Travel Report: 2012-13 WSOP-C Caesars Atlantic City Main Event, Day 2 -- The Grind

It’s a grind, man. These WSOP-C events, I mean.

Was lamenting the lost hour (to the start of Daylight Savings time) in yesterday’s post, and how much we all missed that extra time to rest and recover following a 15-hour day. Had another 15-hour one yesterday for Day 2. Longer, actually, as play started at noon, ended around 2:30 a.m., with work starting before and ending after.

Today’s Day 3 may well match the first two days, too, I imagine, as far as how long it will take is concerned. With the late re-entries, yesterday the tourney began with 299 players and over the course of all those levels and hands of poker just 19 made it through to the final day of play that again will start at noon. They will have to play down to a winner today and tonight, so I imagine it’ll be some time after midnight again before it’s all done and dusted.

I definitely felt myself wearing down a bit yesterday, with all the standing, running back and forth between the floor and the laptop, and constant mental challenge to blog, count chips, keep track of bustouts and winners, and so on reminding me over and over how much I’d missed getting a decent night’s sleep.

I didn’t even mention yesterday how about an hour after hitting the hay there was an alarm that went off down in the casino that kept on bleating for nearly 15 minutes, long enough to wake up the whole hotel including yours truly. Was one of those “whoop whoop whoop” repeaters that after grabbing the attention went on long enough to inspire first a studied analysis of the slightly different pitches of the three notes, then plunged the listener into terror-filled anxieties that it would never, ever, ever stop.

But stop it did, and we all got a few more hours of slumber before play began. The afternoon saw over 200 players eliminated, then after dinner the bubble burst. Lana O’Brien who was of the blogging crowd some time back (working for CardRunners along the way, I believe) made the money, but just barely as she was knocked out along with another player, Patrick Chan, during hand-for-hand play which meant the two of them split 54th-place money. Basically amounted to getting not quite the buy-in back, but better than getting none back at all.

Both Christian Harder and Matt Glantz made the money, but both were short when the bubble burst and ended up going out in 35th and 27th places, respectively. The big leader heading into today is Joseph McKeehen with about 1.9 million.

McKeehen was involved in what was easily the most memorable sequence of the day when he managed to pick up pocket aces on consecutive hands to knock out two opponents, with one of those pots being over a million. Was kind of funny as earlier in the night after the money bubble had burst he’d said something to me about how the “made-for-TV” hands were coming after we’d seen a K-K-versus-A-K encounter knock out another player.

I’ve commented before here how covering these events amounts to a kind of intense immersion into the very specific experience of a tournament, made even more so when you find yourself spending two-thirds of your waking hours with it. And, really, nothing else. Everything happening outside of the room kind of fades away as long as the tournament lasts -- at least that’s the case for me, as I have trouble being able to do much of anything else when I’m covering a tourney.

My blogging partner Kevin (“tayke2”) helped make things easier for me during the long day, of course, as did Nolan Dalla here reporting for the WSOP site. Also going a long way were several statements of support from players during the day expressing appreciation for the updates. I can easily see how the bloggers who regularly work these WSOP-C events begin to develop a kind of camaraderie with the players who frequently play in them. Hard not to pull for them all, especially when it gets late in a tourney and everyone has similarly fought through the exhaustion and other challenges to persevere.

No alarms last night, so somewhat better rested this morning. Click over to PokerNews today for coverage of Day 3 from Caesars Atlantic City, where Kevin and I will be using DeAndre Jordan as inspiration as we slam through the final day.

Travel Report: 2012-13 WSOP-C Caesars Atlantic City Main Event, Day 1 -- If This Were Yesterday, What Time Would It Be Now?

As the clock turned two this morning -- and then, in a flash, turned again to three -- I turned to WSOP Media Director Nolan Dalla.

“I’d like to suggest a moment of silence for the loss of that hour,” I said. He shook his head and chuckled. A long day behind the laptops was finally coming to an end.

We’re both here at Caesars Atlantic City to cover the World Series of Poker Circuit. He’s been here the last 10 days or so, actually, as he’s covering all 12 events for the WSOP blog. Meanwhile I am here for the three-day Main Event which had gotten underway Saturday way back at 11 a.m.

Play had only just concluded -- 15 hours after the first hands of the day were dealt -- and there was still more work to do before we could call it a night. And like a rude postscript to the day, we’d suddenly leaped forward yet another hour deeper into the evening. Meaning, of course, we were already one hour closer to the start of Day 2 and another long work day.

I’d noticed earlier in the week this was to be the weekend that Daylight Savings Time was to be begin. I think we always miss that hour somewhat, but I knew already I’d be missing it even more given my assignment this weekend.

As I continued to tidy up some loose ends and prepared to pack up my stuff and head up to my room, I thought of a question Vera asked me a few years ago on the day after we’d sprung forward.

“If this were yesterday what time what it be now?”

