Minimalism

Some of you might’ve noticed that title from yesterday’s post was a play on the title of a short story by the American writer Raymond Carver, a story called “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.”

The story appears in a collection of the same title that was published in the early 1980s, a few years before Carver died (in 1988). Carver’s fame peaked right around the time of his death and just after, actually. Robert Altman was kind of riding the Carver wave there when made an interesting, unwieldy film called Short Cuts in 1993 that cleverly weaved together a number of different Carver stories into a lengthy feature.

Not a lot “happens” in “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.” Two couples sit around a kitchen table one afternoon drinking gin and sharing anecdotes about themselves and others, all of which present differing definitions of “love.” Eventually the sun goes down, the bottle is empty, and the story just ends.

In terms of plot, the story sort of resembles a poker game. The four characters each have their own “styles,” with one (Mel, the cardiologist) kind of dominating the action. And there’s no particular “resolution” -- the story just ends.

Carver often got grouped with a few other writers like Bobbie Ann Mason, Tobias Wolff, Frederick Barthelme, and others into a category called “minimalism.” The category gets defined in different ways, but chiefly refers to a “lean” or “sparse” style that eschews flowery description and other judgmental intrusions in favor of letting the characters speak for themselves. The style or subgenre can be traced back to writers like Ernest Hemingway and even some “hard-boiled” guys like James Cain and Jim Thompson.

Actually, the name “minimalism” is a bit misleading when it comes to Carver, and, indeed, to most of the writers who usually get filed under that heading. But I suppose the main idea -- that when it comes to the storytelling the author tries to keep out of the way and let the reader decide what to think of the characters -- is a valid way of describing these authors’ approach.

Thinking about Carver got me wondering about how one could be said to employ a “minimalist” style at the poker table.

I’m not necessarily talking about the business of minimizing one’s tells at a live game, the kind of thing Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie talk about in Harrington on Cash Games, Volume II when they discuss “The Patrik Antonius Way” in which the Finnish player “just sits at a table, stiff as a board, and stares silently at a fixed point in space... giv[ing] a good expression of a catatonic trance” while his opponent decides what to do.

No, what I was thinking about was how that effect the so-called “minimalist” writers sought to achieve -- namely, not to “tip their hands” (so to speak) with regard to how they intended their stories to be interpreted -- was probably also an effect one desires to achieve at the poker table. That is, playing your hands in a manner that hides your intentions, your values, your “style.” You let your “cards speak” -- and your bets and your folds -- just as the authors let their characters speak, withholding overt judgments by which to guide readers’ interpretations. Let your opponents try to figure it all out. Show, don’t tell.

The paradox is that it takes maximum effort to be a minimalist. I think that’s one reason why Carver and some of the other writers who were pegged as such didn’t necessarily care for the designation -- it made it sound like they weren’t trying!

It’s a lot easier just to sit there and explain yourself over and over to everyone else. In fact, next time you’re playing, take a look around the table and notice how many of your opponents are doing just that.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Poker

About ten days ago, a poster over on Two Plus Two decided to begin a new thread in the “Books and Publications” forums by quoting Mason Malmuth’s review of Tommy Angelo’s Elements of Poker. The review appears in the February 2009 issue of the online Two Plus Two Magazine.

I also recently reviewed Angelo’s book here on Hard-Boiled Poker, despite the book being published over a year ago. I only just got to it last December, and found it highly enjoyable and instructive. Call me a bandwagon guy, but I think it’s one of the best poker books I’ve read in a long while. Here’s my review, if you are interested.

Malmuth’s review of Elements of Poker is much less favorable than mine. He does credit Angelo for being “witty” (and, backhandedly, “cute”), and even calls “worthwhile” some of the strategy advice. Ultimately, though, Malmuth doesn’t see the book as having much value for beginning or intermediate players, and in the end concludes “this text is certainly not recommended, even as supplemental reading.”

The post sharing Malmuth’s review engendered a provocative discussion (I thought), with posters taking sides over the relative value of Elements of Poker, as well as (somewhat tentatively) debating the criteria by which Malmuth based his review. There also emerges what might be called a theoretical divide among the posters that roughly corresponds to the wildly differing positions represented by Malmuth and Angelo -- specifically with regard to each author’s approach to writing/publishing poker books.

Some posters were “disappointed” with Angelo’s book, finding it “overhyped and overrated,” ultimately echoing Malmuth in expressing their belief that reading the book yielded no practical benefits for most poker players. Others defended the book as being of immense help to poker players, especially those with some experience with the game and the many emotional/psychological ups & downs it produces.

One such poster, explaining why he liked Elements of Poker, says that in his view the book is not “a beginner’s guide to playing better poker,” as some appeared to have wanted to read. Rather, said the poster, he believes the book to be “a better player’s guide to being a better person, which will make you a better player as well.” Another poster less specifically praised Angelo’s book as being “much more real than anything published before” -- ostensibly pointing out how the author’s voice manages to connect with the reader more effectively than generally happens with most poker writing.

