2007 WSOP, Day 7: Part Two -- On WSOP Coverage

Apparently CardPlayer heard Tony G and decided to comply with guidelines set forth by WSOP and Harrah’s regarding media reporting from the series. If you go over to the CardPlayer site, you’ll see a dramatic difference in their reporting of chip counts -- now, instead of ripping off the entire list painstakingly compiled by PokerNews reporters, they are only showing the top ten. Meanwhile the comprehensive, up-to-the-minute lists appear on the PokerNews site, and on the Bluff Magazine and official World Series of Poker sites’ (who have paid for the rights to use the information).

CardPlayer’s Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V approach to covering the first four days of this year’s series demonstrated some serious nerve, given that unseemly video exposé from February in which they accused Bluff Magazine of doing precisely the same thing -- an accusation the grounds for which were as shaky as the camera with which it was filmed. In his statement regarding the incident and CardPlayer’s report, CardPlayer CEO Barry Shulman insisted that while sharing of information among reporters does occur, “using one team’s updates as the primary source of one's own reporting is not common, nor should it be tolerated.” Although the evidence has now been largely removed, that’s precisely what CardPlayer did for Days 1-4 of the WSOP.

Some want to say Harrah’s makes a mistake when it sells the rights to cover the WSOP to an “exclusive content provider.” (A few months back, I myself described the situation as “lamentable” though understandable.) On the May 27th episode of Rounders, co-host Adam Schwartz took a moment to represent that position, making the usual arguments:

You look at a guy like Jeffrey Pollack. He came over from NASCAR and he wants to [put] poker and the World Series specifically in that league. Well, if you are going to sell the rights to reporting on an event to an institution that has its own agenda . . . when you sell the actual news part of it to, like, CardPlayer or Bluff, now they have their own agenda. Remember, these . . . magazines are paid by sponsors, and those sponsors want to see their players.

So last year, if you weren’t a Full Tilt Poker player . . . [for example,] if John Juanda was 150th in an event, he was listed. He was in there. But you didn’t see a lot of the other players. And this is the problem . . . the World Series isn’t taking themselves seriously like an NHL, a NASCAR, or an NFL. Those institutions all allow everybody to come in -- well, not everybody -- but there is a limited number of press passes that they give out to newspapers, radio stations, [and] television stations that can come and report on it. Well, at the World Series when it gets down to eight tables, only one [group of] people -- and the sponsor this year is Bluff -- they are allowed to have their people in there and they’re going to report on the players that they want to report on, and it’s sort of unfortnate that [they]’re trying to take themselves seriously but [they] do that.

As Schwartz and his co-host Mike Johnson went on to acknowledge -- and as the PokerNews reporters on the floor at the Rio can attest to more forcefully than can I -- there is limited space available to cover tournaments. So allowing every media publication who desired access would necessarily lessen the quality of the information being reported. Furthermore, these aren’t the NBA playoffs, with scoreboards and players’ names on the back of their jerseys. Until the poker world completely gives itself over to technology -- going beyond the lipstick hole card cameras to electronic “chips in chips” and the like -- there will always be that issue. So analogies with other professional sports (perhaps encouraged by Pollack’s NASCAR background) don’t really hold here.

Schwartz’s other point -- about the potential for bias in the coverage -- is more persuasive, although my sense is his fears about this year’s coverage haven’t necessarily been warranted. He’s right about CardPlayer’s “full tilting” of its coverage last year, giving the members of Team Full Tilt Poker more play than others. And while a lack of objectivity is most certainly possible when it comes to Bluff this year, to their credit they have contracted the live reporting to an independent news organization, PokerNews.

PokerNews’ reporters are attempting to identify and report on as many players as they can, regardless of those players’ affiliations or lack thereof. Says Amy Calistri (one of PokerNews lead reporters), “our goal is to know each and every player -- especially as the fields narrow down to 300 players -- these events always attract many new and relatively unknown players.” She admits the system isn’t foolproof, but speaks of how the PokerNews team is “committed to take all criticism and suggestions constructively -- no matter how they are worded or delivered. Feedback (positive and negative) is a tool that we will use to improve the quality of ‘our product.’”

