Cornered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

270 Days Later: The UIGEA Today

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

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

What exactly was that UIGEA thing again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The (So-Called) “270-Day Period”

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

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

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

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

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

Obstacles to UIGEA Enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obstacles to UIGEA Repeal (or Other Legislation)

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

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

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

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

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

A Trip for Biscuits

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

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

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

2007 WSOP, Day 38: When the Chips Are Down

Well, at the moment they are well into Day 1c of the Main Event. At the end of play yesterday, I was feeling pretty good about my prediction of 5,763 entrants for this year’s Main Event. The first two days saw a total of 2,832 players taking their chances -- right about half of what I had guessed. However, today there were over 1,700 at the tables when play began, and it sounds like even more will be there for the last Day One tomorrow. So the final total is starting to look like it might end up a few hundred north of 6,000.

For those of you interested in some cool WSOP number-crunching, let me recommend Tim “Poker Shrink” Lavalli’s Pokerblog where he’s doing a good job tallying and analyzing numbers of entrants (and comparing with last year’s figures), along with providing some other interesting info regarding Day One stack sizes.

Speaking of stack sizes . . . I am still wondering what the hell happened to that massive stack of chips Andy Black spent most of Friday accumulating, then rapidly lost just before play ended for the night. Black had been chip leader with over 150,000 at one point. Then right after midnight he turns into a pumpkin. Check out this graph of Black’s day on Friday (reflecting PokerNews’ reports of his chip counts during the day):



Several of Black’s post-midnight hands got reported, with some real head-scratchers among them. Steve Horton told us about Black’s last two big hands. On the first one, “A player limps, Black raises to 2,400 on the button, and his opponent calls. The flop comes J-10-6 with two hearts and both players check. The turn is the . Black’s opponent checks, he bets 8,000 and is called. The river is the . Black bets 15,000 and his opponent calls. Black announces he has nothing. His opponent has 7-7 and takes it.”

So Black apparently tried to represent a flush (?) and got sniffed out, dropping a little over 25,000 in the process. Then comes the last hand. According to Horton, “Soon after, Black is busted when on a 3-4-3-7 board, Black bets, another player goes all in, and Black calls with 4-5. His opponent has A-A, the river is a jack, and Black is out and leaves in a hurry.” Strange things happen, I guess, when the chips are down.

For more examples of eccentric play (and/or behavior), head back over to PokerNews’ live reports for continuing coverage of Day One craziness.

2007 WSOP, Day 36: Part Two -- Forecasting a Frantic Finale

Okay, I am back for a second post today. (Read below about how Tom Schneider last night clinched the 2007 World Series of Poker Player of the Year.)

The Main Event is set to begin in just about half an hour. I wrote a post a couple of weeks ago about how the blind structures at this year’s WSOP had perhaps helped create some faster-than-usual final tables. At the time, I had not reviewed the blind structure for the 2007 Main Event. I’ve now looked it over, and like others who have compared the two, I am noticing some significant differences between this year’s structure and the one used for 2006. Don’t expect to hear a lot about those differences over the first few days of the tournament. However, once they start to play down to the last three tables, don’t be surprised if you hear folks starting to discuss -- and possibly criticize -- the changes.

Before the WSOP began, we all heard the news that for each event players would be receiving twice the buy-in’s worth of tournament chips. For example, for a $1,000 buy-in event, players would start with 2,000 chips instead of 1,000 (which had been the case last year). Immediate response in the media and on forums was highly favorable, as most assumed this would ensure players extra “play” and make the tourneys seem less of a crapshoot, particularly during the early stages.

However, once WSOP officials released the structure sheets for the events, everyone learned that along with doubling the starting stacks, the blinds would start out doubled as well, rendering the change less meaningful. I don’t say “meaningless” because having twice the chips does make a difference, even if the blinds have been doubled, because we are talking about a no limit tournament. For the limit tournaments, doubling the starting stacks and blinds/betting limits makes no difference whatsoever. But when we’re talking NL, having twice the stack there in Level 1 will most certainly influence how (some) players will approach the start of the tournament.

