The Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show, Episode 14: The Hot Hundred Grand Caper

Those of us who like to listen to poker podcasts have a lot to choose from these days. Wasn’t all that long ago when there were really only a couple producing regular shows. There was Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio. And Ante Up! and Card Player’s The Circuit. And that was pretty much it.

Now, of course, there are probably 30 or more shows out there regularly churning out new content for us to download onto our iPods or iPod-like devices. I’ve listed the ones with which I try to keep up over on the right-hand column, though have to admit there just ain’t enough time during the week to listen to every minute of every one.

So I know by producing my own podcast -- which I’ve been doing intermittently for nearly a year now -- I’m becoming less and less special as time goes by. Sort of like I’ve built and have been slowly furnishing a tiny little shack over on the far side of the busy poker podcast landscape. Still, I hope those of you who have given The Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show a try have enjoyed it as something a little different from the rest of the many good podcasts we now have available to us.

Finally got that Episode 14 together and posted today. This one focuses a bit more directly on the “hard-boiled” side of things, with the two great novelists Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett being primarily featured. I start out with a short anecdote about Chandler and poker, then talk a bit about Hammett before playing an old episode of The Adventures of Sam Spade.

You can listen to the show by clicking here (or right-click and “Save As” if you wanna download the sucker). Head over to the show’s blog to read the show notes. You can also get the HBPRS through iTunes, which is how I like to get podcasts these days.

Leave feedback here, at the show’s blog, a review on iTunes, or via an email to shamus at hardboiledpoker dot com. All thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

In fact, one idea I have been considering is perhaps to invite folks to contribute audio segments to the show, if they’d like. The podcast is primarily devoted to storytelling, with the stories all focusing on poker and/or gambling. The only real restriction I’ve given myself on the show is to try to ensure all of the stories are somewhat “timeless” -- that is to say, a new listener can go back and download earlier shows and enjoy them as much today as when they were first posted.

So if you think you have an interesting story to tell that might fit with the show’s format and would like to share it, drop me a line. (Indeed, having others contribute now and then may well make it easier for me to produce shows more frequently.)

Tom’s Adventures in Durrrrland

Barry Greenstein keeps what they call an “audio blog” over at Poker Road called “Tips from the Bear.” His entries come fairly infrequently, with some being genuine “tips” and others just recounting various hands or happenings. In the latest (dated 3/9/09), Greenstein discusses that amazing hand from the most recent episode of High Stakes Poker -- the final one of the episode primarily involving himself, reigning World Series of Poker Main Event champion Peter Eastgate, and the guy everybody’s talking about these days, Tom “durrrr” Dwan.

“This hand will be remembered for a long time,” Greenstein begins, using the same sober tone he always employs when doing these audio blogs. I think he’s right. Already been a bit of buzz on the intertubes about it, and I imagine the hand will continue to receive a lot of attention over the next couple of months as people discuss it even further on blogs, forums, podcasts, and elsewhere.

If you have not seen the hand, I don’t want to spoil it for you. Before reading any further, take a look:

As Greenstein points out in his audio blog commentary, stack sizes are very significant here. Greenstein says he was one of the shorter stacks at the table with about $230,000. Meanwhile, Eastgate had bought in deep (and had won a few pots), and so had about $500,000 in front of him when the hand began. Dwan also had something in the neighborhood of a half a million. All of which means we’re talking hundreds of big blinds in each stack -- nearly 300 or something for the Bear, and twice that for Eastgate and Dwan.

To describe the action: The blinds are $400/$800 with a $200 ante. Greenstein picks up under the gun and open-raises to $2,500. Incredibly, all seven of his opponents call the raise. Dwan starts it by calling from UTG+1 with . Then David Benyamine calls with , Eli Elezra with , Ilari Sahamies with , Daniel Negreanu (button) with , Eastgate (small blind) with , and Doyle Brunson (big blind) with . Total pot is $21,600.

“Who opened this pot that got seven callers, that’s all I want to know,” says a sheepish-looking Greenstein.

The flop comes . As Greenstein says on his audio blog, about as good a flop as he could hope for (aside from flopping a set) when holding pocket aces and facing a table full of opponents. Eastgate checks his trips, Brunson checks, and Greenstein leads out for $10,000 -- just under half the pot. Dwan, who has paired his ten, then raises to $37,300. “I don’t know what he’s doing,” says Gabe Kaplan on the commentary. “He’s gotta know that Barry’s really got a hand here.” It folds around to Eastgate who silently calls Dwan’s raise. Greenstein calls, too. Pot now $133,500.

The comes on the turn, and both Eastgate and Greenstein check. Dwan (who has the weakest hand of the three) considers for a good while, then fires out $104,200. Eastgate folds, perhaps worried that Dwan has ace-deuce or something, and a very pained-looking Greenstein also folds. Dwan wins the pot.

