What Are We Playing for Again?

It’s been a while -- five years now -- but once upon a time I had a full-time job that had nothing to do with poker whatsoever. For a long time, too (a decade, in fact).

Won’t go too much into specifics, but I will say that part of that job involved serving on lots of committees. And therefore attending lots of meetings. With agendas.

Yeah, it was as fun as it sounds.

In those meetings we’d discuss all manner of things that needed to be done to improve our place of employment for everyone involved, including us. However, we were only employees, and in truth in most cases we didn’t have the political power or tangible resources to make those changes we were discussing happen.

As a result, many of the meetings followed a similar trajectory, starting out sticking closely to those agenda items which would inspire all sorts of suggested courses of action, with discussions often building into grand, detailed plans resulting from the push-and-pull of our debates.

Then would come the inevitable “existential” moment. Usually that moment would come just before the meeting’s scheduled time of concluding, and right after someone brought up the troubling truth that when it came to the thing we were discussing, we technically had no real means to make it happen. Then someone would ask the question.

“What exactly are we doing here?”

Usually just asking the question was enough to send us all back into our individual caves of despair. What we had been discussing, we all were forced to realize, was entirely abstract -- a theory that could never be put into practice.

I thought about that just a short while ago when noticing an exchange of tweets between Paul Volpe and Mike Gorodinsky, the two players currently sitting atop the 2015 World Series of Poker Player of the Year race “powered” this year by the Global Poker Index.

“Hey @WSOP @WSOPTD what exactly are the added incentives for POY these days?” tweeted Gorodinsky, currently second in the POY race. “I’d also like to know if there is any incentive,” replied the current POY leader Paul Volpe.The person manning the @WSOP account quickly answered the question.

“It is a permanent banner hung from the WSOP annually,” was the reply.

Had to chuckle at that, and as I say, it made me think back to those committee meetings where so often we fooled ourselves into thinking we were discussing something concrete before finally realizing there wasn’t much at stake at all. It also made me think a little of the anticlimax associated with the announcement of the Colossus first prize a couple of weeks ago.

Volpe expressed some disappointment, saying the WSOP was “giving no incentive to go to Europe and try and win it,” and Gordinsky said “agree 100%.”

Soon, though, WSOP Executive Director Ty Stewart (@wsopSUITd) jumped in to clarify that in fact there is a trophy to be won as well, plus a $10,000 buy-in to next year’s Main Event. “But honestly,” Stewart added, “w/winner traditionally having earned high 6 to 7 figures, is prize the motivation?”

Never mind problems with the POY formula, it is hard to say exactly how much those in contention for the POY prize are valuing it. However -- unlike was the case in so many of those committee meetings -- at least they are playing for something.

The Partial Information Game

Was just following the coverage of the start of Day 2a/2b of the World Series of Poker Main Event and was distracted momentarily by all of the tweets reporting how WSOP Executive Director Ty Stewart got things going with a request that all first-time Main Event players stand up to be recognized.

I’m guessing it was a heart-in-the-right-place kind of request, one designed to highlight just how many new players came to participate in poker’s most prestigious event this year. But the rapid-fire responses highlighted a perhaps obvious consequence of the first-timers identifying themselves in such a way.

“The @WSOP has all the first times stand up, all the pros be very thankful. #WillAllTheFishPleaseStandUp #WSOP” tweeted Remko Rinkema. “The fish actually tagged themselves this time,” said AlCantHang, while Chris Tessaro added “No word if they then applied bulls eyes.”

A couple of pros chimed in amid my timeline. “Thank you @WSOP for getting all the first timers to stand up and identify themselves,” said Mizzi. “Now I know who to punish #3barrelbluffs.” Steve O’Dwyer, meanwhile, looked at the situation from the first-timers’ point of view. “How much equity did @wsopSUITd [Stewart] just cost the WSOP first timers by asking them to stand and identify themselves?” he wondered.