Even so, let me draw you attention to other differences between the 2006 and 2007 Main Event structures. Take a look at the chart below (click to enlarge, if necessary).



All levels are scheduled to last two hours. In other words, there will not be a shortening of levels at the end here as there was in the preliminary events. (Incidentally, “cost per orbit” assumes a nine-handed table.) The “% change” figure refers to how much more or less it will cost players to sit through an orbit at a given level. Numbers in red indicate lower cost (and thus a “slower” round); numbers in green indicate an increased cost (and thus a “faster” round).

As was the case with many preliminary events, the 2007 structure “speeds up” in the latter stages of the tournament when compared to last year. There are a couple of stretches earlier on when it will cost players relatively less per orbit to play. But notice how right around Day 5 (the day when they are scheduled to play down to 27 players), the cost per round increases quite dramatically.

What is going to happen when the Main Event reaches Level 27 and the blinds start going up more quickly than last year? Well, for one, we might well hear some griping -- although by then we’ll be under 100 players and so there will be only a few dozen players directly affected. The amount (and loudness) of complaints therefore will depend a lot on who those players are.

Another consequence is that it is very possible that unless officials decide to alter the schedule, we’ll have some short days as we approach tourney’s end. The schedule this year has everyone playing six levels on Day 1, then five levels each on Days 2-4. Play on Day 5 is set to continue until 27 players remain. Then on Day 6 they are to play down to the final nine. Because the blinds and antes will be increasing so rapidly, players will be forced to act more quickly during these last days of play than was the case last year.

During the 2006 WSOP, the first five days of play all lasted 11-12 hours or more. Then on Day 6 -- the day they played from 45 players down to 27 -- they only played 5 hours. (I remember Jamie Gold taking credit for having sped the tourney up all by himself -- applesauce, of course.) However, the next day it took them over 14 hours to play down from 27 to 9. And the final table lasted around 14 hours as well. I could be wrong, but my guess is those last days won’t be taking quite as long this year.

Follow all the action over on PokerNews’ live reports.

2007 WSOP, Day 36: Part One -- Holy Schnike! Tommy Boy WSOP POY!

Was up late again last night as the penultimate event, the $5,000 Deuce-to-Seven w/Rebuys event (No. 54), did not finish until around five a.m. my time. Erik Seidel took his eighth bracelet, coming back from a huge deficit against Chad Brown to win.

There was a point during heads-up when Brown had about a 5-to-1 chip advantage against Seidel (2,625,000 to 440,000). Seidel went all-in, drew one card, and doubled up with an 8-low. Seidel won a few more small pots, chipping up to just over 1,000,000, then doubled through again on a hand where he pushed all in and Brown called. Seidel had stood pat with J-10-7-4-2; Brown had drawn one card but obviously missed as he mucked. That gave Seidel the chip advantage, and he’d finally win all the chips after drawing to an 8-low on the final hand. In just 20 hands, Seidel went from utter life support to bracelet winner.

There was also some drama early on as Tom Schneider went out in 16th place, thus opening the door for Jeffrey Lisandro to overtake him on the last lap for WSOP Player of the Year. Only the top seven finishers in last night’s event cashed; those seven were also the only players to receive any WSOP POY points. If Lisandro had finished seventh or above, he’d have beaten out Tom.

At the moment when Allen Cunningham’s 8-7-6-5-3 bested Tom’s 10-low and sent the Donkey Bomber to the rail, Lisandro had 128,000 chips, putting him in 11th out of the remaining 14 players. At the time, the average stack size was around 220,000, and the blinds 3,000/6,000 with a 1,500 ante. Lisandro had time to wait for a good hand, but sitting back and cruising into the money (and the POY title) wasn’t an option.

Lisandro took about a 40,000-chip hit right away when he lost a hand out of the big blind to Chris “Jesus” Ferguson. A few minutes later, Andrew Black min-raised and Lisandro (who was sitting to Black’s left) pushed his remaining chips in the middle. Black drew one card, and Lisandro stood pat. When they turned their hands over, Lisandro showed a J-7-6-5-2. However Black held a J-7-6-4-2, barely pipping Lisandro with the fourth card. Lisandro was out, and Schneider became WSOP Player of the Year.

