Withdrawing Online Funds -- WWJD?

Withdrawing funds from online poker sites continues to be a relatively easy procedure -- much simpler (especially for Americans) than is depositing.

The sites with which I have had experience all operate in pretty much the same fashion when it comes to withdrawing funds. You click a button, enter an amount, and a check arrives (usually) in short order. (Have encountered one frustrating exception with Ultimate Bet, but as I no longer play there I am relatively less concerned with their issues.) And so far, thankfully, the bank has yet to object whenever I go to deposit those suckers.

For example, when one withdraws funds from Full Tilt Poker, one selects a method of payment, enters an amount, then lands on a final screen announcing that the withdrawal is in process. All of the screens are text-only until the last one, when one encounters a stylized, darkly-lit image of Chris “Jesus” Ferguson looking back at you:

Was able to withdraw a bit from Full Tilt yesterday and when I reached this screen I found myself momentarily mesmerized by the picture. Had seen it when withdrawing before, though forgot “Jesus” was there waiting for me at the end of my cash-out.

Stare long enough and eventually you realize there’s a ghostly image of Phil Ivey discernable in Ferguson’s sunglasses (his right, our left). I suppose an academic might want to suggest some sort of effort being made here to invite the viewer to identify with Ivey, but doing so requires a leap of abstraction I don’t personally feel inclined to make. (Besides, it is never a good idea -- even when pretending -- to think one is Ivey.)

I’ve decided that image of Ferguson punctuating the withdrawal process is highly appropriate. As we were reminded of repeatedly last weekend when Ferguson took down the NBC Heads-Up Poker Championship, he’s a so-called “math guy” with a Ph.D. in computer science and a formidable knowledge of game theory. And we also all know about Ferguson’s various experiments with and advice regarding bankroll management, such as demonstrated by that “Starting from Zero” challenge he gave himself last spring.

The fact is, the decision to cash out some of of one’s online roll always should be thoughtfully made. You know Ferguson never makes that move without thinking in through carefully ahead of time. I try to be thoughtful there, too -- especially now that depositing has become so arduous.

Perhaps the photographer originally intended to connote themes of intimidation, circumspection, or perhaps just poker celebrity when snapping the shot of Ferguson. I’m reading the photo differently, though. I’ve decided to read it as a salute of sorts from the bankroll master to a potential disciple.

“Cashing out some, eh?” says Ferguson. “Well done.”

Here’s hoping you get to enjoy a glimpse of Ferguson’s photo in the near future.

Little Did He Realize

What is this? Online poker’s version of The Golden Goose?

Yesterday a post appeared over on the Full Tilt Poker forum announcing that Jonathan Little would no longer be representing the online poker site. According to the post, Little “violated the terms and conditions of Full Tilt Poker by allowing other players to play his account.”

As a site rep, Little’s name appeared in red whenever he sat down at one of the virtual tables. According to the higher-ups, “When a player on Full Tilt Poker plays against and chats with a red pro on the site, it is imperative that they [sic] be able to trust that it is really the advertised pro playing the account.” Once Little began allowing others to play under his account -- and his doing so became known -- Full Tilt decided to part ways with him. (This thread on Pocket Fives from early last month appears to be where hints at something nefarious going on were first publicized.)

Little’s violation looks as though it was primarily motivated by profit. As a Full Tilt pro, Little received 100% rakeback (among other perks), thereby increasing his incentive to put in a high volume of hands. By sharing his account with others, “Little” apparently was able to log a whopping 1,200-plus SNGs in the first week of February -- an early clue, perhaps, that something illicit might be afoot.

A lot of folks are having fun on forums and elsewhere with Little’s online nick -- “FieryJustice” -- and its newly ironic connotation. The sudden loss of sponsorship represents an unexpected fender bender in a career that had recently been racing in high-gear. Little won the WPT Mirage Poker Showdown last May and placed 2nd in the WPT North American Poker Championship in Ontario last October. He also just finished making the round of 8 in the NBC Heads-Up Poker Championship over the weekend.

The news regarding Little revived previous stories -- of varying degrees of authenticity -- of other Full Tilt pros having acted similarly in the past. A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned hearing Mike Matusow blithely recount his having taken over for a friend late in an online tournament (though he purposely omitted mentioning the site on which the account-sharing occurred). While that story did not specifically involve the pro allowing others to play under his account, some have suggested instances where they have witnessed pros playing live while also somehow playing online at the same time. (See, for instance, Jimmy “Gobboboy” Fricke’s post about Matusow.)

