The Return of Isildur1

Little time (or energy) available for posting today, I’m afraid. Too much to do and too little time to do it. It’s not like I have the seemingly limitless stamina of, say, Isildur1, the man who can play nearly 10,000 hands in less than 24 hours at the highest stakes and against the top pros.

I began this week here sharing some of Mike “The Mouth” Matusow’s comments about those super-stacked, “nosebleed” games over on Full Tilt Poker in which Isildur1 has been a primary participant of late. That got me interested in checking out how Isildur1 had been doing over these 6-7 weeks since his return.

Some big, big wins for the mystery Swede in there. And, once again, some devastating losses. Or, I should say, losses that would prove devastating for most of us mortals, but for Isildur1 seem business as usual.

I ended up compiling a summary of Isildur1’s activities since his return in early February. If you’re curious to catch up on the story, you can read that summary over at Betfair here: “The Isildur1 Saga, the Sequel.”

One part of the story I found especially interesting was that huge losing session Isildur1 suffered against Phil “OMGClayAiken” Galfond. Talk about suspect game selection. Amid his battles with the other top pros -- and during the latter part of that one insane, nearly 10,000-hand session that took place in less than 24 hours -- Isildur1 took on Galfond at the $300/$600 and $500/$1,000 pot-limit Omaha tables, and Galfond took around $1.87 million from the Swede.

Galfond wrote a short blog post about their battle over at his site, Blue Fire Poker, which included links to several hands as well as a couple of very interesting, 7-8 minute videos from the session (with Galfond’s commentary). If you’re interested, check out that post here.

So signing off early today. Hope everyone has a relatively calm, non-swingy weekend. I’m going to try. I think staying away from the $500/$1,000 PLO heads-up tables will help.

Oh, Baby... Quads Again

Has been an okay month, pokerwise, thus far. Lately I’ve been shuttling back and forth between the pot-limit Omaha games and limit hold’em, rediscovering my fondness for LHE as I do.

I think it was that trip to the Palm Beach Kennel Club a couple of weeks ago where I played LHE that spurred me back into that game online. I mentioned in that trip report how I’d had the good fortune once to flop quad treys. Not only that, I managed to get paid, having a table full with me for the flop, a few more stick around for the turn, two go to the river, and one call me on the end.

Soon after returning I happened to have a hand online where I again improbably flopped quads. Not only that, it was treys again. And again I got some action.

In fact, it was kind of a perfect storm with this one. Check it out (RSS readers might need to click through to the post in order to view these hands):



Then a couple of days ago I made quads once again, this time on the turn. I don’t always three-bet with little pairs like this, but ihaveahand had been raising more than half his hands and I was thinking I could get him heads-up. That didn’t work out, but just about everything after that did.



Finally, yesterday I had yet another hand in which I managed to flop four of a kind -- and once again made a few berries, largely thanks to the reckless opponent who followed me to the river:



Yes, I know. By posting these hands I realize I am essentially guaranteeing that I will not be seeing quads again for, oh, years and years. Ah, well. At least I’ll be able to come back to this post and remember those days when it seemed to happen all the time.

Webster’s Poker Book (1925)

Sometime last year my friend Tim Peters sent me a very thoughtful gift -- an original edition of Webster’s Poker Book (published in 1925).

The condition of the book is not mint by a long shot, with the worn edges, broken spine, and yellowing pages attesting to the book’s age. Still, a rarity of sorts, and I get a kick out of pulling it out now and then and mulling over its various advice and illustrations.

The book could be regarded as a primer of sorts for poker -- one does learn rules, some strategy, odds, and other information of value to players. Mostly, though, it seems aimed at entertaining readers, a goal which it achieves throughout.

A short note at the front of the book explains that “IF YOU HAVE NEVER PLAYED POKER... This book will doubtless stimulate you to learn America’s favorite game.” Five-card draw is the game of choice here, with just about all of the discussion centering around that variant.