As I read the tweets I began to think about the possibility of experienced players standing as a kind of early “bluff” suggesting to their opponents they were less savvy than they actually were. Then Bluff’s Lance Bradley articulated the same thought: “Wonder how many non-first timers, local regs stood up to purposely misidentify themselves as first timers. #LevelsOnLevels.”

Another worthwhile point made by several was to note that just because a player was in the Main Event for the first time, that didn’t necessarily make the player a novice.

Still, interesting to consider just how the players who remained seated interpreted the situation when watching their tablemates stand up before play began today.

What Is Poker? (Talking OFCP)

I didn’t get a chance to listen to today’s World Series of Poker Conference Call, although did follow the blow-by-blow from Rich Ryan and Kevmath over Twitter as it occurred. Besides the talk of frisbees and dog shows, there was one item that came up during the call-concluding Q&A that caught my attention.

A question arose (I believe) regarding open-face Chinese poker and the possibility of it being introduced sooner or later as a bracelet event. It sounded like WSOP Executive Director Ty Stewart addressed the issue with some reference to the history of the WSOP, adding also that while they don’t fear innovation, there was perhaps some question about OFCP even being “poker” per se. (I’m paraphrasing Kevmath’s paraphrase.)

I remember first learning Chinese Poker and having a similar thought that the game seemed a lot more like gin or even spades or hearts than poker. Others have brought up further points to suggest that OFCP isn’t like other poker games, including the fact that no one bets (in the usual sense) nor are there really opportunities to bluff, with the latter being what some believe to be a fundamental element of the game.

I wrote a little about this debate here back in December when the 2014 schedule was still being made and there was a lot of discussion back and forth about the idea of an OFCP bracelet event. I posted something on Learn.PokerNews as well about it, kind of summarizing the debate as it was being conducted at the time.

Since then I read an interesting point about OFCP made by Ivan Demidov in a post he recently wrote for the PokerStars blog in which he was addressing why the game was so popular.

“A lot of players like the fact that you never have to fold a hand in open-face Chinese poker,” says Demidov.

It’s kind of an obvious point, but a meaningful one, I think. It’s also perhaps another reason why OFCP isn’t so much a “poker” game, as no folding makes it more like other gambling games in which the option not to play is not available. That said, it still shares a lot of affinities including the goal of making hands according to poker hand rankings.

I liked Stewart’s response and how it showed the WSOP seriously thinks about what exactly “poker” is as well as the importance of moving forward with an appropriate reverence for the past.

Meanwhile, what was this about frisbees and dog shows, again?

Talking 2014 WSOP (Already)

Saw that announcement yesterday regarding dates for the 2014 World Series of Poker. No schedule of events just yet -- that usually comes later, anyway -- but we did get the word that as usual things will get kicked off at the end of May and run through mid-July (from 5/27 to 7/14 this time), and once more they’ll be back at the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino.

Was almost surprising to read in the presser that this will mark the 10th straight year the WSOP will be at the Rio, even though it’s easy enough to recall how it was 2005 that the move first occurred, with only the last couple of days of the Main Event that year (won by Joe Hachem) playing out back at Binion’s as a kind of last hurrah.

Not too much else of note in the announcement. The Main Event will again feature three Day 1 flights. The full slate of “deep stack” tourneys and cash games will be on offer again throughout the summer, with buy-ins as low as $75 for some tourneys. And of course this year will be the first for which players on WSOP.com in both Nevada and New Jersey will be able to satellite into events, a wrinkle that should get more attention throughout the winter and spring.

There are a few hints dropped about what the schedule will contain, including another one of those “Millionaire Maker” events (a $1,500 tourney with a first-prize guaranteed to be at least $1 milly), a second “Big One for One Drop” with the $1 million buy-in (already announced), and another “Little One for One Drop” (with a $1,111 buy-in and unlimited re-entries).

No indication of a total number of events, although there is mention that there will be “60+ official gold bracelet events,” thus suggesting a schedule not too different from years past.

That said, some tweets from WSOP Executive Director Ty Stewart (@wsopSUITd) from about a month ago suggested the so-called “Matt Glantz” plan proposed in a piece appearing in Card Player back in June is getting some consideration. That’s the idea to jettison the mid-range buy-ins ($2,500 and $5,000) and instead have both $1,500 and $10,000 events for all of the major variants, with the latter designated as “championship” events.