Once the hand is over, Elezra pipes up to say “Barry fold the best hand.” Technically true, as Eastgate had gotten out, but I am not sure what Elezra thought Eastgate might have had. “Well, he had the best hand,” says Dwan, pointing to Eastgate as he stacks his chips. Dwan goes on to say he’ll make a side bet that Eastgate had the best hand, and it sounds like Brunson takes him up on it. Kaplan rounds out the commentary saying the only other player he could imagine making a play like Dwan’s would have been the late Stu Ungar.

I’m not even going to pretend to try to analyze this hand. For that, go listen to Greenstein, whose 17-minute commentary in his audio blog gives us novices a lot of other things to think about here. Instead, let me just list three reasons why this hand is so friggin’ fascinating to small-time punters like myself.

For one, the action is especially peculiar, utterly unlike anything we’ve ever seen previously when it comes to poker on television. The majority of televised poker is tournaments, where such “family pots” rarely occur (and are even more rarely shown). They don’t occur in cash games that much, either, especially high stakes games. As Greenstein says in his narrative of the hand, he open-raised and “something happened to me that has never happened to me before in an eight-handed game,” namely, the whole table called. Things get even weirder post-flop, and seem even more so to a lot of us given that we see the hole cards. So the sheer novelty of the hand is one element here.

Secondly, seeing the worst hand manage to push out not one but two better hands is also something most of us find amazing to watch. Those of us who call ourselves recreational players (or amateurs) watch a hand like this and with all three players discover that we are probably not personally capable of having acted the way each of them act. Take just the turn action: most of us cannot imagine ourselves betting out like Dwan, nor folding trips like Eastgate, nor folding pocket rockets like Greenstein. The whole hand thus has an “uncanny” feel to it wherein we recognize it is the same game we play, but we also recognize what we are watching is wholly unfamiliar to us.

Finally, the fact that the hand involves these particular players makes it all the more interesting. Thanks to his frequent participation over on Poker Road and on the forums, his well-regarded book Ace on the River, his long-term record of solid play, and his humor and generosity, Greenstein rightly occupies a fairly central position in our little poker world. When we watch High Stakes Poker, we’re usually more intrigued by a hand involving the Bear than a hand, say, between Benyamine and Elezra. Eastgate also fascinates, thanks to his youth and status as the 2008 WSOP Main Event champ. For a variety of reasons, we want to see how this youngster is going to handle himself on this difficult, challenging stage.

Then there’s Dwan. Of the “Durrrr Challenge.” Cover boy of the February 2009 Bluff. “He posterized me,” says a humble Greenstein in his commentary. Indeed, Dwan is poker’s current Michael Jordan. Dwan makes this hand happen, of course. But his involvement ensures it fascinates, too.

Earlier in the episode, in response to a false claim from Dwan regarding the strength of a hand he had folded, Kaplan cracks “He lives in a little cabin in Durrrrland.”

Dunno where that is. But, like Alice, I think we’re all becoming curiouser and curiouser!

Huck Lights Out Ahead of the Rest

Followed that NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship a bit yesterday, until it got down to Vanessa Rousso and Huckleberry Seed in the finals where they played two-out-of-three. (Looks as though Seed swept her 2-0.) Was reading along there on PokerNews, and the last I saw before hitting the sack was Seed and Farha in the semis constantly shoving their hopelessly-short stacks (like eight big blinds or so) over and over until Seed finally rivered a flush to move on.

Seed clearly has some heads-up game. His record in the five years’ worth of NBC Heads-Up events is remarkable, finishing in the round of 16 twice (2005 and 2007), the semifinals twice (2006 and 2008), and now winning. If my math is correct, that’s an overall record of 19-4 in those heads-up matches. Oh, and Seed additionally won the 2008 Canadian Poker Open Championships (also a heads-up tourney) just before last year’s NBC Heads-Up event.

Of course, as has been the case every year, the structures for the NBC event don’t really allow for heckuva lot of play. Now that the event is done, I thought I’d take a closer look at those structures to see just how poor they were.

Round 1: For first round matches, players began with 20,000 chips (matching the $20,000 buy-in). Blinds began at 150/300, meaning everyone had 66.67 big blinds in his or her stack to start. Levels were just 15 minutes long. Heads-up means more hands per minute, but I’m guessing they probably couldn’t average much more than a hand per minute. And, of course, one big hand requiring a lengthy visit to the tank could wipe out a third of a level or more. My buddy F-Train, who covered the event, could tell us just how many hands were being dealt each level.

For Level 2, the blinds doubled to 300/600, meaning suddenly players averaged 33.33 big blinds. Level 3 had them go to 400/800 (25 big blinds), Level 4 to 600/1,200 (16.67 big blinds), and Level 5 to 1,000/2,000 (just 10 big blinds). Looking through the live blog, it appears most first round matches were done in less than an hour, meaning few got to Level 5.

