2007 WSOP, Day 47: Part Two -- Looking Ahead to the 2007 WSOP ME Final Table

The 2007 WSOP Main Event final table begins just about an hour from now. Click here to follow along with PokerNews’ hand-by-hand coverage. If you are interested in learning more about the nine players who will be at tonight’s final table, Dr. Pauly today posted bios of each.

For the second straight year, ESPN will be broadcasting its live pay-per-view coverage of tonight’s action, which you can order via your cable or satellite provider or as a live video stream here on the web. Still haven’t decided whether I’m going for that or not -- am leaning against it at the moment.

Here are the chip counts heading into play today:

I believe they are very close to the end of Level 30 -- there might be a couple of hands left at that level. When Level 31 begins, the blinds will be 150,000/300,000 and the ante 40,000. That’ll mean a minimum of 810,000 chips per nine-handed orbit. The jumps are considerable after that -- at Level 32 the blinds go up to 200,000/400,000 with a 50,000 ante, and at Level 33 the blinds are 250,000/500,000 with a 50,000 ante.

(EDIT [added 7/17, 4:30 p.m. EDT]: Just noticed a little while ago that somewhere along the way WSOP officials appear to have added an extra level of blinds/antes, inserting the extra level at Level 27. Compare the original structure sheet to what is listed on the WSOP site. Look particularly at Level 27. The change means my comments here are all one level off.)

The payout structure should have some effect on some players’ sense of urgency here. Just over $22 million up for grabs tonight, but over half of that goes to the top two finishers ($8,250,000 for first; $4,840,981 for second). The difference between 6th and 9th is “only” $400,000, so we might see a couple of the shorter stacks get randy early on in an effort to position themselves a little better to take a shot at the big money.

No telling, really, how long of a night it will be. All of my fussing about the rapidly-increasing blinds affecting play may actually turn out to be a lot of applesauce, depending on how these nine approach the final table. However, I still gotta believe those super-sized blinds will force at least a few instances of players’ shoving their chips in less than optimal circumstances.

Betting is now closed over at the Bodog Sportsbook. The odds over there pretty much follow the chip counts, with chip leader Philip Hilm being the favorite at 14-to-5. The only real aberration is Lee Watkinson -- currently in sixth place, chip-wise -- who has gotten a lot of love to be listed at 3.5-to-1 alongside second-place Tuan Lam.

Trying to pick a winner is a bit foolhardy, I’d suggest. However, I am going to venture one prediction: Lee Watkinson will begin the night in an aggressive mode, and the degree to which he is successful early on will have a big influence on how the final table plays out.

When they went ten-handed Sunday night/Monday morning, they ended up playing a total of 36 hands before short-stacked Steven Garfinkle finally busted out in 10th. I mentioned last post how it took about two-and-a-half hours to play those hands, despite the fact that the great majority of them (27) didn’t even make it to the flop. Play was very tentative, with players routinely folding to relatively small preflop raises.

During those 36 hands, Watkinson took it easy. He folded every hand preflop except for three. All three of those were hands where he was on the button. On one, he called a preflop raise from an early position player, but didn’t put another chip in the pot (folding on the river). On the other two, it had folded around to him and he put in a standard preflop raise that enabled him to take the blinds and antes.

Unless someone else gets wacky early on tonight -- which could well happen -- I think Watkinson is now going to “change gears” and try to make some moves early on tonight. I say this primarily because of his final table experience (he’s made a couple of WPT final tables and a WSOP Circuit final table) and because of how he played when they were on the money bubble at this year’s Main Event. John “Falstaff” Hartness summarized Watkinson’s bubble play for PokerNews:

“Lee Watkinson had a big stack as hand-for-hand play began, and he used it to bully his opponents and increase his lead over his table. With eight short stacks surrounding him, Watkinson raised blind to 150,000 every hand, forcing players clinging to chips near the bubble to go all-in to call him. Watkinson did this all fifteen hands of hand-for-hand play, putting on a textbook display of big-stack bubble play.”

When interviewed on Expert Insight this week (the Day 41 episode), Watkinson said he actually increased his preflop raises as bubble play wore on. “I started out, you know, shortly before they go hand-for-hand, I won probably most of the pots [by raising preflop],” Watkinson explained. “And then [when we] went hand-for-hand, I won . . . I think one guy [once] moved all-in [and I folded] and I won every other pot for like ten hands. I started out, you know, just making normal raises, then [a] little bigger raises, and then . . . the last six or seven hands I started out in the small blind . . . it’s obvious what I’m doing, so I’m not even going through the pretenses here, I’m all-in dark . . . and I did that for the rest of the time [until the bubble burst].”

Watkinson said he believes he picked up around 180,000 chips that way. This at a point in the tournament when the average chip stack was a little over 200,000.

I’m taking this display as evidence that Watkinson will be playing with relatively less fear than his opponents tonight. Of course, one factor that might check Watkinson’s aggression early on is the fact that he has Lam, Hilm, and Khan on his left. One or more of them could play back at Watkinson with some reraises.