“Debate. What are ‘core’ disciplines outside NLHE that merit WSOP championship event? Ten right now on the table (1/2) - Agree?” tweeted Stewart back on November 20, who then followed with “Limit HE, PLHE, PLO, O8OB, 7-Stud, 7-Stud 8OB, Razz, 2-7, 2-7 TD, HORSE. For the much discussed 1500/10k framework. Sked coming 2gether.”

I think I like the $1.5K/$10K idea well enough, although the true test of it will come via those field sizes next summer. Meanwhile, we’ll have to wait and see how the actual schedule ends up shaping up, but it does sound like we might anticipate a lot of $1,500 events, a handful of $10,000 ones (in each of those disciplines), with the non-HE games thus covered in that way and the rest of the schedule again filled with NLHE tourneys of various shapes and sizes.

WSOP Europe and WSOP Asia Pacific To Alternate Years

The World Series of Poker yesterday announced a change of plans regarding the WSOP Europe and WSOP Asia Pacific events, or at least a move away from the pattern of offering both series on an annual basis.

As you’ve probably heard, both the WSOPE and WSOP APAC will henceforth be staged on an every-other-year basis, alternating back and forth. Thus the WSOPE will be taking a year off in 2014, with the WSOP APAC happening in October of next year (and featuring 10 bracelet events). Then the WSOPE will return in 2015 with the WSOP APAC stepping aside. No word at the moment on how many events will be included at the 2015 WSOPE or when (or where) it will be held.

Numbers at the 2013 WSOPE last month weren’t stellar, with some small fields and the Main Event slipping from 420 entrants to 375, kind of settling back toward where the ME field sizes began at the WSOPE when it began when 362 entered in both 2007 and 2008. The 2013 WSOP APAC in Melbourne (the first year of the series) also featured some events with small turnouts, although a healthy 405 entered the Main.

There was some talk earlier in the year that having the WSOP APAC (in April) come so close on the heels of the Aussie Millions (in January) might have affected turnouts somewhat as some players chose one over the other, with most choosing the Aussie Millions. Having the WSOP APAC in October again puts it within three months of the Aussie Millions (in January), although this time the WSOP series will come first.

Some immediately began talking again about the whole WSOP Player of the Year debate in response to the announcement, an issue of importance only to a very small percentage of players, though nonetheless one that gets an inordinate amount of attention from forum posters and media folks.

The news made me think back to what WSOP Executive Director Ty Stewart said back in May 2012 when the WSOP APAC was first announced, in particular the suggestion of a “goal... to establish the worldwide grand slam of poker.”

That thought seemed to suggest further expansion, with perhaps a fourth location for a WSOP series in the works and a global schedule rivaling other “grand slams” such as the one in tennis with its four “majors” in Australia (the Australian Open), France (the French Open), England (Wimbledon), and the U.S. (the U.S. Open).

Such could still happen, although this week’s announcement suggests if it does it will be later than sooner. Responding to comments on his Twitter feed yesterday, Stewart noted how the WSOP “never desired to be a tour,” but was committed to the idea of the World Series of Poker reflecting how poker is indeed a “Worldwide game.”

Will be interesting to see over the next few years how the WSOP continues to fare as far as bracelet events outside of the U.S. are concerned.

WSOP Stirring Things Up for 2012

As happens every year around this time, the World Series of Poker held a conference call yesterday for media to talk about the upcoming WSOP and give writers things to hype up here during the last few days before the sucker starts.

It’s getting close. Sunday, May 27 is when things get going for real at the Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino. That’s when the first two events start up, the Casino Employees Event (No. 1) and the first of many $1,500 no-limit hold’em tourneys (Event No. 2).