Round 2: In the second round, players took all 40,000 chips they had won in the previous match to the table, but the blinds started at 300/600 (again, 66.67 BB each). Level 2 was 400/800 (avg. 50 BB), Level 3 was 600/1,200 (33.33 BB), Level 4 was 1,000/2,000 (20 BB), Level 5 was 1,500/3,000 (13.33 BB), and Level 6 was 2,000/4,000 (10 BB). Given the similarly superfast structure, most second round matches were again done in less than hour, with probably no more than around 50 hands played in many of them.

Round 3: Here players started with 80,000, with the blinds at 600/1,200 in Level 1 (again, 66.67 big blinds each). The blinds then ramped up similarly: Level 2, 800/1,600 (avg. 50 BB); Level 3, 1,000/2,000 (40 BB); Level 4, 2,000/4,000 (20 BB); Level 5 3,000/6,000 (13.33 BB); Level 6, 4,000/8,000 (10 BB). I think John Juanda and Bertrand “ElkY” Grospellier might’ve actually made it all the way to Level 6 in their third round match, which necessarily ended in a sequence of shoves from which ElkY emerged the victor.

Round 4: Players began with 160,000 here, and the blinds for Level 1 were 1,000/2,000, meaning for the first time in the tournament players began with a whopping 80 big blinds apiece. For yesterday’s matches, I’m not seeing the rest of the blind schedules, but I’m assuming they followed a similar progression as before. That would mean here in the quarterfinals, Level 2 had blinds of 2,000/4,000 (avg. 40 BB), Level 3 had 3,000/6,000 (26.67 BB), Level 4 had 4,000/8,000 (20 BB), and so forth.

The David Williams-Sammy Farha match was over by the end of Level 1, when Williams flopped a full house, then Farha rivered a better boat. And the Huck Seed-David Oppenheim match looks like it ended right at the start of Level 2, with the pair choosing to take a pocket eights-vs.-AQ race. Phil Hellmuth got knocked out in the middle of Level 1 when he ran his pocket queens up against Grospellier’s pocket rockets. Only the Daniel Negreanu-Vanessa Rousso quarterfinal lasted longer than 15 minutes or so, taking just under an hour (it appears). Negreanu built a 2.5-to-1 chip lead, but Rousso came back to advance.

Round 5: Players had 320,000 chips each to start the semis, and the blinds began at 1,500/3,000. That means 106.67 big blinds each, by far the biggest starting stack (both literally and relatively speaking) to this point. For Level 2, the blinds were 2,000/4,000 (avg. 80 BB). I’m not sure, but it looks like they might have been 4,000/8,000 for Level 3 (40 BB), then 5,000/10,000 for Level 4 (32 BB). In any event, they made it all of the way to 20,000/40,000 in the Farha-Seed match, meaning the pair had just 16 big blinds between them at the end.

Round 6: Rousso and Seed each started with 640,000 chips, and the blinds here were set at 3,000/6,000 for Level 1, meaning players again enjoyed 106.67 BB starting stacks. Not sure how the schedule proceeded from there, but I assume it resembled what they had in the semis. It appears in both matches it took Seed just under an hour to defeat Rousso.

So, yea, a sequence of crapshoots, no doubt. Over the three days, Seed probably collectively made a higher number of good choices along the way than anyone else, and thus deserved the half million in cabbage he got for taking it down. But really, it is hard to look at a tournament like this as offering much conclusive evidence of anything much.

Or, to put it another way...

Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.

2009 NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship Concludes Today

In the NCAA tourney -- a.k.a. “March Madness” -- they love alliteration. Or should I say, they are almost always all about alliteration. So they tend to designate the various rounds with labels like “Sweet Sixteen” and the “Final Four.” (At least they don’t bother with the “Swell Sixty-Four” or “Thriving Thirty-Two.”)

So the quarterfinals are generally referred to as the “Elite Eight.” And while the need for alliteration may make the appellation seem, well, arbitrary, it basically does the job. The eight teams who make the quarters are usually pretty darned good, and winning three more games against (usually) worthy competition makes them even more deserving of “elite” status for the couple of days between the third round and the quarters.

And while the structures are a bit too fast (increasing the luck factor significantly), I suppose for the sake of convenience we can safely refer to the remaining eight players in the NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship as “elite,” too.

Hellmuth bested Dwan in their rematch, but he has another tough online (and live) player awaiting him in Bertrand “ElkY” Grospellier in the final of the “Spades Bracket” (or “region,” to further the analogy with the NCAAs). The winner of that one will meet the winner of the “Clubs Bracket” -- either Daniel Negreanu or Vanessa Rousso.

Negreanu bested Scotty Nguyen in the third round after showing up dressed like Nguyen with wig, sunglasses, and requisite bling (see picture). I suppose you could say Negreanu gave Nguyen a lesson in dopplegänger management. (Rim shot.)

