Not That Johnny Moss

Was on the road not too long ago and found myself in a decent used bookstore in a nearby college town. You know the kind. The whole time you’re wandering around the shelves you overhear the owner behind the register chatting it up with a local about Eldridge Cleaver or the Saratoga campaign or My Favorite Martian or the like.

The store had a decent inventory with what appeared to be mostly fair prices. Made my way through the mystery section and was glad to pick up a cheap, tattered copy of Jim Thompson’s Roughneck. There was a smallish selection of vinyl. No jazz to speak of, but I did find an old Be-Bop Deluxe LP for a couple of bucks. Then I thought I’d see if there might be any poker books laying around.

Usually don’t find much in the way of used poker books in these places. I really didn’t expect to see much more than some blackjack books and maybe a copy of Moneymaker: How an Amateur Poker Player Turned $40 into $2.5 Million at the World Series of Poker. Damned if they didn’t have two whole shelves filled with poker books, neatly organized at that. I spent some time perusing and finally picked up three titles.

One was The Education of a Poker Player by Herbert O. Yardley. In Big Deal, Anthony Holden mentions how his poker buddy, Al Alvarez, encouraged him to read Yardley’s book before heading out for his year as a pro. According to Holden, Alvarez called it “the Bible” of all poker books. Holden himself says that “more than any other, [Yardley’s] is the book that has altered poker players’ lives.” The copy I bought was an original 1957 hardcover. Dunno if it’s worth anything or not. Cost me four bucks.

I also picked up a hardback copy of “Amarillo Slim” Preston’s Play Poker to Win (a first printing as well). Like Yardley’s book, Play Poker to Win appears to be a combination of poker advice and anecdotes. Preston published his book in 1973, a year after having won the World Series of Poker Main Event. A time when Preston was appearing regularly as a guest on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. A time well before more recent events have tarnished his legacy more than a little.

Finally I grabbed the book you see pictured above, How to Win at Poker by John Moss. I had not been aware that poker legend Johnny Moss had written any strategy books. I had glanced inside the front cover and saw the book had been published in 1950 -- one year after the famous marathon poker game between Moss and Nick the Greek Dandalos. The paperback was cheap enough, so I went ahead and threw it in with the other items without further investigation.

Once I got home I opened up How to Win at Poker and read “A Note About the Author” which told me “there is no such person as ‘John Moss.’ This name hides, for obvious reasons, the identity of an astute midwestern poker player.” The note goes on to say that the author “has spent the forty-three years of his life in Detroit, excepting four years in the armed services.” The Johnny Moss was also 43 years old in 1950 (though, of course, he was born in Texas). So who was this “John Moss”?

A quick internet search tells me John Moss is a pseudonym for a man named Jack Potter. I’ve not been able to find anything further about Potter online. It does seem more than just a coincidence that Potter would employ that name as a pseudonym in 1950. While it would still be years before the country came to know who Johnny Moss was, for poker players seeking out advice, such a name might well have rung a bell. And sold a book or two.

How to Win at Poker doesn’t look to be without some value. The book focuses on draw poker, five-card stud, and seven-card stud, and there are also sections of general advice about limit games as well as “poker etiquette” and other matters. But it sure ain’t what I’d thought it might be.

By the way, while I was searching around for “John Moss” and “Jack Potter,” I kept hitting references to two recent movies featuring characters with those names. One was The Hard Way (1991), in which James Woods (a somewhat accomplished poker player in his own right) plays Detective Lt. John Moss, a “hardboiled New York cop” (as the Internet Movie Database describes him). An actor (played by Michael J. Fox) tags along with Moss in order to research a role in an upcoming film. Before long, the actor discovers detective work isn’t quite what he’d thought it might be.

The other film I kept running into is called Camouflage (2000) and stars Leslie Nielsen. This film -- co-scripted by Billy Bob Thornton, it appears -- may well have gone straight-to-video. What is it about? Tell me if this sounds familiar: Nielsen plays a detective named Jack Potter. An actor researching a part ends up tagging along on a case. Before long, the actor discovers the life of a P.I. isn’t what he’d expected . . . . Weird, huh?

The tagline for Camouflage? “Things are not what they appear.” I suppose I might’ve considered that before picking up How to Win at Poker.

Speaking of . . . Online vs. Live

Mentioned before how I’m headed to Vegas next month. The trip has gotten me thinking about differences between online poker (where I’ve played a lot) and live poker (where I’ve played very little). Because my experience is so unbalanced, I’ll refrain from drawing any uninformed conclusions here about differences. Instead I thought I’d compile what others have been saying here recently about online vs. live play.

Mike “the Mouth” Matusow: “Online poker is so fake that its funny”

About a month ago, Matusow was involved in a high stakes NLH session over at Full Tilt and amid a chat box exchange with a player named Msampoerna articulated his oft-mentioned cynicism about online poker. According to Matusow, “online poker is so fake that its funny . . . this is stupid . . . u think cards just role on ioff likehere inlive game.” A few found it strange Matusow might try to advance the “online poker is rigged” argument on the very site he is paid to represent. Indeed, the second part of Matusow’s quote does suggest something along those lines -- as if he really believes there is something sketchy about how the site’s randomizing program deals out the cards.

The first part, though -- where Matusow says “online poker is so fake that its funny” -- doesn’t necessarily refer (only) to the integrity of the software. Here Matusow is more likely speaking of the way people play online as opposed to live poker. As he pointed out in a 2005 CardPlayer interview, with online poker “the speed of the game is so fast” many players “think they have to play every hand.” Thus come horrific beats and other oddities one doesn’t normally see in the casino. “Online players are the worst players in the history of mankind,” Matusow goes on to say. “Guys put in $13,000, $14,000 when they can’t beat anything. Only online do you see that. That can never happen in a live game. I crush the no-limit online.” (Matusow here is presumably referring to the $50/$100 NLH game he mentions earlier in the interview.) Matusow reiterated that boast in his chat with Msampoerna last month: “i play anyone inpoker live poker any stake anytime.”