Not quite sure what Little was thinking here. A pretty serious misstep, it seems. Especially for a guy who otherwise has demonstrated such proficiency at determining risk-reward ratios.

On the Poker Haters

Was thinking a bit about why so many folks find poker such an objectionable activity. Probably because I heard the fellows over on PokerRoad Radio talking about the issue over the weekend (on the 3/1 episode).

In a brief “Poker News” segment they mentioned how Barney Frank had managed to secure a 46th co-sponsor to sign on to his Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046). I’d heard that last week. Incidentally, I’m not sure why Julia Carson’s name continues to appear on the list of co-sponsors (She died in December.) I suppose the deceased still count as co-sponsors (?).

Anyhow, co-hosts Joe Sebok, Gavin Smith, and Ali Nejad mentioned that bit of news, then goofed around a little while, trying unsuccessfully to determine just how many individuals actually comprise the House of Representatives. Such information would be helpful when trying to determine whether 47 supporters of the IGREA (including Frank) signified a meaningful number. (Answer below.)

Then they briefly lamented the UIGEA, the general prejudice against gambling, and the particular demonization of poker. Sebok pointed out how a segment of society believes “gambling -- it’s evil, it’s wrong.” Gavin Smith brought up the old bingo argument, asking why bingo is okay when poker is not. “Because it’s socially acceptable,” answered Sebok.

What makes poker socially unacceptable for so many? There are probably other explanations, but off the top of my head I came up with three different reasons why. Incidentally, all three arguments assume poker is gambling (a view with which I don’t happen to disagree), although all three also minimize or altogether fail to acknowledge poker’s skill component (a view with which I take issue).

The first objection comes from those who believe playing poker indicates the possibility of some kind of psychological disorder -- a symptom, perhaps, of a serious malady in need of correction. Those who make this objection tend not to distinguish between poker and other forms of gambling. I’ve written about this idea before in a post where I talked about mentioning to a co-worker that I played poker and his response was to ask if I thought I could develop a gambling problem. In the documentary No Limit: A Search for the American Dream on the Poker Tournament Trail, Mike Sexton says he believes “gambling is inherent in our blood.” Those who believe the person who gambles is exhibiting a psychological disorder may in fact agree with Sexton; the difference, though, is that while Sexton accepts this condition as a part of who we are, those others believe it a flaw that needs to be rectified.

The second objection is the moral one -- that poker playing is an example of an activity that fails to conform to societal codes of conduct. This objection also frequently is made with regard to other forms of gambling, although as Sebok suggests, one is more likely to see it directed toward poker than toward bingo or the lottery. There are various factors potentially in play here (including faith/religion), but it is the law -- the most patent influence on our notions of “codes of conduct” -- that has the most relevance in this context. Whereas poker is legal in certain places and under certain conditions, other forms of gambling enjoy a great deal more legal sanctioning, thereby causing them to be viewed as conforming to society’s mores -- to be morally unobjectionable.

The third objection is the ethical one, and I think this is the one that more often applies to poker than to other forms of gambling. With ethics we start talking more particularly about “good” and “bad” conduct. There are some who view all forms of gambling as “bad” because of the potential for it to cause harm to those who gamble and to others. Then there are those who especially object to poker because of how the game is played. To succeed, we must take money from other poker players; thus is our welfare dependent on others’ suffering (in a sense). Unlike the lottery or other games where we all play against the house (a faceless, unsympathetic foe), poker pits us against one another, encouraging what some believe to be “bad” forms of treating one another. An irony: that which we poker players might say makes poker more of a skill game than other forms of gambling -- the fact that we are competing against others, and not solely subjecting ourselves to chance -- is precisely that which some say makes poker ethically dubious.

By the way, there are 435 members of the House, meaning at the moment Frank still needs another 171 of the remaining 388 Congressmen and women to come along to have a majority. A long, long way to go . . . .

And, to be realistic, I gotta believe most of those remaining 388 are gonna be held back from supporting the IGREA by one or more of these objections. Don’t you?

The Search for Unambiguous Proof of Poker Playing Prowess

Have to say, am getting along real, real nice with poker at the moment. Both playing & following the pros’ adventures.

As far as playing goes, I ended up with a decent February (by my short-stacked standards), and a have enjoyed a good first couple of days of March, too. Once again had a fun time donating over at Saturdays with Pauly, this time finishing 16th of 38. That makes three for three making the final table before the final table. Whazzat prove? That yr humble servant needs to sharpen his tourney skills, probably. (Am gonna plead small sample size.)