Rousso is the last woman remaining in the event; in fact, she was the only one of the six women who were invited to make it past the second round.

Over in the “Diamonds Bracket,” Huck Seed meets David Oppenheim. Seed (the 1996 WSOP Main Event champ) has now cashed in all five NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championships. Oppenheim (you will recall) was the last-minute replacement for Layne Flack. The winner of their match will meet the winner of the “Hearts Bracket,” either Sammy Farha or David Williams.

They’ll play the whole sucker out today, starting at 11:00 a.m. Vegas time. Follow the action over on PokerNews.

Dwan-Hellmuth II (No Shinola!)

In that post earlier this week about the NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship, I very nearly said something about the Layne Flack-Vanessa Selbst first round match being the most intriguing of the opening round pairings. As far as I was concerned, anyway.

I happened to have had the chance last summer to watch both Flack and Selbst win bracelets at the World Series of Poker, where I helped cover both players’ final tables. Both were especially dominant in their respective events, particularly during the endgame. Thought that would make for a helluva heads-up.

As you’ve probably heard, the match never took place, as Flack got himself into some trouble with the authorities the night before (including an arrest for DUI) and thus missed the event. David Oppenheim took his slot, and managed to beat Selbst. (Here’s the rundown on the Flack debacle, if you missed it.)

Anyhow, now they’ve reached the “sweet sixteen” out at Caesars, with several interesting matchups having come together there in the third round. Am especially interested in seeing how the Daniel Negreanu vs. Scotty Nguyen match goes, as well as John Phan vs. Sammy Farha.

Of course, the most intriguing third round match has gotta be the rematch between Tom Dwan and Phil Hellmuth, set to start later tonight. Something tells me that one is gonna last longer than three hands this time.

If yr interested, F-Train and Garry Gates are doing a great job live blogging the sucker over on PokerNews.

UB Judging

Well, my timing was much better yesterday for my drive home, which was smooth sailing. Wasn’t any better at the tables, though. My March graph now looks like a modest mountain, with the peak on Tuesday. Nothing to do but try to climb that sucker again.

Had the iPod for my run yesterday and listened to the first part of this week’s Two Plus Two Pokercast (the 3/3/09 episode). Good as always, although the show is so long it would take me about 15 miles to listen to the entire thing. Since I am still only running two miles at a time, I only heard the beginning, and so have yet to get to the interviews.

One of the items discussed by the hosts, Mike Johnson and Adam Schwartz, there in the first part of the show concerned the player Mike “SowersUNCC” Sowers. Referring to the recently-concluded L.A. Poker Classic (a World Poker Tour event), Johnson noted that when they reached the Main Event’s final table, Sowers (who would finish third) “shows up with a UB patch on.”

That led Johnson to speculate whether or not the WPT “would be right or justified in making a decision where they say, ‘You know, for the good of poker, for our reputation, we will not allow UB advertising, patches, or logos at our final table because you [i.e., UltimateBet] have admitted to stealing millions of dollars from poker players over the years and we don’t want anything to do with you [UB].’”

Johnson went on to say that “there were certain things they would not allow at a final table.” Schwartz wondered if someone would be allowed to wear a Swank Poker label on one’s forehead. Swank Poker is that small online poker site that apparently had incorporated some “adult” content into its client software at some point, though looking at the site it appears they may have been forced by someone (not sure whom) to stop doing that. They also may be changing their name, too, to Red Cherry Poker.

In any event, Johnson said “probably not” in response to the question about Swank. Johnson then asked “Could you wear a swastika?” Not such a helpful analogy, really. But we get it. There are obviously certain kinds of patches the WPT just wouldn’t allow.

I was curious to hear what the hosts would conclude regarding the question. After a bit more discussion, they agreed that if it were not for the celebrity and influence of Phil Hellmuth and Annie Duke, the WPT would ban UB logos without hesitation. “If they weren’t sponsored by UB, I would bet that that would have happened already,” said Schwartz. “I think Phil has too much power in the industry now, where they are not ready to say that to him.”

Of course, up until quite recently, the WPT didn’t allow any logos at final tables. Starting with the Gold Strike World Poker Open (in January 2008), new rules for “pre-approved logos” were put in place. One can view those rules on the WPT site.

Reading through, it all seems pretty clear. Nothing on the forehead. Just one patch on the left breast pocket, no more than six square inches. Nothing advertising any illegal activity is allowed. Nor does the WPT allow any ad for “pornography [which would nix the Swank ad, I suppose], firearms, tobacco, personal hygiene, sexual aids, or hard liquor.” Finally, the WPT, the network airing the shows, and the hosting casino all “reserve the right to restrict logo wear for any reason whatsoever at their sole discretion.”

So clearly the WPT would certainly be “right or justified” to forbid UB logos if it wished to so, given that they reserve such a right for themselves in their player sponsorship rules. The WPT does not forbid UB logos, of course. Indeed, one sees Ultimatebet.net included on the list of “pre-approved sponsors” at the bottom of the page.

