Flopping Quad Aces Is Usually Fun

Been kind of a light week as far as playing goes. Did manage to participate -- for a while -- in LeCheese Challenge II, to which I received a late invite. (Thanks again, man!) Held steady for the first few levels of the “HA” tourney (half-Hold ’em, half-PLO), then made a spectacularly donkalicious play in a Hold ’em hand that proved my suspicion going in that I was dead money.

The comedy of errors continued when I moved over to Bodog afterwards and accidentally sat down at a PLO/8 table, $25 max. (I’d thought it was high only.) Barely escaped a horrific first hand where I called a preflop raise with K-K-x-x. I stayed for a while, mostly folding, when I had a fairly memorable event occur.

Was in middle position where I’d picked up . I know A-A-x-x unsuited ain’t the cat’s pajamas in PLO high only, and even less so in PLO/8. I can only go high here, and even there I’m shaky. So I limp in, as do about five other players. Then the flop comes out a mesmerizing .

Whoa. But will I get any action? It checks to me and I check to let someone else build a hand. Here comes the turn:

Okay. Perhaps we’re gonna get some business. “Wouldn’t it be lovely if someone made quad queens here?” I think to myself. Let’s see. Everyone in the hand looks to be about $25 deep.

The potential is there, at least, for some sort of score . . . .

I watch as an early position player takes a moment to decide what to do. Hmm. He’s taking a pretty long time . . . . Maybe he does have the queens! No, wait. He’s timed out. Hang on a sec. What the hell . . . ?

To my horror, I see this little sucker pop up:

No! NO!!! No.

Patience, Shamus. Patience . . . . Ah, crap.

This is not good. Sat there long enough to take a couple of screen shots.

I time out and am treated all-in. Next I see, everyone had checked it down and I took the $1.50 pot.

“Lord,” I typed after having resumed my connection. Unlike certain WSOP champs, publicly-made allusions to some theoretical governor of human destiny only occur to me in highly absurd moments like this one. Got one “lol” in response.

Given that others checked it down, I actually don’t think I missed out on any extra cabbage there. Still, flopping quad aces and then losing your connection ain’t the most pleasant of experiences.

Stuck around a little longer, went over and goofed around for a few hands of 5-card stud, then logged off.

Am starting to develop a real aversion to tourneys, I fear. Can’t remember the last time I felt good about how I played one. Haven’t even tried any of those Silver Star tourneys for which I’m eligible this month. Seem to find much more comfort -- and profit -- at the ring games.

So while I’ll probably be staying at the cash tables, lemme go ahead and promote this here PLO tourney (which I may or may not coax myself into playing tomorrow) as I bid you all a happy weekend:

Anti-UIGEA Bills & the Presidential Veto

Been catching up on podcasts here lately. Speaking of, the second episode of the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show is in the works. Should see the light of day before too long. By the way, you can now subscribe via iTunes.

A couple of days ago I listened to the Pocket Fives podcast from last week (the April 10 episode) featuring a brief interview with Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). Wanted to share a little of what he said there as it relates to H.R. 5767, the new bill he and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) proposed late last week “to prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation” pertaining to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

When asked about the April 2nd hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Frank said he thought “hearing was very helpful” insofar as it illustrated quite comprehensively how the various entities comprising the American payments system do not see the UIGEA as workable. Thus, no matter one’s views on gambling per se, the fact that the banks, credit unions, and other financial transaction providers don’t see the UIGEA as practically enforceable itself constitutes “a good argument for getting rid of that part of the bill.”

Frank was then asked about the current status of his bill, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046), which he introduced just about one year ago. The interview was clearly conducted prior to Frank and Paul introducing H.R. 5767, and thus no references were made to the new legislation. I do think, however, Frank had this new UIGEA-blocking bill in mind when answering David Huber’s questions.

In response to a question about whether or not our being in an election year might hurt the chances of his IGREA from moving forward this year, Frank answered that “it does hurt our chances . . . not so much because of the politics, but particularly because of the time factor.” Since it is a presidential election year, Frank explained, Congress will be taking a couple of weeks off toward the end of the summer for the party conventions, and with the campaigning that will surely follow, he doesn’t believe they’ll even be in session after October 1.

“On the other hand, while I wasn’t too optimistic about some of the votes [for the IGREA], that hearing was very helpful. The hearing was so critical of this approach that was taken and so many members joined in the criticism, that I now think something might be possible,” Frank continued.

