang for the invite and pulling together the BBT5.

I believe there is one more tourney to go in the series this coming Sunday (5/23), although I have a feeling I might be sitting that one out in order to spend time with Vera before heading west. There are still a couple more Mookies and Poker from the Rail events, all leading toward the BBT5 Tournament of Champions on May 27th. Check Al’s post for more details.

Moving back over to the reporter side of things tonight for Day 2 of the SCOOP Main Event. Will be live blogging the final table with my buddy Drizz (who cashed in that SCOOP Main Event-Low, by the way!), so check the PokerStars blog for that some time during the early evening.

Security Leakin’, of SCOOP Speakin’, and C’mon, Everybody We’re Going Streakin’!

Was busy delivering the scoop on SCOOP again last night (and this morning), and so once again am running low on mental fuel this afternoon.

If I did, I might’ve written something about the latest shenanigans at Cereus -- there’s been yet another security issue over there -- but as I say I haven’t the energy at the moment to do so. Just as well, really, as all I’d have to add would be to reiterate my distaste with Cereus, to recommend new players avoid signing up at UB or Absolute Poker, and perhaps to laugh a little at the absurdity of it all.

In other words, to join in the (deserved) piling on.

For those unfamiliar, click here to read the original report over on Poker Table Ratings of the vulnerability at Cereus concerning their encryption mechanism. (There are follow-up pieces over on PTR as well, if you click around.) You might also see UB.com COO Paul Leggett’s initial response to the news, of which he says he’s “very shocked” to learn. And here is UB.com spokesperson and media & operations consultant Joe Sebok’s note on the matter, too -- not posted on his UB.com blog (yet?) but rather over on PokerRoad.

As I said, was pretty much solely occupied with writing up several different SCOOP events here of late. Here’s how I spent the last 24 hours or so, if you’re curious:

In Event No. 24-Medium, the $109 buy-in Deuce-to-Seven Triple Draw event, Buckeye 119 took it down. Team PokerStars pro Pat Pezzin had chips deep in this one, but finished 14th, thereby thwarting my opportunity to have built a headline around the phrase “Standing Pat.” Also some funny chat reported here, thanks to the appropriately-named player Needleking.

In Event No. 25-High, the $2,100 buy-in Stud/8 event, Gunslinger3 took it down, ultimately outlasting Team PokerStars Pro George Lind III to do so.

And in Event No. 26-Low, an $11 NLHE event, *guerillaz* carried the day, coming out on top of a huge, 16,498 player field. Tourney ended on a crushing bad beat for runner-up fysass1881. Post contains an utterly appropriate reference to Frank the Tank’s “We’re goin’ streakin’!” scene in Old School.

Nice little series they’re putting on over there at Stars. Not so little, actually. A decent poker site, I’d say. Definitely a better choice than some sites, if yr lookin’ for somewheres to play.

Stars, Stories, SCOOP

More reporting for PokerStars Spring Championship of Online Poker over the weekend. Covered a few more events, including three that each featured some “name” players doing well, therefore making the report perhaps a bit more interesting to write.

First came Jennifer “jennicide” Leigh’s win in Event No. 18-Low, the $22 buy-in fixed limit hold’em event played as a “turbo” tourney (i.e., five-minute levels). I actually played in this event, having won a seat some time ago, and while I outlasted 3,000 or so competitors I busted a couple of hundred spots shy of the money. The tourney was kind of insane in terms of the structure -- 3,802 players and it was done in a little over four hours. By the end Leigh and her opponent started heads-up play with about 9.5 million chips each, and the stakes were 600,000/1,200,000!

One aspect of that tourney I especially enjoyed was the fact that the third-place finisher, The Tick, had apparently never played a SCOOP event before. He showed a little bit of newbieness during the deal-making that the final three players made, but all were very cool and accomodating of each other, each recognizing that it was essentially flipping a few coins from that point forward. You can read the recap of Event 18-L here.

Later that night/morning (Saturday/Sunday), I was writing up Shaun Deeb’s waffle-crushing victory in Event No. 17-Medium, the $162 buy-in pot-limit Omaha event (six max. w/rebuys). Deeb played well, but ran incredibly well down the stretch, seemingly hitting every flop hard whenever he had an opponent all in.