You can find plenty of “live blogs” and other articles running down what was covered yesterday, so I’ll pass on that sort of thing here. I suppose the biggest “news” concerned some rule changes regarding player conduct, including allowing players more freedom when it comes to table talk as well as celebrating. The former sounded a bit like an invitation to engage in Jamie Gold-like banter (“I said top top!”), while the latter reminded some of Hevad Khan (“Bulldozer!”).

Speaking of speaking at the table, another rule that will likely get some pushback from players is one requiring those at televised feature tables to announce their action verbally. Not everyone plays poker this way, with many just letting the chips and cards do their talking for them, and so some have already begun to voice displeasure over Twitter regarding having different requirements for feature-table players than for the rest of the field.

There was other stuff about the “Big One” (the $1 million buy-in event), the new WSOP APAC, the ladies event and men playing, and so on. Like I say, you can easily find news on that elsewhere. Next week the media guide comes out, and I assume we’ll get a look at the official new rules soon as well, so there will be continued buzz going forward.

Someone brought up the topic of the huge banners of past WSOP Main Event champions that decorate the Amazon Room each year, asking in particular whether 2000 ME champ Chris “Jesus” Ferguson’s banner might be obscured given the Black Friday-related charges against him and all the other Full Tilt Poker folderol.

The reply was that the WSOP would not be doing anything with the banners that might resemble any sort of statement of position on Ferguson. (A similar issue has been raised in the past with regard to 1994 ME champ and Russ Hamilton and his involvement in the UltimateBet insider cheating scandal and cover up.)

I’m with the WSOP on this one, by the way. The banners are meant to refer to WSOP’s history, and it’s not like you can change the past. If a past champion was found later to have cheated in order to win, that’s a different story. But it’s silly for the WSOP to get into the business each year of casting judgment on past champions. I say hang those banners and let the people looking up at those faces form their own opinions about each one.

In delivering that response, Executive Director Ty Stewart pointedly noted that the WSOP didn’t “want to get into having a standards and ethics committee,” an unsubtle jab at their ex-colleague Jeffrey Pollack, Annie Duke, and the Epic Poker League. As if that weren’t clear enough, a further dig came when it was unnecessarily noted that “wsop.com” didn’t stand for “wicked series of poker” -- a reference to that domain URL purchasing business and the early plan pursued by the EPL to try to name itself the Wicked Poker League.

We’ve already seen evidence of the WSOP’s dislike of the EPL. Whether it derives from personal animosity toward Pollack, irritation at what was perhaps once perceived a competitor, or other behind-the-scenes stuff we haven’t heard about, there’s something a little unseemly about it coming up unprovoked like this in the context of the annual conference call.

Don’t get me wrong -- Epic is most certainly deserving of criticism, and my six-month tenure as a contributor to the EPL blog hardly prevents me not only from believing that, but from voicing such criticism myself. But to me the WSOP might do better to continue to try to appear above all that applesauce.

Still, the call worked well enough to get me excited about it all again. Am starting to think about my return to the Rio this summer, and my instinct is to think that whatever this new loosening up of restrictions regarding player talk and behavior will do to the game, it will likely help create more interesting stories to report.

So maybe I shouldn’t criticize the WSOP for its own “loose talk.” As Dashiell Hammett’s Op says in Red Harvest (1929), “sometimes stirring things up is all right.”

Coming Soon... the 2011 WSOP

Yesterday the World Series of Poker held its annual conference call for the media. That’s when folks like Seth Palansky (WSOP Communications Director), Jack Effel (WSOP Tournament Director), and Ty Stewart (WSOP Executive Director) share news and answer questions regarding the upcoming Series, now less than three weeks away.

I’ve participated in this call before, but was unable to this time as I was giving that final exam I wrote about yesterday. Got up to speed fairly quickly afterwards, though, thanks to Twitter and all of the usual suspects providing accounts of the main stories.

We learned that automatic shufflers would be used at the WSOP this summer (unlike in the past). Response seems generally positive to that innovation, from what I gather.

The WSOP has picked up a few new sponsors, including Miller Lite (replacing ghastly Milwaukee’s Beast). Dearfoams, makers of slippers, has (oddly) signed on, too, as a sponsor. Apparently all who play the Main Event will be given some slippers for entering, which guarantees everyone will start out being dealt a pair.