He then addressed the question I had posed last weekend about whether or not an anti-UIGEA bill would make it beyond the president’s desk. As Schoolhouse Rock taught us, any bill that makes through the House and Senate must also be signed by the president before it becomes a law.

“I doubt that we’ll get it all the way through and I think President Bush frankly has promised the right-wing . . . religious coalition that is so important to him that he would veto any change. But I think we can move. We can make some progress here so that next year we’ll be closer to being able to do it fairly quickly.”

Like I say, Frank is ostensibly referring to his IGREA here, but I think his words might also apply to the new H.R. 5767. The new bill may well have a chance, but only if it is not passed through the House and Senate before January 20, 2009.

And even then, the fate of H.R. 5767 will depend a lot who is sitting in that chair in the Oval Office.

Tolstoy's Ivan Ilyich and the Meaning of Card Playing

I’ve written here before about a couple of my favorite Russian writers, Fyodor Dostoevsky and Vladimir Nabokov. Nabokov probably wouldn’t care all that much for me coupling the two of them together in a sentence like that. Of Dostoevsky, Nabokov said he was “not a great writer, but rather a mediocre one -- with flashes of excellent humor, but, alas, with wastelands of literary platitudes in between.” He especially disliked Dostoevsky’s penchant for pathos, and I can’t say I completely disagree with him there. Of course, those of us with an interest in existentialism nevertheless tend to appreciate the various little (and large) puzzles Dostoevsky presents. (We poker players tend to like him, too, if only for The Gambler.)

Nabokov preferred Leo Tolstoy, whom he ranked as the greatest of all Russian novelists. I like Tolstoy, though I have to admit I’m probably more attracted to the manic unpredictability of some of Dostoevsky’s characters and plots. I also tend not to go for the more obvious sorts of “messages” and “morals” in some of Tolstoy’s works (esp. the later stuff), but can’t deny how compelling his stories and novels can be.

The other day I happened to be reading back through Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich (one of his later works). Not the happiest of tales, that. There Tolstoy provides a fairly comprehensive criticism of modern materialism and self-interest, having Ivan pay a (literally) painful price for having wasted his life pursuing some false idea of what he thought he was supposed to be. Actually more than a little pathos here, too.

I bring it up because I’d forgotten about a few references to card playing that come up early in the story. The opening chapter shows Ivan’s colleagues discussing his death and fretting over having to miss that night’s card game in order to attend the ceremony. Then we go back to read about Ivan’s life, illness, and eventual death, and we discover he, too, was a card player.

Soon after Ivan gets his first job as an Examining Magistrate, we are told “he began to play vint, which he found added not a little to the pleasure of life, for he had a capacity for cards, played good-humouredly, and calculated rapidly and astutely, so that he usually won.”

Vint, by the way, is a variant of bridge, although there’s no “dummy” like in bridge. (Sometimes the translator refers to the game as bridge, actually.) Was big in Russia in the 19th century, and I suppose Tolstoy is presenting card playing as yet another meaningless time-waster illustrating how empty the lives of modern men really are.

Still, playing cards does have meaning for Ivan. After he becomes ill, and then eventually comes to realize his illness is quite serious, cards become a way for Ivan to escape having to confront the idea of his own mortality. We learn that “as soon as he had any unpleasantness with his wife, any lack of success in his official work, or held bad cards at bridge, he was at once acutely sensible of his disease.”

A key moment occurs later on when we find out even playing cards doesn’t have the meaning it once did for Ivan. One evening he and some friends “sat down to cards. They dealt, bending the new cards to soften them, and he sorted the diamonds in his hand and found he had seven. His partner said ‘No trumps’ and supported him with two diamonds. What more could be wished for? It ought to be jolly and lively. They would make a grand slam.”

His joy is short-lived, however, as “suddenly Ivan was conscious of that gnawing pain, that taste in his mouth, and it seemed ridiculous that in such circumstances he should be pleased to make a grand slam.” The idea of doing well at a card game no longer means very much to Ivan -- one of several realizations he is going to have before the end of the short novel that help add up to a deathbed realization that his whole life has been “a terrible and huge deception.” He ends up misplaying his hand, and notices that his partner is upset. But he also realizes how unmoved he is by his partner’s frustration. “And it was dreadful to realize why he did not care.”

I know Tolstoy is saying something here about the relative worthlessness of card playing, but clearly the value of the activity is connected to the place it holds in a person’s life. For Ivan, it is an escape from what really matters -- i.e., his soul-crushing job, his loveless marriage, his illness. But for a lot of us, playing cards isn’t always an escape from life or the “real world” -- it is life, reality, a source of meaning and significance.