I also remembered two years ago when I came to cover this same WSOP-C Main Event at Caesars. It was the same weekend, with Daylight Savings Time again kicking in. In that instance, the tournament had begun on Friday, so we were at the end of Day 2 when the time change occurred.

Twenty-odd players remained, I recall, and some fairly hilarious confusion began to circulate among the three remaining tables as players struggled to figure out exactly what time it really was. No one seemed to know for sure if the clocks were to be moved forward or back, and looking back at the post I wrote the next morning I think the so-called “smart phones” didn’t used to be as smart two years ago when it came to automatically adjusting the time.

As we closed in on the end of play last night, announcements were made noting the time change, the reminders designed to prevent anyone from missing today’s noon start. And while there were a few follow-up questions, the message seemed to be readily understood by all.

As was the case at the WSOP-C Harrah’s AC event I helped cover in December, this event featured two Day 1 flights in a single day, comprised of nine 40-minute levels each. Players busting during “Day 1a” had an option to re-enter the evening “Day 1b” session. Also, anyone eliminated only a single time on Saturday still can buy in a second time before the start of play today, and while it is doubtful there will be too many taking that option those that do will still get to start with a stack of 25 big blinds.

Though arduously lengthy, the day went relatively smoothly, and I enjoyed working alongside Kevin (my PokerNews blogging partner) and Nolan again. Not too many so-called “big names” among the 519 total entries yesterday. Steve Dannenmann, Christian Harder, and Matt Glantz were probably the best known of the bunch. Dannenmann didn’t make it through to today, having busted in both flights, but Glantz and Harder both did.

Another “big name” (especially around here) was Roland Israelashvili, and I’m not just talking about the number of letters in his name. Israelashvili took 25th in last summer’s WSOP Main Event, gaining him some notice. But here in Atlantic City everyone knows Roland. After all, he final tabled this same event the last three years in a row, including winning it back in 2010. But like Dannenmann, he, too, would bust twice yesterday to end his WSOP-C run prematurely.

Had a few funny exchanges with players throughout the day, something I’ve mentioned before is always more likely to occur at these Circuit events than at the relatively more series WSOP bracelet events in Vegas. Probably my favorite happened when I was hovering near the table of Christopher Leong who has managed to win two of the preliminary tournaments here this week, thus giving him a shot at winning an unprecedented three WSOP-C gold rings at a single stop.

Players at the table noticed my presence, then began wondering aloud which among them might be the reason for my being there to watch them play early level hands. One joked that he was “paulgees” -- i.e., the New Jersey-based player Paul Volpe, who I do remember playing in this event two years ago. Volpe, of course, has been busy on the other side of the country this week where he has been making consecutive final tables at World Poker Tour events in California (at Bay 101 Shooting Stars and the L.A. Poker Classic). Some might remember him as well for having like Israelashvili made a deep run at the 2012 WSOP Main Event where he finished 20th.

Finally the conversation at the table began to focus on Leong, whom some suspected had in fact done something of note during the week. "Is it really true he won two rings this week?" one of his opponents asked of me, and I just smiled and shrugged as Leong sat silently. “It's okay,” the player continued. “You won't be giving anything away. He’s wearing the rings!”

Everyone laughed, including myself. Leong wasn’t wearing the rings, of course, but the jig was up nevertheless. He did manage to survive the day, albeit with a short stack, so chances are I might be hovering near his table some more at the start of play today.

It’s a tough schedule, no doubt, although I suppose things get balanced out a bit thanks to the ease of traveling to relatively close destinations like AC. The accommodations are nice enough here, too, and staying on site always makes it easier by shortening those trips back and forth to bed.

I’m not even sure what the schedule entails today, but I know for sure it’s going to be another long one. Looking back at two years ago when the event was not a re-entry and players played longer on Day 1, I’m seeing how we had 81 work their way down to a final table of nine on Day 2. That obviously ain’t happening today, as there still a whopping 268 left. Gonna assume we’ll get it down around 20 or so, thus probably setting up another long one on Monday to settle it.

At least we know we won’t be losing another hour tonight.

The Congressman Who Wrote a Poker Book

Poker players are well accustomed to legislators’ unending debates over our favorite game. Indeed, laws to forbid, restrict, and/or permit the playing of poker have been part of its history ever since the game’s introduction back in the early 19th century.

It is perhaps surprising to learn, then, that the person often credited with writing one of the earliest rulebooks of poker was in fact a U.S. Congressman.

It was almost by accident, really, that Robert C. Schenck, a former member of the House of Representatives, came to author a short book explaining how to play five-card draw.

After representing his native Ohio in Congress from 1843-1851, Schenck served as an ambassador in South America, supported Lincoln in the 1860 election, fought with the Union as a general in the Civil War, and served once again in Congress as one of Ohio’s representatives from 1863-1870.

Upon losing a close race for reelection in 1870, Schenck was then appointed by President Ulysses S. Grant as Minister to the United Kingdom and the following summer he sailed to England where he would remain for the next five years.