Still another poster made what I thought was an especially interesting distinction by saying “Tommy Angelo writes poker LITERATURE. Mason writes stiff, clumsily worded cookie-cutter advice.” I’m actually one of those who doesn’t necessarily think Malmuth’s style is “clumsily worded” -- in fact, while it isn’t always flawless, it is for the most part quite clear and precise.

But I think I get what the poster is saying. There is most certainly a more obvious “literary” sensibility present in Elements of Poker than one finds in most poker books (including those Malmuth has written or co-written). And some of us happen to think literary writing and/or modes of expression have something to offer us, too.

Eventually, both Angelo and Malmuth join in the discussion, with the author of Elements of Poker demonstrating humility and graciousness in response to the praises and criticisms directed toward his book, and the owner of Two Plus Two continuing to press his case to devalue the book. (There’s also a brief detour in there where Malmuth appears to be explaining how comedy works -- and, not surprisingly, implying that Angelo fails to be humorous, too.)

The conversation turned toward the subject of editing, and couple of days ago Angelo supplied a bit of background info regarding the editing process for Elements of Poker, prompting Malmuth to fire a tangential (and personal) shot at one of the book’s editors. What had been a provocative, enlightening discussion that pointed up a number of key theoretical issues regarding poker writing and its purposes rapidly derailed.

Finally a poster of the Malmuth camp summed up the thread to that point by saying “Mason did not like the EOP. Most of the posters liked the book. I am not sure that there is more to discuss.” Malmuth agreed, and locked the thread.

Actually, the thread itself, both in the course it took & the way it prematurely ended, well exemplifies what for me is the fundamental distinction between Malmuth and Angelo’s outlooks -- on poker, books, life, what have you.

The former seeks concrete, tangible, readily quantifiable answers to all of life’s problems, and, importantly, believes such answers can be found to all questions worth asking. As a result, the idea of “dialogue” or any sort of inquiry without a specific goal -- the achievement of which unmistakably signals its conclusion -- is to be roundly dismissed as an utter waste of time.

The latter also seeks answers, but additionally values that which is abstract, intangible, and not-so-readily quantifiable. The latter outlook also understands that there are, in fact, some questions worth asking for which there are no single, unambiguous answers. Thus, a premium is placed on the idea of “dialogue” or keeping the conversation going, since value is to be had in the exchange of ideas (even if such value is hard to compute). In fact, rather than wasting one’s time (or other resources), such inquiry is the best possible use of it.

As the poster “jlocdog” (one of those who likes Elements of Poker) put it, Angelo “has a knack for not putting closure on any concepts or ideas he talks about so as to keep you thinking about them and trying to expound on them within your own game/life.” Meanwhile, Malmuth most decidedly has a knack for closing off discussions whenever possible. This had been an interesting thread with a number of intelligent, serious posters contributing (not always so easy to find on 2+2). But as soon as an apparent impasse had been identified, Malmuth decided there was nothing more to discuss.

I guess another, more cynical way of describing the difference between the two thinkers would be to say that while Angelo teaches, Malmuth preaches. The teacher expects you to ask questions, to challenge assumptions, to think. The preacher expects you to sit quietly in the pew. And believe.

Not saying the preacher doesn’t have something to offer us. But you better understand that with this one you’re not expected to raise your hand and ask questions or talk back.

When he’s finished, however, you may shake his hand. On the way out.

On the 40th Annual Not-a-World-Championship No-Limit Hold’em Event (2009 WSOP, Event No. 2)

Looming over the 2009 WSOP sked is Event No. 2, that $40,000 buy-in no-limit hold’em event that begins Thursday, May 28, the day after the Casino Employees’ Event kicks things off.

The event -- the unusual buy-in for which WSOP organizers have linked to the fact that this year marks the 40th anniversary of the WSOP -- is listed as a four-day affair. Structures have yet to be publicized for this summer’s 57 events, but one assumes that the plan to have a four-day event not only means players will start with deep stacks (presumably 80,000 chips), but I would assume the levels will last longer than the usual 60 minutes alloted to most preliminary events. The $50K H.O.R.S.E. event last year had 90-minute levels; perhaps this $40K event will have the same (or even 120-minute levels).

The $40K event is labeled as the “40th Annual No-Limit Hold’em” event -- that is to say, it is not described as a “World Championship” event, that designation being reserved for the “Main Event,” the $10,000 buy-in NLHE event (Event No. 57) that begins on July 3 and ends sometime in November.