And, as far as I have been able to tell, when it comes to the live reports and chip counts, Bluff and the WSOP site are simply relaying everything PokerNews is providing them, without inordinately highlighting certain players (as CardPlayer did last year). Not to say that Bluff has no agenda whatsoever, but my sense is they are doing well thus far to avoid the more egregious mistakes of others here.

The next post (last of the day) -- On CardPlayer’s Mysteriously Changing Headlines.

2007 WSOP, Day 7: Part One -- On the Legislative Front

After a week of late nights sweating all the events, my body clock has finally gotten acclimated to the new schedule, I think. As much as its gonna, anyhow. Meanwhile, the series marches on. Seven bracelets have been awarded already, and players will be competing in five different events today. As I’ve said before, go see Pauly, Mean Gene, Amy (and Amy), Change100, and the Poker Shrink -- all of whom are there reporting on the action, and reflecting afterwards on their blogs.

Gonna do something unprecedented for Hard-Boiled Poker today -- multiple posts. There’s a lot else going on away from the tables, and I had a few observations to share regarding some of them. Thought I’d split them up into different posts, and you can read whatever interests you.

First, I did want to acknowledge all of the scurrying around this week on the legislative front, although to be honest I don’t see much coming of any of it. The three big stories this week:

(1) An independent group has sued Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in an attempt to block enforcement of the UIGEA. Not sure where that lawsuit might go, but if the injunction were granted it would temporarily halt enforcement of the law. Seems sketchy at present, though.

(2) Today in the House, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) is to introduce another bill seeking to exempt so-called “skill” games like poker or bridge from the UIGEA. Wexler’s bill is distinct from Rep. Barney Frank’s IGREA and Rep. Shelley Berkeley’s bill requesting a study of online gambling in the U.S. When asked about Wexler’s bill on Hold ’em Radio last month, Frank called Wexler “a good guy and a good friend,” but insisted that when it came to trying to carve out poker or other games from the current legislation, “I don’t think that’s a good idea.”

(3) Frank’s bill -- a more comprehensive attempt to regulate all online gambling without making distinctions between “chance” and “skill” -- gets a hearing on Friday. Specifically, the House and Financial Services Committee (chaired by Frank) will be hearing witnesses testify in response to the question “Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payment System?” The purpose here is try to persuade the many members of Frank’s committee (and anyone else who matters) to come board the IGREA express. Or mini-bike.

Can’t see any of these events this week individually having much of an impact on the current state of online poker in the U.S. However, taken together, we might be witnessing the early stages of some momentum-gathering that might well result in some change (positive or otherwise) down the road.

The next post -- On WSOP Coverage.

2007 WSOP, Day 6: Oops! I Won a Bracelet

How’s this for a sweet moment in a professional poker player’s life?

You pick up degrees in finance and accounting, become a CPA, and have what turns out to be a successful and varied career in business. Finally about five years ago you reach a stage in your life where you decide to take a shot at being a poker pro. You excel in the cash games, and have some early tourney triumphs, cashing a couple of times in the 2002 WSOP and making a final table. You cash again in an event during the 2003 series. You’re also enjoying some success in the higher-stakes cash games. This poker thing is working out.

You decide to write a book about your life in business and poker, then start doing a weekly poker podcast with a couple of buds. In the spring of 2006, you make a WPT final table and finish third, netting a cool quarter mil. By the time the 2007 WSOP arrives, you’ve had 10 cashes in major events, all of which were no-limit or limit hold ’em tourneys.

The week before the series, a listener to your podcast calls in and asks what your plans are for the series. You reply, “I plan on playing in as many events as I possibly can. I will not be playing any stud events [or] stud high-low. I will be playing in the razz -- razz is the only stud event that I will be playing in. And I’ll be playing in every pot limit Omaha, and every deuce-to-seven no limit, and triple draw deuce-to-seven, and a lot of no-limit Hold ’em and limit Hold ’em events . . . I plan on playing in . . . the smaller H.O.R.S.E. events as well, and my goal is to make it in the money as many times as I possibly can this year.”