This time around I played some with super-blogger-tourney-creator AlCantHang, Amy C, Change100, among others. Couldn’t get anything going early on, and ended up just folding a lot and taking a couple of small pots for the first hour. Then shortly after the first break, I had slipped down below 900 chips when I picked up K-J-T-8 double-suited and decided to go with it. Managed to double through there, then chip up to 2,200 or so by the middle of Level 6. That put me close to the middle of the pack -- 13 of 23 remaining.

Then came a hand in which a short-stacked player UTG pushed his last 700 in the middle. I was in MP with -- another nice PLO starter -- and went ahead and reraised pot to isolate. No one else came along, and so before the flop our cards were turned over. He held -- a pretty nice match-up for me. The flop of made things even nicer. I was a huge favorite -- like 86% (according to the CardPlayer Omaha calculator). But a jack on the turn and a deuce on the river gave the hand to my chip-challenged opponent. I was back down to 1,500 or so, and with blinds at 100/200, time was running short.

Was forced to fold a full round, including both blinds, and so was down to 1,180 when I picked up on the button. With one limper in (plus one of the blinds who had started the hand with 105), I decided just to limp in as well to see what the flop brought. Flop came , and the early limper bet pot (705). Didn’t need much time to know what to do. Besides the diamond draw, I’d flopped one of those nice wraps where any eight, jack, queen, or king would give me the nut straight. If I’m adding ’em up correctly, that means 19 outs altogether. I pushed my remaining chips in the middle, got the call, and our cards were flipped over.

Was hoping not to see a better diamond draw, and I didn’t. Indeed, only one diamond appeared in either of my opponents’ hands -- that of the early limper who held . (The tiny-stacked guy in the blinds had 6-J-3-7, no diamonds.) I’m about 67% to win this sucker and get back into contention. But none of those 19 outs came, and I was done. Nice to be getting my money in good, but I have to start accumulating some chips earlier on in these things so I don’t have to win everytime I do.

Meanwhile, I have been motoring back and forth between PLO25, H.O.R.S.E., Razz, and Stud/8 (the latter three at $0.50/$1.00). Moving around from game to game has really kept up my interest and enjoyment. And I do think playing the other games regularly is helping me make better reads at the PLO tables. Not completely sure why, but I think it has to do with the way frequently switching games forces me to concentrate a little more.

As far as following the pros goes, it’s been an especially interesting few days with the conclusion of the WPT L.A. Poker Classic and the NBC Heads-Up Championship. I give CardPlayer a hard time here from time to time, but I’m going to go ahead and echo Pokerati Dan and commend CardPlayer for its coverage of the goings-on over at Caesar’s. Good stuff.

Was surprised like everyone else to see Orel Hershiser mow down Forrest, Cunningham, and Deeb like so many light-hitting shortstops. Saw them starting to fret over on 2+2 about what the “general view” -- of the non-poker playing public, I guess -- would be if Hershiser were to have gone all the way.

I personally don’t think these things mean a whole heck of a lot, ultimately -- not being “good for poker” or “bad for poker” or anything, really. If Hershiser had won, I suppose we might've heard Frank DeFord wax poetic on NPR about the Cy Young award-winning pitcher’s inordinate acumen helping him make an easy transition to a less-athletic, more-cerebral (?) realm. (Actually, we still might if DeFord can’t find anything better to yammer on about this week.) But most of the world probably wouldn’t have noticed.

Meanwhile, for those who want to view Hershiser’s accomplishment as proof that heads-up tournaments are all luck, Chris Ferguson’s run to a third final in four years (and finally winning this time) seems like it would disprove that thesis. Of course, I could be wrong. Heard Haralabos Voulgaris on Big Poker Sundays yesterday restate how the luck factor in heads-up tourneys outweighs all. As he put it, “these are like regular tournaments on a hundred times steroids in terms of luck.”

I ain’t gonna spend too much energy challenging the idea that luck is involved in these things. Still, for a guy to win 16 of 19 matches (as Ferguson has done over the past four years) is pretty remarkable, ain’t it? Of course, like my brief Saturdays with Pauly career, we’re still talking too small a sample size to “prove” anything . . . .

Even so, I’ll go ahead and say it: Jesus is more than just all right.

Playing Favorites

I suppose I’m not the only one who was glad to see Phil Ivey finally break through and win that WPT title last night at the L.A. Poker Classic. Thought that first hand -- in which Ivey crazily lost nearly a third of his chips after calling an all-in with A9-offsuit -- was a bad omen. But obviously Ivey recovered and once again demonstrated why he’s so justly revered as a poker player.