Might be picking a nit here, but that means the Main Event this year is the only event out of the entire line-up described as a “World Championship” that does not feature the highest buy-in for that particular game. Just semantics, I guess, but what, then, do the words “World Championship” mean, really? One could argue this little discrepancy kind of wrecks the consistency of whatever distinction one otherwise might’ve made between “World Championship” bracelets those that are non-WC. But I suppose that isn’t much to fuss over.

The fact that Event No. 2 is a four-day event means it will last through Sunday, May 31. The so-called “stimulus special” Event No. 4, the $1,000 buy-in no-limit hold’em event for which Harrah’s/WSOP expects 5,000 to enter, begins on Saturday, May 30. It will be interesting to see who among the top-level pros entering Event No. 2 will also enter Event No. 4 (presuming they bust out prior to Day 3 of the former event).

Of course, as B.J. Nemeth opined on last week’s episode of The Poker Beat (the 2/5/09 show), the event that the $40K NLHE event will most likely have the greatest effect upon will be this year’s $50K H.O.R.S.E. event (Event No. 49). Nemeth suggested there will be a certain percentage of players who will be forced to decide to enter one or the other of the two highest buy-in events at this year’s WSOP, and I think he’s probably right.

If we look at the $50K H.O.R.S.E. event (which started in 2006), they’ve yet to reach 150 entrants for that one (143 in 2006; 148 in 2007; 148 in 2008). One would expect considerably more players to lay out the cash for the $40K NLHE event this summer, including a number of those who would have otherwise played in the $50K H.O.R.S.E. event. All in all, I’d be very surprised to see the overall number of entrants in the $50K H.O.R.S.E. not be fewer this summer than it has been the past couple of years.

How many will enter the $40K event? They were throwing around numbers like 300 on the show, which would create a $12 million prize pool (minus the 9% or whatever the juice will be). Nemeth also suggested that a tournament that size -- comprised of what one expects will be most of the top NLHE players around today -- will in fact most resemble what the Main Event had been around a decade ago

In 1999, the year Irishman Noel Furlong won the Main Event, 393 players entered. The year before, when Scotty Nguyen won it, there were 350, and in ’97 (when Stu Ungar won his third title) there were 312. Again, a good point by B.J.

Will be curious to see how the two bracelets -- the non-“World Championship” one for Event No. 2 & the “World Championship” one for Event No. 57 -- are viewed and compared by poker fans. Particularly if we happen to see a number of high-profile pros make the final table of Event No. 2, and one of those take it down, while none make the final table of the Main Event and the champ emerges from oblivion (as has been the case the last few years).

Then again, there will be a lot of online studs lining up for Event No. 2, and if I had to predict I’d say one of them is more apt to take that bracelet than will a name pro.

In any case, I’ll definitely be interested to hear what the players have to say about Event No. 2, particularly as we get to spring and the idea of plunking down $40K right off the top becomes reality for some.

The Jerk Store Called, and They’re Running Out of You

When I take a spot at a six-handed limit hold’em table, I generally spend the first few orbits paying close attention to the other players’ styles, what they are showing down, how they handle the blinds, etc. I mentioned last week that down at the low stakes where I’m playing ($0.50/$1.00) it often doesn’t take very long to get a decent enough read on the other five players, although occasionally one will fool you with his or her play during those first couple of orbits and that initial impression turns out to be unreliable.

In that latter case, what often has happened is a player has done something to draw attention to him/herself -- e.g., raised preflop from early position with a trash hand, or called someone down with queen high, or something similarly conspicuous -- then subsequently plays in a manner that exploits those who are expecting him/her to play that way again. I suppose you’d call what they are doing consciously creating a false image, then profiting when others mistakenly assume they are incapable of changing their style.

There’s another sort of player, though, who consciously creates an image, but doesn’t appear to do so for any “metagame” reasons. Or if s/he does, that’s apparently just a secondary purpose.

I’m talking about the guy who by whatever means he can makes sure the table is paying attention to him at all times, basically just to be in the spotlight. Like I say, he may be partly motivated by the hope to rile others up and thus take advantage by tilting them, but (practically speaking) his primary purpose amounts to making sure everyone understands clearly the following message: “I’m a horse’s arse.”

Was playing with such a dude yesterday, whom we’ll call MrJerky. He takes a seat with $100, that is one hundred big bets. Already a minor attention-getter. (The default at PokerStars for this limit is $20, and most players tend to start with that.) Stack sizes generally don’t mean too much at the LHE tables, other than perhaps showing others at the table whether you’ve been winning or losing. Anyhow, after winning a hand early with a king-high straight when a poor player called him down with bottom two pair, MrJerky types a facetious “thx” in the chatbox. An introduction, of sorts.

When he adds “should have folded when yourten was no good,” it’s clear we have ourselves a self-styled lecturer. Later, holding pocket deuces, he unsuccessfully tries to bluff another player out of a hand who actually has a straight himself, then predictably criticizes his opponent’s play in the chatbox. “call of the donk,” he types.

