2010 WSOP, Day 12: Rejoining the Spectacle

Day started slowly for me yesterday. I had slept away most of Monday -- day and night -- recovering from that red-eye flight back from Peru. Got up Tuesday and made plans with Spaceman for lunch, and we ended up over at the Wynn for a delicious buffet meal.

I joked with Spaceman how we’d enjoyed a decent buffet at the Atlantic City Casino every day while at LAPT Lima, one that included an octopus salad which I had sampled more than once while there, and that I wouldn’t be satisfied if there weren’t octopus also on offer at the Wynn. There was.

We trucked over to the Rio afterwards, where Spaceman was going to work on various items as part of his freelance work for a few different places this summer, including Bluff and PokerListings. Meanwhile, I had decided that even though it wasn’t a scheduled day of work for me at PokerNews, I wanted to go in anyway and spend a few hours with the site, primarily to reacquaint myself with the blog and its various features. After a bit of a stumble out of the gate, the PN site is running quite well now and I just wanted to work with it a little bit when everything was functioning so as to be ready for my return.

Ended up helping out FerricRamsium and TassieDevil over on Event No. 17, the $5,000 NLHE event which had a seriously stacked field. I started out just helping enter chip counts and handling some of the busywork, writing a post or two here and there. At some point later in the evening FerricRamsium wasn’t feeling well and since I was there we sent him home, and I rode out the shift with TassieDevil.

We had a couple of terrific reporters helping on this one (Mickey and Brett), then a third (Neil) join us, too. By the end of the night, we had something like 250 names updated in the chip counts -- that’s out of a field of 792. Still not everyone, obviously, but kind of amazing for a Day 1 (in my opinion). More than anything a testament to the reporters’ knowledge of players and their day-long hustle.

Of course, even less knowledgeable folks could recognize a lot of players in this event. Just about all of the “names” were there, it seemed -- Ivey, Hellmuth, Esfandiari, Cloutier, Obrestad, Lindgren, Ferguson, Negreanu, Seidel, Tran, Mortensen, and many, many more. And the fans were definitely enjoying themselves.

I was reminded at one point how neat the WSOP can be for spectators. A couple had approached our table there asking us where Ivey and a couple of other players were seated, and as we told them you could sense how excited they were -- and surprised -- that they could walk over and watch hands at such close proximity. If you have never been to the Rio during the WSOP, and you are at all curious about what happens, by all means come on down and check it out. The WSOP continues to be special this way, I think, in how it allows fans’ access.

In truth, even players sometimes get a little starstruck at times. Or at least caught up in the spectacle that the WSOP can create.

At one point, I happened to have been standing by a table at which were seated Brandon Adams, Shannon Elizabeth, Dan Heimiller, Phil Hellmuth, Chris Ferguson, and David Williams. Got to witness (and eventually report) from beginning to end a fairly big hand involving the latter four players. Was one of those neat situations, actually, where as a reporter I was able to get pretty much the whole story of the hand -- all of the action, table talk, etc. Something like that can be hard to come by sometimes. (I wrote something about all the factors affecting a hand report last summer in a lengthy post called “Anatomy of a Hand Report.”)

In this hand, Heimiller had opened with a standard raise from the hijack seat, Hellmuth had called from the cutoff, then Ferguson reraised from the button. Williams then called the reraise from the blinds, Heimiller folded, and Hellmuth took some time deciding what to do. At some point in there I noticed Heimiller snapping a photo of the three biggies still in the hand. Elizabeth had taken a picture as well, which I later saw on her Twitter. Kind of funny to be the one there reporting, but seeing the players likewise chronicling the action.

When our event ended for the day, I was curious to go over to the Amazon to see the battle between Allen “Chainsaw” Kessler, Jen Harman, John Juanda, Steve Zolotow, and Frank Kassela for the Event No. 15, the $10,000 buy-in Stud/8 bracelet. Ended up taking off, though, mainly because I still don’t have a car here yet, and so had to grab a ride back to the home away from home with our regularly scheduled shuttle.

I see this morning that they ended up playing several more hours, with Kassela outlasting the Chainsaw for the bracelet. Kassela is a friend of Spaceman’s actually -- both are Tennessee guys -- giving the day-slash-night a bit of symmetry.