It was while in London that Schenck would pen his brief primer, Draw. Rules for Playing Poker. Some have suggested he wrote the book in order to introduce the American game to Queen Victoria, although in truth it was following a weekend of card-playing with friends in Somerset that Schenck had been asked to write down the rules by his host. Complying with the request, Schenck was later surprised to see his rules having been reprinted and circulated by his friends as a book.

Schenck’s little “how-to” book came some time after editions of the American version of Hoyle’s Games began including references to poker, with poker’s first mention coming in the 1845 edition of the “American Hoyle.” Schenck’s slim volume nonetheless stands as what many regard the earliest example of a book entirely devoted to poker.

It is tempting to think that an ex-Congressman and U.S. ambassador having authored such a book must indicate that poker -- at the time still a game played in saloons, gaming dens, and on steamboats and rife with cheaters, cardsharps, and various ne’er-do-wells -- had become relatively accepted in American popular culture.

That wasn’t quite the case.

As Schenck himself explains in “The Author’s Apology” -- added when the book was later reprinted in the U.S. in 1880 -- even though the printing of his book had been “intended as a compliment” by his English friends, its appearance had “unwittingly brought down on me the wrath and reprehension of so many good people in America.”

As it happened, by the time Schenck wrote that “Apology,” his reputation had already suffered somewhat thanks in particular to his involvement in a speculative venture gone wrong -- the Emma Mine Company of Utah.

It hadn’t been long after Schenck got to London in 1871 that he was recruited by Emma Mine to try to sell shares of the company in England. Unsurprisingly, the Minister drew criticism for having done so, although when Schenck asked Grant for guidance the president told him he could continue as long as he conducted himself honestly.

In early 1876, the Emma Mine Company collapsed, which meant ruin for those English investors to whom Schenck had sold shares. The House’s Foreign Relations Committee met to discuss the situation, and it was decided Schenck would have to relinquish his post as Minister. Soon he was back in Washington, D.C. practicing law.

All of which means when Draw. Rules for Playing Poker was republished by a private Brooklyn printer a few years after his return, Schenck had already drawn “the wrath and reprehension” of some outside of his endorsement of draw poker. Still, his statement shows how when it came to the culture at large, many Americans still weren’t too sure about the game.

Despite being a Congressman, Civil War general, and an ambassador, when Schenck died in the spring of 1890 it was that tiny book about poker that appeared destined to be his most lasting legacy. A note by the editors of Life just a few weeks after his passing shows how the name Schenck would forever be associated with America’s card game.

“Many a man makes his fame out of the most unexpected materials,” they wrote. “Who ever thought of General Schenck without thinking at once of poker? And yet General Schenck’s poker was only an incident in a pretty active life.”

Schenck’s book lays out the rules for five-card draw while including some strategy advice as well. The rules are essentially what we know of the game, describing the deal, an opening round of betting, the draw, a second round of betting, and (if necessary) the showdown. Meanwhile, the strategy tips also conform pretty well to what we know of the game today.

Schenck actually begins the book by stating “The deal is of no special value and anybody can begin.” However, here he seems to be referring more to the logistics of getting started rather than the significance of position. Indeed, later on his advice demonstrates an understanding that position matters.

The Congressman explains the role bluffing can play in the game, too. “It is a great object to mystify your adversaries,” writes Schenck. “To this end it is permitted to chaff or talk nonsense, with a view of misleading your adversaries as to the value of your hand, but this must be without unreasonably delaying the game.”

Schenck makes reference to tells as well, noting how “a skillful player will watch and observe what each player draws, the expression of his face, the circumstances and manner of betting, and judge, or try to judge, of the value of each hand opposed to him accordingly.”

Toward the end come some specific suggestions about how to play certain hands, and while these pointers hardly reach Mike Caro-levels of detail they do articulate commonly agreed-upon ideas about frequently-faced situations in five-card draw.

Schenck’s concluding summary of advice to the draw-poker player indicates the former Congressman possessed not only a solid understanding of the game but a certain level-headedness that probably helped him at the tables as well: “The main elements of success in the game are: (1) good luck; (2) good cards; (3) plenty of cheek; and (4) good temper.”

In his historical survey of games’ impact upon American culture Sportsmen and Gamesmen, John Dizikes tells how “Schenck had come back to America in 1876 in what would have conventionally been thought of as a state of disgrace. But he seems not to have felt this or to have been the least bothered by his dismissal, keeping throughout the good temper that he had identified as one of the poker player's most necessary attributes.”

Schenck would be officially cleared of any wrongdoing with regard to his representation of the failed Emma Mine Company. Dizikes suggests he lived out his remaining days continuing to play poker in the nation's capital where a number of elected officials were known to enjoy the game as well.

As many still do. When not battling over legislating the game, that is.

Stirring the High-Stakes MTT Pot

A couple of nights ago I was up late following PokerStars’ Super Tuesday, the weekly $1,050 no-limit hold’em tournament that tends to attract a lot of top players and familiar names in the world of online poker.