Like I said, PokerNews is the place to go for live reports from the final table -- particularly if you aren’t shelling out the $19.95 to watch ESPN’s coverage. Even if you do buy the coverage, the live reports might still be worth your time. Expect B.J. Nemeth to provide excellent, detailed descriptions of every move. (Incidentally, Nemeth was interviewed on Expert Insight as well, on the episode they are labelling “Day 44”.) Dr. Pauly (and others, I imagine) also will be there providing additional commentary along the way.

Here’s hoping this year’s final table produces as many interesting hands and stories at we had in 2006.

2007 WSOP, Day 47: Part One -- Looking Back at the 2006 WSOP ME Final Table

Two posts today. One looking back, one looking ahead.

Just before last year’s final table, I suggested that “Whatever happens, it’ll surely be relived, replayed, and reviewed endlessly until next year’s WSOP. There’s a kind of permanence about final table play that may also have its effect tomorrow. The fact that the ‘world’ (or some of it) will literally be watching this time certainly won’t lessen the pressure.”

As it happened, the 2006 WSOP Main Event final table did produce a lot of interesting stories and discussion, despite the fact that Jamie Gold held the large chip lead from start to finish.

At the end of last summer, I went through and discussed eight key hands from last year’s final table. I thought it might be interesting to look back at those hands, and so here are links to those posts:

2006 WSOP Final Table Hand No. 5: The Mighty Ducks
Dan Nassif eliminated in 9th when Jamie Gold flops a set of deuces.

2006 WSOP Final Table Hand No. 22: Just in Case
Gold and Allen Cunningham both flop trips, but Gold has the better kicker.

2006 WSOP Final Table Hand No. 60: Riding the Rush?
Michael Binger gets a little reckless with A9 after doubling up.

2006 WSOP Final Table Hand No. 122: You Going All the Way?
Richard Lee decides JJ is a good enough hand to take to battle against Gold.

2006 WSOP Final Table Hand No. 134: Friends Don’t Let Friends Get Trapped
A king flops, and Paul Wasicka finds himself in a tight spot with KT against Gold’s AK.

2006 WSOP Final Table Hand No. 187: Having the Heart to Go Big Time
A scary board enables Wasicka to run a sick bluff against Cunningham.

2006 WSOP Final Table Hand No. 218: Honest Abe
Three-handed, Gold bluffs Binger, briefly showing one of his cards in the process.

2006 WSOP Final Table Hand No. 229: Split Decision
Probably the single most talked about hand of 2006, in which Wasicka lays down that straight flush draw, then Gold knocks out Binger.

Back shortly with some thoughts about the 2007 Main Event final table -- and the stories it might produce.

2007 WSOP, Day 46: Gonna Be All Over, Baby

Late, late night. Or early morning. Was as bummed as everyone else to see Scotty Nguyen build that huge stack -- with 11 players left he was up to 16 million or so and in third place -- only to plunge rapidly down to little and then nothing, bouncing out a couple of spots shy of the ME final table. Could have cruised there, really, but the Prince of Poker chose instead to gamble.

Really only took three hands for all of those chips to go bye-bye -- less than half and hour, in fact. Nguyen had been laying low for the most part. He had been sitting on a relatively short stack for most of the day, and would fold a lot of hands when up against aggressive opponents. When he bet, he usually had something worth betting (or so it seemed). Then came a huge hand where he took a monstrous pot -- over 8 million -- without a showdown from Tuan Lam. That was around 12:30 a.m. Vegas time, I believe.

Then about 1 a.m. Lam got all that back from Nguyen and then some. That’s when the slide began.

It was a “battle of the blinds” hand, with Lam in the SB and Nguyen in the BB. Action had folded around to Lam who raised to 480,000 or three times the BB. Nguyen then reraised about three times that to 1.48 million, and Lam called. Pot a little over 3 million. The flop was , and Lam check-called Nguyen’s smallish 700,000-chip bet. Both checked the on the turn. The river was the and Lam bet one million. Nguyen raised to 3.5 million -- the kind of raise that looks like it wants a call. Given the way Nguyen had been playing previously, and the way he checked the turn when the second king hit the board, he does look strong here. B.J. Nemeth reported that Lam went “into the tank for about five minutes” and then called. Lam had , and Nguyen had . Lam dragged a pot just shy of 11.5 million.

According to Dr. Pauly, Nguyen was “visibly rattled” by the hand and seemed amazed that Lam made the call.

About ten minutes later -- just one orbit -- Nguyen lost another blind-vs.-blind hand, this time to Philip Hilm who was sitting on his left. In this one Nguyen had put in about a 3x raise from the SB and Hilm called. The flop came and Nguyen bet 600,000 (about a third of the pot). Hilm called. The turn was the and Nguyen checked. Hilm bet 1.2 million (half the pot), Nguyen check-raised all-in, and Hilm quickly called with his . Nguyen only had and was drawing dead.

After that hand, Nguyen was down to 2.3 million or so. After one more orbit -- again from the big blind -- Nguyen chased a flopped flush draw and didn’t get there, and he was out in 11th place.

The AQ-vs.-flopped set of fives was a bit of a cooler, I suppose. Still, Nguyen’s slide demonstrates pretty vividly how careful one has to be when playing from the blinds, even with the big stack near the end of a tourney.