You make a decent run in Event No. 3 (the $1,500 pot limit Hold ’em event), but bust out on Sunday and find yourself without a tourney until tomorrow’s pot limit Omaha w/rebuys. So, despite your intentions to avoid the stud high-low games, you decide to jump into Event No. 5, the $2,500 Omaha high-low/stud high-low event. A lot of big names among other 326 who register with you, including Josh Arieh, Chris Bell, David Benyamine, Andy Bloch, Chad Brown, Doyle Brunson, Todd Brunson, Johnny Chan, Bill Chen, Allen Cunningham, Annie Duke, Chris Ferguson, Ted Forrest, Barry Greenstein, Jennifer Harman, Phil Ivey, John Juanda, Toto Leonidas, Erick Lindgren, Mike Matusow, Michael Mizrachi, Men Nguyen, Daniel Negreanu, Scotty Nguyen, John Phan, Greg Raymer, Huck Seed, David Sklansky, Amir Vahedi, and Cyndy Violette. Among dozens of other toughies. And ESPN is scheduled to cover the final table.

Why not, right? It’ll be a challenge. Kind of a freeroll, really. No expectations. If you bust out early, you’ve got that PLO event tomorrow . . . .

You make it through Day 1 in good shape. Real good shape, as a matter of fact. You are chip leader. So much for that PLO event. Next day goes pretty well, too. The tourney plays down to the final table, and you are still on top. By a hell of lot, actually, with your 526,000-chip stack more than twice what second place has.

You get to the final table. There’s Ferguson, Duke, Benyamine, Bell, and Phan. But you’ve got chips. You maintain your lead as players hit the rail. Eventually you make it to heads-up with a tough player named Ed Tonnellier. You start heads-up with about a 5-to-3 chip advantage. Things continue to go your way. Suddenly you get Tonnellier in a tough spot where he can’t make a hand, and a huge pot is pushed your way. He’s still got chips, but how much?

Three thousand. Meanwhile, your mountain of a stack is around 1,664,000. Kind of thing probably wouldn’t happen in a no-limit tourney, where he’d have likely been able to get those last chips in. A quick calculation . . . you have about a 550-to-1 chip advantage.

That’s the sweet moment I was talking about.

It’s about to happen.

You’re about to take your first WSOP bracelet.

And . . . after a stretching the moment out a few more minutes . . . you do.

So, how does it feel?



Score one for the good guys.

Go check out PokerNews’ live reporting from the WSOP for the latest.

2007 WSOP, Day 5: Go Donkey Bomber!

Had mentioned at the start of the first of these WSOP posts how I’d be sharing these little reflections “in addition to the usual fodder.” In other words, I had thought I might keep posting the usual “on the street” reports and so forth while also yammering on about the series. Has become clear to me that these here reflections are gonna be the fodder for awhile, as I haven’t had the time and/or energy really to do or write about much else.

Wouldn’t have it any other way.

As I’ve mentioned, I’m doing some behind the scenes stuff for PokerNews, where you can go for live reports on all the action. For reflections from folks on the floor at the Rio, you should be reading Pauly, Change100, Amy, Mean Gene, and the Poker Shrink, as well as looking at FlipChip’s pics over at the Poker Prof.’s blog.

Last night there was a time when five different tourneys were running. Pretty damn cool yesterday to see Tom “Oops! I Won too Much Money” Schneider make that final table of Event No. 5 (the $2,500 buy-in Omaha 8/b-Stud 8/b event). That image up there of action from Event No. 5 is courtesy Pokerati, by the way. (Like to try to give credit where due -- on which subject, see below.) Schneider -- a.k.a. the Donkey Bomber -- is the chip leader heading into today’s action, in fact. Hell of a final table left to work through, though. The final eight include Annie Duke, Chris Ferguson, Chris Bell, David Benyamine, and John Phan.

As I’m typing this today (around 4:00 p.m. Vegas time) there are five in progress again, with a sixth scheduled to start in an hour or so. Tom’s final table has just gotten underway, so I’m gonna go ahead and truck on over to PokerNews to watch the live updates and chip counts.

Speaking of, do check out what Tony G has to say regarding CardPlayer’s minute-by-minute thievery of PokerNews’ chip counts. Haven’t the energy to address this fully right now, but let me just say I do have a favorite word to describe what CardPlayer is doing . . . .

Applesauce.

Go check out PokerNews’ live reporting from the WSOP for the latest.

2007 WSOP, Day 4: Extreme Multitabling

As Earl Burton points out today in his World Series of Poker recap for PokerNews, yesterday marked the first time in WSOP history that four different tournaments were going simultaneously.