The tourney has grown remarkably over the last several months, breaking records as far as field sizes go. A week ago 614 played (making for a $614K prize pool), establishing a new all-time high and thus more than doubling the event’s $300K guarantee. This week the field was 580, which as usual pushed the scheduled first-prize up over six figures. (A two-way chop in the end meant the final two made about $95K each.)

I found myself diverted a little late in the evening around the time the money bubble burst, and thought I would share the reason why. I noticed with 72 players left that the leader was a player from Portugal going by the strange-looking username “T 54 T 97s.” A search of the name soon led me to a thread in the High Stakes MTT forum over on Two Plus Two begun last month titled “War challenge!” And for the next little while I was fairly entertained to read what I found.

The player -- real name Tomás Paiva -- started the thread with a kind of manifesto-looking, pot-stirring screed in which he addresses the high-stakes MTT community as mostly comprised of “so many retarded regs,” “sad nerds,” and “nits.”

Having established his insensitive self thusly, he goes on to quote Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson, cut-and-paste an old New Zealand war cry (the “haka”), then add a second post in which he listing around 250 MTTers by their usernames as his “black list” of players whom he particularly wishes to “destroy.”

The list included tags clarifying whether a given player is a “****ing nit,” a “top idiot,” or an “elite idiot.” Among those listed appear many who regularly play the Super Tuesday, including some who have won it in the past.

Unsurprisingly, the “war challenge” earned a lot of response.

Some were critical or less than amused (“u mad bro?”). Some championed Paiva’s hubris (“OP confirmed awesome”). Meanwhile others variously played along with Paiva’s attempt at fashioning a kind of new, provoking poker personality (“nerd version of Tony G?”).

Some of the funniest responses came from players not appearing on T 54 T 97s’s “black list,” but who were humorously complaining that they should be, such as from Adam “Squee451” Sherman (“respectfully ask to be added to black list [heart]”) or David “Bakes” Baker (“damn where am i at”).

I also enjoyed Sam “TheSquid” Grafton making a similar complaint and plea to be added to the list. I was just following Grafton at EPT Deauville where he made a relatively deep run in the Main Event to finish 24th, during which I had several opportunities to witness him demonstrating his sense of humor.

“Incred thread. Really brightened up my day!!” began Grafton. “T54 you continually berate me in chat and yet haven’t made your list! I know a small time grinder like me appears as little more than a microbe from your god-like vantage point, but SURELY you can find room for me on your list. Did all those insults really mean nothing to you??? They seemed so heartfelt at the time....”

Paiva quickly responded by adding Grafton to the list, with “TheSquid” voicing his appreciation soon thereafter.

The contribution of Thayer “THAY3R” Rasmussen (also not on the list) probably had me laughing the loudest, though:

“First they came for the nits, and I did not speak out because I was not a nit,” said Rasmussen.

Eric “sheetsworld” Haber also chimed in to say “OP is my hero” and speak wistfully about how Paiva’s post reminded him of the relative lack of personality in online poker these days.

“Back in 2005-9 whatever there was so much trash talking and insulting of other players,” writes Haber. “People got chat taken away on a regular basis and there were challenges and personal attacks 24/7. I miss that.... I don't know whether it was black friday or this new regime of regs who keep quiet but online poker should have more guys like this.”

Paiva went on to final table the Super Tuesday, finishing eighth, with a number of railbirds (all obvioulsy aware of the 2+2 thread) chatting frequently until the final table at which point observer chat is no longer allowed. Paiva himself did take to the chatbox occasionally along the way, sometimes typing “(flex)” after winning a hand, or congratulating another player at the final table once for having “heart” (again, recalling Tony G) when he cracked the eventual ninth-place finisher’s pocket aces with T-8-suited.

The thread continues, revived a bit thanks to T 54 T 97s’s deep Super Tuesday run this week, some other tourney scores, and Paiva’s frequent returns to the thread to add still more taunts as well as further names to his list.

Like I say, I found it all kind of diverting. And while I’m not necessarily pining for the trash-talking and personal attacks like Haber, I get what he’s saying about how online poker can sometimes appear to be overpopulated by characterless button-pushers.

But there are some characters out there, including those who aren’t as obviously making an effort to create and shape their online personae into something worth following.

Punch and Counterpunch: AGA Seeing Stars

Spent more time than I expected to yesterday reading and rereading that brief of the American Gaming Association objecting to the Rational Group’s bid to purchase the Atlantic Casino in New Jersey -- or, rather, specifically, to the involvement of PokerStars (owned by the Rational Group) in that possible purchase. (Here is the .pdf, if you’re curious.)

Kept looking for something new about the history of PokerStars, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, the Black Friday indictment and civil complaint, or anything else that might be news to the state of New Jersey’s Casino Control Commission and Division of Gaming Enforcement as it contemplates how to proceed in the matter.