Without Nguyen, the final table is pretty much devoid of familiar faces. Full Tilt pro Lee Watkinson has had some WPT successes, so you might have seen him there. He made two straight WPT final tables during season three. He also made the final table of one of those televised WSOP circuit events (in 2005). Watkinson won a WSOP bracelet last year in the $10,000 Pot Limit Omaha event. He and Alex Kravchenko, who won this year’s $1,500 Omaha Eight-or-Better event (Event No. 9), will be the only bracelet-holders at this year’s final table.

And I hadn’t realized it before today, but I’ve seen Hevad “Rain” Khan before as well. You might have, too. He’s that dude who about a year ago (or thereabouts) circulated a videotape of himself playing 26 SNGs at once:



Some stories will surely emerge as the drama unfolds on Tuesday. Doubt seriously I’ll purchase the pay-per-view coverage. (I’ll probably do what I did last year and see if I can’t locate a copy afterwards.) Even though the blinds/antes have started ramping up, the final table should take a while. Once Nguyen busted -- after which the players took about a half-hour break -- it took about 2.5 hours for the final ten to play 36 hands. That’s getting close to five minutes per hand. And of those 36 hands, only nine even made it to a flop, most being settled by a single preflop raiser taking down the blinds and antes.

When last night’s marathon session concluded, my “behind-the-scenes” duties for PokerNews at this year’s 2007 WSOP came to an end. It has been a fantastic and memorable experience, I have to say, and I feel very fortunate to have been invited to be part of the team here over the last six weeks. Over that time I have developed a sincere appreciation for the very hard work done by the reporters and staff at PN. Kudos to all of them for a job very well done and best of luck the rest of the way.

2007 WSOP, Day 45: Fasten Your Seat Belts . . .

“ . . . it's going to be a bumpy night.” The line Bette Davis delivers as Margo Channing in All About Eve, of course. A bit clichéd to quote it, I know. But it applies nonetheless.

They are down to 36 at the WSOP Main Event, and today is the day when we’re going to start seeing the blinds increasing much more rapidly than was the case last year. When play resumes, they pick things back up at Level 25, with 30,000/60,000 blinds and a 10,000 ante. After three hours or so, they reach Level 27. That’s where the craziness really begins.

Talked about this before, but let me show you again how the structure for blinds/antes this year differs from 2006 (click to enlarge):



As you can see, for Levels 25 and 26 the increases are identical to 2006, relatively speaking. (Remember, players began with twice the starting chips this year.) However, starting at Level 27 -- about 3:30 p.m. or so, Vegas time -- the blinds start skyrocketing. I have to believe that factor will be part of the story as they play down to nine tonight.

At the start of Level 25 last year, there were still 49 players remaining. Jamie Gold won the bracelet toward the end of Level 36. With fewer players still alive and the blinds increasing so rapidly, I cannot imagine they’ll get that far this year.

Think about this: If you discount the top three chip leaders -- David Tran (10,280,000), Philip Hilm (9,950,000), and Ray Henson (8,250,000) -- the other 33 players have an average of just under 3 million chips each. That means the average “M” for those 33 players is about 16.6 right now -- right in the middle of Harrington’s yellow zone, where he suggests your ability to maneuver begins to become limited. Once they reach Level 27, that number will plummet rapidly, quickly moving the majority of players down into Harrington’s orange and red zones where it’s gonna have to be all-in or fold (for the most part).

I’m not saying everyone believes in Harrington’s zones or plays accordingly, but I think we’re definitely going to see a lot of players being forced to put it all on the line with less than premium hands as the day plays out.

A few other interesting items regarding the final 36 . . .

Speaking of the three chip leaders, all three will be sitting at Table 2 today. Not only that, they will be sitting next to each other. Helm will be to the left of Henson, and Henson to the left of Tran. There will be a little over 42 million chips at this one table -- about a third of the total chips in play. Compare that to the next table over, Table 3, where the nine players together have about 19 million chips.

A quick scan through the Hendon Mob player database (and a couple of others) reveals that most of the final 36 are in fact American. (I should mention Hendon Mob has at least a couple of players listed as American who may not be.) I couldn’t track down a couple of players’ nationalities, but of the ones I found I’m counting a total 10 non-Americans sitting at the final four tables: Robin Bergren (Canada), Peter Darvill (Canada), Philip Hilm (Denmark), Jon Kalmar (England), Ron Kluber (South Korea), Alex Kravchenko (Russia), Stefan Mattsson (Sweden), Scotty Nguyen (South Vietnam), Raymond Rahme (South Africa), and Christian Togsverd (Denmark). I was surprised at this, actually -- I had thought we’d see a majority of non-Americans here at the end. (Of course, we still might at the final table.)

Of the final 36, two won bracelets in this year’s WSOP: Alex Kravchenko won the $1,500 Omaha Eight-or-Better event (Event No. 9), and Bill Edler won the $5,000 No Limit Hold ’em event (Event No. 45).

Of course, all eyes will be on Scotty Nguyen as long as he lasts tonight. Somehow I doubt he’ll have a Milwaukee’s Best Light in his hand (I think he’s a Michelob man).

Remember, head over to PokerNews’ live reports to find out what happens in the next reel.