Earlier in the week PokerWire Radio host Joe Stapleton mentioned wanting to get Tom on the show as a guest. Here’s hoping they manage that in the near future, perhaps even today.

Meanwhile, big congrats to Tom -- we’re all proud of you.

On to the Main Event! (More later today.)

2007 WSOP, Day 34: F-Bombing the Main Event

Getting close to Main Event time. Day 1A is Friday. When the circus really starts. (Hey, they’ve already got the tent.)

Last week Pokerati Dan reported that 749 players had managed to sign up before preregistration closed. As of yesterday (again, according to Dan), a total of 2,552 had registered. WSOP officials have added a fourth Day 1 to the schedule, although speculation is that the move is motivated more by a desire not to put folks in the dreaded tent than by clear-cut expectations regarding the number of entrants.

Makes sense to try to be proactive about managing tourney conditions. Best to keep things civil, right?

Friday Unfettered Crudities Kickoff

So . . . what is defending Main Event champion Jamie Gold most looking forward to this year? According to a recent article appearing over on PokerListings, “The thing Gold is most excited about for this year’s event: they’ve brought the F word back in to play, with no penalty imposed for an odd, undirected outburst of cussing.”

As the Church Lady would say, isn’t that special?

“How pleased is Gold about it?” the article asks. “‘F-ing A,’ he said, to anyone who would listen. ‘I can say Holy F*** as much as I want this year. It’s F-ing great. There’s gonna be a lot of beep beep at the Main Event, I tell you.’”

Gold refers, of course, to the change to the so-called “F-bomb” rule, the source of so much discussion and controversy over the last couple of years. As a means to prepare for “a lot of beep beep at the Main Event,” let’s take a moment and look back at the old rule, then consider this new rule.

The Old Rule -- File Under Controversy Kindling

The old rule seemed to cause more trouble than it prevented. The rule had stated that any utterance of the celebrated profanity earned the player an automatic 10-minute penalty. A second slip and the player would be given a second penalty -- either 10 more minutes or 20 (depending on how the tournament director interpreted the rule). And so forth.

Probably the most well-known instance of the rule being applied occurred at the 2005 WSOP when Mike “the Mouth” Matusow found himself sitting out for 40 minutes during Day 1 of the Main Event. (Matusow would overcome that setback to make the final table.) Here’s a good summary of the Matusow episode by Tim “Poker Shrink” Lavalli. According to Lavalli, over 200 “F-bomb” penalties were assessed at the 2005 WSOP. Lavalli also recounts another infamous application of the penalty at that year’s WSOP here -- when Rafi Amit was made to sit out while heads-up against Vinnie Vinh. (While Lavalli depicts Vinh as having acted admirably in response to the situation, Lisa Wheeler’s recent PokerNews article takes a different slant.)

There were many complaints during and after the 2005 WSOP. The rule began to be enforced in other venues as well, prompting more controversies. Last fall, Michael Craig reported on his blog about Gavin Smith being assessed a penalty during the WPT Legends of Poker series at the Bike. This was during the “OE” tournament (half O/8, half S/8). After serving his penalty and then making it to the final table, Smith delivered an impromptu judgment on the rule.

“His statement was something similar to this,” writes Craig. “‘F*ck the f*cking Bike for f*cking having this f*cking stupid f*cking rule about saying a f*cking word like f*ck. F*ck you. F*ck the Bike. F*ck off.’”

(I overlaid them stars onto Craig’s text, by the way. Wouldn’t want me to affect my PG-rating, would you?)

Craig says Smith’s tirade was so funny he admits to wetting his pants. A little. “The absolute best part was that no one that was at the final table or any of the tournament directors said a word to Gavin,” notes Craig.

