American Vendor

Part of that PokerStars 25 Billion Bash promotion this past week included a bonus for depositing. Stars doesn’t offer those that often, and this one was quite generous -- 25% up to $250. In fact, the site was calling it their “Biggest Ever Reload Bonus.”

When I heard about the offer, I reacted pretty much as I have to all bonus offers since Neteller shut its virtual doors to us Americans.

That is to say, I didn’t react at all.

I’ve told the story a few times here how I started playing online poker back in late 2004. Like just about everybody who played then, I moved my initial roll to a poker site (Stars, actually) using Neteller. I started with the minimum deposit of fifty bucks, broke even for three months or so on the penny tables, then began winning some and pretty soon had built up to a couple of hundy.

Looking back at my log book, I see that I had $232.33 in my Stars account when I made my first withdrawal -- a hundred bucks’ worth. Basically followed that pattern for a while there early on, taking out a hundred every time I got back up to $200-250 or so. As those who remember Neteller know, you first had to move your money from the poker site to Neteller, then another step was required to move it from Neteller to your bank account.

Stars was my only site until 2006 when I finally opened an account over on PartyPoker. That was about the time I became familiar with deposit bonuses and how lucrative they could be. Unlike Stars, Party offered such bonuses constantly -- it seemed like every other month. I started keeping a few hundred over on Neteller to have ready whenever one of those came up.

And they were so easy to clear, too. I can’t recall exact details, but it seemed like it only would take an afternoon to claim the $20 or $40 or whatever Party was giving me for depositing. Once I cleared a deposit bonus, I instantly would withdraw the money I had deposited back out of the site.

I eventually got a Full Tilt Poker account, too, and took advantage of their deposit bonuses when they came around as well. Then came the UIGEA and the exit of Neteller, and I basically stopped doing the deposit thing altogether because of all the added hassles.

That’s why I didn’t react to the recent Stars offer, instead shrugging my shoulders and thinking, well, this was yet another way Americans are playing at a disadvantage thanks to our bass ackwards legislators.

It was after a short spell of reading some folks on forums chirping about the promotion -- expressing unfettered glee at all the free moneys they were enjoying -- that I decided to look again at deposit options available to me over on Stars. There aren’t many, but this eChecks thing looked fairly simple to use.

The way the 25 Billion Bash deposit bonus went, one stands to earn 25% of whatever one deposits up to $1,000, meaning the maximum one could get would be $250. One has to earn a certain number of VPPs to clear the bonus -- I believe it is 20 VPPs for every dollar. Not too hard to do.

I ended up exchanging several emails with PokerStars support in an effort to figure out how I could best take advantage of the offer. (As is always the case with Stars support, they were very helpful and accommodating.) There are limits on how much one can deposit via eChecks if one has never used it before. Long story short, I was only able to deposit $200 before the promo period ended yesterday, meaning I will be earning a $50 bonus once I accumulated the needed VPPs. Having now made my first eChecks deposit, I’ll be able to take better advantage of such offers with Stars whenever they come up again.

As far as I can tell, the process of using eChecks to deposit was super smooth. And a bit of an eye-opener. Things may well change between now and December 2009 when banks will be required to follow the UIGEA regulations that were published in November 2008 and went into effect on 1/19/09. But for now, depositing online doesn’t seem to be that big of an issue for Americans. Not to Stars, anyhow.

Hell, now that I think about it, depositing is even easier than before (no Neteller = no middle man). And in my experience, withdrawing has always been a breeze, too.

Gonna have to stop thinking myself as an American to whom all the online poker options are not available. At least until December, anyway.

Watch & Wondurrrr: The Tom Dwan Challenge Has Begun

Am sure most of you reading this here blog have at least heard of that high stakes, heads up challenge issued by Tom “durrrr” Dwan late last year in response to which a few players -- Patrik Antonius, David Benyamine, and Phil Ivey -- have agreed to take a shot. The first match began a couple of hours ago, with Antonius and Dwan each taking spots across from one another at four different $200/$400 pot-limit Omaha tables (especially named “durrrr Challenge”) over on Full Tilt Poker.