I’ll be back over at the Rio tonight for a regularly scheduled shift helping cover Event No. 19, the $10,000 Deuce-to-Seven Draw Lowball Championship (No-Limit). Should also be a stacked field for this one, so I’m anticipating more spectacle. And spectators. Follow along over at PokerNews’ live reporting page.

Raise. Stack. Own. Rebrand. Try Again.

Vera and I do have a satellite dish and a hi-def teevee, but subscribe to the least expensive package available. So while we still get several dozen channels more than we need, we don’t get a few we occasionally want, including Fox Sports Net. Meaning I haven’t had the chance as of yet to see that Poker2Nite show hosted by Scott Huff and Joe Sebok which premiered last night.

As a longtime fan of the various podcasts produced by those two over the last three-plus years, I’m looking forward to seeing the show. I understand that UltimateBet -- the online poker site that signed Sebok as both a sponsored pro and a “media and operations consultant” back in September -- is the “presenting sponsor” for the show. Indeed, I believe episodes can be viewed over on the online site’s website, though I haven’t explored that yet.

Speaking of UltimateBet, you might have heard how the site has now “rebranded” to become UB.com. I first heard about that via Twitter when I saw Spaceman’s tweet “UltimateBet's rebranding reminds me of when evil tobacco co. Philip Morris became friendly-sounding ‘Altria.’”

Haven’t too much to say about that, really, other than to express the usual cynicism most of us probably share regarding marketing. Makes me think of that line Raymond Chandler once had Philip Marlowe say regarding chess -- a line from The Long Goodbye that usually gets misquoted as applying to poker -- noting that the game was “as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you could find anywhere outside an advertising agency.”

As was the case when UltimateBet merged with Absolute Poker on the Cereus Network back in July 2008, itself a kind of “rebranding,” all of the new slogans and messages bear the burdensome weight of that legacy of four-and-a-half years during which some players were playing against opponents who could see their hole cards -- i.e., the most massive cheating scandal in the short history of online poker.

So forgive me a little chuckle when reading the explanation of the new slogan “Raise. Stack. Own.” on the UB blog: “I will raise you. I will stack you. I will own you. -- This is how winning players approach the game, no mercy.” Can’t say hearing the site say “I will stack you. I will own you” really encourages me to come back.

Neither does the site’s continued lack of response to my requests regarding hand histories.

I’ve chronicled my quixotic efforts to get UltimateBet -- or UB -- to send me hand histories here before, the most recent synopsis appearing in a post from a couple of months ago titled “On Those UltimateBet Hand Mysteries, er... Histories.”

Following Sebok’s signing with UB, I had been momentarily encouraged to think I would eventually get my hand histories sent to me, given his statements that when signing with the site they had indicated to him that would be one of the first orders of business. I wrote the site (again) in late September and received a quick response saying my request had been “forwarded to our upper management for further review of your request.” Then on October 1, I got a note from a “Poker Security Manager” saying that while I was unaffected by the cheating, “I will work on getting your data to you ASAP.”

Three weeks passed with no response, so I replied to the email I’d been sent. It was returned as undeliverable. I’m thinking that when the fellow said “ASAP” he might have been calling me a sap.

I griped a little at the time on Twitter about once again having appeared to hit a dead end in the quest for my hand histories. And to Sebok’s credit he responded to my whimpering, saying he was glad to hear about the problem and was doing what he could to get UB to be more responsive to these things. He also mentioned, though, that he had come to realize his efforts in that regard were going to take him longer than he’d originally hoped they would.

As I’ve said before here, I’ve got all kinds of respect for the Cub. I do worry, though, that when it comes to this business of fixing UB, you be running the risk of being rebranded yourself.

For those interested in learning more of the skinny regarding the whole UltimateBet fiasco, check out Haley’s “Just Conjecturin’” series of posts on the subject, the most recent of which explains how Ted Forrest’s name (and a couple of others) should be added to the list of those who’ve had an ownership interest in the maligned online site. Links to Haley’s posts (thus far):

Just Conjecturin’, Part 1

Just Conjecturin’, Part 2: Sebok Signing (Update)

Just Conjecturin’, Part 2.5: Oh, Those UB Hand Histories

Just Conjecturin’, Part 3: The 56% Solution

Just Conjecturin’, Part 4: Inside the Excapsa Ownership Bloc

Just Conjecturin’, Part 5: If a Forrest is Silent, Does That Mean There Aren't Any Trees?