What do I think? Well, for one, I don’t really believe Hellmuth and Duke have much to do with the WPT’s decision on this matter one way or the other. If they wanted to forbid players from wearing a UB patch, they could easily do so. Hellmuth blacked out the “UB” on his hockey jersey for Day 6 of the WSOP Main Event last summer when he was requested to do so -- I think because the logo was too large. I’m sure he’d do so again, if he made a final table and the WPT told him he had to.

However, I don’t think it would make much sense for the WPT to single out UltimateBet in this way. Obviously I’m no fan of UB, and don’t care much to see the site continue to be promoted by players (and other entities). But the decision to promote this or that site is up to the individual player, and I don’t really think the sites players choose to represent reflect one way or the other on the WPT or whatever other venue they happen to appear in which they wear their logos.

An interesting question, I guess. Of course, we poker fans have other stuff on our minds today, as the NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship gets underway. And it looks like Mike Sexton and Phil Hellmuth are squaring off in the first round.

Maybe they can talk about the logo thing between hands, if it is really an issue. Wouldn’t think it would come up, though. ’Bout as likely Hellmuth getting shipped a pot in which he held a worse hand, probably.

Here is that there bracket:

When Life Hands You Lemons, Make Lemonade, But When Life Hands You a Load of Crap, Don't Make Anything (Trust Me)

Headachy day yesterday, highlighted by unusually bad traffic coming home from work. Rather than the usual 45 minutes the trip normally takes, it was about two hours before I finally made it to my doorstep. Spending nearly three hours of one’s day behind the wheel is no way to live (unless one drives a taxi or truck, I guess).

Problem is, I live in close proximity to a largish lake, which means unless I want to swim home there are only two possible routes, the interstate or the state road. A wreck or some other snafu on one tends to back up both, in which case the choice one makes really doesn’t matter all that much. Yr stuck following the path you chose. And you get a lot of time to brood about your choice, too.

Once I did finally make it home, I probably should have just gone for my run rather than hop on the computer to try to squeeze in a few hands of 6-max LHE. After getting off to a hot start here in March, yesterday’s session was cold, cold, cold. Made a poor decision or two here and there, but felt mostly that circumstances were conspiring against me to ensure a losing day.

Had a very loose guy on my left, yet somehow when it folded to me and I’d raise with pocket kings from the small blind he’d know to fold. Got A-A a little later in the cutoff, open-raised, and all folded. Meanwhile, when I’d open-raise with Q-10 or the like, I’d get three-bet.

Then came hand where I was dealt 10-6 in the big blind, the table folded to the button who limped (typical for him; he was not a very savvy player), and the SB folded. Flop came J-10-3, I bet, he called. He’d not really shown much in the way of cleverness, so I doubted he had the jack (he would raise), and most likely he either had a better ten or maybe A-3. Turn was a six, giving me two pair. I bet, and he raised. I was sure I had him, and so three-bet. He just called. The river was a king, I decided just to check-call, and he showed pocket treys for the set.

Good hands, bad hands -- either way it seemed I was screwed. Kind of like my drive home. By the time I logged off it was too dark to run, so I hit the gym and rode the stationary bike for a half-hour.

Dominated that friggin’ bike, by the way. Although it felt a bit like my drive home -- a lot of pedaling without getting anywheres.

All that time in the car does allow me to catch up on podcasts, though, and yesterday I listened to a new one. Following cmitch’s tip (over on O-Poker), I had downloaded a couple of episodes of a show called Mediocre Poker, a relatively new one out of Washington, DC that started up last fall.

The hosts, Bret and EB, sound like a couple of fairly serious non-pros who play a lot of NLHE online. I listened to their two-part interview with Cole South, the high-stakes online pro who was on Poker After Dark a week or two ago. South is also the co-author of that $1,850 e-book titled Let There Be Range that I wrote about back in December.

Have to say, unlike happens with Bart Hanson’s Deuces Cracked show where I can usually get into the conversations about high-stakes happenings and strategy, I couldn’t really identify much with anything South had to say about the management of his multimillion-dollar bankroll. Still was a fun listen, with the hosts asking a number of questions we micro/low limit guys might well have asked, too.

And I like the show’s title -- both humble and euphonious.

Scanning back through the Mediocre Poker archives, I’m seeing a number of shows with other interesting guests, including Taylor Caby, Eugene Todd (bro), Dusty “leatherass” Schmidt, Jason Rosenkrantz, Gavin Griffin, Tiffany Michelle, Brad Booth, and some other online phenom types. Most recently they’ve had Mori Eskandani (producer of High Stakes Poker, Poker After Dark, and a bunch of other poker shows) and Greg Raymer as guests. And next week they’re having Phil “OMGClayAiken” Galfond.