It’s an interesting phenemon, really, how we poker fans tend to root for the “name” guys whenever possible. All of the buzz yesterday on the forums and blogs collectively demonstrated a sincere desire to see a Hellmuth-Ivey heads-up showdown last night. (Hellmuth departed in sixth.) I referred to this phenomenon in passing in a post just after the Giants’ stunning upset of the Patriots earlier this month. There I pointed out how most of the world was in fact pulling for the underdog. Yet when it comes to the professional poker tournament circuit, that otherwise instinctive allegiance to the little guy just doesn’t seem to apply.

I followed the live updates last night over on the WPT site. I like how they present the hand-by-hand reports -- essentially similar to what PokerNews did last summer for the WSOP, plus that nifty auto-refresh feature on the live blog page. Was playing hands of H.O.R.S.E. up top and watched as each new hand appeared below.

Speaking of those reports -- and our fascination with “name” players like Ivey and Hellmuth -- I saw Terrence Chan’s recent post (by way of Andrew “Foucault” Brokos) in which he points out how when it comes to poker tourney reporting, the more famous players tend to come off better when reporters recount hands in their articles.

Chan offered a couple of examples in support of his thesis. In one, he tells how the Australian edition of Bluff left out certain details when reporting a hand in which he knocked Chris Moneymaker out of a tournament in Sydney. In the hand, Chan held J9 preflop vs. Moneymaker’s JT. Chan made a straight on the turn, which is when Moneymaker ended up putting all of his chips in the middle. However, the article simply stated that “Moneymaker fell to Chan’s straight despite being marginally ahead preflop.” In other words, the report -- though not inaccurate -- implies the all-in occurred before Chan had made his straight, thus making Moneymaker look better (or the victim of misfortune) and Chan lucky (or less skillful).

By the way, Foucault gives a counterexample in which he quotes PokerNews’ report of the hand in which he busted Barry Greenstein from the 2007 WSOP Main Event. That hand report similarly omits details, this time making the more famous player -- Greenstein -- appear to have played the hand less well.

As far as live reporting goes, I have a lot of respect for the difficulties those guys face. They are forced to work quickly and oftentimes cannot obtain every detail from a hand, yet must report on it anyway. Am somewhat less forgiving of a misleadingly incomplete hand report for an article appearing some time after the fact, but even there I can see where certain factors outside of the reporter’s control (e.g., space considerations) might force an ambiguity-causing abridgement here and there.

While I don’t think these omissions clearly add up to an agenda among journalists to reinforce the notion that “the more famous you are the better you play” -- as Chan says (with tongue partially in cheek, I’m imagining) -- these anecdotes do highlight a couple of truths about poker reporting. One is that details, even those that perhaps seem superficially insignificant, matter greatly. All poker players know there is a host of meaningful information that comes with every single hand that would escape even the most meticulous rail-watcher. So even the most exhaustive hand report is going to omit something.

The other is that famous players certainly do get more attention from reporters and probably a bit of bias in their favor as well. Sort of thing comes with being famous, really. Reporters are (or should be) mindful of the fact they are writing for an audience. And when it comes to poker tourneys, the audience is usually made up mostly of folks who are more interested in hearing about the likes of Hellmuth and Ivey than about the other players sitting around the table, no matter how good those players are.

All of which provides a good rule of thumb for reporters to remember: If you must omit details from hands, try not to do so in a way that paints an inaccurate portrait of what actually occurred (no matter who the players are).

So . . . if any good hands come up at tomorrow’s Saturdays with Pauly (which I plan to play), I’ll try my very best to report ’em fairly!

Ivey’s to Lose?

Didja happen to see who has made that final table at the WPT L.A. Poker Classic (set to start at 5:00 p.m., Pacific time)? The most famous and accomplished of the Phils -- Ivey and Hellmuth -- are first and third, respectively. Nam Le is there as well as the short-stack in sixth.

Ivey, of course, has never won a WPT event, though he’s made a whopping seven final tables. His highest-ever finish was second at the Jack Binion World Poker Open back in ’03. Hellmuth hasn’t won one either. He’s made two final tables, his best showing having been a 3rd place finish at Foxwoods, also in ’03. Heading into tonight’s final table, Ivey’s stack of 4.1 million means he has nearly a third of the chips in play. Scott Montgomery is in second with 2.68 million, followed closely by Hellmuth with 2.38 million.