2009 WSOP Main Event Still Incomplete (But Not for Long)

Back in college, I was never one of those students who was much inclined to take an “Incomplete” for a course. Always preferred to get the sucker done and move on to the next round of classes without having a last assignment hanging over my head.

I do recall one occasion when I had to take an “I” after I’d screwed up a final paper (doing it on the wrong topic), and thus was given an “Incomplete” by the professor so as to give me a chance for a redo. Being the relatively conscientious student I was, I submitted the new paper early the next semester, but the procrastinating prof. ended up taking a year-and-a-half to take care of the grade. (No shinola.)

Wasn’t that big of a deal, but I recall sometimes thinking it wasn’t too cool to have that “I” following me like that. That “I” wasn’t me!

The idea of having to take an “Incomplete” came back to me again this weekend as I noted we’re now less than a week away from the final table of the 2009 World Series of Poker Main Event. Finally, finally, finally we'll get to see who will be this year’s champ.

I continue to dislike the delay in principle, but will admit to having gotten caught up in the hype a bit more this time around. Indeed, I am starting to realize how much I’ll miss being at the Rio this weekend to see the thing through, something I didn’t feel much at all last year.

I’ve had the tremendous opportunity the last two summers to live in Las Vegas and help cover the World Series of Poker. Have written at length here about my experiences (here’s a compilation of the 2008 reports, and here’s one from 2009). This past summer I was able to stick around right up to the end of play there on Day 8, a wild, adrenaline-fueled day and night punctuated by jaw-dropping hands that sent the huge, boisterous crowd of onlookers in the Amazon into hysterics time and again.

We all thought that last day was going to go deep into the next morning. If you recall, players began this year’s Main Event with triple stacks of 30,000 chips, meaning that by the time we reached this latter stage of the tourney, most all the players had mountains of chips sitting before them. The average stack for the 27 players returning on Day 8 was more than 7.2 million. A stack of that size amounted to more than 70 big blinds when play resumed early that Wednesday afternoon.

I had a flight scheduled for Thursday morning at 8:15 a.m., and thus had even brought my bags to the Amazon Room, anticipating the possibility of having to go straight from the Rio to McCarran should play stretch into the early morning. As it happened, the players were moving chips much, much faster than anyone had expected they would. By the dinner break they were already down to 14, and soon after we returned a couple more bustouts happened, meaning there was still daylight outside when just a dozen remained. Then -- as I assume most of us will watch tonight on ESPN -- it was “boom, boom, boom” and the final nine were set.

Seat 1: Darvin Moon (1st, 58,930,000)
Seat 2: James Akenhead (9th, 6,800,000)
Seat 3: Phil Ivey (7th, 9,765,000)
Seat 4: Kevin Schaffel (6th, 12,390,000)
Seat 5: Steven Begleiter (3rd, 29,885,000)
Seat 6: Eric Buchman (2nd, 34,800,000)
Seat 7: Joe Cada (5th, 13,215,000)
Seat 8: Antoine Saout (8th, 9,500,000)
Seat 9: Jeff Shulman (4th, 19,580,000)

Amid the roar of hundreds, Robbie Thompson bellowed out the names of the nine who’d made it, his self-aware, step-right-up baritone neatly heightening the drama as we all came to the realization that the summer’s last hand of poker had been played. A genuinely climactic moment, it was.

I got to sleep in the hotel one last time that night. Then a cab to the airport. Then home. Like everyone else who’d spent the last seven-plus weeks in Vegas, I was more than ready.

Like I say, last year once November rolled around I really didn’t experience much of a pull Vegas-ward once the sucker finally got going again. From the standpoint of a fan, I didn’t have much of an emotional investment in any of the final nine. And from a reporter’s P.O.V., I guess my relative newness to the business of covering the WSOP prevented me from feeling presumptuous enough to think that I had any special insight to provide regarding the tourney’s completion.