I started keeping track at 12 players, and Deeb knocked out 9 of the last 11, including the entire final table. The other players were making note, too, including “Exclusive,” a.k.a. Team PokerStars Pro Noah Boeken (who ended up finishing third):

Exclusive: its really that easy huh
shaundeeb: lifes good
shaundeeb: i say nuts preflop
shaundeeb: knowing I will end with it
Vingtcent: i'm starting to understand how you're the most successful mtt player ever

We remember Deeb saying something a few months ago about “retiring” from MTT play, but clearly he’s still in the thick of it. Here’s that recap of Event 17-M.

Finally, last night/morning was also made especially entertaining by the presence of a certain player named “#1_Lucky_One” in Event No. 19-High, the $2,100 buy-in no-limit hold’em event with “big antes” (i.e., antes that started with the first level and were larger than typical for the structure throughout). He was leading the event with about 100 players left, at which point I began searching around a little online to see who he was.

Turns out one finds the name most frequently associated with none other than Phil Hellmuth. Indeed, Kevmath had started a sweat thread over on 2+2 for folks to express themselves over the spectacle. The chatbox became increasingly crowded, too, as the tourney wound on.

Interestingly, “#1_Lucky_One” had been keeping quiet for much of the event (apparently) -- at least since I started watching him. But suddenly he got into a fairly big tête-à-tête with the player sitting next to him, Alex “mistakooll” Keating, when the latter engaged him about an incident at the 2009 WSOP. Keating had knocked Hellmuth out of a LHE event there, and Hellmuth had responded with his typical poor sportsmanship.

During that exchange we all learned that “#1_Lucky_One” has 5,000 friends on Facebook. He also offered to buy Alex “a bottle of Dom” in an effort to make amends for his poor behavior last summer. And he agreed to let Alex wear his bracelet, too.

I’m not making this up.

“#1_Lucky_One” then started to play a little less steadily, especially as other players got in on the fun. He’d lose most of his stack, build it back up again, then (quite dramatically) plummet again to end the tourney in 21st place. Ended up chronicling quite a bit of the scene there in the lengthy wrap post for Event 19-H.

Back at it tonight. I did get a respite from the writing back on Friday night, when I attended a very fun retirement party for my Pop, at which I enjoyed some reunions with people I hadn’t seen in many years, and also had some interesting conversations with some of them about poker. Plan to write about that in the next day or two.

Meanwhile, see you back over at the PokerStars blog!

Draw Poker Drama

Night before last I had the task of covering one of the five-card draw tourneys for PokerStars (another SCOOP event). An interesting moment came up right at the end of that one that I thought I’d share. First, however, a little aside about covering draw games.

From the reporting side of things, flop games, draw games, and stud games all present various elements and/or challenges unique to each.

For flop games, the cards are important (of course), but a lot of the story of the hand is told via the betting. When it comes to flop games, getting bet amounts correct and keeping track of the size of the pot is easily the biggest challenge -- when reporting live tourneys, that is. (Grabbing all that from hand histories for these online events, natch.) Although at the live event, noting all of the cards in everyone’s hands at an Omaha showdown can be tricky sometimes, too.

In terms of writing up action, stud games are probably the least enjoyable (for me) if only because it can get so unwieldy describing all of the streets, explaining hands as they are being built, and recounting the betting which can change order with every new card.

Comparatively speaking, draw games are probably the easiest to follow. And -- perhaps contrary to expectations -- can be especially fun to watch and report on, too.

There are lots of showdowns in draw games, which tends to make for a satisfying conclusion to the story of a hand. Can be a little wearying recounting the discards in each round of a triple-draw game, but there are ways of communicating that information without being too tedious. Fixed limit betting (as in stud games) isn’t always so exciting to recount, either. But some of these draw games feature pot-limit or no-limit betting, which can get pretty interesting as one tries to gauge how the bet sizes plus the number of cards drawn together can suggest hand strength.

In fact, when I think about my favorite live tourneys covered, I remember the $2,500 Deuce-to-Seven Triple Draw event from 2008 -- event no. 40, won by John Phan -- as one of the more exciting events I’ve ever watched.

Lots of drama in that one, partly thanks to Phan’s endearing-slash-provoking personality, but also thanks to the dynamics of the game itself. (F-Train and I were on that one -- you can see our coverage here.) Also, sometime after that event, I wrote a bit about that final table in a post that contrasted Phan’s aggressive play to that of David Sklansky, who finished sixth in that event.

Anyhow, to get back to the SCOOP event I was covering earlier in the week. It was the “Low” version ($11 buy-in) of the pot-limit 5-card draw event. So just one draw, and just two rounds of betting. As I’m suggesting, it was a genuinely interesting event to watch, with a lot of head games going on as players routinely used position -- crucially important in pot-limit games and in draw games -- to put opponents to tough decisions.