Of course, what Craig calls the “best part” of the story highlights what many believed to have been the worst part of the rule -- its selective enforcement. Smith wasn’t penalized for his tirade. Why have a rule if it is only going to be enforced at a tourney director’s whim?

Some, like CardPlayer’s Mike O’Malley, wrote in support the old rule (when applied consistently). In an article appearing in the December 27, 2005 issue of CP, O’Malley drew comparisons with other major sports leagues (the NBA, NHL, etc.) where the use of profanity is routinely penalized. “If a player cannot control his emotions by simply not uttering any obscenities,” writes O’Malley, “that player should be penalized.”

Writing about another noteworthy application of the rule at a Mansion Pokerdome tournament, Haley Hintze made a similar (and persuasive) point in favor of having some guidelines for conduct at the poker table: “There is no reason why organized, competitive poker should not be able to establish a baseline for acceptable social standards, and constant f-bomb uttering, despite the accidental occasional exclamation (as happened here, unfortunately), is a part of that standard.”

The New Rule -- For Unduly Callous Kibitzing

So what is the new rule that Jamie Gold says is so “F-ing great”?

Here’s what the new rule -- Rule No.27 in Section III (“Player Conduct and Tournament Integrity”) of the 2007 World Series of Poker Tournament Rules -- states: “Any player who directs any profane and/or abusive language at another player, dealer or tournament staff member or who makes any profane and/or abusive comments about another player, dealer or tournament staff member will be penalized in accordance with Rules No. 22 and/or 46. In particular, the use of the so-called ‘f-bomb’ and ‘c-bomb’ as well as derivatives of those and similarly offensive terms, will subject the offending player to penalties if they are directed at or refer to another player, dealer, staff member, patron or official of Harrah's or the WSOP. In Harrah’s sole and absolute discretion, it may impose at any time a zero-tolerance policy for profane language whether directed at another person or not.”

Not exactly saying that “they’ve brought the F word back in to play” (as the PokerListings article suggests). The big difference, though, appears to be that simply uttering the word doesn’t automatically warrant a penalty. Only using the word in an abusive manner toward another individual gets one a time-out.

Is the rule being applied? I’m not on the floor, so I can’t say for certain. As part of my work with PokerNews, I have, however, read thousands of postings in the Live Reports. And I have yet to see a single report of a penalty being assessed. I would imagine the reporters would probably share information about a penalty enforcement, if they witnessed one. But I’ve yet to see it. (Not saying it hasn’t happened, just that I’ve yet to read about it.)

I have, however, seen reports suggesting instances where the penalty probably should have been assessed. Here’s an example from Event No. 45, the $5,000 No Limit Hold ’em six-handed event. With about forty players left, there’s a hand (“Hellmuth Crippled”) where Phil Hellmuth flops a set of threes, gets called on the flop and turn by Theirry Van Den Berg’s queens (an overpair to the board), then loses when Van Den Berg spikes a queen on the river. Dr. Pauly reports “The F-bomb came out of Hellmuth’s mouth along with the word ‘donkey’ on more than one instance.”

No mention is made of any penalties being assessed. And, indeed, we see another of Hellmuth’s hands being reported just two minutes later, so I think it is safe to assume Hellmuth did not receive any penalty. (I’m sure Dr. Pauly would’ve told us if he had.) Perhaps Hellmuth did not use the adjectival form of the F-word to describe the donkey, and instead uttered it to the skies as a separate commentary on the human condition? (Sure.)

Like I say, the reporters could tell you a lot more accurately than I can whether or not the penalty is being applied. Seems to me the new rule simply adds a further layer of fuzziness over the old rule, giving dealers and tournament directors even more leeway to apply the rule selectively (and, thus, unfairly).

Before the Main Event begins, let me propose each dealer keep handy a copy of Jesse Sheidlower’s The F-Word which compiles and defines hundreds of uses of the word. This is a terrific book, by the way, which fits perfectly on the back of your standard toilet.

Just to give you an idea, here’s a sample entry (which also, as it happens, puts us in mind of Jamie Gold):

monkey noun -- In phrase: a monkey f*cking a football, a ridiculous figure.