It was mid-afternoon yesterday when the final table of Event No. 1 -- the $5,000 buy-in Mixed Hold ’em event eventually won by youngest-ever champ Steve Billirakis -- got underway. After couple of hours of play, they were down to 7-handed when Fred Berger’s QQ outraced Jon “PearlJammer” Turner’s big slick. (Click here to watch this hand run in PokerNews’ nifty “Feature Hands” simulator.) Right around the moment Turner was being sent to the rail, here’s what was happening elsewhere in the Rio . . . .

After a late start -- and more delays to accommodate a lot of early bustouts -- the second day of Event No. 3 ($1,500 No Limit Hold ’em) had been running for a couple of hours. The starting field of 2,998 had been whittled down to 123 players seated around 13 tables.

Event No. 4 ($1,500 Pot Limit Hold ’em) kicked off just after noon, and by five o’clock over half of the original starting field of 781 players had already busted out, leaving around 300 runners playing at 30 or so tables.

And the first Stud 8/b hands of Event No. 5 ($2,500 Omaha 8/b-Stud 8/b) were being dealt to its 327 participants, positioned at 41 tables.

Am rapidly developing an appreciation for those reporters running around keeping up with all of the action. All told, something like 40 hours of tournament play to cover yesterday.

And today gets even more hectic, with five different tournaments taking place. While I’ll be following all five, I’ll be particularly curious to see how Beyond the Table co-host, Pokerati contributor, and friend of Hard-Boiled Poker Tom Schneider makes out in the Omaha/Stud Event No. 5. Tom (a.k.a. the Donkey Bomber) began today at the top of the leaderboard of the 80-some players still alive. Tough group, though, as all of these mixed games (particularly those with larger than $1,500 buy-ins) attract the best of the best.

Looking at the schedule, I see on Tuesday no less than six different tournaments will be taking place, as Events No. 4 and 5 play out their final tables, Event No. 6 (Limit HE, $1,500 buy-in) and Event No. 7 (PLO, $5,000 with rebuys) reach their second days, and Event No. 8 (NLHE, $1,000 with rebuys) and Event No. 9 (Omaha 8/b, $1,500) get underway.

Talk about multitabling.

As usual, Dr. Pauly is providing a great daily narratives of each day’s proceedings over at Tao of Poker. I see Phil Gordon has revived his daily WSOP podcasts (here is the RSS feed for those). And, of course, do check out PokerNews’ live reporting from the WSOP for all the latest.

2007 WSOP, Day 3: We've Got a Long Way to Go, and a Short Time to Get There . . .

Couldn’t help but chuckle at the report yesterday that WSOP Commissioner Jeffrey Pollack, during his opening remarks at the start of Event No. 3, assured everyone that trucks from Cincinnati and Vegas carrying traditional-style playing cards were careening toward Vegas as he spoke. Meanwhile, those much-maligned “Poker Peek” cards are still being used -- and are still causing problems.

You know what Harrah’s should have done. Got in touch with that fellow down Atlanta way goes by the handle of Bandit to run blocker for them card-carrying trucks. ’Cos the road’s crawling with bears and Kojaks with Kodaks. Not to mention all the smokeys in plain brown wrappers. You gotta dodge ’em and you gotta duck ’em . . . and you gotta keep that diesel truckin’ . . . .

Another big story from Day 2 was the long line greeting those who had hoped to register in the morning for Event No. 3, the $1,500 NL Hold ’em event. Harrah’s ended up registering a total of 2,998 players for Event No. 3 -- up a bit from last year’s 2,776 -- although it is clear from various reports there were many additional players who would have played had it been less cumbersome to sign up. The troubles caused the start of the event to be delayed, although they managed nevertheless to conclude play right around the 2:00 a.m. target time. Played down to the money bubble, with the 270 players who survived all cashing. Action in Event No. 3 resumes at 2 p.m. today, with the plan being to play down to the final nine (however long it takes).