Once the tourney reached heads-up, the final two battled for a while until the one with the historically-significant username “Benny Binion” had built nearly a 6-to-1 advantage over his opponent, “fly44.” Then came a hand in which Benny had the button. Before the draw, he raised pot, fly44 reraised, and soon they had fly44 all in. fly44 discarded three cards, which had to be a good sign for Benny. Then Benny also discarded three cards. Even before the showdown, Benny was already typing gibberish in the chatbox, the reason for which was soon made clear.

The hands were revealed,and fly44 had a pair of tens. Benny Binion showed -- a pair of deuces. Then he typed “I had KK.” When discarding, he’d accidentally clicked on one of his kings and tossed it with his other cards. Now the poor guy was miserable, seeing he’d literally tossed away a winner.

fly44 soon got back to even, and the whole thing was starting to turn into a tragedy of sorts, but Benny retook the advantage and eventually won the sucker.

Curious to see. Actually, it will happen not infrequently in the lowball draw games that players will “break” their made hands before a last draw, fearing they are behind, only to discover they’d thrown away a winner.

I particularly recall a hand from last summer, one involving Layne Flack and Eric Crain at the final table of the $2,500 Mixed Event, in which something along those lines had occurred. In a 2-7 Triple Draw hand, Crain stood pat after the last draw and Flack decided to toss one card. Crain then won the hand with a 9-5-4-3-2. Afterward, a fairly distraught Flack revealed he’d broken a hand that was in fact the same one Crain showed down, tossing the nine and picking up a jack.

PokerNews has recently reconfigured its tourney archives a little, making it easier to find hands and link to ’em -- so, if yr curious, here’s that one: “Bad Break for Flack.” And yes, there is a pun in that headline.

Anyhow, it was curious to watch Benny Binion talking about having accidentally broken his hand like that. He kept saying in the chatbox how he was rewatching it in the replayer, torturing himself for the next few minutes.

There is no five-card draw at the WSOP, as all of the draw games are lowball games. In fact, they have been for some time. The last time a five-card high draw event was played for a bracelet was 1982.

The winner? David Sklansky.

Iambic Pentameter Is Not As Easy As It Looks

Another long one last-night-slash-this-morning-slash-this-afternoon helping cover PokerStars Spring Championship of Online Poker.

I was on one of the pot-limit five-card draw events, which ended around 4 a.m. or thereabouts. I actually had a few thoughts about covering draw events I wanted to share, but will wait to do that tomorrow when I’ve had a little more rest.

The other, the “High” version of Event No. 8 (No-Limit Hold’em, $1,050 buy-in) wound all of the way down to dinner time today.

Was feeling a little delirious toward the end of the latter one, as evidenced by the tweets I began sending out @hardboiledpoker:

hardboiledpoker: as this #SCOOP event I'm covering has run so long, I'm now contemplating rewriting my report in heroic couplets

hardboiledpoker: His hand crushed, Cod Meharly met his fate; / His leaving meant the field had shrunk to eight. #SCOOP

hardboiledpoker: "I shove!" So quoth TheMasterJ33, / But his rival’s pocket kings was sad to see. #SCOOP

hardboiledpoker: His hope had been an ace would fall from heaven; / Alas, none came, and now we’re down to seven. #SCOOP

hardboiledpoker: Tens felt good to Magnifico18; / Too bad that WatchOutFish had paired his queen.

hardboiledpoker: The turn and river cards each brought a duck -- / Magnifico18 was out of luck.

hardboiledpoker: (am heading down a dangerous road here, I think)

hardboiledpoker: Sixth place is where KJulius10 ends, / Cut down by BrynKenney’s nines full of tens.

hardboiledpoker: ags104 was dealt an ace and ten / ’Gainst BrynKenney’s sevens was he all in.

hardboiledpoker: The sort of hand from Sexton would evince / “Got ourselves a race situation, Vince.”

hardboiledpoker: Losing, ags104 was shown the door, / Which means that #SCOOP 8-high is down to four.

hardboiledpoker: The turn card came, BrynKenney made his bet; / WatchOutFish called, but saw Bryn made a set. #SCOOP

hardboiledpoker: With just three left, a deal was next discussed; / Terms were not reached; we’ll see who next goes bust. #SCOOP

hardboiledpoker: SFitch4 is out! Only two remain! / The end is coming soon! And I’m still sane! #orsoithink #ineedadrink #SCOOP

hardboiledpoker: BrynKenney defeats gabe2323 / Which means you’ll get no more couplets from me #SCOOP

Soon after, my write-up of the event -- ultimately lasting over 21 hours, all told -- went up over on the PokerStars blog. Check that out if you want to see how it all played out, minus the rhymes.