I’m watching all of this, noting as well that in terms of his play he’s actually being loose-aggressive before the flop, but fairly passive afterwards, doing a lot of calling with middle or lower pairs (when not occasionally bluffing). I’d been steering clear with my mostly poor starting hands. In fact, after 30 hands or so the only one I’d shown down was ace-king, and so if anyone was paying attention to my image it was that of an overly tight nit.

Then came a hand in which I drew on the button. It folded to me and I decided to raise. The small blind called, then MrJerky three-bet from the big blind. Would probably have to outdraw here, I knew, but I called as did the SB. The flop brought two clubs, and when MrJerky bet I raised. The SB folded and MrJerky just called. The turn was the , MrJerky bet the dollar, and I called. The river brought my flush, MrJerky bet, I raised, he called, and I took the $12 pot as he mucked pocket queens.

The epithets that followed were expected. “donkey,” he began. “faaaag.” “raise with that.” “come on.” “raise with crap.”

Two orbits later MrJerky limped from UTG, and I open-raised from the cutoff with Q-T. The flop came , and when MrJerky bet out I raised him with my middle pair. When he just called, I suspected he didn’t have the king. When another king came on the turn, I was even more sure. He check-called me down and showed J-T. I’d taken another pot from him, sending him into further hysterics. “dude u r an idiot,” he opined. “ill get u.” “then u will be broke.”

It was about three orbits later when I finally picked up a real hand -- two red aces. On the button, too. Perfect, I thought. The table very nicely folded to me, and I raised. The SB three-bet, and MrJerky capped it from the big blind, typing “here we go.” I called, and the SB, suspecting further trouble ahead, surprisingly folded.

The flop came and MrJerky instantly fired out a bet. I just called, figuring him for just about any two cards here. (Should have raised, I know, but the decision didn’t matter too much.) The turn was the somewhat-troubling , but when MrJerky bet I decided to raise. I figured it likely he had a club, which meant unless he’d lucked into a straight he had at best just a pair. He instantly three-bet back, making me think maybe he had actually picked up two pair here. Or was it possible he had pocket queens, again? Didn’t like the looks of things, but I wasn’t going away. I just called.

The river was the , he bet, I called, and he turned over for the flush.

“lol” he typed. “idiot.”

So it goes. Sometimes the guy who caps it with deuce-trey cracks aces. I smiled, vaguely noting the coincidence of his having made a club flush to top my big pair after I had done the same to him earlier. In fact, now that I look back at the hand, I actually don’t think our respective efforts at cultivating images really had much effect at all on how that hand played out. Perhaps he’d only have called the three bets preflop (thus keeping the SB in the hand). But I don’t think he’s folding his sooted cards. And from there the hand played itself.

MrJerky gave back a few chips, then left the table a couple of bucks shy of where he’d started. It was easy to tell how he’d done, since he came with that hundy. That everyone noticed was all part of his plan, I suppose.

The Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show, Episode 13: The Life of Riley

Finally! Have a new episode of the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show for yr listening pleasure. You can listen by clicking here. You can also head over to iTunes to grab the show, if that’s the way you normally handle these things.

Have a comedy-themed show this time around. First up is a reading of James Thurber’s terrific poker-themed short story titled “Everything is Wild” (first published in the New Yorker in 1932). Managed to coerce Vera Valmore into doing the voices for the female characters in this one. Am also trying again to do a little of that “audio theater” here, inspired, I suppose, by all of these old radio shows.

The main feature this time is an episode of the old comedy show The Life of Riley called “The Gambling Lesson.” A fairly humorous sitcom-type show that does manage to produce a few grins.

Send yr feedback either by commenting here, on the show’s blog, or by sending an email to shamus at hardboiledpoker dot com.

Poker Podcast Round-Up

I know last Friday I was promising in this space a new episode of the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show. Ended up taking longer to put together than expected. Always does, actually. Managed to create another modest “audio theater” thing that required extra effort. Anyhow, the show will most definitely go up tomorrow (Saturday). No shinola. Comedy stuff, this time around.

Speaking of podcasts, I continue to follow the ones listed down on the right-hand side of the page. There are a few others out there, but that list comprises the most popular ones out there at the moment, as far as I know. Not going to do a full-fledged review of all of ’em, but I thought it might be helpful to some just to give a brief rundown of what one generally finds when listening to each.

Two of the shows -- the Two Plus Two Pokercast and the PocketFives podcast -- are associated with popular poker forums, though the shows are quite different.