1968 Tauber Sunshine Soldiers 117: You know what you look like, Pea-zer, stupid? You like like a monkey trying to f*ck a football. 1977 in Lyle & Golenbock Bronx Zoo 17: Jesus Christ! You looked like a monkey trying to f*ck a football out there! 1981 Hathaway World of Hurt 47: You look like a monkey f*cking a football. 1984 K. Weaver Texas Crude 34: That guy tryin’ to change a tire looks like a monkey tryin’ to f*ck a football. 1988 Poyer The Med 422: You people cry like fifteen monkeys f*ckin’ a football.

There’s even an illustration. It’s like the Oxford F*cking English Dictionary!

Having such a volume handy would prove especially valuable to dealers and other tournament officials, I would think. As the 230-plus pages of the book prove, there are a lot of “derivatives” to consider. No single arbiter can be expected to know them all off the top of his or her head. Each time a player utters the word, the book can be consulted in order to determine precisely how the word is being employed and therefore an objective decision can be made regarding whether a penalty is warranted. What do you think?

Or they could just do this:


(Thanks, Kaja.)

2007 WSOP, Day 33: A Pot Limit Omaha Puzzler

The final table of Event No. 50, the $10,000 Pot Limit Omaha event, is just now getting underway. This is the one designated the “World Championship” since it is the highest buy-in PLO event.

The big story, of course, is that Doyle Brunson is among the final nine. Patrik Antonius, Marco Traniello, and Robert Mizrachi are also there, all chasing current chip leader Tommy Ly. PokerNews is promising hand-by-hand coverage of the final table.

Unlike other tourneys at this year’s WSOP, where players have begun with twice the buy-in in tournament chips, players only started with 10,000 in this one, although each was given one “free” rebuy (or add-on) of 10,000 chips as well. In other words, each player got a second stack of 10,000 he or she could take at anytime during the first three levels, or automatically receive as an add-on at the end of Level 3. Reports from PokerNews and elsewhere made it sound as though very few players used their “rebuy” option voluntarily, only doing so if they happened to get stacked during the first three levels. Those who made it to the end of Level 3 without using the option then received the extra 10K as an add-on.

The unusual format presents an interesting strategy question whether to take the extra 10,000 right away or not -- what would you do?

I’ve mentioned before how I’ve been playing almost nothing but PLO lately. Did jump back into some limit HE during June, as well as a bit of Stud Eight-or-better. (As a matter of fact, I just used some PokerStars FPPs to buy Ray Zee’s High-Low-Split Poker: Sevent-Card Stud and Omaha Eight-or-Better which arrived late last week.) But PLO has remained my primary game for the last few months.

So for folks like me -- or my buddy Erwin Blonk, who's starting up a new podcast devoted to Omaha -- some of these hands from Event No. 50 are providing some intriguing puzzles to consider. Let me share one such head-scratcher from Day 1 with you here. Saw this one initially reported over on PokerNews, then given a bit of elaboration over at Gutshot.

Three players are involved in the hand -- Phil Laak, Sam Farha, and an unidentified player. The PokerNews reporter picks up the action on the turn as Laak is facing a difficult decision.

The board reads and both Sam Farha and the other player are already all-in. This hand took place during Level 2, a time when (I believe) all three players still had their “rebuy” option available. In any event, Laak does eventually make the call, and therefore we learn he is holding .

Before we look at either of Laak’s opponents’ cards, tell me -- what do you think of Laak’s call? His starting hand is pretty modest when it comes to PLO, actually. We don’t know if he had to call any preflop raises or not. (I suspect he didn’t.) It is possible, then, that someone has a set of kings -- putting Laak in seriously bad shape here -- although I suspect the action to this point must have sufficiently dissuaded Laak of that possibility.

Okay . . . so you’re Laak and you’ve got what is most likely the best hand currently with your set of jacks. Do you risk it here or not? You are probably facing two different flush draws -- spades and diamonds. You’ve got the jack-high spade flush draw, but it is very possible one of your opponents might have the queen- or ace-high spade draw. You are also likely up against two different straight draws (a high one and a low one).