Barry Greenstein: “I get pretty bored online.”

Greenstein appeared this week on the Pocket Fives podcast, and among other things was asked about differences between online and live play. He mentioned how when he wrote his book, Ace on the River, he hadn’t really played much online, and so relied on conversations with Phil Ivey (who had played a lot online) to write his internet chapter. Now that he’s been signed on to represent PokerStars, he has gotten more online experience.

In the interview, he noted how when he plays online he usually finds himself “playing bridge also or surfing the web, reading news stories, things like that.” He went on to explain: “I don’t get the sensory feedback from playing one or even two games online. It’s not enough for me, because the way I [have] always played poker live, I was always talking to people, looking around the table at what other people were doing. I was reading people, that’s how I spent my time. Now when I play online, I don’t get that same sensory feedback. I get pretty bored online. And the funny thing is, the younger players -- and I’ll use Phil Ivey again as an example -- who’ve played more online than I have, when they come to a live game, they’re so used to playing more hands and multiple games . . . they don’t get the sensory feedback playing live. So it’s like we have opposite problems . . . Phil is more focused online actually than live, and for me it’s just the opposite.”

“Bodog” Ari Engel: “It’s exactly the same game.”

Engel is an online pro who has frequently appeared in the upper reaches of Pocket Fives’ player rankings (today he’s ranked 21st). Recently he’s been playing more live events. After being an early chip leader at the L.A. Poker Classic main event at the Commerce last month, he made a modest cash by finishing in 50th place. During that tournament Engel appeared as a guest on The Circuit where he mentioned that the Commerce event was only his fifth $10K live tournament. (He also talked about having obtained a backer to enter that particular event and, one presumes, subsequent ones as well.)

During the interview, Engel talked a lot about the differences between online and live play, with his choice of words betraying his own background in interesting ways. At one point he characterized having made a mistake in a hand -- he had bet an amount other than what he had intended -- as having “quote-unquote ‘misclicked.’” Ultimately, Engel downplayed the differences: “Rule No. 1 is you have to realize that it’s poker, it’s still the same game . . . I’m talking about [how to advise] a regular online pro wanting to play his first live event. You know, it’s exactly the same game. You cannot approach it differently . . . . There are just minor technicalities that are different.”

Engel’s been thinking further about the issue on his blog lately, with an interesting post this week listing some of his observations from the circuit about live poker. In the post, Engel talks about difficulty estimating stack sizes (something he also discussed on the podcast), the significance of slower blind structures, and bubble play (among other topics). “Above all though,” claims Engel, “tournament strategy does not change between live and online poker.”

* * * * *
Gonna refrain from drawing any conclusions. It is tempting, though, to generalize that while live pros emphasize differences between online and live play, online pros are more likely to stress similarities. Gotta imagine any player’s opinions are largely influenced by his or her relative success playing online and live.

I do know that when I sit down at a table in Vegas next month, there’s little chance I’ll be lacking in “sensory feedback” (as Greenstein says happens to Ivey and other online players). From my past (limited) experience, I’m anticipating the opposite -- sensory overload.

Thoughts on the “Thinking Stage”

Went out for dinner Tuesday at that new restaurant right around the corner. Proprietor a friendly Irish woman who comes around to tell you the specials, occasionally referring to this or that dish as “luvly.” On this night I sat outside enjoying the balmy weather and a tasty filet mignon done medium rare. Probably inspired by the host’s accent, I’d ordered a pint of Guinness, and as I raised the glass a thought crossed my mind I know others have shared here recently . . . “Welcome back, Iggy!”

Lots happening on the poker front these days, including the return of Ignatious J. to his former digs at Guinness and Poker. His site is a great way to track the scuttlebutt -- if you aren’t a regular reader, get over there dammit! I find lately my web crawl usually begins with Iggy and other “breaking news” sites like Pokerati, Dr. Pauly, Bill Rini’s, Kick Ass Poker, and a few more. Then I’ll wind through other places where I can additionally find smart commentaries on the news -- places like Calistri’s Corner, the Poker Shrink, Up for Poker, Mean Gene, Haley’s Bl-AAUGH, et al. Then come the forums and other stops where I can parse through reactions, refutations, and rumors.

That’s when I’m looking for news, mind you. Got my other regular reads as well (see below, right column). Anyone with other recommended sites -- for news or other poker-related fun -- do send ’em on.

Earlier this week, Iggy fired off a brand new workplace-productivity-demolishing uberpost. He also yesterday published one of those occasional short posts -- what should we call it, a Lillipuber? -- relating that report from the Financial Times that Barney Frank, the Democratic congressman from Massachusetts who has spoken out before against the UIGEA, is now “working on legislation to repeal” the UIGEA.

Lots of folks pointing to this article, especially those moments where Frank refers to the law as “preposterous” and one of the “stupidest” ever passed. Many seem to be echoing Iggy’s description of it as representing a “glimmer of hope.” I, too, am generally encouraged by the news. Let us not get too excited, though. Not yet.

I especially like hearing Frank say he’s “looking for ways, maybe we can make some money off of” the internet gambling industry. Being able to present Congress with specific, convincing evidence that the industry (1) can be regulated and (2) will generate revenue via tax dollars is (to my way of thinking) the single most direct route toward achieving any sort of repeal or even alteration of the existing law.

Other strategies might be enticing, but all are less constructive. Dubbing the situation a variety of “Prohibition” only gets us so far. Doing so does provide a touch of pathos to one’s position, but (to me) such a tactic has little practical value. (See “The Frank Approach.”) Likewise do arguments about how the UIGEA encroaches on our civil liberties -- as valid as those arguments are -- appear to hold less potential as a method to instigate real action here. Frank has spoken of the UIGEA in those terms in the past. Last May (on the Pocket Fives podcast), Frank noted how “There isn’t a human activity I’m aware of that some people don’t do in excess. Some people drive their cars too fast. Some people drink too much . . . . If that’s a reason to ban [something], [the United States] would be a very boring place.” He’s right, of course. But no matter how well-reasoned such an approach may be, for many it continues to sound “pro-gambling” rather than “anti-civil liberties.”