But as others have already pointed out, there isn’t really anything there that those receiving the petition wouldn’t know about already. Even those of us with less direct reason to have followed the story as it has unfolded over the last six-and-a-half years know pretty much all of the details set forth in the petition. And in fact the brief seems at times to exaggerate or misrepresent certain details about the indictment/civil complaint and subsequent settlement, too.

I usually struggle a little reading these legal documents, sometimes having to admit limits to my knowledge and understanding that prevent me from appreciating what exactly they signify. Here, though, I felt more like a teacher reading a student essay. That is to say -- rightly or wrongly -- I felt as though I was in a situation where I could be fairly confident I knew as much or more than the author did about the chosen topic and argument.

Thus the primary message being delivered here is the desire of the AGA (i.e., the casino industry) to broadcast its opposition to the potential re-entry into the U.S. of PokerStars. F-Train spells it out for us in his piece for Flushdraw from yesterday where he explains how the AGA speaks for the casinos and its interests.

F-Train also alludes to the other bit of interestingly-timed news that Eric Hollreiser, Head of Corporate Communications for PokerStars, has stated that Caesars Entertainment had approached Stars about selling them certain assets, including the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino. Apparently that offer also may have included the WSOP, too. (Diamond Flush posted a copy of Hollreiser’s statement in full.) According to Hollreiser, the offer was declined and that Stars isn’t interested in trying to obtain any other casinos just now.

Reading backwards, it all sounds like the AGA’s opposition isn’t unrelated to the spurned offer (“Perhaps it is no coincidence...” writes Hollreiser). And that Stars was prepared and ready to share the news of the offer as a quick counter to the AGA’s petition. All moves comprising an interesting, complicated game, to say the least. (And again, I can’t help but think of puns about trying to take on a group whose very name suggests a commitment to reason.)

Let me backtrack a little from my earlier claim to possess some understanding about online poker’s recent history. I’ll admit that when reading about these new moves in the burgeoning battle for online poker in the U.S., I feel a little like I do when reporting on a tournament in which the players are skilled and seeming to operate on levels well above my own, making it hard if not impossible to identify with their decision-making.

Sort of thing necessarily puts one in a passive mode, unable really to judge or even react immediately. Which works, I guess, given how long we’ve all been stuck in “wait and see.”

Murder in the Cards on CSI

For a while I’ve been planning to create a special “Poker and Pop Culture” page here on Hard-Boiled Poker that will link to the various columns I’ve written under that heading both here and elsewhere, getting them all in one place for easy access.

As I start to get that page together I now have a new entry to include, a write-up of last week’s poker-themed episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation that appeared on CBS. I wrote about the show for my “Pop Poker” column on PokerListings, and the article appeared yesterday as “CSI Features Poker Serial Killer (and Tom Schneider).”

I’d known that CSI had an episode involving poker coming up for a few weeks now, having spotted a couple of reports highlighting David Cassidy’s upcoming guest spot on the show as an aging poker champ. As it turned out, Cassidy’s turn was mighty brief as his character gets offed in somewhat gruesome fashion even before the opening credits roll.

I had no idea my buddy (and 2007 WSOP Player of the Year) Tom Schneider was to appear on the episode as well until just a couple of days before it aired. Schneider happened to know the show’s producer who called him up a couple of months back asking about getting a consultant to help them with poker-related details. One thing led to another, and Tom ended up getting recruited to play a poker dealer -- a non-speaking role, but his character in fact is significantly involved in the episode’s twisted plot.

Read the article to learn more about how Schneider got involved in the show and a little more about the premise and story. I purposely avoided getting too detailed with explaining the episode’s plot or revealing any spoilers, since I know folks reading the article might not have seen it and might be curious to do so. I didn’t even get into talking about the two hands of poker that get highlighted in the episode, including the one from the final table of the 1997 Palermo Poker Classic (meant to resemble the WSOP Main Event) that ultimately sets what turns out to be a long-delayed revenge plot into motion.

In that hand a player flops a set of aces, then Cassidy’s character makes runner-runner quads with his pocket kings to win the hand. Here and elsewhere, the script writer, Gavin Harris, throws in a few details that poker players might find distracting as either improbable or not really accurate as far as an individual hand or the playing of a tournament goes. But he does ultimately figure out a whacked-out way to build a whole serial-killer plot out of the playing of a single hand of hold’em, with individual cards providing inspiration for various murderous methods (and in one case, the weapon itself!).

Reading around today, I am seeing how a tennis-themed episode from January featured a tennis racket as a weapon, with Chris Evert, Lindsay Davenport, and Justin Gimelstob among that show’s guest stars. Looks like that show also features some knowing references to the world of professional tennis, not unlike some of what happens with regard to poker and the WSOP in this latest episode, the title of which in fact comes straight from tournament poker, “Last Woman Standing.”

At the end of the PokerListings piece I make a couple of disclaimers about the episode, one of which is to acknowledge that you’ll need to be able to suspend your disbelief a bit to enjoy it. The other is to warn the squeamish about the gore, which frankly amazed me. (I’m thinking of one scene in particular -- anyone who sees the show will know which one.)