This year marks the second year for the 2+2 show, a version of an older show called Rounders, the Poker Show done by the same hosts, Mike Johnson and Adam Schwartz. On the 2+2 show, Johnson and Schwartz usually spend the first part of the show talking about various poker news and “forum static,” then eventually they have one or more guests on (usually) from the poker world. The pair have good chemistry and are good interviewers. Lately the podcast has become the Two-Plus Hour Pokercast, and sometimes it is difficult to find the time during the week to listen to the whole sucker. Good stuff, though.

The PocketFives show is generally just under a half-hour long and most often features interviews with online stars who participate in the P5s forums and/or write for the site. The last four episodes have all given attention to legal issues of various kinds, and frankly those shows are a bit more useful and interesting than the ones that concentrate on interviewing the wunderkinds.

A couple of other “poker news”-oriented podcasts that focus on current events in the poker world and generally feature interviews are the Hardcore Poker Show (which airs over on Sirius) and the Bernard Lee Poker Show (which airs on a Boston AM station, then gets syndicated over on Rounder’s Radio). I sometimes have a little trouble tracking down the Hardcore Poker Show as it doesn’t seem to come up in iTunes very easily. Maybe I’m just not looking in the right place over there.

And, of course, under the heading of “poker news” shows comes the new one from Scott Huff, The Poker Beat, which I discussed a little bit last Friday. I did like that first episode quite a bit, and especially like Huff’s idea to have various poker journalists and bloggers on to discuss the latest stories and issues. Have a feeling this one will likely be at the top of my queue each week.

Ante Up!, the Florida-based show hosted by Chris Cosenza and Scott Long, continues to put out new episodes every Friday. The show has gone through a few changes over the last six months or so, but still follows what (for me) is the same winning formula -- a couple of serious amateur players talking poker. As an amateur (or, more properly, “recreational”) player myself, I like being able to identify with the hosts, and Cosenza and Long do a nice job articulating various issues and concerns of interest to those in our group.

Shows that specifically concentrate on poker strategy discussions are the Deuces Cracked show (a.k.a. “Deuces Plays”) hosted by Bart Hanson, Killer Poker Analysis hosted by Tony Guerrera (author of some of those “Killer Poker” books), and All Strategy, the PokerRoad show hosted by Scott Huff, Daniel Negreanu, and Justin Bonomo. Actually All Strategy has been on hiatus for six weeks now, and perhaps may be done. I usually can only take these strategy-specific shows in small doses, to be honest, although I do think Hanson especially does a good job communicating ideas and asking interesting questions of his guests.

Other poker podcasts will also sometimes get into strategy segments while not exclusively concentrating on such. Phil Gordon’s The Poker Edge (the ESPN poker podcast) has now turned its attention to discussing nothing but no-limit hold’em multitable tourneys, although it doesn’t always have that bent to it. Three of the other Rounder’s Radio shows -- Pumped on Poker, Poker Talk Beyond the Books, and Lou Krieger’s Keep Flopping Aces -- will also often get into strategy talk, although they tend to cover other items of interest in the poker world. While all three of those are recorded live, the first two -- Pumped & Poker Talk -- are more free-form than Krieger’s show, which tends to have a bit more focus each week.

Speaking of free form, the NeverWin Poker podcast -- the “Cold Call” show -- is mainly that, too, with a lot of off-color stuff thrown in for good measure (as one would expect). Can be fairly compelling now and then, depending on the hosts and the relative frequency of crank calls, but is usually a lot of goofin’.

When it comes to genuinely compelling interviews, though, you probably can’t top Wise Hand Poker (also on Rounder’s) and the Gamblers Book Club podcast. Gary Wise tends to land guests who are most in demand, and invariably does an excellent job with the interviews (in my opinion). And Howard Schwartz’s podcast in which he interviews authors and other figures from poker and/or gambling is terrific, too. (Wrote about Schwartz’s show a couple of weeks back, if you want to read more.)

The PokerRoad Radio podcast has been mostly dormant over the last few weeks. That’s the one hosted by Ali Nejad, Joe Sebok, Gavin Smith, Court Harrington -- and maybe a couple of others -- which had been following the professional circuit and doing multiple shows at each stop. I think they’re working on changing the format, though, and perhaps going to a more regular weekly show or something. The shows are usually fun, although the games and whatnot that often fill the first half can be a bit repetitive (especially when they’re doing five shows in five days). But I do think Nejad especially does well with the interviews, and they routinely land interesting guests over there.

I think that’s all of ’em. Like I say, I know there are other shows out there. There’s the Ultimate Poker Show (on Rounder’s) -- which seems to me like a paid advertisement for UB. I think the Joe Average Poker Show still exists, but I lost track of it after its long hiatus last year. Have not really followed whatever is happening on Hold’em Radio these days, though I think they are still up and running. And I think there’s something called Poker Soup hosted by some of my buddies that I might need to check out here soon.

Let me know if there are any shows out there of which I don’t seem to be aware that you think I should know about. And share yr thoughts about these podcasts, too, if you wanna.