2007 WSOP, Day 44: Repeat Success Stories & Lotsa Big Stacks

112 players left. Looks as though they’ll be right at the start of level 20, I believe, when they begin Day 5. Action gets underway about a half-hour from now. Meanwhile, here are a couple of semi-interesting bits for you to ponder.

When it comes to the WSOP Main Event, any sort of “back-to-back” success usually brings one a lot of acclaim. There were, of course, the four who won two straight titles -- Johnny Moss, Doyle Brunson, Stu Ungar, and Johnny Chan -- guaranteeing for all four a kind of “immortal” status. In 2004, we saw another former champ, Dan Harrington, make his second straight final table, finishing in fourth place (after ending up in 3rd the year before). Then in 2005, the previous year’s champ Greg Raymer made it all of the way to 25th place, a run that appeared to have solidified his reputation as a top player.

I was curious to see how many of the 112 players still alive in this year’s Main Event did well last year. As far as I can tell, only five of those 112 finished in the money last year. Those five are

Stefan Mattsson, currently in 22nd; finished 57th last year ($123,699)

Humberto Brenes, currently in 48th; finished 36th last year ($329,865)

Dario Minieri, currently in 36th; finished 543rd last year ($22,266)

Jared Hamby, currently in 88th; finished 812th last year ($15,504)

Thomas Koo, currently in 104th; finished 397th last year ($30,512)

Of course, if either of the former Main Event winners who are still alive -- Huck Seed (in 30th) or Scotty Nguyen (in 44th) -- were to last through today, that would certainly be the lead story heading into Day 6.

One other item: Last year there were 8,773 entrants, and when play reached Level 20 there were still 159 players remaining. This year 6,358 signed up and there are only 112 players left at the same point. Just like last year, levels are two hours long, and comparing the structure for blinds/antes shows that, in fact, the structure has been “slower” -- relatively speaking -- thus far this year when compared to last year.

Meaning what? Well, players have been busting at a higher clip this year, and not necessarily because of the blinds/antes structure. (So far, anyhow.)

I wonder if having all of those chips in play might occasionally be affecting betting sizes, perhaps even causing some looser-than-normal play here and there? After all, they are at a point now where over half of the remaining players -- 60 -- have at least a million chips.

I realize it’s “all relative” and good players should certainly be able to understand that having a million chips on Day 5 of the 2007 WSOP ME is not the equivalent of having the same amount pretty much at any point in any other tournament. Even so, this is somewhat new territory, I’d suggest, and some players will be better able to adjust to having so many friggin’ chips than others.

As always, check out PokerNews’ live reports for all the latest.

2007 WSOP, Day 43: Chips Ahoy!

The first three “days” of the 2007 World Series of Poker Main Event are done. There were 6,358 entrants, and each were given 20,000 chips at the start of play. That means the winner will eventually have accumulated an almost-unimaginably massive stack of 127,160,000 chips. Day 4 begins with 337 players still alive, meaning the average chip stack should be right at 377,329 chips.

It’s fair to say that as far as chip stacks go, the leaderboard is a bit “top heavy” (not terribly unusual, actually). In other words, there are quite a few more short stacks than big stacks. There are 134 players with a greater than average chip stack, and 203 players with a less than average stack. Also, the top 25 players (7.4%) together have 26,222,000 chips -- over 20% of the chips in play.

Looking at the chip counts currently being reported over on PokerNews, there are 11 players with a million chips or more, including overall chip leader Dario Minieri with 2,398,000, Kenny Tran (5th) with 1,175,000, and Gus Hansen (11th) with 1,044,000.

There are 12 players in the 750,000-to-999,999 chip range, including Issac Haxton (21st) with 791,000 and Kirk Morrison (23rd) with 772,000.

There are 62 players in the 500,000-to-749,999 chip range, including Bart Hanson (26th) with 738,000, Lee Watkinson (28th) with 737,000, Bill Edler (40th) with 673,000, Tommy Le (57th) with 600,000, Karga Holt (67th) with 580,000, and Huck Seed (77th) with 544,000.

There are 121 players in the 250,000-to-499,999 chip range, including Julian Gardner (94th) with 471,000, Chad Brown (101st) with 454,000, Jason Lester (109th) with 439,000, Robert Varkonyi (114th) with 424,000, Thor Hansen (152nd) with 342,000, Scotty Nguyen (162nd) with 321,000, Matthew Hilger (167th) with 310,000, Daniel Alaei (173rd) with 299,000, Carlos Mortenson (183rd) with 284,000, and Peter Feldman (184th) with 284,000.

Finally, there are 131 players with less than 250,000 chips, including Darrel “Gigabet” Dicken (224th) with 215,000, Humberto Brenes (228th) with 210,000, Berry Johnston (233rd) with 203,000, Mimi Tran (273rd) with 144,000, Sully Erna (280th) with 135,000, Tobey Maguire (286th) with 131,000, Hasan Habib (293rd) with 127,000, Hans “Tuna” Lund (330th) with 68,000, and two players who come into Day 4 with just 10 chips each.