For those who don’t know exactly how Dwan set up the challenge, he invited anyone (other than his friend Phil “OMGClayAiken” Galfond) to play heads up, four tables of either PLO or no-limit hold’em, at a minimum of $200/$400 blinds. The challenge would last for 50,000 hands, at the end of which whoever was ahead -- even by a single dollar -- would be the victor. If Dwan won, the loser owed him $500,000; if Dwan lost, he’d pay his vanquisher $1.5 million.

The winner would also (of course) claim whatever was won during the challenge itself, an amount which has the potential to exceed the bet amount. Considerably.

I’ve actually railed a little bit this morning, and it appears both players are mostly playing tight with big pots erupting only occasionally. Of course, with blinds this huge even the small pots are not insignificant, and with four tables going the swings are noteworthy.

Here’s the biggest pot I saw during the short time I was watching, a $90,000 pot won by Antonius. Took place on “Table durrrr Challenge 3” around 8:10 a.m. ET:



Kind of curious to see both players pushing the flop with what appear to us mortals as fairly thin holdings (even for heads up). Such is the world of high stakes PLO, I guess.

Just glancing at the sure-to-be-monstrous thread over on Two Plus Two (where folks are posting lots of hands), it appears Antonius might have taken an early lead, going up about $68,000 after 170 hands, then Dwan won a couple of huge pots, including one over $100,000. But Antonius battled back and appeared to be enjoying a $70K lead or so after 300 hands of play when the pair took a short break. All that seems a bit fuzzy, though, as posters appear unsure whether or not Antonius might have rebought on one of the tables.

Not to mention that in the time it took me to type that, all has no doubt changed.

I suppose I am as intrigued as anybody about the challenge. Kind of harkens back to that legendary match between Johnny Moss and Nick “the Greek” Dandalos at Binion’s Horseshoe back in 1949 or 1951 or whenever it did (or didn’t) take place.

That was that four- or five-month long match staged by Benny Binion that some want to say planted the seed for the World Series of Poker (which started in 1970), although the connection is a bit tenuous. Although much that surrounds the Moss-Dandalos match is shrouded in mystery, certain details have been repeated many times, including the fact that pots sometimes reached as large as half a million dollars, and in the end Moss won a heady amount off of his Crete-born opponent, perhaps as much as $2 million.

The pair began their match back in the poker room, but Binion apparently moved them out to the casino’s entrance so as to attract the attention of those passing by on Fremont Street. In Big Deal, Anthony Holden notes that “the crowd stood six deep around the table, marveling at the nerve and stamina of these two poker titans, and at the vast amounts of money passing back and forth between them.” James McManus says in a Card Player article there were “200 or 300” watching the match. I suspect a few more than that might be railing over on Full Tilt right now.

In fact, even Albert Einstein -- who was living out his last years in the U.S. at the time -- was reported to have been among the railbirds. (If yr curious, you can read more about the whole story of the Moss-Dandalos match here.)

There is one huge difference between the Moss-Dandalos match and the “Durrrr Challenge,” though -- the historical record. When it comes to the final results of the Antoinus-Dwan battle, one thing we can all be assured of is that it will be reported widely. That wasn’t the case for Moss-Dandalos; in fact, some (including Michael Craig) have expressed doubts about whether the match even took place at all!

No, there will be no doubts, I wouldn’t think, about what actually happened between Antonius and Dwan. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone took all of the hand histories, imported them into a hand replayer such as the one above, and built a YouTube movie of the match for all to watch.

And analyze. And wonder.

Losing Focus

I mentioned yesterday that over the weekend I’d played a large number of hands over on PokerStars. Actually has been an inordinately high volume couple of weeks for me here in February, as I’m already approaching Silver Star status while playing strictly $0.50/$1.00 limit hold’em.

As far as results go, the month has been fairly uneven thus far. Had a particularly poor day yesterday while two-tabling, during which I think I experienced a somewhat unique situation in which a player at one table negatively affected how I did at the other. Let me try to explain.

I have been making it a habit to two-table these 6-max. games, and as I normally do, I sat down first at a single table to play a few rounds and get to know the players before opening the second one. I recognized a player on my left from before -- TheAgitator -- a somewhat aggressive type whom I remembered as mostly solid.