I believe the show originally airs on a DC radio station, then gets posted as a podcast. In any event, sounds like a decent one to add to the line-up, so I thought I’d echo cmitch’s recommendation and let you know about it, if you hadn’t heard of it already.

Hey, if I’m gonna be stuck in the car like this, I might as well be useful to someone. Here’s hoping our timing is much better today.

(By the way, that post title ain’t my invention, although I don’t know who originated it. Thought it more fun than my first title idea: “Goin’ Down the Road, Feelin’ Mediocre.”)

The Recreational Poker Player

In poker, a lot is made of the distinction between “professional” and “amateur.” Arguably everyone who plays poker can say he or she belongs to one or the other category, even if not everyone can agree on how exactly to define the two groups.

In some respects, this feature does not make poker that different from other endeavors in which people demonstrate varying levels of skill, with some percentage (usually small) achieving a status that brings them enough financial reward for their efforts to be regarded as those of a “pro.” Analogies are easy to find -- from sports (golf, bowling, dressage) to art (writing, painting, photography) to entertainment (music, drama) to other areas of our culture. Indeed, practically any pursuit for which one can potentially receive payment and thus “make a living” invites the separation of its participants into the two categories.

Then again, poker is also different from all of these other activities in that it not only takes money to play, but the exchange of money is part of the activity itself. (One can play poker without money, but no one ever asks whether the person who plays for “play money” is a pro or amateur, so we’ll set that aside.)

In other words, even some amateurs are -- technically speaking -- making money, with a few of those distinguishing themselves significantly from their opponents by making a lot more money, relatively speaking. Thus arises some fuzziness between the categories, with lots of disagreement over just what constitutes being a “professional.”

In Elements of Poker, Tommy Angelo has a section titled “Going Pro?” in which he “define[s] a professional poker player as someone who either quits a job to play poker, or never had a job and plays poker instead of getting one.” It is a matter of commitment, Angelo suggests, whereby one forgoes that other possible existence -- the “normal” one in which one’s living comes not from poker but some other source -- and instead necessarily devotes most (or all) of one’s available time and energy to poker.

Doing so “requires a tremendous amount of poker playing, poker thinking, poker talking, listening, reading, and writing,” says Angelo, adding that “there isn’t quite enough time in a normal life to hold down a normal job, maintain normal relationships, and [also] be a poker monster.”

Kind of funny that Angelo would use that word “monster” there at the end, suggesting both a very successful poker player and someone who is somehow not human (or “normal”). His point is clear enough, though, and is echoed by many other poker writers, too -- one should never take lightly the business of becoming a poker pro, as it requires a significant reorientation of one’s self-image that will potentially affect all areas of one’s life.

However, some of us have trouble with declaring ourselves “amateur” players, too, as even that designation seems to involve some degree of commitment to the game not all of us are willing to make.

Maybe that hesitancy partially comes from the fact that poker isn’t unequivocally acknowledged by much of society as an acceptable pursuit (morally speaking). To say one is an “amateur player” implicitly engages one in an argument about poker, and not all of us want to get involved in such arguments all the time -- even those of us who can debate the point knowledgeably and effectively.

The fact is, whenever I am asked about my poker playing, I almost never say I am an “amateur.” Rather, I usually declare myself a “recreational” player, which some might say is really just another way of saying “amateur,” although in my mind I assign the term a particular meaning which makes “recreational” signify something slightly different.

An “amateur” generally does what he or she does for pleasure, not profit. That’s what is usually meant by the term, anyway, although we can talk about, say, Olympians or college athletes who are very, very serious about what they do and who are not in it strictly for pleasure, but the desire for competition and/or other motives. In fact, in just about every pursuit where the term comes up, it is the “not profit” part of the definition that makes the “amateur” an amateur (not the “for pleasure” part).

Which brings us back to that earlier-mentioned problem with using the term with reference to poker players. Because amateur poker players do play for profit. And some earn a bit here and there, too.

The term “recreational” also refers to someone looking for pleasure or enjoyment, with the added connotation of seeking to relax or find respite from the stressors of one’s life. And whereas the definition of “amateur” wants to exclude profit-seeking, making a little cabbage can still be a primary motive for a recreational poker player, though it doesn’t have to be.

I also like the etymological significance of the word, which suggests one “recreates” oneself -- or “recovers” or “restores” -- when pursuing that activity. Poker does that for me, giving me intellectual stimulation, satisfying competitive desires, and adding a bit of controlled, manageable uncertainty into my life.

So while I might partly use the term as a self-descriptor either out of (1) an unwillingness to “commit” even so far as declaring oneself an “amateur” seems to imply or (2) in response to society’s moral prejudice against poker, to say I’m a “recreational player” nevertheless has meaning to me.

And like any good existentialist (professional, amateur, and/or recreational), I’m all about making meaning.