The more Frank and others -- including the Poker Players Alliance and its newest lobbyist Al D’Amato -- can clearly communicate the message that there’s serious green to be had, then maybe, just maybe, they might one day find themselves in a position to influence those who could vote down or change this here legislation.

A lot of work has to be done before we even get to that point, however. Frank’s spokesperson is quoted in the article saying how those contemplating legislative action are still in the “thinking stage.” And they probably will remain in that stage for quite some time, I’d imagine.

So we have to sit tight, I think. Lots else to occupy us, anyway. When it comes to poker news, that Financial Times story was just one of several worth attending to this week. Got me so distracted I forgot to fill out my NCAA bracket this morning.

Just as well. I’m not a gambler, really. Probably why I know I’ll be ordering that steak and a Guinness again next time I dine around the corner. Luvly, it is.

Omahallelujah

Mentioned last post how I’d managed to pick up a nice big bunch of cabbage playing pot limit Omaha the other night -- unprecedented in terms of amount won in a single day. By a whole hell of a lot, in fact. Nearly twice my previous biggest day. So kind of a brag post here (fair warning), though primarily I’m wanting to think out loud a bit about why exactly things went so well.

There was a time when I was playing PLO almost exclusively, but it probably has been at least 18 months since that was the case. Never read any Omaha-specific books, but did start out by following one of those point count systems such as the one devised by Edward Hutchison. Had a lot of fun, but didn’t enjoy the swings so much. Somewhere in there I heard an interview with T.J. Cloutier (I think on one of Phil Gordon’s 2005 WSOP podcasts) where he mentioned how the swings in PLO were much greater than in most games. Not long afterwards I found myself spending more time over at the limit hold ’em tables, then all my time there. Until a couple of weeks ago, that is.

In trying to prepare for that AIPS tournament this past weekend, I got into a few PLO sit-n-go’s and did reasonably well. Was playing solid, but had to get lucky to win. I then took a turn at some cash tables, starting out over on Bodog. At one point early last week I found myself at a full ring, fixed limit game of Omaha high ($0.25/$0.50), the kind of animal you just don’t encounter in online poker that often (as far as I can tell). The table held together for well over two hours (138 hands, all told), and I ended up about $33 to the good.

Over the next few days I kept going back looking for another fixed limit game, but none were to be found. So I moved to the more popular pot limit tables ($0.10/$0.25, $25 max. buy-in). I generally only bought in for $10 or $15, mainly just to lessen the effects of any misstep I was likely to make. And I made a few. But I ran fairly well as the week progressed. Looking back at the stats, I pulled just over $18 for the 494 hands of PLO I played during the first part of the week (something like $3.65 per 100 hands). Not bad. But then came Friday night.

Not gonna be exact about final totals, but I will reveal that among the various $0.10/$0.25 PLO tables I played that night there was one instance of me buying in for $10 and walking away a few hours later with over $110. And there were other lucrative stops as well. Can’t say I’ve ever enjoyed a similar win rate at limit hold ’em, not even during my very best sessions. Was it simply a good run of cards? As Cloutier said, this is a high variance game (usually), so I have to attribute some of my success to simple good fortune. But I think there were three other factors that also might have helped make the night a good one.

For one, I was playing very carefully (i.e., well) after the flop. I actually limped into a lot of pots -- at one point I know I was up around 60% -- but was able to let go of hopeless hands without too much trouble. I wasn’t necessarily playing tight, and would usually stick around if I thought a draw might come (and it wouldn’t cost much to get there). But I tended to avoid the unnecessary risks.

That distinguished me, frankly, from a lot of my opponents. Or I should say from the one or two players at each table who seemed willing to push crazily with two pair, a gutshot draw, or worse. I’m tempted to generalize that a fish at a PLO table is much more likely to get felted (and fast) than his equivalent over at the limit hold ’em tables who not only might last a long time, but sometimes will even come away a big winner. PLO fish often seem to play as if the game is no limit hold ’em; they ignore both that the game is “PL” (and one cannot, generally, push people around preflop or even on the flop) and that the game is “O” (and top pair ain’t usually gonna cut it).

I’ll give you a quick example. I’m UTG with $14.50 in chips and am dealt . A nice enough hand, but I’m just limping (being out of position, with neither ace suited). Folds to the button who raises to $0.75. The small blind calls and the big blind folds. I call, of course. Harmless little pot of $2.35, and three of us seeing the flop which comes .

Decent flop for me. I bet $1.20, about half the pot. The button calls me, then the small blind quickly raises pot to $5.75. I put in my remaining $12.55 and he instacalls with -- a bare ace and no draw. The turn and river bring a couple of blanks, and I collect a cool $29.65 (about $15 net) without even trying.

So that’s the second reason -- a nice, steady supply of reckless players (with whom I was able to get involved in big pots fairly regularly).

A third reason why I think I did well simply has to do with the fact that I’m playing a different game -- one with which I have some measure of competence -- and when one plays a game other than one’s usual game, there’s a tendency to increase one’s focus. Not only did I feel pretty aware of what others were up to, I was watching myself more closely as well.

I’m tempted (understandably) to stick with Omaha here for a while. Plan to tread carefully going forward, though, and not presume I’ve stumbled upon some hidden, idiot-savant-type greatness of which I wasn’t previously aware.

‘Cos everybody knows Omaha’s a femme fatale. Builds you up just to bring you down (what a clown).

Vegas Bound

Participated in Event No. 3 of the Ante Up! Intercontinental Poker Series II: Electric Bugaloo yesterday -- Pot Limit Omaha (High). The tourney was a bit of an anticlimax, I’m afraid. In preparation for the event, I’d been playing a lot of PLO (and some fixed limit Omaha) over the last two weeks or so. Won a couple of sit-n-go’s playing against the Ante Up! crowd week before last, then had a decent week at the cash tables. In fact, I may have to write about one particular session I enjoyed Friday night which ended up contributing to my single most-winningest day of online poker ever -- by almost twofold -- a great deal of which involved playing $0.10/$0.25 PLO. (Still trying to come to grips with what exactly happened there, actually.)