On just the fifth hand I picked up under the gun and raised. The table folded back around to TheAgitator who then three-bet from the big blind. Knowing this was TheAgitator’s usual modus operandi to reraise with a wide range of hands preflop (indeed, I’d already seen him do it at least once during the first four hands), I went ahead and capped it and he called.

The flop came , giving me a set, and The Agitator check-called my bet. The turn was the , and again my opponent check-called. The river -- wouldn’t you know it -- brought yet another heart, the . This time TheAgitator bet out, I made the crying call, and he showed for the backdoor flush. (Cut to cartoony shot of steam comin’ out from under Shamus’ fedora.)

Not a great way to start. TheAgitator subsequently went on a nice little rush, and took full advantage of the swell advertising that resulted from his having played four-trey offsuit in such a nutso fashion. I mostly kept out of the way, and indeed managed to get some chips back from him by being patient.

Incidentally, sitting there to TheAgitator’s left, I thought a little bit about how, contrary to popular wisdom, some strategists have noted that my seat isn’t always the best spot to be in such a situation -- that is, to the immediate left of the loose-aggressive maniac. If yr curious about that topic, here’s an article by Rolf Slotboom that makes the case against sitting to the maniac’s left (both in LHE and PLO). The article is reprinted as two pieces in Slotboom’s newest title, Secrets of Professional Poker 1.

Meanwhile, as I dealt with TheAgitator there on Table #1, I opened Table #2 and quickly proceeded to drop a load of big bets in short order thanks to my own loose-aggressive play. Perhaps in response to the way TheAgitator was handcuffing me there on the first table, I was open-raising with a wider range than I normally would on the second table, and unfortunately (1) I couldn’t hit a flop, and (2) my opponents often were. Not only were my opponents catching cards, they were catching on to what I was doing, too, thereby smartly maximizing my losses on hand after hand.

A disinterested observer watching me play might have described what I was doing over on the second table as a poor parody of TheAgitator’s approach on Table #1. I finally figured out I needed to readjust after getting successfully called down by a player holding only king-high. I was holding my own against TheAgitator at the first table, but thanks to his influence had become an incoherent mess over at Table #2.

F-Train was writing yesterday about doodling down in these low limit HE games online (referring specifically to $0.25/$0.50) and he made a few valid points. One was mostly implied, namely, that even these low stakes games can provide an interesting challenge, even for a guy like F-Train, who can occasionally be found at middle stakes live LHE games. He also noted how these low limit games are quite “beatable” (though can be “frustrating”). Hear, hear.

The other point he made, which I think my session yesterday illustrated, was “that losing focus or discipline for even a moment can be very costly” (relatively speaking, that is). I’m pretty sure that’s what happened to me, even though I didn’t consciously realize that was the case until afterwards.

Of course, that’s what losing focus generally amounts to -- becoming less “conscious” of the here and now.

Milestones (in Cluelessness)

Played a ton of hands over the weekend over on PokerStars. Thus was sitting at a couple of tables (occasionally three) when a number of those “milestone” hands were being played elsewhere.

Yes, elsewhere. Didn’t manage to luck my way into playing one of those hands with the juicy extra cash prizes attached to ’em. Not sure what the precise odds were for hitting one of those, but it felt like one in several thousand at least.

I assume most of those reading this blog were aware of the big promotion over the last few days Stars had to commemorate the dealing of its 25 billionth hand. Several promotions, actually. One of which was a series of cash prizes handed out every ten million hands starting with hand 24,850,000,000.

Those hands were treated sort of like “jackpot” hands, with every player dealt into the hand getting an extra cash prize, then the winner of the hand getting an additional bonus. The cash prizes were given out according to table stakes, meaning if the hand happened at a “Micro” table, everyone got $125 and the hand’s winner an extra $300. At the “Low” tables, all got $250 and the winner $750 more. At “Medium” stakes tables, everyone got $500 and the winner an extra $1,250. And at the “High” stakes games, everyone got $1,000 and the hand’s winner an additional $2,500.