I hadn’t really watched CSI much since it first began airing over a decade ago. So while I was aware of general complaints about the show (and prime time graphic violence, broadly speaking) I had no idea how far the standard had moved for what is allowed these days over network teevee.

Some of my academic writing has been about film, including a new article in the latest issue of Paracinema which I mentioned here back in January. Some time ago I found myself focusing on horror films for a while and among the pieces I published were a couple about Halloween III and The Stepfather -- two ’80s horror entries that get grouped with other “slashers” of the day. (If you’re curious about those old articles of mine, click the film titles to read posts over on FilmChaw where I talk a little more about each.) But even with that background, I was still surprised a little by last week’s CSI.

Anyhow, with those warnings having been made, I’ll echo what I say at the end of the PL piece and say that poker players might well find the episode interesting -- and perhaps somewhat different from the usual ways poker tends to pop up in mainstream popular culture.

Having Fun with the Home Games

Spent part of yesterday idly watching PokerStars’ big 7th anniversary Sunday Million tournament play out while also noting the mix of tweets from participating players and angst-ridden Americans unable to play. A total of 49,287 entered the event, thus creating a prize pool of $9,857,400 (well over the special $7 million guarantee).

Later on came the other “Sunday majors,” the Hard-Boiled Poker Home Games, that is. Last night we had a H.O.S.E. event (won by Bruckner_7th) and a Razz one (won by SmBoatDrinks). I somehow managed to luckbox my way into winning the Badugi tournament the week before.

I’m noticing this morning that the results of last night’s tourneys might not have been recorded in our Season 3 standings, which I’ll look into today. (EDIT [added 3/7/13]: The problem -- whatever it was -- has been resolved and the standings are now up-to-date.)

So far we’ve played eight events in Season 3, and I think I’ll actually schedule three events on each of the next four Sundays. One will be at 16:00 ET on Sunday afternoons, and the other two at 20:00 ET and 21:00 ET (as usual). I’m hoping perhaps with those earlier events to enable some of my European buddies to play a few tourneys. Adding the extra tourneys will also help us get to a total of 20 events before Season 3 concludes at the end of March.

As was the case with Season 1 and Season 2, the top three finishers in the season’s standings will win prizes. Again one of the prizes will be a copy of Zach Elwood’s Reading Poker Tells, a very helpful book regarding tells in live poker that I reviewed for Betfair Poker here. I also have picked up a Rounders DVD that I’ll throw in as a prize, too, if perhaps someone doesn’t have it already.

I’ve yet to settle on what the third prize will be this time. If anyone has books or DVDs they’d like to donate, let me know. Meanwhile, these remaining events in Season 3 will be covering a variety of games (as usual). For those who have been playing, feel free to suggest games/variants in the comments below.

Sure, it ain’t quite playing for millions of dollars. But I know I’ve enjoyed the Home Games a lot, and I think they’ve provided a lot of fun for others, too.

Epic Anniversary

It was one year ago that Federated Sports + Gaming, parent company of the Epic Poker League, suddenly announced its intention to file for bankruptcy. The announcement came on Leap Day -- February 29 -- which should have inspired more puns about Epic and “leaps of faith” than it did. So technically the anniversary will only be coming around every four years.

Kind of wonder, actually, if all matters involving the FS+G and its debts will be resolved by the next Leap Day.

As I’ve mentioned here a few times, I became tangentially involved in the sad story of the Epic Poker League as I was one of a few writers recruited to contribute columns to the EPL blog. It was a good experience, particularly working with the blog’s editor-in-chief, Michael Craig, as I produced weekly columns for about six months. I wrote about a variety of topics, all under the heading of “poker and pop culture,” and my column was titled “Community Cards.”

The timing of the bankruptcy filing meant I ended up on the long, long list of FS+G’s creditors (I was owed one last invoice), and a year later I continue to be among the large crowd of folks still owed money. And who still receive the mailings regarding the latest happenings in the Maryland court where it all continues to play out.

A couple of weeks after the filing in mid-March, FS+G issued an angry statement responding to a Card Player article that outlined how “Epic Poker Bankruptcy Leaves Mountain of Debt.” That article referenced the more than $5 million owed to creditors and the $15,000 the company then had on hand. (I believe the amount of debt was ultimately found to be considerably greater than that.)

FS+G’s response to Card Player strongly suggested that the EPL wasn’t “shutting its doors” but that the bankruptcy was part of the effort to reorganize and somehow keep the sucker going. That the EPL “website and social media game are up and running” was cited in that statement as evidence that the league wasn’t planning to fold.

But even then few were being fooled by such optimism, and indeed by mid-June the company’s meager assets were being sold off to Pinnacle Entertainment, thus enabling FS+G to pay back a small fraction of the $2.1 million they owed Pinnacle. Those assets were highlighted by the Heartland Poker Tour, but also covered what was left of Epic, including the website with all of its live reports from the three tournament series, the blog, and other content produced over the league’s brief run.