As I said, though, the tourney didn’t provide much fodder for your humble self-chronicler. Finished 36th (out of 65), but never really got anything going for the 75 minutes or so I remained alive. I think I won three pots total, all smallish.

So let’s talk about something else. Let’s talk about Vegas, baby!

The Hard-Boiled Poker World Tour will be pulling into Las Vegas in a little over one month. Will only be there for a few days -- from Wednesday, April 18th through Sunday, April 22nd. This isn’t primarily a poker trip, if you can believe that. Rather I’m accompanying the lovely Vera Valmore to the 2007 Rolex FEI World Cup Finals. Vera rides dressage (that’s horse ballet, y’all), and is looking forward to seeing all of the world’s greatest riders coming together for this internationally-recognized event.

Vera plans to attend almost all of the individual events. I’ll be going to one -- the big dressage final on Saturday night. We’ll also likely see a show or two while there, though haven’t planned anything else specific just yet. I will be on my own, though, for those times when Vera is at the earlier jumping and dressage events. Right now there are three things I know I want to do that week . . .

1. Play poker! My live experience is highly limited -- indeed, I’ve only actually played in Vegas one time before. Then I played $2/$4 limit hold ’em and came away a loser, though looking back I think I did well considering my relative inexperience. I recall a lot of limping and chasing going on, typical for the low limit games (as I now know). Usually at least six players saw the flop. One dealer we had would always announce the number of players prior to each street. I recall one hand where every single player at the table had limped in. “Only nine to the flop,” the dealer sarcastically chimed.

This was at the MGM Grand. They rotated the dealers fairly frequently -- some were funny and very competent; others less so. I remember one hand where I held KJ in late position and just limped. The flop came QT9 and someone in early position bet out, another called, and I raised. Both called. The turn was a king, and ultimately all three of us ended up capping it both on the turn and the river. Each of my opponents had a jack in his hand, so the hand ended with a three-way chop (with the casino being the only actual winner thanks to the rake).

What made the hand particularly memorable -- besides the bad luck of flopping a straight, then having to chop -- was how in my inexperience I had committed the sin of reaching for my chips before the action came to me. I probably wouldn’t have even known I was doing it, but THE DEALER POINTED IT OUT TO THE ENTIRE TABLE! I kid you not. I think it was on the turn when the dealer said “he’s already reaching” or something, and suddenly I realized he was talking about me! I was embarrassed (though not overly), but more so miffed that the dealer would say anything at all about such a thing.

Anyhow, I’m looking forward to playing again. Not sure as yet where I’ll play or even at what limits, though being “short-stacked” I’m fairly certain I’ll be sticking to the lower limits again. Not really looking to make the big score or anything -- just want to have some fun and get a little live experience.

2. Visit the Gambler’s Book Shop. Have heard a lot about it, but never been.

3. Check out the Fifth Annual Five Star World Poker Classic at the Bellagio. The main event starts on Saturday the 21st, so I’m imagining there will be a number of pros around during the week. Am going to have to duck in there at some point just to see what I can see.

That’s the plan (for now). I’ll probably be writing again about the trip here before we go, and most certainly will deliver a report (or two or three) after we get back. And anyone with any advice or suggestions, send ’em on! (Can you tell I’m excited?)

Why Kreidler Wrote It (and Why We Should Care)

Did Mark Kreidler step into it or what?

Kreidler’s ESPN.com column, “D’Amato shows poker face,” has generated a lot of response since it was posted Tuesday afternoon. The column is itself a response (sort of) to an article in Monday’s New York Times reporting former senator Alphonse D’Amato had been tapped as the new Chairman of the Board -- and primary political lobbyist -- for the Poker Players Alliance. Later on Tuesday, Mean Gene wrote a smart analysis identifying several of the articles logical fallacies, as well as shaming Kreidler for a cavalier attitude toward research. Daniel Negreanu also weighed in with a careful rebuttal before the day was through. There has also been a mostly reasonable Two Plus Two thread on the article, and by this morning one can read close to 100 comments on the ESPN site. None of those comments is favorable, and many demonstrate more thoughtfulness than the article itself.

Kreidler’s column is indeed a feat of rhetorical inelegance. (Do check it out, if you haven’t already.) The most baffling question, of course, is why, exactly, Kreidler and ESPN thought it needful to publish such an editorial, particularly since ESPN has such a clear investment in the growth of poker’s popularity in America.

Can’t say I’m completely sure what ESPN was thinking. But I do have an idea about where Kreidler might be coming from.

When I first read the article, my initial response was to think that Kreidler saw an opportunity here to take a shot at D’Amato -- an easy target, frankly. I suspected that in the course of his career as a journalist, Kreidler might well have had occasion in the past to write about D’Amato in a critical way, and that here he saw an opportunity to revisit a former theme. Not really heeding how incongruous it might appear to bash poker on the ESPN website (in the “ESPN Poker Cub” section, no less), Kreidler let himself get carried away while trying to discredit D’Amato.

I thought about that, though, and decided that probably wasn’t it. Kreidler writes about sports, not politics. He’s also located on the west coast, and so probably hasn’t had much occasion to opine in print about the former New York senator. In fact, I now think he essentially borrowed the cynical view of D’Amato from the authors of the original New York Times article, which itself appears at several moments to be looking for ways to criticize the sometimes brash politician.

There must be something else going on here, I reasoned. I read Haley Hintze’s interesting theory that the decision to run Kreidler’s editorial might betray ESPN’s own views regarding online poker and its effect on the popularity of ESPN’s poker programming. Hintze suggests that one reason why ratings are down for ESPN’s poker telecasts is the preponderance of other poker shows on TV -- most of which are sponsored by online sites. Fewer online sites mean fewer shows to compete with ESPN’s loop of WSOP and WSOP Circuit events. Thus might ESPN benefit, albeit indirectly, from online poker’s demise.