2009 NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship Starts Friday

The fifth NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship will be played out later this week. On Thursday evening they will draw to fill out the brackets for the 64 participants, then the tourney will be played out over the next three days (March 6-8) at Caesars Palace in Vegas. The sucker will subsequently be repackaged as 12 hours of programming, aired in two-hour blocks every Sunday from April 12-May 17.

All four previous champions are in the field of 64: Phil Hellmuth (2005), Ted Forrest (2006), Paul Wasicka (2007), and Chris Ferguson (2008). The last six World Series of Poker Main Event champs will be there, too: Chris Moneymaker (2003), Greg Raymer (2004), Joe Hachem (2005), Jamie Gold (2006), Jerry Yang (2007), and Peter Eastgate (2008).

Last’s year’s World Series of Poker Europe Main Event champ, John Juanda, will also be there, but the 2007 WSOPE Main Event winner, Annette Obrestad, will not, as she still isn’t old enough to play legally in an American casino. (She’ll turn 21 this September.)

The celebrities invited include Don Cheadle, Brad Garrett, and Orel Hershiser. Jennifer Tilly and Gabe Kaplan will be there, too, although both of them have some significant poker successes to go with their celeb status.

That’s 16 of the 64. Looking through the rest of the list of those invited, one sees a number of familiar names -- that is, folks who have been there for most if not all of the previous five NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championships. People like Andy Bloch, Chad Brown, Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan, Allen Cunningham, Annie Duke, Sam Farha, Barry Greenstein, Gus Hansen, Jennifer Harman, Phil Ivey, Howard Lederer, Erick Lindgren, Mike Matusow, Daniel Negreanu, Scotty Nguyen, Huck Seed, Erik Seidel, Mike Sexton, Gavin Smith, and David Williams. Other unsurprising names on the list include David Benyamine, Eli Elezra, Antonio Esfandiari, Scott Fischman, Layne Flack, Clonie Gowen, Phil Laak, Vanessa Rousso, J.C. Tran, and Kenny Tran.

Of the remaining spots, four went to online qualifiers: Fred Collins, Blandino Gines, Nicholas Joy, and Leon Yanovski. And there were two more who qualified through tourneys at Caesars: Jeffrey Ishbia and Kenny Yeh. Ishbia is an attorney and recreational player, while Yeh is a cash game grinder and part-time dealer.

All of which means when most of the participants were announced a couple of weeks ago, there were really only a few names that especially piqued the interest of those of us who follow poker closely. That Ivan Demidov -- third-place finisher at the WSOPE Main Event and runner-up at the WSOP ME -- got the invite makes sense. John Phan, two-bracelet winner at last year’s WSOP and reigning Card Player player of the year, is a good choice, too. Glen Chorny, Gavin Griffin, and Dario Minieri have been invited for the first time. And Jonathan Little and David Pham are back, too. I suppose one could argue there’s a lot that is arbitrary in the selecting of folks, but all of these guys seem deserving enough.

The remaining four participants are the ones I’m most interested in watching, though. Bertrand “ElkY” Grospellier and Vanessa Selbst have both well demonstrated their poker prowess, including heads-up play. Grospellier finished runner-up at the WCOOP High Roller Heads-Up event last September, and Selbst has made it to the semifinals of the last two WSOP Heads-Up events. Both are ones to watch, I’d say. Am also interested in seeing how Ilari “Ziigmund” Sahamies, the high stakes regular and Chat Box Laureate over at Full Tilt Poker, makes out in the event.

Finally, there’s Tom Dwan. His new stardom thanks to the Challenge and the new season of High Stakes Poker might have been enough to get him back on. But his brutal ousting of Hellmuth in the first round of last year’s Heads-Up Championship probably guaranteed his return more than anything.

It was just the third hand of the match. Players started with 20,000 chips, and after two hands Dwan had just a tiny chip advantage. Hellmuth limped in (for 150) from the button/small blind with , and Dwan promptly raised to 1,100 with . Hellmuth reraised to 3,600, and Dwan took about 20 seconds or so before announcing he was all in. Hellmuth quickly called. The flop came , but the turn brought the , giving Dwan the set. Hellmuth could still make a flush (or spike an ace), but the turn was the and he was out.

Here’s the pair’s entire match, including Hellmuth’s postgame blubbering:



There has been some interesting chatter on 2+2 lately about that hand, including one thread in which Daniel Negreanu jumps in to say why he thinks Dwan made a pretty obvious misplay there against Hellmuth.

Says Negreanu, “The call with 10-10, that early in the match, against this ONE specific opponent -- was a MISTAKE. Not marginally so, but clearly, a major error because Durr was the favorite in the match the longer it went, and the 10-10 were simply NOT ahead of PH’s range in that situation. There is NO WAY PH was going to look stupid, on TELEVISION, that early in the match against a player he clearly felt he could trap with the best hand. Durr could have robbed him silly with little risk, virtually never calling a PH bet and won easily.”