Probably wouldn’t be so good if it were the sole source of such meaning. But it ain’t so hot, either, if card playing only exists as an activity that allows us to evade the question of what our lives mean.

(For more on the topic, check out this interesting post by an online player who says he has decided to quit poker precisely because he no longer finds the game "meaningful" -- just saw this one thanks to a link from Foucault.)

Don’t Mess With Taxes

Heard it again this morning on the radio. That same old cliché one always hears this time of year. “There are two things that are certain,” the saying goes. “Death and taxes.” Har har.

No arguments with the first part of that. No negotiatin’ with Mr. Reaper. Not so sure about taxes, though. I mean it is certain Uncle Sam is gonna try to grab what he can from us, we know that. Not so certain, though, how much he’s gonna get. At least with regard to taxes on online poker earnings.

About a month ago, the Ante Up! poker podcast had as a guest Russ Fox (episode #144). Fox is a tax agent who happens also to have authored three poker books. Amid an interesting discussion about what sort of obligations online poker players face with regard to filing taxes, Fox shared his thoughts regarding Neteller’s agreement with the Department of Justice last year to release details of its transactions with American customers.

For those who paid their taxes, the fact that Neteller gave up the goods to the DOJ shouldn’t amount to anything at all. But, as Fox pointed out on the show, very few online poker players actually report their winnings. On a post on his blog about the matter, Fox estimates the percentage of those who report online gambling winnings to be about 5% total. He also thinks those who didn’t report their winnings and who used Neteller potentially face a couple of issues.

According to Fox, for anyone who ever had at least $10,000 in his or her Neteller account -- at any given moment (i.e., even for just a few seconds) -- that person technically is considered as having had a foreign bank account and thus must file a particular form by June 30th of the following year or risk criminal prosecution. That means if you had $10K in there at any point last year, you’ve still got two-and-a-half months to file that report. Fox says he fully expects the Treasury Dept. to check those records and go after folks who fail to declare their Neteller accounts if they were required to.

Fox also believes the IRS will go after anyone who (1) received large amounts from Neteller; and (2) failed to declare any gambling winnings. He believes it is possible that the IRS will only go after the high rollers, but, as he says on his blog, “given the ability of the IRS to conduct computer matching, if you received funds from Neteller and didn’t declare any gambling winnings, you might receive a ‘letter audit’ from the IRS.” That would be a letter telling the individual how much he or she owes and letting the person go ahead and pay (plus interest & penalties) to avoid prosecution.

For folks who used Neteller for reasons other than online gambling, Fox says if they can prove that fact to the IRS they needn’t worry. Of course, no one who used Neteller for online poker would be able to do that since the transactions will all indicate the sites to which and from which money was sent.

For those who think they might be in trouble here, it isn’t too late. One can always amend one’s return (and pay the interest & penalties). Fox thinks doing so is a much better option than waiting for the IRS to come knockin’.

What did I do? Well, even though my winnings are a relative pittance, I still went ahead and paid what’s owed on ’em. Wrote a post last year right around tax day in which I talked about about how I report poker winnings (or “gambling” winnings, as the IRS puts it).

Don’t know one way or the other whether the fears expressed by Fox are legit or not (though I tend to think he knows his stuff). Like I say, there’s a lot that’s uncertain about taxes. Maybe I’m a sucker for paying -- I’m sure some think so. I know I don’t make nearly enough for it to matter a whole heck of lot to Uncle Sam. In fact, I see folks on the forums who (say they) make 20, 30, even 50 times what I do in a year proclaiming how they don’t report.

I guess for me it goes along with my generally risk-averse approach to the game. All things considered, it seems to me a small price to go ahead and declare now rather than have to endure the stress of a “letter audit” or some other hassle down the road.

An Epic Razz Hand

Had been at this particular H.O.R.S.E. table for a while. Probably 70-80 hands or so. Had sat down with twenty clams and had chipped up to $26.20 when the following Razz hand took place. Even if yr not a big Razz fan, take a look at this one. It’s worth it, I promise.

The table had been on the passive side, without much raising/reraising on third street in the stud games. So when I picked up 2-6-3 with the trey showing, I looked forward to raising it up. Glancing around the table at everyone else’s upcards, I noticed one other trey, two fours, two eights, and two queens. That’s right. Everyone’s upcards were duplicated. Shoulda known then this was going to be a strange one.

One of the queens brought in the quarter. Then the other Q surprisingly called. Then one of the fours completed to fifty cents. I raised to a buck, and the other trey made it $1.50. The original bettor capped it, and in the end there were four of us left to see the flop: yr humble servant, the other 3, a 4, and a hard-headed Q. Pot already $8.65.

