Remembering Rivers Duking It Out With Duke

I’m a big fan of old recorded comedy, having spent many years fishing LPs out of the used bins to build a big but not too embarrassingly large of a collection. And of course now that practically everything exists online to be hunted down if one desires, I’ve filled a lot of gaps when it comes to those old records and radio shows, in particular from the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s.

Both Robin Williams and Joan Rivers were significant figures during that era of comedy, and of course both became even more central in popular culture during the decades since. Both recorded a few LPs, though none of them found their way into my collection. Still, I appreciated how both contributed importantly to American comedy.

When news of Rivers having passed began circulating yesterday afternoon, many in poker immediately recalled her venomous tête-à-tête with Annie Duke on Celebrity Apprentice from five years ago. I found myself looking back at a post I’d written here the day after the finale of that quasi-competition.

For Rivers the show existed amid what became an extended final run of heightened fame marked by her appearance on several reality shows, “red carpet” hosting gigs, and the E! network show Fashion Police that helped keep her a household name.

For Duke being on Celebrity Apprentice was the most notable of several television-related ventures that included turning up on other game shows and a couple of failed attempts starting shows centered around her own then-growing celebrity such as Annie Duke Takes on the World (a game show in which she played poker against amateurs) and All In (a sitcom based on her life -- no shinola).

At the time Duke was still representing UltimateBet (or UB) well after the site’s massive insider cheating scandal had become public. Indeed, she’d been spending much of the previous year defending the site, repeatedly claiming the site had shown “grace and integrity” in its handling of the matter when even then it was clear that was hardly the case, and of course later on further corruption within UB became even more evident. (She’d part with the site at the very end of 2010, three-and-a-half months before Black Friday.)

In other words, some of the poker community was already uncertain about Duke’s status as a “spokesperson” of poker even then in the spring of 2009, although on Celebrity Apprentice she was absolutely regarded that way by others on the show and by the mainstream audience. Indeed, when it came to the Rivers-vs.-Duke rivalry on the show, it was Duke’s poker player identity that earned the most remembered bit of vitriol from the comedian, at least among those of us in poker -- even more remembered than Rivers calling Duke a “Nazi” and comparing her to Hitler.

From that 2009 post:

“Even if you haven’t been watching the show, you’d probably heard about Rivers’ shots at poker and Vegas. How she referred to the money contributed by poker players to Duke’s cause as ‘money with blood on it.’ How she referred to her many years performing in LV by saying ‘I’ve met your people in Vegas for forty years -- none of them have last names,’ suggesting the nefarious and/or criminal backgrounds of the inhabitants of Sin City...”

“You’re a poker player... a poker player,” Rivers continues in the clip we all passed around at the time. “That’s beyond white trash.” “Poker players are the most awesome people in the world,” Duke responds, not necessarily her finest moment as a debater. “Poker players are trash, darling... trash,” reiterates Rivers.

Duke’s subsequent move from UB to the doomed Epic Poker League didn’t do much to prove Rivers wrong, either, when it came to her judgment of Duke. Speaking of, Jeffrey Pollack -- whose reputation in the poker world would sink in the EPL ship along with Duke’s -- was still the WSOP Commissioner at the time of Duke’s appearance on Celebrity Apprentice, and in the WSOP conference call that year would maintain that Duke’s appearance on the show represented a “leap forward for the mainstreaming of poker into our pop culture” and that the “net effect was going to be very good for poker.”

I’m wondering otherwise in that post, given how badly the game was portrayed on the show. And of course, years later, even poker players are today unhesitatingly siding in retrospect with Rivers against Duke.

For Rivers, Annie Duke was just one of several with whom she battled heads-up in a long career, her unrestrained comedic style (and personality) often being much more savage than subtle (or more Juvenal than Horace). And while poker and its image might have suffered some collateral damage from their exchange years ago, the game would persevere nonetheless -- despite both of them.

UB Keeping It Real... Real Weird, Anyway

I mentioned last week how I wasn’t all that engrossed in the comings and goings happening over at UltimateBet (or “UB”). Truth be told, I’m only marginally interested by such matters with regard to any of the sites, UB or otherwise.

As a small-time player, such sponsorships make little or no difference to me, not affecting one way or another my choice to play on a given site. There are probably at least a dozen other factors of greater relevance when I make such a decision, although I understand the influence sponsored players may have when it comes to attracting new players.

And as a poker writer, sponsorships are really only of interest insofar as they affect the tourneys I cover or other stories on which I might end up reporting. Which they do, now and then.

That said, I should probably clarify that while it doesn’t really matter that much to me who has left UB and who has joined them, I’m as intrigued as anyone by all of the hubbub the recent moves have created. And so, like most of you I imagine, I have been following a lot of the interviews and articles, too.

I listened to Annie Duke’s interview on this week’s episode of The Final Table podcast, the one co-hosted by Dennis Phillips. I read Phil Hellmuth’s interview for CardPlayer. I also read Prahlad Friedman’s very interesting interview with Bluff Magazine that appeared yesterday soon after his signing with the site was finally announced once and for all.