This could well be part of the mix, here. But while that idea might help explain why ESPN’s editorial staff allowed the article, we’re still left with the question of Kreidler’s motivation. Why did Mark Kreidler write “D’Amato shows poker face”?

I’ll tell you why. Kreidler is a sportswriter, and he doesn’t like it very much when people talk about poker being a sport.

Early in the article, Kreidler mocks D’Amato for “hailing poker as perhaps America’s favorite sport.” Here he refers to the moment in the New York Times article when D’Amato indeed refers to poker as a sport: “‘It’s really a great sport,’ Mr. D’Amato said, perhaps the country’s favorite sport. ‘You don’t have 70 million people participating in baseball.’”

I’m going to venture to guess that this was the passage that most directly inspired Kreidler’s otherwise unfocused screed. Sarcastic references to poker as “his sport” follow, as do dismissive terms for poker players (“hold ’em junkies”). The most telling moment comes later in the article when Kreidler addresses the PPA’s argument that poker should be distinguished from other forms of gambling that are strictly games of chance. “As they [the PPA and its supporters] see it, poker is a game of skill and chance, which therefore entitles Al to call it a sport, which blah blah blah -- you can see where this is going.”

Kreidler’s “blah blah blah” confirms his impatience with those who want to rate poker alongside other competitive games like basketball or hockey. It could be that Kreidler is less than thrilled that ESPN appears to treat poker a sport. The network covers WSOP tournaments as though they were sporting events, and the website lists poker as an “additional sport” right there next to boxing and horse racing. He probably also doesn’t care much for the way poker columns have begun to occupy precious column inches in newspaper’s sports sections (e.g., those by McManus, Rosenbloom, Negreanu, etc.). Perhaps not quite ready or willing simply to write a column about why poker is not a sport, Kreidler instead communicated his stance via this awkwardly-posed commentary on D’Amato’s appointment.

So that’s why I think Kreidler wrote the piece. So what, right? Is there anything constructive we might take from the mainstream media allowing poker a brief (if not-so-welcome) cameo? I can see at least a couple of useful lessons here.

For one, let us note how Kreidler responds to the argument that the UIGEA is analogous to Prohibition. He calls the comparison “comically misguided” and jokes in a particularly uninformed way about the “unintended consquences” of prohibiting players from playing online poker. Two weeks ago I wrote a post (“The Frank Approach”) pointing out how the Prohibition argument is probably not going to convince a lot of people. I think Kreidler’s contemptuous response to it here clearly demonstrates its limitations. The lesson? Tread carefully when pushing the Prohibition argument, as those whom you are trying to convince are the least likely to see the comparison as meaningful.

The other lesson is aptly summarized in one of the comments to Kreidler’s article. After several dozen criticisms had been posted, a writer named “teag99” had this to say: “Readers and responders beware! It’s fine to call this article misinformed trash, but don’t fall into the common trap of chasing the fish from the table. We need people like Kreidler to continue jabbering so that we can better understand what we’re up against.” The writer correctly notes how people like Kreidler with little interest in poker tend to “take a simpleton’s view of the issue because they don’t have time to care.” The lesson? “KNOW YOUR ENEMY!”

I agree that it is helpful for us to “understand what we’re up against” and that Kreidler’s article does help us in this regard. The situation is, in fact, very much like facing a particularly untutored player -- a “fish” -- and having to adjust one’s style once you’ve figured out how your opponent is likely going to respond to your actions. You keep betting, representing a made hand when you’re only on a draw, but you see players like Kreidler just keep on calling you with their bottom pair. He doesn’t care what you’re representing. What’s that about Prohibition and civil liberties? He cares more about spring training and March madness . . . .

If we don’t adjust, in other words, their trash hands are going to win.

"Hey Cincinnati": Catching Up With Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio

When somebody finally gets around to creating an entry for “Poker Podcasts” over on Wikipedia, Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio will no doubt rate mention as the first long-running podcast devoted to poker. In all, the Admirals produced 84 full episodes (plus a few “golden nuggets” here and there), giving us a new show on an almost weekly basis from November 2004 to August 2006.

Card Club started as a means to chronicle the activities of the Admirals’ poker club (located in Toronto), but soon evolved into a larger virtual “card club” that included listeners, bloggers, reporters, and even a couple of pros. Dr. Pauly (Tao of Poker, Poker News) called in reports to the show during the 2005 WSOP. Poker pro and author Bob Ciaffone once appeared as a guest. And Card Club was the first home of Columbo’s terrific One Minute Mysteries (now relocated to Ante Up!). I wrote a post last September shortly after they signed off -- check it out for more about the show.

Found myself wondering how the Admirals had been doing now that six months had passed since the last show. I figured others might be interested, too, so I sent co-host “Cincinnati” Sean an email asking if he’d give us all an update. He agreed, so I sent Sean a few questions . . .

* * * * *
Short-Stacked Shamus: Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio signed off last August. What have you, Stacks, and the rest of the Lord Admirals been up to since then?

Cincinnati Sean: It doesn’t seem that long since we were doing the show but I suppose lots has happened. Stacks has been to Vegas twice (including a bachelor party) and still hasn’t won big. Headhunter Mark went Scuba diving in the far east and made an effort to go to Macau (the Las Vegas of the east). Our club WPT-generation-punk, Jimmy Q, was also in Vegas and managed a killing in the no limit tables. (He won so much he was taking limos out to buy tonic for his booze.) Mostly, though, we are trying to keep our regular games going. With Scott the Voice, Evan the Terrible, Greg the Professor, Al Dante, and Mrs. Cincinnati and I all becoming first-time parents in the last two years, our priorities have temporarily turned to understanding who the Wiggles are and why everyone can suddenly see Snuffy.