Meanwhile, as I say, the podcast that features old time radio shows & other storytellers bringing you tales about poker and/or gambling has a new episode tomorrow. No shinola.

Running It Again with the UIGEA

Thanks to High Stakes Poker, even casual poker fans and players have become familiar with the idea of “running it again.”

One of the more memorable examples of players doing so was probably that $743,800 pot that went down between Patrik Antonius and Jamie Gold during the fourth season. (See the hand here.) With the board showing , the pair got it all in with Antonius holding for the Broadway straight and Gold for top set.

There Antonius had something like a 3-to-1 advantage with one card to come, and they agreed to “run it” three times, meaning three different river cards would be dealt, with each being worth one-third of the massive pot. Gold got lucky when the first river card was a queen and the second a trey, giving him full houses both times. Antonius finally claimed one-third of the pot when the third river card was an eight.

On the first day Barack Obama took office (January 20), some apparently thought that from a legal perspective we were now in a situation where it would be possible to “run it again” with regard to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

On that day came a report that his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had already sent a memo around to all of the new administration’s agencies and departments telling them to “stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted” by the new administration. Some heard that news and took it to apply to regulations for the UIGEA.

An easy mistake to make, I think, as those regs had indeed been “pending” for many, many months. But they were published back on November 12, 2008, and went into effect on January 19, the day before Obama took office -- i.e., those regs are not among the ones able to be stopped and reviewed. Of course, as the regs themselves state, “compliance... by designated payment systems is not required until December 1, 2009.”

No, there will be no “running it again” when it comes to the UIGEA.

Actually, I shouldn’t say that definitively, as there are a couple of faint legislative possibilities out there for the UIGEA and other so-called “midnight rules” that were finalized and put into effect by the outgoing Bush administration to be revisited.

One is this Congressional Review Act of 1996 that actually allows Congress (not the White House) to review and even overturn any rules finalized during the last six months of the previous administration’s tenure. However, that law has only actually been used one time since it was passed -- in 2001, when Congress used it to overturn a rule made during the Clinton administration having to do with establishing requirements for ergonomic work spaces. (If you’re curious, you can read more about the CRA here.)

The other chance at “running it again” with the UIGEA is this new “Midnight Rule Act” (H.R. 34) proposed right at the beginning of the new 111th Congress by House member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). Nadler actually first introduced this one back in November 2008, but had to reintroduce it when the new Congress started its work. Nadler’s bill would permit a new administration’s cabinet secretaries to approve or disapprove any rules adopted during the last 90 days of the previous adminstration, which would potentially include the UIGEA rules.

It appears highly unlikely, though, that either the CRA or this new Midnight Rule Act -- which was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary where it will likely remain for a good while -- are gonna be used to overturn the UIGEA. Which means from a legislative perspective, other avenues will have to be explored.

There’s been a small bit of buzz this week as Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) told the Financial Times he intends to reintroduce legislation to license and regulate online gambling in the United States. Frank probably has some sort of IGREA redux in mind, I’d think.

It should be noted that from a practical point of view, those of us who play online poker have to ask ourselves whether we really want to see online poker regulated, especially now that the UIGEA has gone into effect. To apply the analogy from High Stakes Poker, I can’t say for sure if we are in Jamie Gold’s position as an underdog who most certainly would desire the chance to “run it again” or that of Patrik Antonius who having the advantage might be better off not running it more than once.

In any event, we’ll be watching intently. And if they do run it again, it will be interesting to see how the cards fall.

Steve Martin is a Card

Some of you might have heard about Steve Martin’s appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman on Monday night. During the interview, Letterman asks Martin about his hobbies, and Martin says “for a while I played internet poker.” The audience genuinely laughs at this news, but Martin appears utterly serious.

In all likelihood, this is yet another “bit,” but Martin plays it deadpan. Then again, Martin did tell a story earlier in the interview about having been a passenger on that U.S. Airways Flight 1549 in which the two pilots managed to set the plane safely down on the Hudson River a few weeks ago. He even had a Photoshopped pic of himself amid the other survivors.

The laughter that comes just after Martin utters the phrase “internet poker” is interesting, I guess. I took it initially as the audience finding “internet” poker (as oppposed to “real” poker) humorous. Then I thought perhaps the crowd found something funny in the incongruity of the white-haired, 63-year-old Martin playing games on the computer. (Of course, Martin has been white-haired since he was 30.) Always interesting to gauge reactions whenever poker or online poker pokes its little head above the surface of the cultural mainstream, I think.

As the laughter dies down, Martin adds “when it was legal,” which seems to suggest his understanding that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 somehow made it illegal to play. Something about the way he tells the story seems sincere, actually, and this little disclaimer about the legality -- not really necessary to the comedy, here -- seems further to suggest he’s actually on the level and this is not “a level” (as the Two Plus Two-ers would say).