A couple of items worth noting. First, CardPlayer has the blinds at 40,000/80,000 (with a 10K ante) when play ended yesterday. Not sure if they’ll pick things back up there, or perhaps roll back to the previous level (30,000/60,000+10K), which is what the WPT site seems to be indicating. Regardless, Ivey’s stack puts him in fine shape here. And if this tourney follows the form of other WPT events this season, there should be a fairly gradual progression as they move through the levels. In other words, unlike in past seasons where the final tables were marked by rapidly ballooning blinds and antes, Ivey may well find it less necessary to gamble at this final table.

Another point of interest: If CardPlayer has accurately reported tonight’s seating assignments, at the final table Hellmuth will sit in Seat 3 and Ivey in Seat 4. Meaning Ivey will have the advantage of acting after Hellmuth every single hand other than when Hellmuth has the button. And Nam Le is in Seat 2, so Ivey will also often be able to act after Le as well.

Looks as though the stars might be aligning in Ivey’s favor here. Will be interesting to see if the cards -- and that other Phil -- cooperate as well. I know I’ll be checking in on the hand-by-hand reports over on the WPT site.

On the Senators’ Letter Regarding UIGEA Regs

Two weeks ago, two senators, John Sununu (R-NH) and Pete Domenici (R-NM) sent a letter to the Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The letter was in regard to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, and particularly concerned the proposed regulations currently being contemplated by the feds.

Both Sununu and Domenici are generally considered “conservative” Republicans. I think it is safe to say that neither is particularly interested in making gambling easier for anyone. Neither is listed as a co-sponsor of Barney Frank’s proposed H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act. Nevertheless, both have a problem with the UIGEA.

The recipients of the letter are the ones whose present charge is to consider the many comments that were submitted in response to the UIGEA regulations. You’ll recall those regs were first made public back in early October, when everyone was given ten weeks or so to submit comments on the regs.

That comment period ended in mid-December, and now the feds are in the process of “finalizing” the regulations. I’ve read various estimates, but it sounds as though this finalizing process should take something like 180 days. Which means it could well be early summer when we hear that the “financial transaction providers” will have to start doing what the UIGEA tells them do with regard to their clients’ transactions with online gambling sites. (Or be guilty of felonies and face the stiff penalties described in the Act.)

Reading through the senators’ letter, it is obvious that Sununu and Domenici have become aware of the many problems with enforcement brought up in the comments to the regulations. (Indeed, they refer to the comments in their letter.) “The effectiveness of any law is reliant on sound implementation,” the senators begin. “Federal regulations are intended to provide clarity and guidance for those subjected to their reach. The value of such regulations is to prevent non-compliance while minimizing wasted effort, time, and cost by those being regulated. Clear rules also promote interstate commerce by facilitating uniform enforcement.”

That sets the tone for the pair’s chief complaint, namely, that the UIGEA is unenforceable and the regulations don’t give financial institutions enough guidance to do what the law is trying to tell them to do. “In failing to provide more detail,” write Sununu and Domenici, “the proposed rules would inordinately burden every bank, credit union, credit card company, money transmitting business and payment system in the country, leading to non-uniform compliance and confusion.” As such, finalization of the UIGEA regs will increase “the likelihood that risk-averse financial institutions will simply choose to block every transaction that may be interpreted or could resemble gambling, whether legal or not.”

In conclusion, the senators “urge” the feds to provide the banks, credit card companies, et al. “a list of restricted transactions and instances that are covered by the law.” (Neither the UIGEA nor the regs even provide clear guidelines for creating such a list, much less an actual list.) They are also requesting that the feds further distinguish what activities are covered by federal law (e.g., sports betting) and what are not.

Reading the senators’ request, a couple of reactions come to mind. Well, three. There’s that same old frustration at the UIGEA -- an unfair, unclear law that should never have been passed and which has created such inordinate (and utterly purposeless) grief for so many. That reaction has been revived again here in yr humble servant.

Setting that response aside, though, a couple of other notions occur to me.

The first is kind of a mixed reaction. I’m glad to see these senators taking to heart the primary issue brought up in the comments to the regulations. And I’m also glad to see them trying to encourage the folks who really matter here -- the Treasury Dept. and the Federal Reserve System -- to pay attention to those comments as well.

Even so, my appreciation of the senators’ efforts is compromised by a sense that their letter will not have much of an effect on the finalizing process. Sort of feels like one of those “resolutions” a non-authoritative body might declare, hoping that those who really have the authority might bother to consider their feelings on the matter. Frankly, I don’t see the feds caring too much what a couple of senators might be saying at this point. The Senate passed the UIGEA, so technically, they’ve had their chance to speak on the matter. (I say “technically” because we all know the UIGEA didn’t really receive any actual debate the night it was passed.)