This year is different, though. I know these guys much, much better than was the case last year, both from having been there covering them right to the end and from having sought out the stories and interviews with them during these intervening months. No, I’m not talking about those nonsensical, space-filler type articles out there that purport to profile the players but in truth offer very little. Rather, I’m referring to the more studied coverage in which reporters smartly tell the stories of the final nine and handicap their chances.

Just to point you to a few good examples, Card Player has a couple of “Meet the November Nine” articles that do a nice, comprehensive job of introducing the players -- Part I and Part II. And Stephen Murphy has further added to CP’s coverage with quality profiles of each player. A little tricky to negotiate the CP archives, but I’m seeing seven of those profiles posted thus far -- Akenhead, Begleiter, Buchman, Cada, Ivey, Saout, Schaffel. (I think the other two are coming to the website soon, if they haven’t already -- will add links to those when I see ’em.)

I’m also digging what ESPN is doing both on their new, web-based show “Inside Deal,” and on the Poker Edge podcast. Several of the nine players have appeared as guests on the Inside Deal thus far, including Begleiter, Buchman, Cada, Ivey, Moon, and Schaffel. (Click the names to get to their respective episodes.) And those six plus Shulman have all appeared on the Poker Edge podcast as well.

Finally, I’ve recommended before the analyses of all nine players’ chances by Spaceman and Riggstad over on AlCantHang’s “Poker from the Rail” blog. Those commentaries can be found in three separate posts -- Part 1 (Moon, Buchman, Begleiter), Part 2 (Shulman, Cada, Schaffel), and Part 3 (Ivey, Saout, Akenhead).

Check out all those links and you’ll be about as well-informed as you can be regarding the 2009 November Nine, I’d imagine.

Of course, there is no way to know everything -- in other words, our knowledge of these guys is necessarily going to be incomplete, no matter how much we read, hear, and watch. But our knowledge of how the November Nine made out at the 2009 WSOP Main Event will be completed soon enough.

Yep, one last assignment for these guys. Then we’ll see what kind of grade they earned.

Moonlighting

That is the word for it. Shamus in the shadows. Playing it straight by day, living out a second, secret self at night.

Was on the World Series of Online Poker Event No. 11 yesterday, the $320 pot-limit Omaha/8 event. Goofy game. And not so simple to report, either. Big, split pots are frequent (and anticlimactic to report). And the big, scooped pots -- often report-worthy -- are usually not a little bit arduous to recount and explain.

One big difference between reporting online tourneys and live ones is the sheer amount of information one gets online. (Not to mention the speed with which that bombardment occurs.) Spaceman did a good job detailing this phenomenon -- and other relevant factors affecting the pursuit of one’s goal here -- in a post from earlier this week. Kind of makes it seem disingenuous to summarize a hand when you have every single detail at yr disposal there in a hand history.

Hell, on PokerStars you can even reanimate the sucker again and again, if you’d like. You could turn a single hand into a regular little novella, if you wanted. Was joking with one of my colleagues early on how nice it would have been at the WSOP had we been able just to click a replayer and get the players to do it again.

Best part of the evening was eavesdropping on the incessant chat over at Barry Greenstein’s table. A constant stream of questions for the Bear, from both railbirds and tablemates. And from what I could tell, Greenstein answered every one, no matter how silly or personal. One even asked how old he was when he’d lost his virginity. “Still holding out,” responded Greenstein cheekily.

Back on tonight (and for the next several days, too). Maybe when it’s all over a couple of weeks from now I’ll have more to say. No time right now, though. Big pot brewing over on Table 106.

In Which It Is Demonstrated Why Pocket Jacks Are Sometimes Called “Hooks”

So we played this little blogger event on Saturday, the PokerListings Run Good Challenge. By invite only. A nifty little freeroll with some decent cabbage for those who finish in the top three ($600/$300/$100). Only 12 were invited, and of those only 11 showed up (I think the “Entities” from Wicked Chops missed it). And Pokerati Dan also came too late to make anything happen, and so we were really starting with 10. A decent shot at some money, no matter how you look at it. Of course, as the name suggests, it would help to run good.

I’m hardly playing these no-limit hold’em tourneys at all these days, but as I’ve mentioned the last few weeks I have been reading quite a bit and so had some ideas swimming around in the ol’ cerebral stew about how I was a-gonna approach this sucker. Wasn’t terribly confident going in, but once things got started I quickly felt better, realizing I might’ve actually picked up a thing or two from my reading. Books are our friends.