SSS: When Card Club first started out in late 2004, the landscape of poker podcasting was relatively unpopulated. Today there are a number of regularly-produced podcasts, including an entire Internet radio network devoted to poker (Hold 'em Radio). Do you follow any of the current poker podcasts? If so, which ones do you like, and why?

CS: I am on a poker hiatus -- which I have done every few years since I first read Brunson in 1995. I don’t enjoy the game unless I can constantly study and reread. I am just not talented enough to focus on only playing and win consistently. As a result of this hiatus, I have temporarily stopped reading blogs and listening to podcasts. My subway time (usually my podcast time) is right now being spent watching American Civil War lectures on my phone. I kid you not.

SSS: What advice would you give to someone contemplating starting his or her own podcast?

CS: You have to know why you are doing it and set your goals accordingly. You can’t have a podcast that offers advice if you are a losing player. Understand your goals and work towards them every show. We defined success as being able to do a (mostly) weekly show about what we were talking about day to day. The plan was to share it with anyone who wanted to participate in the discussion. We thought we’d get 5 listeners each week and we were OK with that. We knew we exceeded our expectations when we my ISP started shutting down my network traffic.

Success criteria for podcasts are no different than blogs, hobbies, or poker itself. Understand what you want to get out of it before you start. Set your goals and then you have a direction to work from every week.

SSS: If Card Club had not gone off the air last August and you had still been producing shows these last six months, what might you and Stacks be saying about the passage of the UIGEA and its aftermath?

CS: Being Canadian we’d recognize we are out of our turf. None of us are affiliates and all of our accounts are still open and available for playing. Apart from taking a few more minutes for a SnG and fewer tables to choose from, the impact to us is negligible. It is a shame the country that gave this great game to the world is not letting its citizens play.

SSS: Do you still play online?

CS: In theory, yes. In practice, no. My accounts are still there and I plan to play, but until I get more free time I am spending what free time I have on other things. Baseball season is starting and I am excited about that. Dr. Pauly and I have been known to exchange barbs during the season so I expect that will continue.

This makes the prospect of the planned spring special podcast an interesting one. The other guys will have to do most of the talking (not hard for Stacks).

SSS: Card Club frequently brought attention to poker blogs -- both to particular blogs & to the significance of poker blogging, generally speaking. Are you still following any blogs? What role do you see poker blogs playing here in the currently litigious landscape of poker?

CS: This question is for someone way smarter than I am. My poker blog reading is on hiatus -- although I have been known to check in on the Lord Admiral Canon once in a while (the Poker Prof., Iggy, Pauly, Columbo, Gracie, etc). I think the future of poker blogging has the most potential of all sport/game blogging. I say that because Poker still has a lot of dark secrets and blogs are the only way to know what is really going on.

SSS: Any new poker books on your shelf?

CS: I have a bunch I need to get to. Friends and family know I collect poker books (of any quality) so they have an easy idea if they are getting me a gift. I still haven’t been through Miller's No Limit (shame -- my first read when I dive back in). I have Annie Duke’s sitting waiting for a read and a few others. I reread poker books more than any other and I am due to go through all of my collection when I dust off in a year or so.

SSS: Looking back, how would you characterize the experience of producing a poker podcast on a nearly weekly basis for over a year-and-a-half?

CS: It was a hoot. We had no broad/podcast experience (despite Brent’s role as a network exec he was no help), no poker credibility, and no reason anyone should listen. Throughout the 20 months or so we grew with our listeners. Listeners sent feedback on things from sound quality to hand critiques. They started blogs and talked about the show. It was like we were all learning and experimenting together. If I discovered podcasting today and saw what was out there I might not have had the courage to even try to get one off the ground (which would be a mistake -- everyone who wants to should try). Luckily we were one of the first thousand or so podcasts in the history of the medium and so we didn’t know better. Podcasting exploded around us and so we rode the wave.

The key for us was having one of the “legitimate” blogs become a fan early. The Poker Prof. at www.lasvegasvegas.com sent me a message and we talked on the phone for an hour. Next thing I knew he was pimping us on his site and more and more people were giving us a shot.

Oh yeah, and our wives didn’t leave us for playing radio for an hour or two every week. That helped.

SSS: Does the Cincinnati kid know how to calculate pot odds yet?

CS: The over/under on his age when he first finishes higher than me in a SnG is 6 years and 5 months. Take the under.

* * * * *
Big thanks to Sean for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully to these questions. I know we’re all glad to hear the Admirals and their families are doing well. We’ll all be keeping an eye out for that special spring show (over on the Card Club website or via the RSS feed, both of which remain up).

A Godot Hand; or, What Are You Waiting For?

VLADIMIR: Well? Shall we go?
ESTRAGON: Yes, let's go.
They do not move.
-- Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot (1952)

Got a hand to share with you. Am calling it a “Godot hand.” You’re gonna have to wait for the explanation. Trust me, it’s coming.

I see three “what would you do” moments in this one. I’ll narrate in the second person so as to invite you to play along . . . .

Question No. 1: We’re six-handed ($1.00/$2.00 limit) and you are dealt in the big blind. UTG calls, the cutoff raises, and both the button and the SB call the two bets. What do you do?

The authors of Small Stakes Hold ’em don’t specifically recommend calling a raise from the big blind with 43-suited, even with four other players in the pot (as is the case here). The worst suited connector Miller/Sklansky/Malmuth recommend playing here would be 54.

In his CardPlayer columns on “Defending the Blinds” (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, and Part VI), Barry Tanenbaum says his “cardinal rule” when choosing whether to defend against a preflop raiser is the “better the player who raised, the fewer hands you should play.” As is often the case online, I was up against a player with whom I’d never played prior to this session. We had played exactly 12 hands so far, and he had managed to lose $16 already -- not necessarily an indicator that he’s a bad player, but notable nonetheless. In fact, he’d only willingly put money into the pot on three of those hands. This was also the first time he’d raised preflop.