Fourth street looked as though it might have been favorable to everyone.

*** 4th STREET ***
Dealt to PhyllisN [3d] [4h]
Dealt to Nirdlinger [Qd] [5s]
Dealt to WalterHuff [4s] [3h]
Dealt to Short-Stacked Shamus [2s 6c 3c] [As]

I have the lead with my ace, and so bet the half dollar. Phyllis makes it a dollar with her 3-4. (Probably believes I paired up, I remember thinking fleetingly.) Nirdlinger calls the two bets. Then WalterHuff makes it $1.50 with his 4-3. I call the three bets, as do Phyllis and Nirdlinger. Pot now $14.65.

*** 5th STREET ***
Dealt to PhyllisN [3d 4h] [Kh]
Dealt to Nirdlinger [Qd 5s] [Js]
Dealt to WalterHuff [4s 3h] [Qh]
Dealt to Short-Stacked Shamus [2s 6c 3c As] [Ts]

Enough bricks to build a shed. Could have seen that coming, actually, as most of the baby cards have already been dealt. I’m technically leading at the moment, though, and so I bet out again. Everyone calls my dollar. Pot is now $18.65, easily the biggest pot of the session. Much like the previous streets, sixth street was also essentially the same for all of us.

*** 6th STREET ***
Dealt to PhyllisN [3d 4h Kh] [9c]
Dealt to Nirdlinger [Qd 5s Js] [Td]
Dealt to WalterHuff [4s 3h Qh] [9d]
Dealt to Short-Stacked Shamus [2s 6c 3c As Ts] [9s]

Nothing has changed, really, although I do see I could now be behind. I bet my 9-6, Phyllis and Nirdlinger both call. (That’s right, with his Q-J-T showing and all that action, Nirdlinger is sticking around.) Then WalterHuff raises to $2. Looking back, I can see now it is pretty clear that Walter must have had an ace, deuce, or five in the hole, and thus was surely ahead of me. At the time, I didn’t really think about that, though, and so three-bet it. Two calls, Walter caps it, and we all call again. (Incidentally, Nirdlinger runs out of chips on the fourth bet here.) “HUGE pot" types a player not involved. Huge is right. The pot is now a whopping $34.50.

As I await 7th street, I’m consciously thinking that if I happen to catch a four, five, or seven, there’s a decent chance I’m going to be good here. I know the fours are about gone (I’ve seen three of them). Have only seen one five, though, and no sevens. Of course, the pot is so friggin’ big, I’m probably not folding no matter what comes on seventh. Here it comes . . . .

I get a seven. Sweet. I’ve made a 7-6-3-2-A. And all that money in the middle. I like it. I bet.

And Phyllis raises. Walter Huff just calls the two bets. I like Walter just calling, as he was my primary concern. I three-bet. Phyllis just calls. NICE! Walter just calls, too. The final pot is $43.50. (Fifty cents will be taken for the rake.)

What does everyone have . . . ?

Short-Stacked Shamus: shows [2s 6c 3c As Ts 9s 7h] (Lo: 7,6,3,2,A)
PhyllisN: shows [Ah 5c 3d 4h Kh 9c 7c] (Lo: 7,5,4,3,A)
WalterHuff: shows [Ad 2h 4s 3h Qh 9d 7d] (Lo: 7,4,3,2,A)
WalterHuff collected $9.45 from side pot
Nirdlinger: mucks hand [4d 2c Qd 5s Js Td 5h]
WalterHuff collected $9.45 from side pot
WalterHuff collected $33.55 from main pot

All three of us caught sevens on seventh street. (Stars does not reorder the cards as Full Tilt does, so we can be sure of the order of things.) Not only did I not win the hand, I was third-best! (Hell, I was third-best on sixth street, too!) In fact, if you look at our relative levels of confidence there on seventh, the poor sap with the third-best hand (me) acted with the most confidence, followed by the second-best hand (PhyllisN), followed by the winner (WalterHuff).

Looking back over the entire hand, it was almost as though each of us (aside from crazy Nirdlinger, that is) had been dealt essentially the same cards on each street. I believe it is a general truism of all forms of poker that whenever players get dealt hands of equal value, action tends to increase. Here we had three of us getting pretty much the same cards every step of the way. (Plus a goofball fourth who couldn’t bring himself to leave the party.)