In addition to the instruction, there are also numerous anecdotes, funny stories, a history of poker, and other ephemera scattered throughout, the most famous of which being the illustrations by the famous American cartoonist Harold Tucker Webster, better known as “H.T.” Indeed, you have probably seen some of these before reprinted in other poker books -- a total of fifty different one-page cartoons, many of which graphically depict common and/or humorous situations discussed in the text.

Above is the cover, and here is the title page which lists all of Webster’s collaborators, too:



You see reference there to “a compartment containing a set of poker chips and a pad of I.O.U. forms embellished by Webster, ready for instant use.” The book actually does contain a little shelf inside the back cover which can be pulled out. The chips were long gone, but there are still some of the I.O.U. forms, designed for use at the end of the night at the home game. Here’s one of those:



There were also some postcards in there, the front of which featured advertisements for the book and the back a form which could be filled out before sending to your poker buddies. That picture at the bottom of the front side gives you an idea how the little shelf that slides out of the back cover works.





By the way, if you look back at that title page you might notice around the border images of the four suits plus what appear to be swastikas. Webster’s Poker Book appeared right about when the Nazi Party had first adopted the swastika (the first volume of Mein Kampf was also published in 1925, actually), a time when the symbol had yet to take on the connotations which we instantly associate with it. Indeed, before its appropriation by the Nazis, it was often considered a symbol of good luck, which I’m guessing had to be the reason why it was included here.

As I say, the cartoons are the main reason why this book is remembered, and so I wanted to share a few of them with you. All of them evoke ideas and concepts that are familiar to just about anybody who has played poker. A lot of grins to be found among ’em, too.

Here’s one that evokes a common theme in the book -- the eternal struggle between husbands and wives over poker playing:



Here’s another that reminds us of something we’ve all felt after starting a session badly, then finding ourselves vainly trying to dig out of the hole:



And here’s one more suggesting one of the benefits of buying in for the maximum:



You can read more about H.T. Webster over on Wikipedia as well as in this sketch about him on the American Heritage site. And here’s another blog with a post about Webster that features a small sampling of the 16,000-plus cartoons he drew.

Thanks again, Tim, for a neat collector’s item!

By the way, I’m working on creating complete archive pages for the five sections of the blog -- “On the Street,” “The Rumble,” “Shots in the Dark,” “High Society,” and “By the Book.” I’ve only finished one so far -- “By the Book,” the section where I talk about poker books as well as hard-boiled fiction (though always try to relate things back to poker). So if you are interested in reading other book talk, check out that page and click around.

Thinking About June 1 (& the UIGEA)

Last week we heard the news that with regard to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, House Rep. Barney Frank does not believe there will be any further delays of the implementation of the final regulations. In other words, come June 1st -- less than ten weeks away -- it appears likely that Americans who play online poker will encounter additional difficulty getting money onto sites.

Yeah, I know. Everybody has that other bill on their minds -- the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 -- which has now been passed by both houses and is about to be signed into law. But while reading around yesterday I was reminded by Gadzooks64 of the UIGEA and that fast approaching deadline. And also the possible consequences.

According to those UIGEA final regs, U.S. banks and other financial institutions are being instructed to block transactions between their customers and online gambling sites (no matter if they are located outside the U.S.). Like the original UIGEA, the “Final Rule” does not define what “unlawful gambling” is. Indeed, it makes explicit that the law does not, in fact, provide that definition, noting that “The Act does not spell out which activities are legal and which are illegal, but rather relies on the underlying substantive Federal and State laws” to make those distinctions. (Of course, in many cases, those “underlying” federal and state laws are themselves full of ambiguity.)

The regulations acknowledge that the banks will likely find it difficult “to prevent restricted transactions without unduly burdening their processing of lawful transactions.” Nonetheless, the regs express hope that the banks will practice “due diligence” when it comes to identifying and stopping those transactions from occurring. Many have suggested that such “due diligence” will involve “overblocking” all suspect transactions rather than risk allowing a restricted one to go through.