On Deal-Making; or, Everybody Wants a SCOOP

Another late one last night. Or this morning, I should say. Then I had to do some stuff at the “day job” where I have a few last tasks to perform over the next week or so. All of which means I’m one tired gumshoe at present. The schedule lightens up a little looking ahead, though, especially once I am finally, completely done with the other.

These first two long shifts of helping cover the Spring Championship of Online Poker over on PokerStars both ended with my witnessing some end-of-tourney final table deals, as frequently happens at these things. Can get a little tedious sometimes, especially if you’re there on the rail waiting for the sucker to end and more than 24 hours since yr last snooze.

Had fun yesterday tweeting a little back and forth with Jessica Welman while one deal was being discussed. She was also up late covering SCOOP (and FTOPS, too, I believe). I proposed they should start including the reporters in such deals. I said I thought I deserved a little extra cabbage, too! She said she thought she was probably too tired to negotiate properly.

Speaking of the negotiations, I wanted to share what seemed like a sharp contrast between two such deals -- one on Monday morning, the other from this a.m.

The Monday one came in one of the “High” buy-in events and involved three players. A damn lot of money on the table -- around $640,000 total. This trio actually made three different attempts at negotiating a settlement before finally coming to terms. Probably an hour total was spent on the process, as the tourney had to be manually paused each time, then calculations made, then the talk.

Since I had nothing better to do, I, too, did a few calculations while I watched. In one instance, one player had almost exactly half the chips in play (a tad over 49%), one about a third (34%), and the other about a sixth (17%). If I recall correctly, there was still a ton of play left in this one, as even the short stack had more than 60 BBs, I believe.

Here the short-stacked guy somewhat surprisingly proposed an even split of the remaining cash (leaving $20,000 left for which to play, as the tourney’s rules stipulated). Needless to say, the other two scoffed at that notion. But the short-stacked guy kept pressing the issue, trying to characterize their stacks as basically even, and also pointing out that he was a highly ranked online player (in a major poker publication) and so believed he had a significant edge over the other two.

Was interesting to see this line of argumentation taking place. I’ve seen it before, with fairly well known online guys using that status as a kind of bargaining chip when negotiating deals.

Anyhow, that line wasn’t working here, and it wouldn’t be until much later -- when the formerly short-stacked guy had in fact taken over the chip lead -- that they were able to agree to a slightly modified “chip-chop” (i.e., dividing what was left to be determined from the remaining prize pool between them according to their current stack sizes, minus the $20K). The discussion was quite rancorous, in fact, with a few epithets thrown about by one of the players toward the other two. And when they seemed at an impasse over exactly $2,000 (of the $620,000 they had to divide), the whole thing did appear from the rail to be fairly unpleasant and perhaps a little absurd.

Contrast that with what I saw this morning at the end of one of the “Low” events. This was Event No. 3, the six-handed no-limit hold’em event with rebuys that cost only $5.50 to enter. There were four players remaining, each of whom had perhaps invested no more than $15-20 in the sucker, and there was about $107,000 left to be split among them.

Thanks to the 24,000-plus entrants and all of the rebuys/addons, there was something like 275 million chips in play. The blinds were up to 1 million/2 million (with a 250,000 ante), and all four players had between 60-80 million in their stacks.

Now I don’t know if any of these four were highly ranked online players, but I doubt it. More likely all were thrilled to be hitting such a huge score, which may well have been the biggest ever for each. Once the idea of making a deal was proposed, one player immediately suggested they just split $100K of the remaining money, leaving almost $7K for which to play.

All four immediately assented, recognizing perhaps the fact that despite all those chips they were actually all down to 30-40 BB, and that in fact even a 20-million chip difference didn’t amount to much.

Was fun to watch the deal go down so smoothly. As well as to see four clearly happy campers by that point, sort of giddy there some 18 hours after the tourney had begun and realizing they’d managed what was probably something like a 125,000% ROI.

I have no grand generalizations to add to this here comparison. I will say it wasn’t surprising to see the bigger prize pool appear to cause bigger headaches when it came to striking a deal. Could’ve also just been the personalities involved, though. If you’re curious, here’s the recap for the first (“High” one) and here’s the one for the second (the “Low” one).