Think of all the river cards that are probably going to be bad for you here! Any diamond that doesn’t pair the board kills you. Same goes for any non-pairing spade, too (probably). An ace could complete either a low or high straight. A queen, ten, or nine also likely makes someone a straight, as might a deuce, trey, six, seven, or eight. Is it time to chuck it?

In this case, Laak knows that while he might have a slight edge over each of his two opponents, he also knows he surely doesn’t have an edge over the both combined. In a cash game, the call might not be so hard to make -- tripling up is possible, and if you don't you can always reach in your pocket and buy in again. A tourney is different -- though I suppose the “rebuy” option figures here, too. What to do?

As I said, Laak made the call with his . Here is that board again (so you don't have to scroll up): .

Farha had , giving him the better spade draw, a low diamond flush draw, plus more outs for the straight (any of the remaining treys, sixes, sevens, or eights). The other player turned over , giving him the better diamond draw but only three other potential outs (the other queens -- and Farha has one of those) for Broadway. According to the CardPlayer Omaha calculator, Laak was just under 42% to win the hand, Farha about 36%, and the other player about 22%.

The river was the , and Laak’s set held up. According to Gutshot reporter, Laak was so suspicious that any card left in the deck could have been safe for him, he called security over to investigate.

While we don’t have all of the info here, the hand clearly shows how dicey big pairs can be in Omaha. Even if you flop a set, you’re usually mighty vulnerable, which is why hands like -- where the other two cards really aren’t helping your jacks all that much -- aren’t usually rated too highly in PLO. At least not by the good players.

Follow that Event No. 50 final table -- and all of the other action -- on PokerNews’ live reports.

2007 WSOP, Day 31: Twice Is Nice

Good golly Miss Molly. The Donkey Bomber did it again. Tom Schneider won his second WSOP bracelet last night, taking down Event No. 46, the $1,000 Stud Eight-or-Better event. As was the case with Event No. 5, Schneider began the final table with the chip lead. He did relinquish the lead on a couple of occasions -- including during heads-up with Hoyt Verner -- but battled back and took the bracelet.

The victory vaults Schneider back into the points lead for WSOP Player of the Year. Since the Main Event does not count toward POY, only eight more events offer POY points. That means unless one of the others near the top -- in particular Jeffrey Lisandro, Scott Clements, or Phil Hellmuth -- makes another deep run, Schneider will secure the honor. Not to mention all the goodies that go along with it. Whoever wins the award will receive a buy-in to the 2008 WSOP Main Event, a buy-in to a WSOP circuit Main Event (of the winner’s choice), a buy-in to the WSOP Europe Main event in London in September, and $5,000 for travel expenses.

Head over to Pokerati (where Schneider contributes) for more on last night’s win. If you want to read more about the star of this year’s WSOP here on Hard-Boiled Poker, you can click on these posts:

Here’s the one from yesterday that talks a bit about Schneider’s book, Oops! I Won too Much Money.

Here’s one about him winning his first bracelet in Event No. 5, the $2,500 Omaha/8-Stud/8 event.

Here’s a post about Beyond the Table, the podcast Schneider hosts with Karridy Askenasy and Dan Michalski. (A new episode just went up today, by the way.)

Here’s another one about Beyond the Table that talks about an interesting discussion they once had about poker blogs. (Includes some great comments, too.)

And here’s a post describing my meeting with the Donkey Bomber a couple of months ago.

Amy Calistri today wrote a post about how pleased she was to see Bill Edler -- often referred to as “Gentleman Bill” by other players and in the media -- win his first WSOP bracelet (Event No. 45, the $5,000 Six-Handed No Limit Hold ’em event). Calistri speaks of how nice it is to see the “good guys” succeed. I know a lot of folks feel the same way about Schneider, and are thus similarly glad to see him do well.

So congrats Edler and Schneider! You guys (and others, of course) are helping to make this WSOP thing a lot of fun for a lot of people.