I’d lost a total $11.50 on the hand, so my six-dollar profit for the session had instantly become a six-dollar deficit. Wasn’t too upset, though. In fact, I kind of enjoyed it when the entire table began chatting amiably about the marvel we’d just witnessed.

Don’t imagine any of us will be seeing any 43-big bet pots again anytime soon.

Bill to Block Finalization of UIGEA Regs Proposed

Then again, the day some people might want to call one of the worst for online poker players may well turn out to have been one of yr better days, all things considered. Check this out . . . .

Yesterday we also learned that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) together have introduced new legislation specifically designed to block the federal government from finalizing regulations for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The new bill, H.R. 5767, has but one, specific purpose, namely, to stop the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from forcing banks to implement the UIGEA.

As yesterday’s press release from the House Financial Services Committee (which Frank chairs) puts it, the proposed bill forbids the feds “from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation that requires the financial services industry to identify and block internet gambling transactions.” Says Frank, “These regulations are impossible to implement without placing a significant burden on the payments system and financial institutions, and while I do disagree with the underlying objective of the Act, I believe that even those who agree with it ought to be concerned about the regulations’ impact.”

That last point was demonstrated persuasively in last week’s House hearing, “Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden without Benefit?” That hearing ultimately provided an overwhelming, hard-to-refute argument against finalizing the UIGEA regs, and it is clear Frank and Paul’s bill has appeared as a response to the hearing.

The actual bill is wonderfully succinct. It’s no Gettysburg Address, but Frank and Paul get to the heart of the matter right away. I quote it in full:

“A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation under subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.
The Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, whether acting jointly or separately, may not propose, prescribe, or implement any regulation under subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or otherwise give effect to such subchapter or any such regulation, including the proposed regulations published in the Federal Register on 6 October 4, 2007.”

And that is that. If H.R. 5767 were to pass through the House and Senate -- a possibility that seems much more real to me at this moment than does the idea of Frank’s IGREA or other bills working their way up the Congressional ladder -- it will be very interesting to see what happens once it lands on the President’s desk. Could a Bush or McCain veto the sucker? If not, the way would certainly be paved for the IGREA to be more seriously entertained. (Whether that is a good thing or not is another issue altogether.)

In any event, a mighty interesting little intersection of poker news here this morning.

Something Is Up with ePassporte

“To be honest, this is the 3rd-worst day in the history of online poker, behind only the passage of the UIGEA itself and Neteller closing its doors to US players. This is the worst news we’ve had in a long time, and the future of online poker is starting to look troubled.”

So wrote one poster just after midnight last night in response to rumors regarding the fate of ePassporte, the popular deposit/withdrawal option for online poker players. Earlier in the evening, a frequent, respected contributor on Two Plus Two had posted a brief, agonizingly cryptic note saying that “Apparently, epassporte has pulled the plug on US poker players, effective 1:00 p.m. PDT this afternoon.” Thus followed the expected back-and-forthing over the validity of the OP’s claim . . . .

Someone emailed PokerStars support who told him “ePassporte seems to be undergoing some technical issues and is currently not available.” Another got a note from Stars saying they were “aware of the rumors in the message boards, but we have not received . . . a message from ePassporte” suggesting they were no longer allowing transactions to or from the site.

Someone else then noted that ePassporte had been removed as an option from Absolute Poker. A later poster clarified that ePassporte had never appeared as an option on the main cashier page, but that it had been listed as a choice when one went to deposit. No more, though.

Then came the news that Cake Poker had removed ePassporte altogether. This time, the news was supported with an email from Cake support, subsequently got cut-and-pasted numerous times from different posters. The email, addressed “To all Cake Poker customers,” began by saying “We have received notice from ePassporte today that they are unable to continue to provide CakePoker with merchant e-wallet services. We have since confirmed that this situation is not unique to CakePoker and is, in fact, industry wide.”

That last sentence appeared to confirm the original rumor, and the conversation quickly began to exhibit a more resigned tone. Said one poster, “I think we are past the point of debating whether or not it is true.”

Another poster shared a screen shot from the Full Tilt Poker cashier page. “Unfortunately, we are currently unable to process your ePassporte transaction,” the pop-up read. “Please try one of our other transaction options, or try again in 24 hours.” Around midnight someone else reported “Full Tilt dropped ePassporte. It’s over.”