And I’ve followed a lot of the back-and-forthing on Twitter and in the forums, too. Fascinating to see some of the reactions to Friedman’s signing with same site that cheated him, as well as to the fact that his doing so comes after previously stating (several times) that he’d never sign with any site.

The whole situation with Friedman is truly peculiar. Talk about stranger than fiction. Just try explaining it to someone who isn’t as involved with the scene as we are. After the fifth or sixth twist and turn, you start to sound like a crazy person. Or at least an unreliable narrator.

Of course, the easiest explanation is to write off Friedman’s decision as a simple money grab, even if doing so means ignoring much of what he says in the Bluff piece. Even if that were the case, though, for the UB saga to take this unexpected turn is still quite remarkable.

The whole thing caused me to step back just a bit and opine on “Sponsorships in Online Poker” on Betfair poker today. I didn’t weigh in on Friedman in particular (though I do mention the news of his signing), but rather tried to make a few general observations about the value and significance of online sponsorships.

Late last week, UB pro and media and operations consultant Joe Sebok wrote a post on his blog following the departures of Duke and Hellmuth. “We’ll be announcing our newest Team UB member next week,” he wrote, telling his readers to “stay tuned” because it was “going to be a doozy.”

Whatever else Friedman’s signing might signify, it was most definitely that.

Signs of the Times: Hellmuth & UB

Been marveling some over the last couple of months at how much the logos worn by professional poker players seem to pique the interest of many observers.

As this year’s WSOP Main Event final table demonstrated, the whole “patching” thing has clearly evolved into a highly intricate set of maneuvers, perhaps not quite as complicated as the game itself, though similarly informed by intricate strategies developed from partial information. Like poker, the advertising game involves a lot of “calculated guessing,” one might say.

The patches also provide another set of symbols to consider when taking in the “story” of a particular tournament, occasionally adding further richness to the already interesting narrative being related. Each player primarily represents him or herself, but may also be associated with others via the display of similar patches. Thus does the main “plot” concerning the tourney’s outcome occasionally get fleshed out further with these “subplots” regarding sponsorships.

For instance, when Jonathan Duhamel -- a “PokerStars guy” -- won the WSOP Main Event, it was viewed by some as a victory by Stars and a loss for Full Tilt. The fact that a lot of us play on these sites, and likely have our own preferences or even “allegiances,” perhaps adds (in a kind of arbitrary way) another layer of significance when it comes to the business of interpreting the final table story.

The patches are also great for gossip, too, it seems. In fact, we have recently witnessed how even the absence of a patch can, in some cases, be enough to get the rumor mill crankin’ in high gear.

I’m referring, of course, to all the talk about Phil Hellmuth having recently made a few appearances without his usual set of UltimateBet -- now “UB” -- logos. Surely it is testament to the marketing power the “Poker Brat” wields when people take notice what patches he is not wearing. Not to mention speculate so extensively about whose patches he might wear in the future.

You’d think this guy were Ralph Lauren or something, the way folks are getting so caught up in the business of following his fashion.

As you probably have heard, when Hellmuth showed up to contribute commentary over on ESPN3’s live stream from the WSOP Main Event final table a couple of weeks ago, he was not sporting any UB logos. Was a bit conspicuous, especially since Hellmuth never ever misses an opportunity to play the salesman.

Indeed, during the heads-up portion he annoyed many viewers by the way he’d ignore the action and instead talk about himself and his various money-making endeavors. If I remember correctly, he even interrupted himself one time that night -- very close to the final hand, I think -- to say “Let’s see... What else do I have to promote?”

Might have blown over, but when Hellmuth turned up at the NAPT Los Angeles shootout event without the usual “UB” stampage, the wondering got louder. Could it be that Hellmuth might be stepping away from the company with whom he has been associated for over a decade? And if so, with whom might he sign next? Stars? Tilt? Party? His own new skin/site? Harrah’s/WSOP? (For more on that latter possibility, see this recent post by B.J. Nemeth.)

I think it is obvious that the still-unresolved insider cheating scandal at UB adds further intrigue here. The fact is, ever since the scandal at UltimateBet first broke in the spring of 2008, wearing a UB patch has taken on special meaning.

Regardless of the wearer -- and indeed, despite the good intentions and/or best efforts of some of those who have donned it -- the UB patch has become a unique symbol. It yields various interpretations, but for many it evokes certain, specific themes, including greed, fraud, self-interest, and other negative and/or detrimental associations for poker.

What will Hellmuth do? Hellmuth has worn the UB symbol longer than anyone, I think. According to the UB site, “Hellmuth was instrumental in creating the UB poker software in 1999,” and most believe he has always had some sort of significant financial stake in the site.

One has to believe it would take a lot for him to move on at this late date, especially after so many better spots to act seem to have passed. Then again, for all his bluster, we all know what a nit Hellmuth can be. He will let himself get blinded down sometimes.

Love him or hate him, Hellmuth is himself a symbol, the meaning of which in a lot of ways coincides with the UB one. Which for me tends to suggest that it doesn’t really matter much if he wears the UB patch again.

In truth, Hellmuth is -- and always will be -- UB. And you can decide for yourself what that means.

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.

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?