To give you an idea how it went for me, I took a peek after all was said and done at my stats and discovered I’d managed to claim a ton of pots without showing. Out of 35 pots I won, PokerStars is actually saying I’d only shown three times the entire event. (That was of 130 hands total.) Not quite sure if that’s entirely accurate, but I do know I was avoiding the showdowns pretty much throughout.

Grabbed a medium-sized pot early to push out to 1,900 or so when everyone else was still hovering around the starting 1,500, and that gave me room to operate a little more freely and accumulate a bit. Maneuvered my way up over the 3,000-chip mark before the first hour was up, which had me in second or third place for most of those first four levels. During that time we’d lose Change100 and Matt from PokerListings, and just after the one-hour break the nine players remaining were consolidated onto one table. My opponents: Dr. Pauly, Amy Calistri, Kid Dynamite, Michele Lewis, the Poker Shrink, Spaceman, Poker Listings Dan, and Pokerati Dan.

At that point I had a little less than 3,000 in chips, which in fact put me in second behind the current leader, Poker Listings Dan, the strategy writer over at PokerListings, who had approximately twice that. It was at that point where I feel like I played only so-so poker, folding for a couple of orbits when I probably could have gotten involved a time or two. Was trying to gauge the table, though.

Finally at the start of Level 6 (blinds 100/200), I got active again. And players started busting. First Pokerati Dan, who’d blinded all of the way down to 95 chips before playing his first hand, got bounced. (“I played too tight,” said Dan in chat from the rail.) Then the Poker Shrink.

Then a short-stacked Dr. Pauly put a brutal beat on Kid Dynamite when he shoved his last 1,655 with the hammer (7-2) and got called by the Kid who held . The flop was benign, but the turn and river both came deuces, and the Kid was crippled. He’d go out in seventh, followed soon thereafter by the Spaceman (6th) and Amy (5th).

At four-handed (the money bubble), I was again in second place with roughly the same stack (3,160) I had when the final table started, a bit less than half of what Dan Skolovy had. After a dozen hands or so, I had held steady, but Dr. Pauly had snuck ahead of me, having about 4,200. Self-proclaimed “last woman sitting” was Michele Lewis with about 2,000.

Then came this hand. I’m a-gonna tell you what happened, but I offer it to all-a-you well-versed MTTers as a “what would you do?”

I’m on the button with 3,460 and get dealt . Blinds are still 100/200. Dan from Poker Listings, who has 6,785, raised to 600 from UTG/the cutoff. Now Dan is the head strategy writer over there at the PL, and we’d all already picked up that one key part of his strategy was either to raise or fold preflop, and almost never limp. So when he raises there, his range is fairly wide, I’m thinking. Probably has a better than average hand to raise my button, but not necessarily something better than pocket jacks.

Here’s where I ask you, what would you do?

Folding seemed weak. Calling with position might’ve been a good choice here, but if an ace, king, or queen flops -- more likely than not -- and Dan bets out, I’ve got a tough decision. If I call, the pot would be 1,200, and I’d have 2,860 left.

I decided I wanted to raise, and given my stack size figured I couldn’t make a real raise without pushing all in. So I did. Pauly and Michele folded, and Dan took a few seconds before calling and turning over . I was surprised he’d call with that, but elated that I was 70-30 to win here. (Do you call in that spot? What, really, could my range be there?)

Alas, an ace flopped, I couldn’t catch up, and I was out on the bubble.

So while I brood a little about how I might’ve folded into the money, Dan from Poker Listings eliminated Michele in 3rd on the very next next hand, then after 130 hands of back-and-forthing with Pauly would take first. That means the first-place prize money gets rolled over into the next tourney (this coming Saturday), although I’m not sure how it’ll be distributed.

My consolation prize: I get some leaderboard points for finishing in the top six. After three weeks of this, those who end up in the top six get to play a fourth freeroll the last Saturday of the month.

And I guess another consolation prize is the feeling that, for the most part, I played a tournament well. Congrats to Dan, Pauly, and Michele! And thanks again to PokerListings for the invite -- was a ton of fun, for sure.