They will start play today in the middle of level 15, where the blinds are 3,000/6,000 and the ante 1,000. Each orbit currently costs 18,000, meaning the average “M” is just under 21.

The blinds will continue to go up at a reasonable pace today and tomorrow, but once they get to Level 27 -- probably at the beginning of Day 6 (Sunday) -- the jumps from that point forward are going to be huge. (See my post from last Friday for details regarding how this year’s blind structure differs from the one used for the 2006 Main Event.)

I see the Poker Shrink, Tim Lavalli, is estimating that they’ll play down to about 100 players today, then down to 27 on Saturday. (If you are into all of this number-crunching, do check out Lavalli’s blog.) That’ll mean the accelerated blinds kick in just about the time they’re down to the last three tables, which should translate into a lot of preflop all-in pushes, I would think. Not so great for the end such a huge tournament. As I said before, it will be interesting to see if anyone complains.

As always, you can follow all the action from Day 4 over at PokerNews’ live reports.

Three Headaches

Gimme that bottle. Damn cap! Three should do it. One for each headache I’ve gotten this morning.

Headache No. 1: UIGEA Regs May Come Sooner Than Later

If you happened to have come here looking for “270 Days Later: The UIGEA Today,” scroll on down. Or click here. Speaking of, there’s a slow-moving thread over on 2+2 that includes some information suggesting that we might actually see those regulations fairly soon. A couple of posters emailed a fellow named Steven D. Laughton, of the Office of the Assistant General Counsel (Banking and Finance), and according to Laughton -- whom I suppose knows something about it -- the UIGEA regulations will “hopefully published sometime this month.”

No telling, really, whether “hopefully” means we’ll see the regulations by the end July or not. As poster Jestocost explains, whenever the regulations are made public, there will be a comment period, then (probably) another deadline issued by which time the banks and credit card companies will be positutely, absotively required to start enforcing prohibitions against clients’ transactions with online gambling sites. (Jestocost posts fairly regularly in the “Legislation” section of 2+2, and does appear to be somewhat in the know, occasionally breaking UIGEA-related news over on his blog, The Slag Pile.)

Let me add my own “hopefully” and say I’d rather those regulations come much later than sooner. As I mentioned in “270 Days Later,” forces opposing the law are hardly in a position as yet to call any big raises from UIGEA-proponents at the moment.

Headache No. 2: Poker Haters (Again)

Headache No. 2 comes via CBS Sports columnist Gregg Doyel, who decided this week to use the World Series of Poker as an occasion for another dubiously-informed anti-gambling rant. In essence, Doyel finds gambling an utterly destructive force with no redeeming value. “Freedom is cool,” says Doyel. “Gambling is not. Freedom to gamble is like freedom to inhale crack or inject heroin. You may enjoy it once or twice or a hundred times. You may be that one unlikely person impervious to its evil lure. But in most cases the addiction will eventually win.”

My guess is that over the course of his life Doyel’s experience with gambling (never mind poker) is probably only slightly more extensive than his experience with heroin or crack. It is especially lamentable, of course, that he chooses to consider poker the equivalent of playing the slots or other forms of gambling that do not involve skill or strategy. And for him to target the World Series of Poker -- which he calls “a celebration of the sad and stupid” -- is just plain mean. And sad. And stupid.

Doyel’s screed has so far inspired an active 2+2 thread as well as a smart commentary from Change100. For me, I consider Doyel’s argument to be coming from the same “poker-is-not-a-sport” mindset that I believe inspired Mark Kreidler’s attack on poker over on the ESPN site back in March. My response to Kreidler explains my idea that these sports columnists hate to see poker taking up precious column inches (and/or bandwidth) in the sports section, and thus occasionally feel it beneficial to lash out against poker every now and then.

Headache No. 3: Guinness and Nothingness?

Finally, the last headache came when I saw Guinness and Poker had apparently been hacked and deleted. Iggy put up a brief hands-in-the-air, “wtf” post last night. I do hope all is well over there and his four-plus years’ of uberposts are preserved somewhere where they can be recovered.

Okay. Feeling a little better. Looking forward to Day 3. The money bubble bursts tonight. Close to 800 players remain, with the top 621 spots getting paid. Meaning a good number of folks are gonna be requirin’ some post-knockout aspirin themselves.

2007 WSOP, Day 41: Radio Free Schneider (& Other Sundries)

Starting to look as though like they’ll be very close to the money when Day 2b of the 2007 World Series of Poker Main Event concludes around midnight Vegas time tonight. Probably be wrapping up right around bubble time, with a total of 700 or so punters left standing to start Day 3. (621 places will be paid.)

Various items of interest here recently. Let me make this post a jumping off point for a few of them from the last couple of days.

Dr. Pauly today made reference to the relative seriousness of players and “overall toned down” atmosphere when compared to past WSOP Main Events. He notes how Otis (Up for Poker) has a theory that fewer internet qualifiers has translated into “more real players” -- and thus, less goofball behavior. Makes sense. I had actually thought that might turn out to be the case in a post a couple of months back. Of course, we did finally see a report of an “F-bomb” penalty last night -- given to Old School director Todd Phillips, who despite having to sit out a round sits among the chip leaders heading into Day 3.