So we don’t really know enough about the preflop raiser to apply Tanenbaum’s cardinal rule here. Scanning through the six columns, I’m not seeing Tanenbaum anywhere saying anything that sounds like he recommends playing 43-suited out of the blinds against a raise. Neither does Jennifer Harman in her limit chapter in Super System 2. Indeed, in her excellent (though brief) discussion of short-handed play, she makes a point of saying how small suited connectors aren’t worth as much in the short-handed situation, generally speaking.

As you probably guessed, I called. (Else there wouldn’t be anymore questions, right?) The UTG called as well. I don’t always call in this situation, but the table was weak-passive, I was (likely) getting 9-to-1, and I knew if I did flop a draw I’d be proceeding with caution. You could say I talked myself into it, letting my own voice drown out those of the experts.

Question No. 2: Flop comes . The small blind checks. What do you do?

Here Harman comes in handy again: “Playing marginal flush draws is . . . difficult when you are out of position. Let’s get straight to an example: You are in the big blind with 8-9 of hearts in a raised multiway pot. The flop comes . In this situation you should probably just check to the original raiser,” since (as she goes on to say) the raiser is likely to repop it here to knock out other players. “Don’t help him,” says Harman. “Help yourself by keeping them in!”

I checked, of course. The preflop raiser made a continuation bet, the button folded, and the small blind called. No question what to do here -- I called as well. UTG called, too. Four players remain, and the pot is now $14. The turn was the . The small blind checked. Again, not much question about checking here, which I did. And so did everyone else.

Question No. 3: The river is the . You’ve made your baby flush. The small blind checks. What do you do? Remember, no one bet the turn. One would think the player with a jack in his or her hand would have bet there to make those drawing to either a straight or flush play to see the river. Is your flush good?

What did I do? I decided to check, planning to call one bet if necessary. I feared a bigger flush. I also thought pocket queens might be lurking. UTG bet out, the preflop raiser folded, and the small blind called. I called, making the final pot $20 (before the rake).

UTG did have that jack -- and a queen, too, giving him the hand with a full house. The small blind mucked , a distant third.

None of us who made it to the showdown played our hands error-free, I think. Afterwards, my first response was to pat myself on the back for having only lost $5 on the hand. Then, once I’d thought about it, I started to see why the experts don’t advise playing 43-suited out of the blinds like this, even in a multiway pot.

My only hope, really, to combat my positional disadvantage with a hand like that is to flop trips (about 73-to-1 against), a straight (about 100-to-1 against), or a full house (over 1000-to-1 against). If I flop a flush draw, I can’t really fight for my hand adequately. Even flopping a flush is dicey thanks to my poor position. The only other good flop for me would be an open-ended straight draw -- about 15-to-1 against, there -- but even in that case I’m probably going to have to call multiple bets to get there. (These odds, by the way, were gathered from Table XXI in the original Super System.)

I’ve dubbed this a “Godot Hand” because the preflop call essentially puts me in the same position as Vladimir and Estragon -- waiting for something that ain’t likely to come. Same would go for any hand where one calls preflop in the hopes of flopping trips or pairing both your hole cards (the latter being a 50-to-1 long shot). The hand also reminds me of the famous last lines of the play (quoted above). When the flush draw flops (the most likely good flop for me with 43-suited, really -- about 8-to-1), I’m encouraged to “go” with the hand. But I cannot act.

The lesson, then? Avoid playing Godot hands. Unless, of course, absurdist nightmares are your thing.

The Biggest Game in Town: The Players

Was checking Tim Lavalli’s blog today and saw his grim forecast for the future of poker writing. Lavalli (the “Poker Shrink”) has just finished covering the L.A. Poker Classic for Poker News (with Dr. Pauly, Amy Calistri, Change100, et al.). Lavalli says he’s hearing a lot of his peers describe this summer’s WSOP as being a kind of last hurrah for poker writers. Thanks to the UIGEA, says Lavalli, “the government has made it impossible to earn a living writing about poker.”

He expects the “quantity and quality” of coverage of events like the WSOP to decline considerably once the last hand of the Main Event is dealt in mid-July. Lavalli particularly laments the imminent demise of “what was finally becoming a professional class of journalists covering poker from multiple and critical points of view.”

Phil Graham, who published and co-owned The Washington Post from 1948 to 1963, once memorably described the reporter’s job as writing “a first rough draft of history that will never really be completed about a world we can never really understand.” If Lavalli is correct and we begin to have fewer and fewer writers covering poker, a lot will be left out of that “first rough draft of history,” thus making it even more difficult for future generations to come to some understanding about what happened.

Speaking of poker history (and the WSOP), I have been meaning for a while to share this here list of poker players who appear in Al Alvarez’s The Biggest Game in Town. Alvarez’s lyrical study of Vegas and poker is organized around an account of the 1981 WSOP, the one which saw Stu Ungar win his second straight Main Event title. The Biggest Game in Town is revered by many as the gold standard of poker writing -- indeed, every one of those writers to whom Lavalli refers has been influenced and/or inspired in some fashion by Alvarez.

This list compiles all of the professional poker players mentioned by name in the book. (At least all of the ones I caught.) The list doesn’t include other figures mentioned or discussed by Alvarez, such as Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, Mario Puzo, Jimmy Chagra, John and Edna Luckman (the original proprietors of the Gambler’s Book Shop), and the like. Names marked with an asterisk receive more attention from Alvarez than do the others. The links take you to various places on the web -- player bios, personal websites, articles, interviews, even some discussions of famous hands. If you’re interested in someone, click on through and see where it takes you.

But if you haven’t read The Biggest Game in Town, don’t waste too much time. Go get yourself a copy and read it already.