Threads emerged in the other forums as well, including Internet Gambling and News, Views, and Gossip. Someone in IG noted around midnight of ePassporte that “It's completely gone from TruePoker.” Sometime later another reported he had tried to withdraw from Ultimate Bet using ePassporte “and got a [message that] ‘Epassport is having technical problems’ and [was told] to contact Epass for more info.” This morning, another poster noted he had “just got off the phone with a manager in Pitbull poker and they confirmed that they no longer are working with Epassporte”

Sprinkled through all of the discussions were reports from some who had gotten through to ePassporte support, and in each case they were told that indeed the issue was related to technical problems and that no policy changes had occurred. When asked about Cake Poker’s announcement, ePassporte support people responded that Cake was mistaken.

I personally never opened an account with ePassporte. After Neteller exited stage left, I never tried to open account over there. But a lot of online players did make the switch to ePassporte, and many had come to rely on the funding option as heavily as they had Neteller.

No idea what the truth is here, or whether, indeed, we’re looking at what will be regarded as another dark day in the recent history of online poker. (Not seeing any clarifications on the ePassporte website.) If it is true, Mark over on Plan3tGong has run through some possible options for you ePassporte people.

One thing is clear, though. As with those other days alluded to above -- the day the UIGEA was passed & the day of Neteller’s exit -- we are once again seeing demonstrated the relative powerlessness of the online poker player in the face of the industry’s currently ambiguous legal (and regulatory) status.

As they say . . . developing . . . .

(EDIT [added 4/14/08]: Looks like the rumors are true: ePassporte is no longer servicing online poker sites. In a letter from the financial transaction provider to PitBull Poker, ePassporte notes that they “have been advised that the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York is conducting a widespread investigation of internet gambling, including poker.” Read the entire letter here. Sounds more than a little ominous, don’t it . . . ?)

Here’s to the Great Beyond

Alas. No more riding shotgun with my friends. One of yr funnier poker podcasts has decided to call it quits after nearly two solid years of providing us a big ol’ stack of grins & giggles. Yesterday the hosts of Beyond the Table -- Dan Michalski (Pokerati), Tom Schneider (Oops! I Won Too Much Money), and Karridy Askenasy -- posted what they’ve indicated will be their final episode.

I first started listening to BTT back in the fall of 2006. Had been snooping around on the Hold ’em Radio site looking through the different shows and happened to download one of theirs. Found myself cracking up at a story Schneider told about playing a high-stakes mixed game in which Jean-Robert Bellande was doing a bit of angle-shooting. Grabbed a few more episodes and quickly came to appreciate both Askenasy & Michalski’s quick wit as well. I also really liked hearing how the poker pro responded to various questions/concerns presented by the two amateurs -- a neat dynamic, really, that seemed to me like another way the show distinguished itself from others. Pretty soon BTT became one of the shows I’d listen to immediately whenever a new episode appeared.

After a few months of listening I wrote a post about one episode where they had an interesting discussion about poker blogs. (Yes, aside from the laughs, they had some genuinely thoughtful discussions on there about all sorts of poker-related topics from time to time as well.) The guys responded to my post, and we’ve been in contact ever since.

Around March of last year the group moved away from Hold ’em Radio and began producing the show independently, no longer recording episodes live. About a month later I ended up in Vegas right around the time of the big $25K buy-in WPT World Championship at the Bellagio, at which time I got to meet Schneider as he played a qualifer for the main event. (Here’s the post describing our meet-up.) The Donkeybomber did manage to win his seat into the ME there and ended up making a decent run before busting out shy of the cash.

Schneider clearly must’ve benefitted in some intangible way from our meeting and/or the good vibes that came from doing the show, as he would go on to win two bracelets in last summer’s WSOP on his way to being named WSOP Player of the Year. Got a huge kick out of seeing him do so well. I know his co-hosts did, too. I ended up writing a few items here about Schneider’s odyssey, including a description of his first bracelet victory in the $2,500 Omaha/8-Stud/8 event, “Oops, I Won a Bracelet.”

Somewhere along the way I also began writing up “summaries” (so to speak) of episodes that were posted over on the Beyond the Table website. My favorite one of those was for the episode titled “Live and Otherwise” in which the guys took on the challenge of trying to record a show sans edits. Here’s my synopsis:

Following a pattern established by arena faves Frampton, Kiss, and Cheap Trick, this episode of Beyond the Table captures the group in a rare live performance. With no edits, overdubs, or other studio gimmickry, “Live and Otherwise” finds BTT returning to its off-the-cuff, improvisational roots.

The set gets going with a raucous medley of blues-based numbers, including soon-to-be-classics “Queens Done Done Me In (Again)” -- featuring a solo from Little Tommy Schneider -- and the Askenasy-penned “I Think My Hair Has a Mind of Its Own.” The group then transitions into a surprisingly peppy version of “House Hoppin’ Blues” chronicling Dan’s recent move Vegas-ward.