It wasn’t long after that I noticed the EPL site had been taken down altogether, an occurrence I noted here with dismay in a post last August. Eventually I put it together that when Pinnacle sold the Global Poker Index to Zokay Entertainment, the contents of the website had gone over as well and soon all but the GPI stuff was scrubbed away.

I talked to Zokay CEO Alex Dreyfus since then, and he confirmed for me that this was how things went as far as the EPL site is concerned. Dreyfus, of course, is helping to promote the Global Poker Index ranking system into something the poker world has become increasingly intrigued by over the last few months. I believe the GPI will become a bigger part of the scene this coming year thanks to a new partnership with the World Poker Tour and plans for the upcoming WSOP in Las Vegas.

In any case, to mark this one-year anniversary I thought I’d today start reposting some of those “Community Cards” columns here on Hard-Boiled Poker. I won’t be publishing them all here, but there were a handful in I have wished were still around on the web.

I’ll tentatively plan to use the next few Fridays to share these columns, starting with one titled “Men, Women, and Poker in A Streetcar Named Desire,” which I’m posting separately today.

Men, Women, and Poker in A Streetcar Named Desire

A Streetcar Named Desire, directed by Elia Kazan and adapted from Tennessee Williams’s award-winning play, first premiered in 1951. A gripping domestic drama filled with sex and violence, the story presents a most interesting use of poker as both a plot device and a means to emphasize one of the film’s themes, namely, the stark, conflict-causing differences that can sometimes exist between men and women.

One scene in particular, coming relatively early in the film, well demonstrates how poker was thought of not only as a game for men, but also a ready context in which men could fulfill cultural expectations about masculinity.

The scene -- referred to as “The Poker Night” in Williams’s play -- comes about a half-hour in, by which point we’ve already gotten to know the story’s three primary figures, Stanley Kowalski (played by Marlon Brando in the film), his wife Stella (Kim Hunter), and her sister Blanche (Vivien Leigh). By then we’ve also come to recognize some of the effects caused by Blanche coming to New Orleans to stay with the young couple.

In a way, Blanche moving into their small apartment near the French Quarter instantly draws attention to several differences that exist between her vulnerable, newly pregnant sister and the callous, muscle-bound Stanley, a WWII vet turned factory worker. Stella, like Blanche, hails from rural Mississippi, much different from the gritty urban setting in which Stanley seems comfortable. There is also a class conflict of sorts going on, with Stanley’s modest upbringing clashing with the (now lost) aristocratic heritage of the DuBois family.

The most prominent conflict in the film, however, is the one ongoing between men and women, something Blanche’s upsetting the balance of in the Kowalski household certainly brings to light. And poker night -- happening shortly after Blanche’s arrival -- particularly underscores the contrast between the sexes the film intends to convey.

During the afternoon before the game, Blanche says to Stanley “I understand there’s to be a little card party here tonight, to which we ladies are cordially not invited.” “That’s right,” answers Stanley, wasting no words. It’s obvious that the game represents something wholly off-limits to the women. In fact, Stanley’s response suggests even talking about the game with Blanche is inappropriate.

Stella understands the need for the men to be alone, and thus plans to take Blanche out for the evening. Before they leave, however, Blanche attempts a bit of flirting with Stanley, and when he resists Blanche responds with a back-handed compliment.

“I can’t imagine any witch of a woman casting a spell over you,” she says. “That’s right,” says Stanley, repeating his same terse reply from before. Undeterred, Blanche continues. “You’re simple, straightforward, and honest. A little bit on the... uh... primitive side, I should say. The way to proceed a woman would have to...”

“She would have to lay her cards on the table,” Stanley says, abruptly halting her with a poker metaphor. Some shouting ensues, and their conversation-slash-argument ends without much resolution.

Cut to later that night. In the play, Williams’s stage directions unmistakably reveal his intention for the poker game to highlight the players’ masculinity. Explaining how each of the actors are to wear colored shirts, Williams notes “they are men at the peak of their physical manhood, as coarse and direct and powerful as the primary colors” they are sporting.

While we can’t see the colors of the men’s shirts in the black-and-while film (co-scripted by Williams), we can certainly appreciate the other masculine notes being loudly sounded in the scene.

It is upon the ladies’ return that we first glimpse the game, now many hours old. The men are drinking and smoking cigars, the room darkly lit and claustrophobic-seeming. From upstairs comes banging and yelling from the wife of one of the players, impatient with the noise the men are making and wishing for the game to end.

Stella and Blanche hover over the game momentarily while a hand being is dealt. Blanche even goes so far as to lean forward and peek at one of the player’s cards. “Poker’s so fascinating!” she says. “Could I kibbitz?” “You could not!” angrily yells Stanley -- who, not incidentally, has been losing -- and he soon suggests the women should leave.

“How much longer is this game going to continue?” asks Stella. “Until we get ready to quit!” responds Stanley, giving his wife an aggressive slap on the backside when she is slow to exit.