Addington, Crandall*
Alto, Jesse*
Appleman, Mickey*
Baldwin, Bobby
Binion, Benny*
Boyd, Bill
Brunson, Doyle*
Butts, Milton
Carey, Betty*
Caro, Mike
Clayton, Ricky
Dandalos, Nick “the Greek”*
Drache, Eric*
Dunwoody, Charlie
Fisher, Gene*
Freer, Barbara
Furrh, Don
Green, Perry*
Hawthorne, Joey
Heimowitz, Jay*
Jacobson, Milo “Slew”
Kaplan, Gabe*
Leibowitz, Seymour
Moon, Sam
Moore, Andy
Moss, Johnny*
Myers, A.J.*
Pearson, Puggy*
Perry, Mickey
Petrillo, Chicago Sam
Preston, Amarillo “Slim”*
Reese, Chip*
Roberts, Sailor
Salinas, Tony
Skinner, Curtis “Iron Man”
Sklansky, David*
Smith, Bill*
Smith, Ken*
Straus, Jack*
Ungar, Stu*
Whited, Junior
Wolford, Byron “Cowboy”

Focus on Ethics

Something about poker inherently invites discussions of ethics. Probably has to do with how poker forces us to interact with each other in ways most of us wouldn’t willingly choose. Here we are encouraged -- hell, required -- to lie and dissemble, all according to a complicated, not always fully understood set of guidelines ensuring we cheat each other honestly.

Reading through the blogs and forums and listening to the week’s poker podcasts again affirmed this obsession with acting correctly. Week started off with news that Jamie Gold had “apologized” for certain actions during the 2006 WSOP Main Event in a New York Times article by Steve Friess. The article -- with its semi-sensational headline “Tournament Winner Says He Was Wrong” -- quotes Gold expressing “regrets” over two particular incidents. One concerned his having flashed a card during a hand at the final table. The other involved Gold “basically [having] told a friend of [his] what [he] had” during a hand because Gold did not want his friend to bust out the tournament. (The entire interview was included in Steve Friess’s podcast this week, called The Strip.)

Even though Friess calls these “previously undisclosed antics,” anyone who followed the Main Event is already familiar with both incidents. The card flashing occurred during Hand No. 218 of the final table (a hand I discussed here back in September). This was the hand where Gold, holding J3, successfully persuaded Michael Binger to fold his T9 on a board of 9Q4A8. At one point in the hand, Gold flashes the jack, perhaps encouraging Binger to speculate that he had made a straight. The other hand was the infamous “top-top” hand which saw Gold eliminate Lee Kort from the Main Event. In that hand Gold held , while Kort had . The board came and Kort went all in. Gold then tells Kort very clearly that he has “top-top” (meaning top pair, top kicker), and Kort -- perhaps misunderstanding Gold -- replies “Me, too.” Gold calls, then expresses dismay that Kort appeared not to have understood him. The flush didn’t come, and Kort was out in 22nd place.

Can’t say I’m all that bothered by either of these “antics,” frankly. Gold did technically violate Section VI, Rule No. 34 of the WSOP 2006 Rules stating “A player who exposes his or her cards during the play may incur a penalty, but will not have his or her hand killed,” although officials either did not see the infraction or did and chose not to penalize Gold. (That word “may” does seem to imply the rule allows officials some leeway here.) He also violated Section VI, Rule 36: “Verbally disclosing the contents of your hand or advising a player how to play a hand may result in a penalty, in Harrah’s discretion.” Again, though, note how officials need not enforce the rule, if they choose not to.

This week also saw ongoing debates about 2006 WSOP Main Event runner-up Paul Wasicka’s article for Bluff Magazine exalting the value of so-called “joint sessions” while playing online. “A joint session is simple,” Wasicka explains. “You sit at the same computer with a friend and make the decisions together, splitting profits and losses.” The article provoked a number of responses across the blogosphere, including a thoughtful sequence of comments to a post over on Pokerati.

Interestingly, both the new PokerWire podcast and The Circuit touched on the “joint session” issue -- though in different ways -- during their L.A. Poker Classic shows this week. On the 2/27 episode of PokerWire (with Tex Barch and Chris Bell), Scott Huff shared an anecdote about how he once played a lengthy, up-and-down online session using Gavin Smith’s account while Smith intermittently “coached” him. On the 2/26 episode of The Circuit (with Theo Tran), the hosts spent about 12 minutes engaged in a rambling debate inspired by a phone call asking about the Wasicka article. The group managed at least to identify the different sides of the issue, though ultimately the debate played like one of those endless ’70s arena rock show drum solos that goes on just long enough to make you rethink your decision to have bought the concert ticket.

Are “joint sessions” allowed? PokerStars’ “Online Poker Site Terms of Service” states that the “User . . . is solely responsible for all use of the PokerStars Software through his/her Player ID and Password,” but doesn’t explictly forbid players from allowing others to use their accounts. The terms go on to state that “unauthorized use of the Player ID or Password shall be the sole responsibility of the User and be deemed as his/her use.” It is not forbidden, then, for someone else to use your account, but you’re liable. (Of course, these “Site Terms” don’t address the situation represented by Smith calling out instructions to Huff.) Over at Full Tilt “unethical play may result in the suspension or termination of the offender's account,” but their “Site Rules” also don’t appear to discuss sharing an ID or so-called “joint sessions.” Similarly does Absolute Poker forbid collusion without particular reference to the issue raised by Wasicka.

Here, too, I’m ambivalent. If Gavin Smith wants to let Scott Huff play under his name, so be it. And if Smith occasionally instructs Huff when to check-raise, that doesn’t seem to violate any specific rule here either. If ethics are “a system of moral principles” or “rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group [or] culture,” the “joint session” doesn’t appear to violate the rules recognized by the poker sites (and thus, implicitly, by all who play on them).

Nor, really, do any of Gold’s “antics” necessarily represent “ethical” violations if Harrah’s chooses not to penalize him. The “tournament winner says he was wrong,” but that doesn’t mean the “group or culture” to which he belongs -- the WSOP participants and officials -- agrees that he was wrong.

I think both stories have more to do with etiquette than ethics -- that more loosely-defined set of conventions that tend to govern our behavior, more or less. Flashing cards, advising opponents, “joint sessions” . . . they’re all probably examples of bad form, but unless the group decides to regulate against such behaviors, it doesn’t make sense (to me) to describe these issues as “ethical.”