The Phil Hellmuth demolition derby was not at all surprising -- just what one would expect, really, from Mr. Look-at-Me. The wreck was bad enough, but seeing pictures of Hellmuth geek it up walking into the Main Event in his NASCAR-style jumpsuit was about as appealing as a hairy gymnast.

Vinnie Vinh came back for two hands today, quickly busting after pushing with 9-5. Sad stuff.

I did catch some of the ESPN coverage of the first couple of events from this year’s WSOP last night. I had read Lee Jones’s post over on the Bigger Deal blog where he discussed how Event No. 3 winner Ciaran O’Leary had repeatedly left the table while action was pending -- an obvious violation of a tournament rule. Having finally seen what Jones was talking about, I have to agree with him -- damned outrageous what they allowed O’Leary to do. And unfair, frankly.

And regarding that David Singer cellphone incident, while I can’t say one way or the other if Singer’s complaint is well-founded (not having been there), as far as his demand to be refunded his buy-in or given another ME entry goes -- that there is an extra large jar of applesauce.

Tom “2007 World Series of Poker Player of the Year” Schneider was eliminated from the Main Event yesterday. Hell of a series for the “Donkey Bomber,” though, having made three final tables and won a couple of bracelets. You can hear Tom interviewed tonight on PokerWire radio. He also appeared on Rounders this past Sunday (download here).

(Incidentally, once you’ve listened to Tom and discovered how wise he is, be sure to take a moment to click on the jukebox over at the right to find out where Tom gets his ideas.)

I know I’ve been recommending PokerNews for live updates -- the place to go for up-to-the-minute WSOP info. Let me also point you to the Gutshot WSOP blog. Have to say, I’ve been enjoying their coverage quite a bit as well.

Cornered

Pot Limit Omaha. Blinds a dime and a quarter. $25 maximum buy-in. Bought in for $15 and after a few dozen hands have chipped up to $27.45. Only the bruno to my right -- SamFrancisco -- has a bigger stack ($41) when the following hand takes place.

I get in the big blind. There are eight seated at the table, and everyone limps in save the player on the button, MrPill. So there is $1.75 in the pot when the flop comes .

Not bad for me. I’ve flopped trips and the second-nut flush. But remember, there are seven players in this hand and my position is lousy. SamFrancisco quickly bets $1.70 -- almost pot. I should mention I’ve played with SamFrancisco before and have observed him to be a solid player who rarely pulls much monkey business. His pot bet therefore signals pretty loudly to me that he’s got the other ten (at least), and perhaps has even flopped the boat. Betting to protect tens full of fours actually makes sense here.

I’m next to act. Question No. 1: What would you do (and why)?

Looking back, I can see arguments for raising, for calling, and for folding. I’ve got trips and the second-nut flush draw (if a flush is even worth anything anymore). I’d like to see a K or 8 on the turn, of course. A trey on the turn might just get me in worse trouble.

I ended up calling the bet. The table folded and me and SamFrancisco were the only ones left. The pot is $5.15. The turn was no help for me, the . SamFrancisco fairly quickly fires out $4.90, again a nearly-pot-sized bet. Incidentally, I have noticed that the nearly-pot-sized bet is often a mark of a decent, thinking player. The practical consequence of the bet is almost identical to the pot-sized bet -- it creates what are usually poor odds to chase draws. Yet the fact that he’s chipped a nickel or two off of the bet often induces the call anyway (in my opinion), there being a psychological pull of sorts to stick around if the guy hasn’t actually bet pot.

Question No. 2: What would you do (and why)?

Again, he may have either flopped or turn his boat. His bet really doesn’t tell me one way or the other, frankly. He wants me out of the hand, clearly. Here I think a raise would be a foolish play, as I’m probably behind and I also am up against a player who likely isn’t going to fold to a raise. Folding would make sense here, but I couldn’t do it. I called. The pot is now just about 15 bucks.

The river brings the and SamFrancisco checks. Question No. 3: Now that I’ve gotten you into this mess, what would you do here (and why)?

I’ve missed my boat. And the flush (if a flush was worth anything). Perhaps he doesn’t like that river, but then again, SamFrancisco is a decent player whom I think capable of a check-raise ploy here. I’ve got trips with a king-kicker. Is there any amount I can bet here that can make him fold, perhaps?

I meekly check, and we turn over our hands. He has the case ten, of course. But no boat. And an ace. Which out-kicks me and takes the pot.

Was already mildly bummed at the hand when MrPill suddenly pipes up, typing “funny shi* right there” as the chips glided up to SamFrancisco’s seat. MrPill adds: “pot bet pot bet check.”

I stew for a moment, then type “all right, MrPill. thx.” And he leaves me alone. I actually end up showing a bluff later after stealing a smallish pot from him. A reward for his smarm.

Screwed is how I felt playing the hand, though I’m sure a better player than I could’ve figured a way not to feel so cornered.

270 Days Later: The UIGEA Today

Well, they’ve topped 6,000 at the Main Event -- a total some are viewing as a triumph here in the “post-UIGEA world.” While the UIGEA certainly had its effect on this year’s turnout, other factors (such as the inordinate number of preliminary tourneys) also very likely influenced the final tally.