From there the boys turn topical, with rockers “Flight of the Dragon” (noting David Pham’s having locked up Player of the Year), “Enjoying the Game” (an homage to Chip Reese), and “Guilt Trip” (regarding the Vaughn-Mizzi account-purchasing affair). As an encore, the group surprises the audience with a new title, “Fortune’s Steward,” a brief romp recognizing Falstaff, author of PokerStage and tireless organizer of the recent WPBT Winter Gathering.

(No one caught my Shakespearean allusion there at the end, as far as I know.)

Will definitely miss listening to new shows, but I appreciate how difficult it is to crank out these on a regular basis. Kind of amazing, really, to think how much free fun the BTT guys gave us over the last couple of years. Thanks for that, fellas. And for everything else, too.

Double Nickels on the Dime

Fifty-five bracelets. Tying last year’s record for the most ever. To be awarded over the span of forty-nine days. (Barring, of course, some surprise announcement regarding that Main Event final table.) Looking at the calendar, it is just about seven weeks until Event No. 1, the World Championship Pot Limit Hold ’em event ($10,000 buy-in), kicks off at noon on Friday, May 30th.

I’ll be arriving in Vegas about a week before, getting there early to help cover the sucker over on PokerNews. Have to say, am starting to get a little distracted from the day-to-day applesauce as I try to envision being there for the whole spectacle . . . .

Spent a little time looking over the schedule yesterday. Looks like if someone wanted to enter all 55 events it would cost that person $231,500 (not counting rebuys). That’s up quite a bit from last year’s total (under $200,000). Of course, that person would have to be a female casino employee aged fifty or older, since three of the events aren’t open to all: Event No. 15, the Ladies No Limit Hold ’em World Championship ($1,000 entry); Event No. 42, the Seniors No Limit Hold ’em World Championship ($1,000 entry); and Event No. 55, the Casino Employees No Limit Hold ’em event ($500 entry).

A few other tidbits . . .

The $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. event (No. 45) is back for a third time, again the most expensive buy-in by a long shot. Besides first-place money (which last year for Freddy Deeb was a cool $2,276,832) and the bracelet, this year’s winner will also be receiving the “David ‘Chip’ Reese Award” in honor of the recently-deceased poker great.

This year’s schedule features eight different “World Championship” events with $10,000 buy-ins: Pot Limit Hold ’em (Event No. 1); the Mixed Event, the one I’d like to be called call “S.P.L.E.N.D.O.R.” (No. 8); Stud (No. 14); Heads-Up No Limit Hold ’em (No. 25); Limit Hold ’em (No. 30); Omaha/8 (No. 37); Pot Limit Omaha (No. 50); and No Limit Hold ’em, or the Main Event (No. 54). Last year no events other than the $50K H.O.R.S.E., the $10K World Championship PLO Event, and the Main Event had higher than a $5,000 buy-in.

Buy-ins for the remaining events sort out thusly: seven $5,000 events (w/two rebuys); two $3,000 events, five $2,500 events; six $2,000 events; twenty-one $1,500 events (w/one rebuy); four $1,000 events (w/two rebuys); and the one $500 event for casino employees.

If all of the tournaments follow their scheduled dates, no more than two bracelets will be awarded on any single day. However, there will be several days when as many as six tournaments will be in progress. Starting June 4th, the next three weeks will feature five or six tourneys in action every single day. This ain’t no picnic. The Rio’s gonna be one busy place.

There are thirty-four Hold ’em events: twenty-five No Limit; four Limit; three Pot Limit; and two Limit/No Limit.

There are eight Omaha events: four Pot Limit Omaha & four Omaha/8.

There are four Stud events: two Stud High & two Stud/8.

There are two Deuce-to-Seven Lowball events, one limit (triple draw) and one no limit (single draw).

There is that one Razz event (No. 26, a $1,500 buy-in).

The remaining six events all feature some combination of the above listed games. Three of those are H.O.R.S.E. events. One combines Pot Limit Hold ‘em and Pot Limit Omaha. One combines Omaha/8 and Stud/8. And the other is the “Mixed Event,” i.e., S.P.L.E.N.D.O.R. (Stud, PLO, LHE, Stud/8, NLHE, 2-7 Triple Draw, Omaha/8, and Razz).

Okay, enough trivia. Except for anyone who wants to tell me from where I got the post title. Extra points for identifying the additional reference appearing somewhere else in the above.