The resumption of Event No. 1 (the $5,000 buy-in Mixed Limit/NL Hold ’em event) began late as well, and ended late. Very late. Like 3:30 a.m. Vegas time. The day started with 95 players, and ended with nine who will return today to play what will be a televised final table. Some serious drama once they were down to ten-handed, with Kenny Tran having to make an especially tough laydown of QQ preflop against an all-in reraise from Fred Berger. Berger showed AA, confirming the correctness of Tran’s decision. Unfortunately for Tran, about 15 minutes later he’d bust out in 10th during a limit hand-confrontation with Steve Paul-Ambrose.

Greg “FBT” Mueller, chip leader for a lot of Day 2, is in good position with 683,000 chips, putting him in third. This is Mueller’s second WSOP final table overall, as he finished 9th in a limit HE event in 2005. Steve Paul-Ambrose, who holds one WPT title and here makes his first-ever WSOP final table, is in second with 771,000. And Fred Berger, owner of one WSOP bracelet (2002, Pot Limit HE), is the chip leader with 942,000.

That final table is scheduled to begin at 3:00 PDT, although I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it might start a little later. Two reasons why I say that: (1) the need for ESPN to set up its cameras for filming is probably going to cause a delay; (2) there are two more bracelet events getting started today, which’ll certainly add to the chaos at the Rio. The $1,500 Pot Limit Hold ’em event (Event No. 4) kicks off at noon, and the $2,500 buy-in Omaha 8/b-Stud 8/b mixed event (Event No. 5) starts at 5:00 p.m.

That means there will be four different tournaments going at once for the better part of the day today. Hopefully the headlines tomorrow will focus on whomever takes down that Mixed Hold ’em championship, and not some other contentious issue that might arise.

Hope them cards arrive soon. If they don’t, the players might decide to barbecue somebody’s ass in molasses . . . .

Go check out PokerNews’ live reporting from the WSOP for the latest.

2007 WSOP, Day 2: Good Morning, Good Morning

’Twas a late one, last night. Spent most of it monitoring action from yesterday’s Mixed Hold ’em event (Event No. 1). Of the 452 entrants who ponied up the $5,000 entry fee, it looks as though they are now down to just under a hundred players left, with hockey-player, pajama-wearer Greg “FBT” Mueller at the top of the chip list. They’ll play down to the final table today, then finish on Sunday.

These mixed games are going to be intriguing to follow, I think. The three H.O.R.S.E. events (Nos. 16, 26, and 39) will be fun, of course, but I’m also looking forward to the more unusual combinations they’ve created this year, like this Event No. 1 (and Event No. 40, also Mixed Hold ’em), Event No. 5 (combining Omaha 8/b and Stud 8/b), and Event No. 51 (S.H.O.E.).

Was thinking about why I find these mixed games so fascinating when I happened to read an article this morning that seemed like it might provide at least a partial explanation.

The article is by Daniel J. Levitin of The Washington Post and it commemorates the 40th anniversary of the release of the Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Levitin focuses on how Beatles’ songs and melodies have endured over the past four decades, speculating why this has been (and will continue to be) the case. Levitin is a professor of psychology and music, and so his inquiry focuses largely on the brain or that “network of neural structures” that affect how we react to things like a heard melody.

“To a neuroscientist,” Levitin concludes, “the Beatles’ longevity can be explained by the fact that that their music created subtle, rewarding schematic violations of popular musical forms, causing a symphony of neural firings from the cerebellum to the prefontal cortex, joined by a chorus of the limbic system and an ostinato from the brainstem.”

The good professor might be pulling our leg here a bit with his musical metaphors, but I think I understand his essential point. The Beatles’ music is pleasurable (to a lot of us) because the songs so neatly combine familiarity and novelty. Like a great writer who operates within a “popular” or “colloquial” idiom -- for instance, my faves Hammett, Thompson, and other hard-boiled writers -- the Beatles took a familiar form (the pop song) and bended it just enough to allow us to continue to recognize the form, yet become fascinated (and never bored by) their alterations. There’s also that “Beatle”-flavor -- “the act you’ve known for all these years” -- that permeates all their songs, no matter how differently they sound from one another, giving us that pleasure-of-the-familiar while at the same time stimulating us with something new.