Dwan went on to lose to Mike Matusow in the second round. Will be very interesting to see how Dwan approaches this year’s tourney, regardless of whom he faces. First prize is $500,000 -- not bad, but not such a plum compared to Dwan’s other ventures, it seems.

From what I understand, the structures remain poor for this tournament. Still has the potential to produce some interesting stories, though, so I’ll be following.

(EDIT [added 12 noon, 3/3/09]: For a discussion of some of those not invited to the NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship, see Shaniac’s post from today.]

Economics Is Hard

Over the weekend Vera and I attended a dinner party and had a good time socializing with several folks from different walks of life. I had perhaps met one or two of those present prior to Saturday evening, and so did a lot of introducing of myself and what I do as I met the other two dozen who were in attendance.

I’ve written before (more than once) about how the “poker side” of my existence -- the “Shamus” side -- usually doesn’t come up in these contexts. However, among this crowd Vera knew several folks and through her a couple of those were aware of my poker playing and writing. So there were a few occasions during the night when I did chat a bit about poker with people who asked.

At one point, after the desserts had been eaten and some of us were lingering around the table, one partygoer said she was tired of everyone talking constantly about the economy. She turned to me and said “Let’s talk about poker,” a kind of conscious ploy to get away from commiserating about the country’s financial woes.

However, she immediately followed that with a question about how the economic downturn was affecting poker. I answered with a two-sentence summary of the situation, noting that while many in the poker world were talking about the economy and asking the same question, people were still playing.

From there, someone brought up how he’d found a new inexpensive wine recently that really was quite good. Jokes were made about how the wine was even better after the first couple of glasses, then the conversation moved along to other examples of comparison shopping with an eye toward saving a buck.

My little summary of how the recession (as all now seem comfortable calling it) is affecting poker was inadequate, for sure, though accurate enough, I think. Certainly the situation is much different among the live games than it is online, and there are probably important distinctions to be made between high, middle, and low stakes players, too. But it is reasonable to say “people are still playing,” I think. And, if one wished to venture such predictions, it would be reasonable to add that people will always play. More or less, anyway.

By coincidence, this morning I read through Nolan Dalla’s two-part column over on PokerNews Daily titled “What the Economic Crash of 2008 Means for Poker.” Dalla, of course, is the co-author of the Stu Ungar biography One of a Kind and current Media Director for the WSOP.

For his column, Dalla asked eight people to comment on the issue, each of whom possessed different credentials that could be said to afford some specific preparation to speak to the issue intelligently. The group comprises “an attorney, a former management consultant turned author, a tax accountant, a psychologist, a high-tech consultant, a computer programmer, a college professor, a former online poker executive, and a casino industry observer.” Sort of like that party I attended, with people coming from a variety of backgrounds to gather around the table, so to speak.

The first contributor, a Washington D.C. attorney named Ken Adams, observes that “any business that depends on discretionary consumer spending is in trouble, whether it is a manufacturer or a service business.” Adams really does not address poker directly that much in his response, but you can read between the lines here. Money used to play poker is mostly (not entirely) “discretionary consumer spending” and so, I suppose, poker could be “in trouble,” generally speaking.

Interestingly (to me), he sounds a lot like the folks at my dinner party when he says a grocery store owner with whom he played poker told him people are “buying cheaper, low-profit store brands and specials rather than the premium (higher profit) brands and items.”

Other commentators address the situation faced by poker more specifically. Three others contribute to part one of Dalla’s column. Nick Christensen, reviewer of over 250 poker books and poker author himself, offers a near-term forecast for Vegas casinos. Dr. Arthur Rebar, a psychologist, actually focuses more on economics in his response, suggesting that poker won’t be as affected as, say, slots, which are generally frequented by those of a lower income, though more so than other table games played by “high rollers.” Poker pro Perry Friedman then offers a few general observations, including the idea that tourneys will suffer less than cash games.

Dan Goldman, former VP of Marketing for PokerStars, kicks off part two of the column with a guarded, so-far-so-good assessment, correctly stating that for now “traffic on the two leading online poker sites, PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, seem to be unaffected.” But this situation will likely change, says Goldman. Dr. David Croson, an economist, then offers some advice to casinos trying to market to stretched-thin customers. Poker author Lou Krieger shares some anecdotes from his travels that confirm the notion that we aren’t seeing major effects yet, though may soon enough. Finally, tax expert and poker author Russ Fox focuses his comments on current legal issues and the government’s stubbornness regarding online poker.

Like the rest of our culture, the “poker economy” is many-layered, making it difficult to generalize about its overall fate. Still, it is interesting (and hard to resist) occasionally making the attempt to assign it some sort of coherent character. Kind of like when we sit at a table looking out at nine different opponents, each of whom has his or her own particular style, then try nonetheless to characterize “the game.”

I guess trying to draw such conclusions is more than just interesting -- it is necessary. But hard to do.