Thank you. I’m here all week.

There was some further talk of the expanded coverage (both online and on teevee) that was announced last week. The nomination process for the Poker Hall of Fame was brought up as well, with a few changes discussed, including the not-unexpected insitution of a new “Chip Reese Rule” making 40 a minimum-age requirement.

Skimming through the Q&A stuff, I see a question was asked about how “Black Friday” would affect this year’s WSOP and am not surprised by the “business as usual” response. There will be effects, though, most particularly if Full Tilt Poker fails to deliver players’ funds by June.

Talk of men playing in the Ladies Event resurfaced. (I covered the Ladies Event last summer, writing about the experience here.) TD Jack Effel noted that the WSOP had “no respect” for any man who enters, though conceded that from a legal standpoint the WSOP can’t do anything to stop men from doing so.

Sounds like there was also some discussion of that rule, listed in this year’s media guidelines, stating that “media shall not place themselves in the area of play at any poker table in excess of five (5) minutes per each half hour,” a rule that goes on to say media also need to move on if asked to do so by dealers, players, or staff.

At the time some fretted over this rule, as well as the one indicating that “credentialed media may not speak with or in any other way distract players during tournament action while they are seated at the table,” both of which were likely added in response to the incident late last summer involving the player Ali Tekintamgac conspiring with a faux-blogger to cheat at the Partouche Poker Tour Grand Finale. (For more on that incident, read here.)

Word yesterday was that yes, such guidelines will be enforced. I, for one, am not overly concerned about the restrictions, as I feel it is certainly possible to do the job of reporting without speaking directly to players (even if there are instances where it makes things a lot easier to do so). And really, it’s not often I need to be stationed at a table for more than five minutes at a time, either, although I think there the point is merely to prevent unreasonable “sweating” of players -- i.e., to keep the media from unduly affecting play, a concern which I’d hope everyone interested in the game’s integrity would share equally.

Speaking of media getting involved, a post-conference call brouhaha erupted over Twitter when another guideline regarding media was made public, an “unwritten rule” (said the person manning the @WSOP account) that credentialed media weren’t allowed to play in any bracelet events!

I follow quite a few folks who regularly report on the WSOP, many of whom also occasionally play in events, too. The news of this prohibition against playing was surprising. The reaction was not.

Like myself, many of those who got into writing about poker did so out of a love for the game. Just a couple of nights ago I got a big kick out of listening to Remko Rinkema (@happyfreaked) and Frank Op de Woerd (@webjoker), the two Dutch poker reporters alongside whom I’ve worked at past WSOPs, being interviewed over on QuadJacks. I enjoyed hearing them partly because they are a couple of funny guys, but also because they so obviously love poker (and covering it). Their enthusiasm when describing what was happening at EPT Madrid was infectious, and reminded me of some of the reasons why I’ve found myself writing so many words over the last few years about people playing cards.

Loving the game (like most of us do), it only follows that we want to play as well. Thus the negative response. Also, as writers we tend to value the written word, and perhaps that gave us another reason to object to this new “unwritten rule.”

To the WSOP’s credit, we were told a little later in the day that the rule was going to be revisited, with a suggestion that something would be done to allow credentialed media to enter events. In my mind, requiring such folks to leave their tags back at their hotel rooms and not do any reporting while playing in a given event would seem a reasonable enough request, but we’ll see what happens.

In any event, all of the WSOP buzz certainly got me thinking about the Series. My plan this summer will be a little different from the last few years. Rather than go out for the entire Series, I’ll be heading out about three weeks in this time, staying until the November Nine is decided on July 19th. That had actually been my plan prior to Black Friday, and I’m grateful the events of April 15th haven’t disrupted things too terribly.

Indeed, with all that has happened over the last month, I am probably even more curious than I would have been otherwise to see just how it all shakes out this summer.