Going the Extra Mile

B.J. Nemeth, terrific tournament reporter for PokerNews and other outlets, has weighed in on the idea to postpone the final table of the WSOP Main Event in order to televise it live (or “plausibly live”) at some later date -- discussed a couple of days ago here. (Incidentally, the latest buzz appears to suggest we won’t necessarily see this change happen this summer, but will most certainly see something like it in 2009.)

Head over to Tao of Poker and read Nemeth’s thoughts in the post dated April 8th. There Nemeth provides some good arguments for why he thinks the idea to create a “must see” final table event is a good one for poker. And while I still have reservations -- the main one concerning the notion of waiting three whole months to complete the tournament -- I can appreciate where Nemeth is coming from.

Regardless of the position being argued, I especially like this kind of thoughtful, well-reasoned editorial. I appreciate writers who take the time to present their ideas clearly and thoughtfully, taking into consideration the audience’s needs (for clarity, for sound reasoning, etc.). Nice, also, to see a subject like this addressed with a sense of historical perspective (which Nemeth definitely has).

Fact is, there are a number folks out there -- if you’re willing to seek ’em out -- who are writing about poker who will take the time to think ideas through and communicate them as effectively as they can. Poker ain’t all that different from the rest of the world, in that respect . . . .

Speaking of, was reading this week about the recently-awarded Pulitzer prizes for journalism. Looks like The Washington Post was the big winner this time around, being recognized for their in-depth reports on subjects like the mistreatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Hospital, the Virginia Tech shootings, the political influence of Dick Cheney, among others. A lot of times the stories that get singled out for praise in this way are investigative pieces that bring together all of the most-valued characteristics of excellent journalism -- characteristics that make them “distinguished” in the judges’ minds.

The criteria for judging are always somewhat subjective, of course, but to my way of thinking, the best journalism usually demonstrates a high degree of intellectual rigor, a faithfulness to “journalistic ethics” or responsible reporting, and evidence of supreme effort. Usually the winners are multi-part articles that (1) required a great deal from the author(s) in terms of investigative work, and (2) were written with an eye toward the “greater good” -- i.e., report on issues or concerns in a way that was both constructive and clearly of benefit to the community of readers.

All of which caused me to reflect a bit on poker journalism. Can we perhaps point to examples of that sort of excellence in our little corner of the news landscape? Thinking back over the last couple of years, three spring to mind:

Amy Calistri and Tim Lavalli’s multi-part investigation of the two million extra chips that suddenly materialized near the end of the 2006 WSOP Main Event. The pair produced three exhaustive articles in September 2006, then a follow-up in early 2007 that shared industry reaction:

“Two Million Questions. Will Poker Answer?: Part One”
“Two Million Questions. Will Poker Answer?: Part Two”
“Two Million Questions. Will Poker Answer?: Part Three”
“Two Million Chips: Six Months After”

Haley Hintze’s “Anatomy of a Cybersquatter” series of reports from early 2007 documenting the curious twists and turns in the battle over the “wsop.com” domain. Hintze meticulously presented the story in seven installments:

“Introduction: Binion’s Horseshoe on the Ropes”
“Part 1: Bad Blood Runs Deep”
“Part 2: Cybersquatting 101”
“Part 3: From “World Series of Poker” to “WSOP””
“Part 4: The Lawyers Always Get Theirs”
“Part 5: One for All, and All for One”
“Part 6: Not Quite Coda”

Jennifer Newell’s recent Poker Player Newspaper series on the Absolute Poker scandal. Her articles appeared from November 2007 to January 2008:

“An Absolute Mess, Part 1”
“An Absolute Mess, Part 2”
“An Absolute Mess, Part 3”
“An Absolute Mess, Part 4”
“An Absolute Mess, Part 5”

Of course, Newell’s series brought together and presented a lot of information compiled by those other super sleuths who helped crack the AP scandal in the first place. (And, as I wrote about a few weeks ago, still more folks also reported on that one as well.) By the way, I recently noticed Serge “Adanthar” Ravitch mention on his blog that the 60 Minutes story on Absolute Poker is “probably happening (at least, my segment is definitely getting shot).” Gary Wise mentioned on his podcast last week that he’d been interviewed as well.

Plenty of other recent examples of excellence in poker journalism, too, of course. These were just a few that came to mind. Do go enjoy (and be inspired by) those series if you hadn’t already. And for more thoughtful discussion about poker, do check out Nemeth’s thoughts regarding that plan for a big ol’ ME final table extravaganza, as well.