My last reaction concerns what the senators’ letter actually implies, namely, the very real possibility of “non-uniform” enforcement of the UIGEA. My sense is the letter further confirms the threat of banks of “overblocking” transactions that seem as though they might be covered by the UIGEA. Wrote a bit about this back in November.

We Americans are still enduring certain, specific hassles when it comes to funding and withdrawing from online poker accounts. And, of course, there are a number of sites that won’t allow us to play at all. Still, I think overall we are in a fairly comfortable place with our ability to play online poker -- much more so than in late 2006. However, all that could change very quickly this summer the first time our bank says it won’t cash a check sent to us from an online poker site.

What are we gonna do then? Write some more letters, I suppose.

Antes & Options

Have mentioned a few times of late how I ain’t playing a lot of tourneys these days. I guess we can’t all be Hoyazo. (Congrats on taking down the Fifty-Fifty, man!)

Had to miss Saturday’s with Pauly last week -- way to go, Pauly (1st) and Amy (4th). Am hoping to be back there this weekend. Also had a conflict causing me to miss last week’s AIPS III in 3-D event, though to be honest I’m not too broken up over having to pass up a Stud hi tourney.

And I have yet to try that Bodog Poker Blogger Tournament Series. Happens again tonight at 9:05 p.m. EST. Follow the link at the end of this sentence for more on the Bodog Poker Tournament.

No, am still primarily sitting down at the cash tables, splitting time between PLO and H.O.R.S.E. Have preferred H.O.R.S.E. on Stars as the antes in the stud games are half what they are on Full Tilt (e.g., a nickel for the $0.50/$1.00 games on Stars, as opposed to a dime on FTP). For a relative novice like myself, it is preferable to be allowed a bit more time to sit and wait for playable hands.

Speaking of . . . was listening to the most recent episode of The Poker Edge (the Feb. 22 show) on which Phil Gordon answers listener questions. Someone sent in a question about H.O.R.S.E. tourneys, in particular asking about how best to endure those games in which one is less strong. Gordon has confessed before on the show his lack of knowledge concerning mixed games (stud games, in particular). He even had a recent series of shows devoted to H.O.R.S.E., though had guests on to offer their knowledge rather than try to do it himself.

In his answer, Gordon says to “play extraordinarily tight during those rounds” where one is least comfortable, and “don’t get involved with marginal hands.” Then his co-host, Andrew Feldman, asked him what to do when you get short-stacked and suddenly it is time to play your worst game? After joking around a little, Gordon added the following:

“The great thing about a H.O.R.S.E. tournament is that there are no antes. You know, it’s always the small blind or the big blind in the Hold ’em and Omaha rounds. And I think that’s a really powerful weapon you can use if you’re willing to play tight. You really have a lot of time to wait to get involved.”

Huh? No antes?

I think Gordon must’ve been thinking of pot limit games. Obviously, there have to be antes in H.O.R.S.E. tourneys, otherwise a player really could just avoid “R,” “S,” and “E” without much penalty at all (other than having to pay the bring-in now and then). E.g., here's the structure for the 2007 $50K H.O.R.S.E. event. (Pic courtesy the Fail Blog.)

Will cut Gordon some slack for the slip-up. Like I said, at least he has admitted he ain’t a big H.O.R.S.E. guy.

Meanwhile, as I’ve been promising, I’ll provide some H.O.R.S.E. stats here once we reach March. Have a feeling I’m going to be reporting big success in one of the five games, and a lot of mediocrity in the other four. (Betcha can’t guess which game has been my big winner.)

Ween Rocks

A few weeks back Vera Valmore and I went to see Ween. First real rock concert I’d been to in a good while. Am thinking the last one had to have been Todd Rundgren (about 4-5 yrs. back), although that was a fairly laid back show. (Hell, he had the ukulele out for “Bang on the Drums.”)

Have long been a Ween fan, though never had had a chance to see ’em live. They were supporting their latest, La Cucaracha -- not the greatest Ween album, but fun nonetheless. The band rocked out for three solid hours. Went with some others who had seen Ween several times, and they declared it the best show they’d seen.

Ween is hard to describe, really. They are a pop/rock act, technically, though each of their albums tend to run through several different styles, with tracks often sounding like a parody of a given genre or group. Thus any given album tends to come off as some weird-ass mix tape compiling, say, the Beatles, the Doors, Curtis Mayfield, Hank Williams, Motörhead, Marty Robbins, Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd, Steely Dan, Queen, Prince, Jimmy Buffett, Led Zeppelin, 10cc, David Bowie, and/or someone Dr. Demento might regularly play.