There were some shenanigans early on, I heard, involving two-player teams sitting with each other at two dozen heads up tables and folding every hand, thereby trying to increase the chances of getting dealt a milestone hand. Stars actually had to suspend their “1-on-1” tables for the duration of the promotion in order to thwart that bit of blatant collusion.

When one of the hands was about to take place, Stars gave a little announcement in the chat box. They also were linking to milestone hand tables from the main lobby, and a couple of times I clicked through to watch the hands take place.

Here was one of the milestone hands, a $0.02/$0.05 six-handed no-limit hold’em hand from Friday afternoon:



As I usually do, I changed the player names -- in this case to protect the clueless. As this was a “Micro” stakes hand, all six players won $125 just for being dealt cards. Then the winner stood to receive an extra $300 on top of that.

No one had more than $8.60 when the hand began. One player, out2lnch, posted both the small and big blinds (that is, seven cents). Before the flop comes down, there is a delay while PokerStars’ support announces in the chat box that it is a milestone hand. I believe there is also a banner-type announcement that briefly appears over the table pointing out the same. In other words, anyone paying even a little bit of attention should know something is up.

Of course, not everyone knew about how the promotion worked, specifically how the winners of these hands got extra cabbage. That was clear from how this one played out. Two players -- spacey & zoned out -- fold preflop! The replayer doesn’t show it, but zoned out actually left the table immediately after he folded. Clearly he wasn’t tuned in to what was going on here, and was probably surprised to see the extra $125 in his account later.

Two more players -- out2lnch & in a fog -- subsequently fold to einstein’s 15-cent bet on the flop. Then dopey folds on the river. No showdown, even!

Take the case of spacey, who had $2.22 when the hand began and folded preflop. That’s something like 135-to-1 odds spacey is turning down -- assuming he would have to commit his entire stack at some point -- by deciding not to play this one out.

If one hops over to the forums, apparently this sort of thing wasn’t unusual at all during the promotion, as many of the milestone hands saw players folding out, obviously unaware of what they were giving up by doing so.

The big one -- the 25 billionth hand -- went off sometime early this morning, around 4:45 a.m. ET or thereabouts. For that one, those dealt into the hand split a cool $100,000, and the winner stood to grab an extra $100,000 plus an EPT Monte Carlo package, a PokerStars Caribbean Adventure package, a WSOP Main Event package, and a World Championship of Online Poker (WCOOP) Main Event entry.

That hand ended up happening at a $1/$2 Omaha/8 table, and there was a bit of controversy as one player either accidentally folded his hand or there was some sort of connection issue that caused him to fold. If yr interested, Otis wrote it up over on the PokerStars blog.

I generally liked this promotion. Brought a hell of a lot of traffic to the site -- there were over 250,000 players logged on during the afternoon yesterday, with something near 60,000 of them playing cash games at one point. The best part about the promotion, of course, is that the players aren’t paying into the “jackpot” as happens on other sites. That is, they aren’t paying over and above what they’d be paying for rake in order to contribute to some “bad beat jackpot” thingy or the like.

Guess I’ll just have to try again when they get close to the 30 billionth hand. Only took Stars six months to deal the last five billion, so I’d estimate four or five months until that promotion happens. I know that’s a long way away, but please, try to remember: if you happen to get dealt into one of those suckers, don’t fold!

The (Unexpected) Return of the Prodigal Son

So I’m listening to yesterday’s episode of The Poker Beat (2/12/09), that new podcast over on PokerRoad hosted by Scott Huff in which he has on various poker media types to discuss news of the day. After a discussion of that Russ Hamilton video and its possible significance, Bluff Magazine Editor-in-Chief Matthew Parvis came on to talk about this new “Bluff Magazine Online Poker Challenge” announced earlier this month.

The Challenge sounds interesting enough. It looks like a great chance for the sponsoring site, Lock Poker, to get some publicity, although in the interview Parvis says it was his “brainchild.” As one can read about over on Bluff, the “competition will bring together some of the best online poker players and each will be given an opportunity to build a bankroll playing multi-table tournaments and sit-n-gos exclusively on Lock Poker.”