Might be something similar going on here in the Mixed Hold ’em event -- it looks like a regular HE tourney, but the game changes kind of knock one out the usual groove just long enough to appreciate anew those nuances and tactics that are peculiar to each game. I used to play NL a lot more, and at one time did a lot of switching back and forth between limit and no-limit. A guide I sometimes followed was when I felt myself becoming too loose in the limit game, I’d move over to no-limit where it generally paid more to loosen up. Then, when I felt I’d tightened up too much in no-limit, I’d move back to limit where tight was (often) right. The simple act of switching games tended to increase my concentration, forcing me to think more closely about the game at hand.

Something those players in Event No. 1 are experiencing every half-hour, I suppose. Challenging, to be sure, but also (can be) a hell of a lot of fun. Familiarity enhanced by novelty. Like moving from “She’s Leaving Home” to “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite” to “Within You Without You” to “When I’m Sixty-Four.” So different, and yet -- incredibly, really -- so similar.

Go check out PokerNews’ live reporting from the WSOP for the latest.

2007 WSOP, Day 1: Peek-a-Boo

[When I have the time (and energy), I thought I might here & there post some brief reactions to some of the goings-on during the WSOP -- in addition to the usual fodder. Will see how it goes. Here’s the first.]

Yesterday I listened to Phil Gordon on his podcast, The Poker Edge, address some of the changes in place for the WSOP that starts today. Among the topics he covered, he mentioned with some enthusiasm the new playing cards being used for this year’s series.

Back in March, Harrah’s announced its deal with the U.S. Playing Card Company to use its innovative “Poker Peek” playing cards for this years WSOP. The cards feature a unique design (printed on the much-lauded KEM brand card stock), with the suit and rank appearing at an angle in the corners. According to Gordon, the new cards were chosen “along with the encouragement and feedback from the WSOP Player Advisory [Council]” (on which Gordon serves).

Gordon explained how the cards were designed “so all you have to do to find out what you have is to peel up the very, very corner of the card and you’ll be able to read it without actually . . . looking at the whole card. I think it’s going to be really tremendous . . . . The fact that we are going to be playing with these cards I think should eliminate a lot of the problems that we have seen in the past.”

Well, they were apparently only a few hands into Event No. 1 -- the $5,000 buy-in, World Championship Mixed Hold ’em event -- and the players were already saying “boo” to Poker Peek.

According to the live updates over on PokerNews, several well-known pros complained about the cards being difficult to read, and a couple of players actually requested refunds of their entry fees. Then came a hand involving Michael Binger (third-place finisher in last year’s Main Event) where he won thanks to his opponent misreading a 6 for a 9 -- a particular problem, apparently, with the Poker Peek cards.

It sounds as though Harrah’s intends to respond to players’ complaints swiftly. Tournament Director Jack Effel announced their intention to do so while the players were still in Level 2. Wonder what they’ll do with those 30,000 decks of Poker Peek cards they apparently had ready to go?

Really, Bodog missed the boat here. Should have had an over-under for “number of minutes before first player revolt.”

Go check out PokerNews’ live reporting from the WSOP for the latest.

Pins and Needles

Who else is excited? Just a little over twenty-four hours to go, and the cards will be in the air for the first event of the 2007 World Series of Poker. (See the full schedule here.)

Have been enjoying reading the blogs of those relating their plans to relocate out west for the next seven weeks. I see that Amy Calistri (AimlesslyChasingAmy, Calistri’s Corner), Mean Gene, and the Poker Shrink (Keeping Your Head in the Game, Pokerblog) are all there. They are joining Dr. Pauly (Tao of Poker), B.J. Nemeth (BJ’s Poker Blog), Change100 (Pot Committed), and others as part of the PokerNews team covering the series.

Also noting how the authors of several of my other regular reads -- Gadzooks & Khanwoman (who will be there with ElSnarfoGrande and others), Waffles, Grubby, Falstaff, Otis, the Pokerati gang, the Ante Up! guys -- are similarly planning Vegas trips in the near future. (Looks like Michael of Counting My Outs is also heading out this weekend, though he says he ain’t playing.)

Hard not to catch a second-hand buzz from all that eager energy. Over and above the usual second-hand buzz one gets over at Pot Committed, of course. (About which, see the previous post.)

I should mention that PokerNews has also recruited me to help out from afar, and so I’ll likely find it impossible not to talk about WSOP events here over the next few weeks. Probably why I find myself looking forward to this year’s WSOP more than I have any previous one.