Talkin’ WSOP on ESPN

Yesterday I had the opportunity to participate in a conference call conducted by the WSOP and ESPN in which the topic of discussion was the upcoming Main Event final table. Hard to believe that’ll finally be happening in a little over a week!

For a full write-up of the call (which lasted about 45 minutes), head to Betfair Poker where I’ve sorted out into topics most of the items that were discussed.

When my turn arose, I asked a couple of questions. The first was about the logo/patch situation. I mentioned in yesterday’s post how Full Tilt Poker has seven sponsored players among the November Nine, yet there is that WSOP rule regarding televised tables that limits sponsors to having just three players sport their logos.

I was curious about the issue because earlier in the week on “This Week in Poker” one of those seven players -- John Racener -- had indicated he was under the impression that all seven would be wearing Full Tilt patches. But Ty Stewart, VP of Harrah’s/WSOP, confirmed yesterday that the rule would certainly be enforced.

I noted yesterday how it seemed curious that even the players being sponsored by FTP didn’t know which three among them would be patched. On the same show, Victory Poker CEO Dan Fleyshman recognized Full Tilt Poker’s strategy here -- by not announcing early which three players will be representing the site, all seven players remain identified with Full Tilt Poker right up until the start of the final table.

I wonder, though, if this strategy might negatively affect the chances for the four players who will not be wearing FTP logos to score alternate deals?

I directed my second question to Lon McEachern and Norman Chad, the commentators for ESPN’s WSOP coverage. I asked them to talk about the fact that they’ve been doing this same gig for more than seven years now.

Since I didn’t cover that question over on Betfair, I thought I’d share their response here. McEachern was the first to answer.

“You know, honestly, as Norman has mentioned a number of times, it was his dream as a kid to sit around and watch people play poker,” McEachern cracked.

“That’s all of our dreams!” I said jokingly. “Yeah, exactly!” said McEachern with a laugh. Then came the real response.

“For myself,” said McEachern, “I was doing a lot of niche sports with ESPN for a number of years, and that was kind of my bailiwick to do some oddball sports. Baseball, football, basketball... that was all taken up. So when [the chance to cover the WSOP arose], I had the foothold. I was the only one at ESPN doing it.”

McEachern went on speak with humility about how the pair has yet to “screw it up” thus far, and in fact have “grown in the role” and gotten better as the years have passed.

This “right-place-right-time” theme was something Chad touched upon as well in his response.

“As far as the ‘poker boom’ goes and ESPN’s success with the World Series of Poker [is concerned], Lon and I are just passengers in the getaway car,” said Chad. “This all would have happened with or without us, and we just happened to be there and as Lon mentioned we haven’t screwed up.... We’ve somehow stayed there since it began in ’03, but it’s just happenstance. It was a piano falling out of the sky for me, and instead of crushing me it landed next to me. And I knew how to play the piano.”

I liked their responses, and especially Chad’s choice of metaphors. Made me think a lot about the good fortune I’ve enjoyed thus far writing about poker and the opportunities that have come my way. Also made me think a little about poker, too, and how luck so often plays an important role there.

Stewart then chimed in to add a few words of praise for McEachern and Chad, noting how in his opinion “their longevity is a testament to the fact that they’re the best and they’re true professionals.”

Stewart noted how he’d been with the WSOP for five years now, and how early on he “made the mistake” of checking out “Two Plus Two and some of those other crazy poker sites.” He saw how those sites do feature a lot of critical commentary on all things poker, but recognized that “people universally agree” that McEachern and Chad do a terrific job.

Of course, one doesn’t have to hunt around very long on Two Plus Two to find criticisms of ESPN and the commentators. But I think Stewart is basically right to point out that McEachern and Chad are liked by many, and on the whole do receive a lot more praise than censure. I know I am a fan of both, for sure.

Like I say, for more on the conference call, click on over to Betfair Poker.

2010 WSOP, Day 48: The Long Walk

Anybody remember this book, The Long Walk? I actually read this as a teenager, not realizing at the time it was by Stephen King as it had been originally published under a pseudonym, Richard Bachman. This was the cover of the copy I read, I recall. Haven’t looked back at it since I first read it, but it's one of those weird tales that kind of sticks with you.