Anyhow, Martin then goes on to tell about having “one of those Ambien experiences.” Ambien is a sleeping pill taken to combat insomnia, and there have been instances where people have been found sleepwalking, eating, even driving cars after taking the drug, then later having no memory of having done any of these things. You can probably guess where this is headed.

If you haven’t heard the rest of the story, I’ll let you enjoy it yourself:



Again, the reference to calling support in “Pakistan... or India” is another detail that lends support to the idea that Martin isn’t quite making all of this up. He probably is (or was) somewhat familiar with “internet poker.” The stories on PokerListings and elsewhere about Martin’s appearance on Letterman are describing him as a “hobby victim” of the UIGEA -- that is, as likely happened with many others, the passage of the law dissuaded him from playing altogether, just as it has probably kept many new players from signing up to play, too.

Gotta think if the story is at all true Martin was over on PartyPoker -- the biggest site around at the time -- and when Party left the U.S. he, and perhaps many others, simply thought that was the end. People only have so much time, energy, and cash to devote to their hobbies, and since the UIGEA did have the effect of eroding some of those limited resources, some -- like Martin, perhaps -- decided they just didn’t need the hassle.

Yeah, Martin probably said “I don’t need internet poker anymore. All I need is this ashtray. And this paddle game, the ashtray and the paddle game and that’s all I need. And this remote control. The ashtray, the paddle game, and the remote control, and that’s all I need. And these matches. The ashtray, and these matches, and the remote control and the paddle ball. And this lamp....”

Speaking of Image

So a few nights ago (Saturday night-Sunday morning) I had one of of those weird, vivid dreams most of which survived to remain in my consciousness upon waking. I’ll spare you the crazy chain of circumstance that led up to the dream’s final scene, but it ended with me watching the Olympics -- both in person and on television (not sure how).

I was watching a newly introduced sport that combined platform diving and card tricks. Divers would dive into the pool from ten meters or whatever it was, swim the length of the pool and get out the other side, then on a small table perform some sort of card trick. I’m not making this up.

When I explained the dream to Vera Valmore, she asked me if the cards were waterproof. I assumed they were. She also asked me what I thought might’ve inspired the dream, and all I could come up with was last week’s announcement of this summer’s WSOP schedule, with its novel tweaks and various whatnot.

Would’ve been easier to explain, I think, had the dream come the next night, after I heard the news (along with everyone else) about Michael Phelps’ apology following a U.K. tabloid’s publication of a photo of the 14-time Olympic gold medal winner hitting a bong.

When I read that story, I immediately thought of that Todd Brunson article in the November 11, 2008 issue of Card Player describing Phelps bringing an entourage of 40-50 people to Vegas to stay at the Palms and meet and hang out with some famous poker players.

Brunson describes a long, fairly raucous night beginning with a big steak dinner (with lots of drinking), followed by a basketball game, a poker tourney, then some roulette in which Phelps won over a grand. By then it was early morning, and Brunson leaves the group to sleep for 12 hours. When he rejoins them at dinner the next night, “Michael was already in full swing at the bar,” ordering a drink for Brunson and “making fun of one of his friends for not drinking.”

The article goes on, with Brunson marvelling at Phelps’ capacity for liquor. “‘Incredible,’ I thought to myself. This guy was drinking some sort of mixed drink when I got here, then the tequila, then the whiskey, all in less than five minutes!” (I suppose a dude who consumes 10,000 calories a day or whatever it is should be able to handle a bit more booze than yr average drinker.) In the end, Brunson concludes Phelps to have been a super friendly guy who was “on cloud nine,” letting go a bit after the many years of discipline that led up to his Olympic triumphs.

I’m not judging Phelps at all, and in fact would tend to echo Brunson’s conclusion that the man is certainly entitled to live it up a bit. I was actually surprised when I read the Card Player article that the story told there didn’t appear to make the mainstream media, although perhaps some tabloids did pick it up and I missed it. Of course, drinking never suffers the backlash smoking dope does, even if the moral distinction the public tends to make between the two is a sketchy one.

Knowing the significance of appearances, it seemed a little remarkable to me that Brunson would report Phelps’ drinking and partying with such nonchalance. While letting go like that would be perfectly normal behavior for yr average 23-year-old, for a guy like Phelps there are obvious risks in doing so. Especially in public. As it turns out, that probably was a mighty expensive buzz the swimmer caught off that bong, as many of those lucrative endorsement deals he snagged along with those eight golds last summer have opt-out clauses regarding just this sort of conspicuous, public embarrassment.