But it works. In the end the albums always tend to hang together, forming surprisingly coherent “narratives” (of sorts). And in Zappa-like fashion, they’ll invariably try at least once per disc to sabotage the whole kaboodle with some sort of unsavory scatalogical reference that’ll make the disc all but impossible to recommend to yr more uptight colleagues.

Happen to be killing some time railing the Sunday Million on Stars yesterday and was reminded that erstwhile-blogger and poker pro Shane “Shaniac” Schleger was a Ween fan, too. How do I know? ’Cos he’s got the Ween logo -- a.k.a., the “Boognish” -- as his avatar (see pic).

Can’t remember when I’d heard Schleger was a Ween fan, but when I did I was instantly predisposed toward liking the guy. Yr average Ween fan -- according to my take, anyhow -- probably has some smarts about him or her, isn’t satisfied with predictability, and definitely possesses a sense of humor (be it dark and/or juvenile). Good qualities, all.

Of course, as I say, that’s just my take. Others might categorize all Ween fans as unrepentant crazies.

Yes, learning a person’s musical tastes does tend to give some idea of his or her personality. I remember long ago getting to the end of Phil Hellmuth’s Play Poker Like the Pros where, on the last page, he says how if we happen to see any WSOP videos from 1988-2000, we’ll see him with “headphones on, probably listening to Pearl Jam, Hootie and the Blowfish, Alanis Morissette, Snoop Doggy Dogg, the Rolling Stones, or some group of the 1980s.”

I think Hellmuth might’ve been trying to sound cool there with his sign-off. Let’s just say it didn’t quite land with this reader . . . .

Still, I always enjoy hearing about folks’ fave groups/music. Ever since I started the blog, I’ve been listing what I’m “currently spinning” down there on the lower right-hand column. Recently I added that widget from the Poker Players Social Network where you can actually tune into a few tracks from the week’s selection. And if you click on the “Hard-Boiled Poker Record Shop” you can see all of the records I’ve ever listed down there. (Closing in on one hundred titles.)

Now, theoretically, once you get to the Record Shop you might click through that page to Amazon and buy something, which would throw a couple of pennies my way. But I know almost nobody actually buys music that way these days, so it ain’t like I’ve got a true money-making scheme in the works here.

No, the Record Shop is mainly just for fun. (Am planning before too long to try to set up something similar with the “HBP Bookstore” as well.) Dunno what all those records I’ve listed might say about me, exactly. Probably depends on yr tastes whether or not they add up to anything meaningful.

Take a peek, though, and let me know if you like any of them titles, too. And if you have anything to recommend.

Reporting on Absolute Poker; or, If a Tree Falls

Caught part of Keep Flopping Aces last night. Jennifer Newell (a.k.a. California Jen) joined Lou Krieger as co-host, and they had Todd “Dan Druff” Witteles on to talk more about the Absolute Poker scandal and its aftermath.

I only picked up the show about fifteen minutes after it began. As far as AP is concerned, what I heard essentially reiterated ground already covered several times over. Witteles -- who spoke for just about the entire 35 minutes or so I heard -- made almost all of the same points on Wise Hand Poker back in early November. There was an interesting bit toward the end about bots starting to pop up more frequently on certain sites, but otherwise I’d heard it all before. (If you missed the show, you’ll just have to wait for it to appear in the RSS feed.)

Of course, just because I’ve heard it all before doesn’t mean a lot those listening in have. As was pointed out on the show, not many people are even aware of the AP scandal, never mind up to speed on what happened, how it was discovered, and how AP and the Kahnawake Gaming Commission chose to deal with the matter.

This point briefly came up on the show. Krieger mentioned how he’d been writing about the scandal on his blog, and also referred to the series of articles Newell has written about the scandal for Poker Player (here is the first). He then said [to Newell] “I think that essentially it’s you and me and maybe a little bit of Gary Wise and that’s about it.”

Gonna have to disagree with Krieger there on that last point. Others have written about -- and continue to write about -- the scandal.

It is true the mainstream “poker media” (i.e., the poker mags I wrote about on Wednesday) aren’t really providing much in the way of true, unbiased reporting on the matter. But, come on. It’s not as though no one else is writing about Absolute Poker.

For example . . .