There are other reasons for my increased sense of anticipation as well. Poker-related interactions over the past year have gotten me more invested in the whole scene, for certain. I’m also intrigued by the many non-hold ’em and mixed-game events on the schedule, all of which have become particularly interesting to me here lately. Finally, I’m anxious like everyone else to discover how and to what degree the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act will impact this year’s series.

Deserved or not, the WSOP has tremendous symbolic value in the poker world, with otherwise arbitrary figures like the number of players registering for the Main Event taken as an unambiguous indicator of how “healthy” poker is (or whether the “boom” is passed). The 2007 WSOP may not break records for participants and/or prize pools, but it will undoubtedly be the most heavily scrutinized series in history. And affecting almost all of those commentaries will be the UIGEA.

Adding to everyone’s anxiety is that “270-day” deadline which is going to land somewhere during the Main Event. Remember that? The UIGEA was signed into law on October 13, 2007. The Act directs the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, along with embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 270 days to send instructions to banks, credit card companies, and other “financial transaction providers” on how to obstruct their clients’ transactions with online gambling sites. Somewhere around July 10th, the UIGEA will have been law for 270 days.

In recognition of that upcoming deadline, CardPlayer’s resident legal expert Allyn Jaffrey Shulman posted an article yesterday with the misleading title “What Will Happen When the UIGE Act Goes into Effect.” I don’t know why commentators -- especially so-called “legal experts” -- see fit to keep repeating how the UIGEA “goes into effect” in July. It has been in effect since October 13, 2007! Anyone who has failed to comply with the law since October 13th is potentially subject to the penalties the law describes. For example, a bank who has allowed its client to conduct transactions with entities violating section 5363 (that is, online gambling sites), is technically violating the law as it is written. Bills become laws when the President signs them. Unless the feds’ regulations include some sort of “grace period” -- which they might -- the UIGEA is “in effect.”

Despite my objection to Shulman’s headline, I agree with her conclusion that for various reasons the feds probably aren’t going to be able to pull together regulations by mid-July. Thus do I also believe July 10 will come and go with little fanfare. Whether our government will ever be able to force “finanical transaction providers” to regulate their clients’ activities in this way -- in other words, whether the UIGEA represents an idea that can never really be put into practice -- remains to be seen.

We could be surprised, though. Not like we haven’t been taken off-guard here before.

In any case, lots to look forward to here. Can hardly wait.

Horseplay

Regular listeners of Beyond the Table are well familiar with its usual format. The show takes the form of a studious, well-mannered, and thoughtful roundtable discussion, with co-hosts Tom Schneider (Oops! I Won too Much Money), Dan Michalski (Pokerati), and Karridy Askenasy routinely delivering insightful commentary on news of the day, high-level strategy tips, and other items of vital importance to poker players.

A couple of episodes back -- in the show entitled “Rolled-Up Aces” -- the trio departed from their usual modus operandi to discuss the dangers of drug use. The particular issue of imparting appropriate lessons to children about drugs was given special attention.

While the advice conveyed during “Rolled-Up Aces” was certainly of value, I believe both children and parents would find it additionally useful to read a book recently recommended to me -- LATAWNYA, the Naughty Horse, Learns to Say “No” to Drugs by Sylvia Scott Gibson.

The title LATAWNYA, the Naughty Horse, Learns to Say “No” to Drugs says it all. The story tells of an especially impressionable young horse named Latawnya. One day Latawnya falls in with a crowd of unfamiliar horses who invite her to “play a smoking game and a drinking game.”

You can guess what happens next.



That’s right. “Latawnya started smoking drugs and drinking too.” Soon she “started feeling dizzy from the drug smoke and alcohol.”

“You should have said ‘No,’” her sister Daisy tells her. But Connie, one of the horses who had pressured Latawnya into drinking and smoking drugs, tells Daisy “You are square. You cannot be with us because you will not smoke or drink.”

What a difficult spot for Latawnya! Luckily for you, someone has posted the entire book here, so you can read the rest of the story yourself. Suffice it to say, Latawnya the naughty horse learned her lesson that day!

Meanwhile, be sure to tune into Beyond the Table. Also, if you have questions about poker -- or life -- you can now call them in to their new listener line (posted below the player).

Go ahead and ask those questions today. Otherwise, you’ll have no excuse later for having been naughty.