I guess the other part of the story that interests us poker players is the fact that Phelps has made known his interest in our game and even played in a tourney or two during his Vegas trip. I wrote a post back in August in response to the news that the star athlete was talking about playing in the 2009 World Series of Poker, optimistically titling that post “The Poker Cause: Phelps Helps.” There I speculated a bit how Phelps coming around to the WSOP “instantly affords poker a kind of credibility in mainstream society.”

Of course, now I suppose we have to wonder if that is really the case.

Phelps has time to rehabilitate his image, certainly. But I guess I wonder now whether poker perhaps takes an image hit if Phelps comes around to Vegas to play in some more tourneys? That is to say, would Phelps playing in the WSOP inspire the general public more readily to associate poker with other vices...?

I ask that question knowing full well how absurd such a line of thinking is. But the human mind works in strange ways, making associations where one would least expect it.

Like this dream I had the other night....

Lessons in Limit(s)

So January ended up a nice month for me, poker-wise. After an unhappy January 1 playing pot-limit Omaha, I decided to stick with limit hold’em for pretty much the entire rest of the month (with just a few very minor excursions elsewhere). Did not play a single tournament. Had an especially good January 31 and finished the month with a profit that actually resembled a good month (for me) playing PLO50 -- this primarily sitting at $0.50/$1.00 6-max. LHE tables. Lot less stressful, too, lemme tell ya.

I used to play nothing but LHE, right up until the middle of ’07 when I became a (mostly) PLO guy. So it took me a week or two to get back into the limit hold’em mindset. Sort of like going back to that old neighborhood where you once lived. You recognize street names and certain landmarks, though can’t quite drive directly to your old place without making a few wrong turns. Eventually, after circling around a bit, you start to remember the old route you used to take, and soon yr gettin’ around just fine.

Have been reviewing some in Small Stakes Hold’em by Ed Miller, David Sklansky, and Mason Malmuth and Advanced Limit Hold’em Strategy by Barry Tanenbaum. Also picked up Matthew Hilger’s newly revised and expanded Internet Texas Hold’em, which contains a couple of new chapters about short-handed play. All good for the reorientation.

Thought I’d share three generalities (and/or guidelines) about micro/low limit hold’em that have occurred to me over the last month.

1. Learning Others’ Limits. Probably the most important factor when first sitting down at the LHE table is getting an idea how others approach the game, most specifically what hands your opponents are willing to play. And, once you’ve got that, how they tend to play ’em.

One aspect of short-handed play I like a lot is the fact that no one can really sit and hide from you for very long. In fact, at this low limit where I’m playing it generally takes very little time to figure out the other five players’ styles. Often, all a player has to do is open-call one time from the cutoff to signal he or she is not all that crafty. Then, when that player shows down K-7 offsuit in that hand, one can usually conclude something about that player’s hand selection abilities, too. One can be fooled, of course, but it generally isn’t that hard to figure out and categorize yr tablemates in this game.

2. Limiting Variance. There are a few situations in LHE that I’ve started to approach with the idea in mind that I’m making a conscious decision expressly to limit my swings. Some involve starting hands. Depending on my opponents and how a session has been going, I’ll sometimes throw away hand like A-rag or K-10 even if it has been folded to me in late position, telling myself I’m purposely opting out of getting involved in a potentially big winner or loser. Other times I’ll open raise with the same hand.

There’s also a situation on the turn where I sometimes am also making a similar decision. It is heads up, and I could be acting first or last (doesn’t matter). I’ve taken the lead on the hand on the flop with a less than sure holding, say middle or bottom pair or maybe just ace-high, and have been called (or check-called). The turn does not help me, and I decide either to check behind or check-call (depending on my position), rather than continue betting out. Basically I’m avoiding putting three big bets in the pot, instead making it so I can see a showdown for just one big bet (or perhaps two). I might be letting my opponent fill out an inside straight or back into two pair or something to pass me in the hand, but again, I’m trying simply to avoid putting lots of bets in the middle in situations where I’m less than confident I’ll be getting ’em back.

3. Limiting Emotion. Probably the biggest difference between LHE and PLO, I’m guessing, is how easily Omaha can get you riled up to the point of irrationality, while limit hold’em remains much more subdued. Or serene. Or sane.

Sure, it is possible to get flustered now and then when the donkeys get lucky, or when one is forced to endure a succession of misfortunes. And some cannot help but respond by lashing out in the chatbox. (I was just writing about one such character on Friday.) However, I am generally able to avoid such hand-wringing in LHE -- most of the time, anyway. In fact, I’ve realized that my decision to play LHE (rather than PLO) amounts to another conscious choice to limit my emotional investment in poker -- in other words, not to “chase the dragon” (as Dr. Pauly describes PLO).

The highs won’t be as high, but the lows won’t be as low. Much prefer the monthly graph looking more like the left-half of a rocky, yet gradually upward-sloping mountain than a seismogram of a tectonic earthquake.