Found myself thinking about The Long Walk again yesterday while helping cover Day 5 of the 2010 World Series of Poker Main Event. The story concerns a contest in which 100 boys are essentially made to walk without stopping, with the last one to survive winning “The Prize” -- i.e., anything he wants for life. And when I say “survive” I mean that literally, as those who fail to keep moving are shot dead.

Like I say, it has been a while since I’ve read the book, but I remember it being well-plotted and full of several interesting characters. And it had that hook -- as King’s stories and novels often do. Some of the boys crack up along the way, I recall, suffering both physically and mentally. I think some even kill themselves rather than being executed.

I thought of the book yesterday because we have reached that point in the Main Event where we’re all becoming more and more conscious of the endurance aspect of the tournament -- the fact that we’re now moving beyond the 40-hour mark in terms of time played.

And it sort of seems like some are cracking up.

Yesterday the day began with the bustouts once again coming at a rapid pace. I think the field went from 574 to 500 in the first hour of play, meaning more than one elimination per minute. I know in the blog over on PokerNews it felt as though just about every post was reporting yet another player pushing all in before the flop and not surviving.

The short stacks had no choice, of course. They were like the characters in the novel who had reached their physical limits, and simply could not go on. But then there were the medium or even big stacks suddenly going out, too. They could have walked on, but for whatever reason had reached some sort of limit, too.

I am referring to those wild coin flip-type hands in which players freely commit 100-plus big blinds before the flop knowing they are in a race situation at best. This sort of high-stakes gambling has happened all three years I have helped cover the Main Event.

I remember in 2008 commenting here about a hand I had reported in which two players each committed 1.2 million preflop with A-K when the blinds were 4,000/8,000. Not unusual at all to see that at this stage of the ME. Indeed, remember the very last day of play in 2009 (when they played down from 27 to 9), which most said would take 20 hours and was over in half that time. There were some examples of what appeared to be unnecessary risk-taking that day, too.

On the one hand, it seems like after playing poker for a week-and-a-half one would be less quick to risk that huge stack one has worked so hard and so long to accumulate. Then again, I think most players do reach a point where it doesn’t matter how many big blinds they have, they are desirous to put it all on the line regardless.

The Main Event is unusual because of its size and structure. In just about every other tournament these guys have ever played, they’ve never gotten close to the 40-hour mark in terms of playing time. Somewhere long before that they’ve reached the stage where some or even most players are in push-or-fold territory, and the gambling begins.

But in the ME -- with its slowly rising blinds/antes, two-hour levels, and such a huge field (meaning a ton of chips in play) -- that point really hasn’t come yet for the majority of the field. When play ended last night there were 205 players left. The top 40 still all had at least 100 big blinds. The top 120 still had at least 50 big blinds. It remains a “deep-stacked” event -- i.e., one in which flops can (and in most cases probably should) be seen -- if people want to play it as such.

Johnny Chan remains a big story heading into Day 6, still way up on the leaderboard (in 9th). Michael “The Grinder” Mizrachi was on a short stack during the bubble period, but is now sitting in 30th place. In case you missed it, three of his brothers -- Robert, Danny, and Eric -- also cashed in the ME, an incredible feat. Robert is the only one still in, but is super short to begin today.

Another story today is that only one woman made it to Day 6, Breeze Zuckerman. She won Wicked Chops’ Last Woman Standing Cup when Dorothy Van Sachsen went out in 273rd. I think many were betting we’d see more women left in the field at this point, especially given all of the “Year of the Woman” talk leading up to the Main Event. (Anyone remember Ty Stewart, Vice President of Harrah’s, predicting women would win “three-plus bracelets” in open-field events?)

I imagine we’ll get down around 70-80 players today, then play down to 27 on Friday. They’ve planned the schedule well this year, in my opinion, mostly ensuring that none of the days go too long.

Although as I say, if players choose (and/or are able) to tighten up with their stacks of 100-plus big blinds, they could all keep on walking a bit longer.