The game continues while the women move to the neighboring room, the card playing having literally segregated the sexes. The sisters start to make noise, laughing and playing the radio, prompting Stanley -- not unlike the wife upstairs -- to yell across for them to keep quiet.

Eventually one of the players, Mitch (Karl Malden), leaves the game momentarily to talk with Blanche, with whom he’s instantly enchanted. Meanwhile, the poker continues, with Stanley announcing Spit-in-the-Ocean once it is his turn to call the game.

Blanche eventually has the radio back on and begins dancing for Mitch. Meanwhile in the other room, a hand is concluding. “Three bullets, mustache,” says Stanley to Pablo as he reaches for the money in the middle. “A straight, I gotcha!” yells back Pablo with a greedy grin as he grabs Stanley’s arm.

Incensed, Stanley gets up and races into the next room. There he grabs the radio and shockingly throws it through a closed window, the glass shattering in a loud explosion.

Stella responds in kind, rushing into the room where the men are sitting and pushing one of the players, the light above the table breaking in the process. An enraged Stanley then begins to beat his pregnant wife, the attack only ending when one of the men knocks him unconscious.

“We should not be playing in a house with women!” Mitch yells out amid the fracas, a line he repeats when Stanley, after finally coming to, throws everyone out. The scene ends with a disoriented Stanley alone yelling for Stella who has taken refuge upstairs -- the iconic “Stella!” scene everyone remembers from the film. Stella forgives him -- this time -- and comes back down.

There are a few possible reasons for Stanley’s outburst, including his well-founded suspicions that Blanche’s story about “losing” the DuBois family estate and being on a leave of absence from her job as a school teacher is untruthful. Such is an issue that will become more significant later in the film when her seduction of Mitch has further progressed.

But really here Stanley seems most upset at how the poker game -- an arena for men to be men, perhaps not unlike the war from which he’s recently returned -- has been disturbed. It is almost as though that “manhood” Williams describes the players possessing has been somehow threatened or at least compromised by the women’s intrusion.

Later Blanche talks to her sister about Stanley, calling him an “animal” and “subhuman.” Poker, too, becomes part of her argument when she refers to “poker night” as “his party of apes.” Blanche, arguing for the arts and other refinements, tries to convince Stella that she shouldn’t stay with Stanley and thus “hang back with the brutes,” but her argument isn’t working.

Those familiar with A Streetcar Named Desire know things do not turn out well for Stanley, Stella, and Blanche. And the fact that the men reconvene to play another round of poker at the end of the film seems to accentuate the fact that the divide between men and women has only widened by story’s end.

It is interesting to look back at the way poker was not-so-flatteringly represented in this signature story of mid-century America -- as a game not only reserved primarily for men (and thus a source for division between men and women), but also perhaps an arena in which players might readily indulge their most “primitive” tendencies.

Family in Florida

About to take a quick trip down to Florida to see my Pop and hopefully relax a little. Has become an annual thing for Vera and me each spring to go down, as there is a dressage event she likes to go to near West Palm Beach.

I’ve played at the Palm Beach Kennel Club a few times in the past when we’ve gone, too. The trip is always timed, it seems, just after the WSOP-Circuit makes its stop down there, and indeed they just finished up again last weekend.

From there the WSOP-C moves up the east coast to Caesars Atlantic City, and I’ve made that trip once before in the past as well, writing about it here (Pregame, Arrival, Day 1, Day 2, Day 3). And in fact I’ll be making that same trip again as well next weekend, which is another reason why I’m looking forward to seeing Pop and taking it easy a bit over the next few days.

Speaking of visiting family in Florida, I was just listening to the latest Thinking Poker podcast with Andrew Brokos and Nate Meyvis. The show continues to be a great one, with good strategy talk and a nifty line-up of guests since I made a visit on there back on Episode 4. The fellas are up to Episode 21 now, which means they’ve now managed to make it past the 20 Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Shows I did. (I continue to reserve the right to revive the HBPRS, by the way, so I could theoretically catch up with Andrew and Nate.)

Anyhow, this latest episode of Thinking Poker finds Andrew having visited and interviewed his grandmother in Florida. The subject of their talk was her brother, who happened to be a nightclub comedian and singer who performed back in the ’50s and ’60s as Tubby Boots. He also happened to be about 400 pounds and would sometimes wear ladies clothes during his act. As is mentioned on the show, “Uncle Tubby” additionally liked to gamble, and so that kind of ties his story in with the usual talk about poker.

I’m a fan of old comedy LPs and so had heard of Tubby Boots thanks to the fact that he made four or so albums way back in the day. I own none, but had heard him before, and thus can say he was laugh out loud funny (and also more than a little risque and not at all PC).

Anyhow, as I ready for my trip down to Florida to visit with family, let me recommend this latest Thinking Poker show to you where you can hear some of Andrew’s visit with his grandmother, Sylvia Brokos, and their talk about a highly interesting member of their family.