Of course, that phrase “post-UIGEA” is a bit ambiguous. The law was passed, but where the hell are we? Let us review.

What exactly was that UIGEA thing again?

On Friday, October 13, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (H.R. 4954), a.k.a. the “Safe Port Act.” Title VIII of the Safe Port Act concerned the seemingly-unrelated issue of “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement,” and subsequently became known as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

Title VIII or the UIGEA begins with a cursory reference to “Congressional findings” that online gambling “is a growing cause of debt collection problems” and therefore needs to be prohibited altogether (§5361). Then comes a section defining various terms that subsequently appear in Act, terms like “bet or wager,” “designated payment system,” “financial transaction provider,” “interactive computer service,” and the like (§5362).

After that comes the actual “prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling” (§5363). This is the section that specifically prohibits any institution from “knowingly accepting” online bets or wagers. Here is where banks, credit card companies, and other “financial transaction providers” are told they cannot allow Americans to do business with online gambling sites, including online poker sites.

Now this spring I have cashed out some (not all) of my funds from three different online poker sites (Bodog, Absolute, and PokerStars). In each case the site sent me a check which I then took to my bank and deposited, no worries. According to section 5363 of the UIGEA, my bank is not supposed to be honoring those checks. (There is a reason why they can, though -- see below.)

I haven’t deposited any funds in any online sites since last fall, though if I had wanted to I could have using a variety of means, e.g., via an ePassporte account (if I had one), by using a prepaid gift card, or by sending the site a check or money order via the mail. Again, each example technically violates the UIGEA’s stipulation against “financial transaction providers” facilitating the transfer of funds to a site that allows U.S. citizen to engage in “unlawful Internet gambling.”

There are various reasons why banks and credit card companies aren’t currently complying with the UIGEA. One is that logistically speaking, it is difficult for, say, my bank to know that the check I am cashing comes from an online gambling site. The checks are drawn on U.S. banks and are not easily identified with words like “poker” or “gambling” on them. Same goes for the credit card companies that are not concerning themselves at present with following where that prepaid gift card is being used.

Another reason why U.S. banks and credit card companies aren’t complying with the law is they haven’t been told by federal regulators how to comply.

The (So-Called) “270-Day Period”

The next section of the UIGEA (§5364) says that “Before the end of the 270-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subchapter” -- that is, October 13, 2006 -- “the Secretary of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall prescribe regulations . . . requiring each designated payment system, and all participants therein, to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions through the establishment of policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit the acceptance of restricted transactions.”

This was that part of the UIGEA that led a lot of folks to keep saying -- erroneously -- that the law didn’t “go into effect” until 270 days had passed. Wrong. The law went into effect on 10/13/06. However, those regulations have yet to be delivered to the banks and credit card companies. And if one reads further, one finds the banks and credit card companies will be considered to be in “compliance” with the law -- and thus not subject to the penalties outlined in the rest of Title VIII -- if they “comply with the requirements of regulations prescribed” by the Secretary of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in consultation with the Attorney General.

In other words, until my bank (for example) is told specifically how to block my transactions with Absolute, Bodog, or PokerStars, they really don’t have to.

So the feds are instructed by the UIGEA to forward those regulations to the banks and credit card companies “[b]efore the end of the 270-day period” that began on October 13, 2006. And that period ends . . . let’s see . . . TOMORROW. That’s right. July 10th will be the 270th day since Bush signed H.R. 4954 into law.

So what is likely to happen? Today? Tomorrow? This week?

Obstacles to UIGEA Enforcement

Nothing, probably. The fact is, laws are frequently passed containing this sort of time-bound directive to federal regulators, and rarely are those deadlines ever met. In fact, the first part of the Safe Port Act contains another directive -- this one to the Secretary of Homeland Security -- to develop a strategic plan within 270 days for securing the nation’s ports, then submit an initial report to the appropriate Congressional committees, including the Committee on Homeland Security, chaired by Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS). They’ve yet to receive that initial report from Chertoff. They’re also waiting for a number of other reports from Homeland Security, and Rep. Thompson ain’t too glad about it. (In fact, there was a story just today about how far behind the DHS is, not least because over 25% of the department’s positions -- including many high-level posts -- are currently vacant.)

Despite the “270-day period” stipulation, then, there is simply no way of determining when (or even if) Secretary of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System will be passing along those regulations. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- who is supposed to be consulted regarding those regulations -- has only referred to the UIGEA one time during the last nine months, and that was after being bullied into discussing the subject by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) during his April testimony before Congress. (EDIT [added 7/10/07]: There was, in fact, at least one other instance of Gonzales very briefly referring publicly to the regulations -- again at Sen. Kyl’s instigation -- at a different hearing back in January.)

You’ll recall Gonzales was called to answer questions about the unexplained firing of eight U.S. attorneys back in December. Some members of Congress (from both parties) are currently seeking a vote of no-confidence in our Attorney General. Amid the turmoil, Sen. Kyl quizzed Gonzales about the status of the UIGEA regulations when given his turn to interrogate the Attorney General. Gonzales was mostly non-responsive -- indeed, most of Kyl’s “questioning” was simply a lengthy monologue about the ills of online gambling. Finally, Gonzales agreed that online gambling was a problem and said that he was doing everything he could to assist in the drafting of regulations.