As Parvis explained on the show, “we are basically depositing $200 into a Lock Poker account” for each player invited to play in the Challenge. The accounts are apparently “locked” (pun intended?) so no other deposits or transfers can be made with them, and as the Challenge proceeds they will be audited each night “because we don’t want any scandal to be associated with the Challenge itself” (explained Parvis). The players will have 30 days to try to build their rolls, and the one who manages to earn the most will make the cover of an upcoming issue of Bluff. I believe all of this will happen in March.

“We were lucky enough to get some really quality guys,” noted Parvis on the show. He mentioned several, including the magazine’s 2008 online poker player of the year David “The Maven” Chicotsky, Adam Junglen, Matt Vingren, Eric “Rizen” Lynch, Søren Kongsgaard, “Bodog” Ari Engel, and Jeff “Yellowsub” Williams. “A really, really good line-up of quality guys,” said Parvis, adding that he was only listing some of the 20 players who had been invited.

The article over on Bluff mentions some of the others who have been invited, including Garrett “GBecks” Beckman, Phil “USCphildo” Collins, Brett “Bhanks11” Hanks, and Maria Ho. Sorel Mizzi is also listed, he of the “account selling” incident from December 2007 that caused him to be banned from Full Tilt Poker.

Parvis talked a bit about Mizzi on the show. He also talked more than a bit about one other controversial name appearing over there on the list of invitees: Josh “JJprodigy” Field. No shinola.

You remember Field, don’t you? First banned from PartyPoker back in February 2006 (when he was just 16) after he won their $500,000 Sunday Tournament in which he was playing under two screen names (JJProdigy and Ablackcar). He was then caught cheating at other sites, as well, from which he was also banned. PokerStars even banned him from playing in their PokerStars Caribbean Adventure once he turned 18.

It was right around the time he turned 18 that Field issued some “apologies” (of a sort) on forums and in interviews. I transcribed a bit of the PokerRoad interview (the 1/14/08 episode) in a post titled “Uncorrected Personality Traits That Seem Whimsical in a Child May Prove to Be Ugly in a Fully Grown Adult.”* Among other questions, Field was asked in the PokerRoad interview whether or not he was then “playing on the sites you’re banned from and you have no plans to play on [those] sites.”

“At this moment in time, yeah,” answered Field. “I can’t tell you in a month I’ll be thinking the same, because it’ll be really hard not playing all those sites. But right now, yeah.”

On The Poker Beat, Parvis said he’d spoken with Field at the recent Aussie Millions and afterwards felt he was worth inviting to participate in the Challenge, even though Parvis admitted Field had made some “serious, serious mistakes in his life in terms of the poker world and cheating, and multi-accounting, and ghosting, and selling accounts... whatever the scandals may be.” “That’s a hell of a laundry list,” joked Huff in response.

Well, now it appears Field will not be able to play in the Challenge after all. Parvis told Huff he received an email on Wednesday which reported “there was some situation” over on Cake Poker (for which Lock Poker is a skin, I believe) with an “account hand-off” involving Field. “Whatever the case is, it appears that JJ has been involved in another sticky situation here,” said Parvis, and so will not be allowed to play in the Challenge.

To Parvis’ credit, he expressed humility to Huff about having been fooled into thinking Field had indeed changed his cheating ways. Still, one has to wonder about the initial decision to invite the notorious JJProdigy to participate in such a Challenge. They don’t want “any scandal to be associated with the Challenge itself,” but then Bluff invites the most notorious, scandal-ridden player in online poker to participate?

As I was listening, I was amazed Field could even resurface in this way as part of any story -- much less one involving selecting top online pros to participate in a freeroll like this. As Seth Meyers would say over on Saturday Night Live Weekend Update, “Really?!?”

Yet another head-scratching moment from the ethically-ambiguous world of online poker.

*By the way, that earlier post title came from Robyn Hitchcock’s twisted a cappella number “Uncorrected Personality Traits” that appears on one of my all-time favorite discs, Hitchcock’s 1984 masterpiece I Often Dream of Trains. And speaking of masterpieces, that’s “The Return of the Prodigal Son” by the Dutch master, Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, pictured above.

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.