Haley Hintze has written eight articles on the scandal for Poker News:

Tough Times for Absolute Poker (October 18, 2007)

Absolute Poker: 'We Had a Security Breach' (October 19, 2007)

Absolute Poker: Consultant Cited in Latest Statement (October 21, 2007)

Absolute Poker Situation: Unattributed Statement Released; Seif Video Names AJ Green (October 31, 2007)

Absolute Poker Situation: Unofficial Interim Audit Statement Released (November 9, 2007)

Absolute Poker Situation: Q&A with Nat Arem, Part 1 (November 9, 2007)

Absolute Poker Situation: Q&A with Nat Arem, Part 2 (November 16, 2007)

Absolute Poker Situation: Kahnawake Gaming Commission Releases Final Audit Results (January 12, 2008)

Poker Listings has also had a number of articles reporting the scandal:

Absolute Poker debacle results in audit (October 18, 2007)

Absolute Poker reports security breach (October 20, 2007)

Absolute Poker condemned by poker players (October 22, 2007)

Absolute Poker fall out far from over (October 30, 2007)

Absolute Poker issues update on scandal (November 10, 2007)

Poker rooms respond to online security questions (November 20, 2007)

Absolute Poker investigation nearing end (November 23, 2007)

KGC releases Absolute Poker report (January 13, 2008)

Absolute Poker responds to KGC report (January 15, 2008)

Final Thoughts on Absolute Scandal, PCA Bannings (January 18, 2008)

Additionally, Poker Pages has weighed in on the matter from time to time:

Absolute Poker Cheating Blamed On Employee (October 19, 2007)

Further Details Emerge in Absolute Poker Scandal (November 9, 2007)

Absolute(ly) Poker Scandalous (November 12, 2007)

Kahnawake Gaming Commission Releases Absolute Poker Findings (January 12, 2008)

Absolute Poker Responds to KGC Report (January 13, 2008)

Is There Integrity in Online Poker? (no date)

Should also mention this one -- For Cryin’ Out Loud, You Are Not Being Scammed at Absolute Poker! (September 25, 2007). Poker Pages probably regrets jumping the gun, there. But at least they were trying to cover the story.

Moving on, Life’s a Bluff has offered some poignant commentary:

Absolute Mess (October 22, 2007)

Happy Halloween (October 31, 2007)

War of Words (November 14, 2007)

Online Poker Is Rigged (January 11, 2008)

Absolute Poker Punished (January 18, 2008)

Pokerati, in addition to passing along some of the above-mentioned items, has had a number of posts on the matter, as well. Here are just a few of them:

Absolute Issue Raises Serious Questions (October 17, 2007)

Mark Seif, Absolute Respond with Call for Investigation (October 17, 2007)

Absolute Admissions: You Buyin’? (October 19, 2007)

It's On: Mark Seif v. Dan Druff, Round 1 (October 31, 2007), in which California Jen passes along the RawVegas vids

Mark Seif Speaks (November 1, 2007)

What Cheating Looks Like (November 1, 2007), in which Dan links to the YouTube Potripper vids

Absolute Issues Statement Claiming No Super-User Account. Yeah, Right. (November 9, 2007)

Absolute Cheating Report Released (January 11, 2008)

Unpeeling the Absolute Onion (January 12, 2008)

Absolute Poker Releases Statement (January 12, 2008)

Big Poker Sundays devoted a lot of time during its initial episodes to the story, as have other podcasts such as Ante Up! and the old Rounders, the Poker Show (now Two Plus Two). Oh, and Dugglebogey was already drawing cartoons about it back in September.

And, while I’m at it . . .

Playing Catch-Up (September 23, 2007)

Absolute Crap (October 19, 2007)

Would You Like to Leave Absolute Poker? (October 21, 2007)

Cleaning Out (October 24, 2007)

Poker Still "a Game Subject to Chance" (Even for Cheaters) (October 30, 2007)

World Upside Down (November 6, 2007)

Update on the Updates (November 11, 2007)

Get Ready to Rumble (November 17, 2007)

Absolute Apathy (January 4, 2008)

Something Is Missing Here (January 14, 2008)

CardPlayer Sez Go On & Play at Absolute Poker (February 5, 2008)

Absolute Poker "Security Summits" (In Search Of) (February 13, 2008)

And I haven’t even mentioned other forums and blogs that have reported (and continue to report) on the scandal.

No, I think for anyone interested, there’s plenty of information out there about the problems at Absolute Poker. That’s the problem, though. For a variety of reasons, ain’t a lot of folks all that interested.

A month-and-a-half ago, Gary Carson pointed out the pointlessless of blogging about the Absolute scandal, explaining the generally lackadaisical attitude of most poker players’ towards cheating ensures such efforts will largely fall on deaf ears.

Carson’s probably right. Indeed, sometimes I think even those who are interested in the scandal aren’t listening all that closely.