Sen. Kyl, of course, was one of the original authors of legislation that eventually evolved into the UIGEA. Thus does Kyl have an interest in seeing implemented the law he fought for years to pass. But it is more likely than not that Kyl will have to remain patient. There are actually a couple of obstacles to be overcome before regulations will be handed down. (Three, actually, if you count “bureaucratic inertia,” a chronic condition for American government.)

One obstacle concerns the practical consquences of instructing banks and credit card companies to block its clients from performing certain types of transactions. Many have observed how difficult it will be to block all such transactions, particularly those made via paper checks. According to I. Nelson Rose, “Banks have no way now of reading who the payee is on paper checks,” and, in fact, “it would cost them billions of dollars to set up systems to read paper checks.” So while it is possible for the feds to block certain types of transactions (e.g., credit card), it is probably not feasible to expect banks to block every single transaction between their clients and online gambling sites located overseas.

The other obstacle is less tangible. How politically valuable is it -- and to whom -- to ensure these regulations are handed down? While a handful of politicians, like Sen. Kyl and a few others from whom we’ve heard over the last nine months, are interested in continuing to fight the cause against online gambling, many more are not. That is not to say there exists significant political pressure to undo the UIGEA at present (there isn’t). But aside from the odd, ill-informed Congressman -- say, Kyl, or Rep. Jim Bachus (R-AL) -- no one on Capitol Hill is all that anxious for the UIGEA to be enforced.

Obstacles to UIGEA Repeal (or Other Legislation)

By the same token, only a few members of Congress are actively engaged in pursuing other legislation designed either to limit the UIGEA’s reach or render it even more impotent than it already is. And none of these bills have gathered that much momentum either, frankly. (Pun intended.)

The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046) introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) back in April has been in a holding pattern of sorts since that hearing of the House Financial Services Committee back on June 8th. The hearing itself demonstrated how little either side appears to be communicating with the other on this issue. (For discussion of the IGREA, click here; for a summary of the June hearing, click here.) At the time of that hearing, the IGREA only had 19 co-sponsors. By mid-June it had 23. If Frank’s bill were somehow to gather steam and make it through the House, then the Senate, then be signed into law by the President, we would see the beginnings of a regulated environment for online gambling. But that would be years away.

In early May, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) introduced H.R. 2140, a bill designed to fund a year-long study of online gambling to be conducted by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Then, in early June, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced another House bill (H.R. 2610) designed to exempt “skill games” like poker from the UIGEA. Then, just a few hours after Wexler introduced his bill, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) introduced yet another bill, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Taxation Enforcement Act (H.R. 2607), which builds upon Frank’s bill by specificing a system of taxation, something the IGREA suggests but does not outline specifically.

Of all four bills, Berkley’s appears most likely to win the kind of support needed to become law. The fact that the UIGEA cites a 1999 study as an authority for those “Congressional findings” about online gambling proves that a more current study is surely needed. (The first online poker sites weren’t in operation until 1998.) Wexler’s bill got an immediate endorsement from the Poker Players Alliance, but doesn’t appear to have a great deal of backing on the Hill. And McDermott’s bill appears not to have attracted much buzz at all. Indeed, Berkley herself dismissed H.R. 2067 in her recent interview on the Pocket Fives podcast, calling it a “non-starter.”

Here we can cite both the arduous legislative process and, again, politics as obstacles for these representatives’ efforts to make their bills become laws. These gestures toward curbing the damaging influence of the UIGEA are all significant -- even worthwhile -- and as long as Congress continues to debate the issue of online gambling, questions about the current law will necessarily continue to be raised. Ultimately, however, in practical terms, we are a long, long way away from any sort of legislation that specifically alters the UIGEA in its present form.

A Trip for Biscuits

Near the end of Raymond Chandler’s story “Pearls Are a Nuisance,” the protagonist, Walter Gage, is given instructions for a meet-up (having to do with recovering the stolen pearl necklace referred to in the title). Gage is given precise instructions for the meeting -- to drive a certain way, to dim his lights, etc. “You got ten minutes to get there,” he is told. “You’re watched right this minute. You get there fast and you get there alone -- or you got a trip for biscuits.”

Meaning, as Norman Chad would say, squadoosh. In some ways the last 270 days have been one long “trip for biscuits” as far as the UIGEA is concerned. At least technically speaking. No one has been convicted of the law. Nor has there even been an attempt made to enforce it. There have been consequences for online poker players, of course, the greatest being the pull-out from the U.S. of numerous sites as well as many third party vendors like Neteller and Firepay. However, in terms of actual “enforcement” of what the law prohibits, we haven’t moved that far from where we were 270 days ago.

Such is the state of online poker “post-UIGEA.” The situation currently resembles a tournament that has reached heads-up, with those who want to stop Americans from playing online poker possessing a slight chip advantage over those who want to allow us to play. Occasionally one side will put in a small preflop raise, usually met with a fold from the other side of the table. The opponents of online poker have certainly chipped up a bit, but overall nothing much has happened. And it will probably be a while before anything does.