One other important note -- the banks and other institutions are not obligated to block transactions which involve a customer taking money off of an online gambling site. Rather, “[u]nder the final rule, the term ‘restricted transaction’ would not include funds going to a gambler, and would only include funds going to an Internet gambling business.” Meaning one is (theoretically) supposed to be able to cash out without hassle, but depositing money will be prohibited.

I think it is possible banks could block cash outs, too -- that is to say, they aren’t obligated to do so, but it could happen that some do so, anyway. In fact, I’d say it is probably likely that will happen here and there, given the uncertain position the banks are in with regard to enforcing the UIGEA. Also, even though compliance with the finalized regulations is not mandatory until June 1, banks can already block transactions if they wish.

Gadzooks64 notes how “there is already a dearth of really bad players” such as were easy to find just a couple of years ago, and believes it will only get worse come June 1. Her post made me think of an observation made by Tom Schneider a long time ago -- early 2007 -- on the old Beyond the Table podcast regarding how the UIGEA could potentially affect the relative value of the money one has on poker sites. (I wrote a little about his comment here.)

Responding to the fact that a lot of U.S. players were pulling their money off of online poker sites then -- and with Neteller having just pulled out we were facing additional trouble reloading -- Schneider opined that the money on poker sites could become worth “more than cash.” He speculated that in some cases players could be ready to play “a premium” (a fee of some sort) to a third party to help them get money moved into their online accounts.

He was talking mainly about the higher stakes games, I believe, but I noted at the time what he was saying could apply to us small-timers, too. In any event, if, indeed, it becomes too arduous or even impossible for some of us Americans to deposit anymore, that should affect the player base considerably. It’ll also affect how some of us practice our bankroll management, too. Come June 1, a lot of us may suddenly be playing with our “case money” (so to speak) -- that is, our last remaining funds with which to play.

In her post Gadzooks64 mentions that rather than play that way, she might just take her money out prior to June 1 and stick to them freerolls, avoiding the hassles altogether. I would bet others are probably thinking along the same lines.

I’m not going to use the money in any of my online poker accounts to make that bet, though.

Not Real Poker

Have noted before how I consistently enjoy the Two Plus Two Pokercast, hosted by Mike Johnson and Adam Schwartz. Last week’s episode again featured a number of good segments, including a discussion with Andrew “LuckyChewy” Lichtenberger of that great “High Stakes Poker” hand from last week between Tom Dwan and Phil Ivey (mentioned here).

The featured guest last week was Mike Matusow, and as is often the case Johnson and Schwartz asked all of the questions of their guest that we’d like to hear answered -- including some attempts at getting further details regarding provocative anecdotes from Matusow’s autobiography, Check-Raising the Devil (co-authored with Amy Calistri and Tim Lavalli). They also got Matusow to talk again about Russ Hamilton and UltimateBet, an exchange that also provided some interesting moments.

I wanted to focus a bit on one part of the conversation -- the part where the hosts asked Matusow to comment on the whole “Isidur1 saga.” As most probably know, after that wild ride late last year, Isildur1 has recently resurfaced over on Full Tilt Poker with a replenished bankroll, seeking still more action.

“Everybody wanted us to ask this,” begins Schwartz, who then asks Matusow to comment on Isidur1’s apparent “death wish” or desire to keep playing the top players for the highest stakes, ostensibly until he loses all he possibly can.

Matusow’s response reflected some of the same cynicism about online poker we’ve heard him advance many times before, though I thought it was kind of intriguing to consider what he was saying in the context of discussing these super-high, “nosebleed”-stakes games. After confidently predicting Isildur1 will be going busto soon (again), Matusow went on to address the following topics...

On the Object of the Game

“Don’t you understand those games?” asked Matusow. “Those games are not real poker games,” he clarified, noting that those who play at those stakes are “degens” playing for a “ridiculous amount of money that are [primarily] trying to see who’s going to go broke first.”

Part of Matusow’s assessment of the games, then, seems to concern the approach the players take towards them -- an approach seemingly guided by that “death wish” idea Schwartz had mentioned. “All it is... it’s no real money,” said Matusow. “The only reason why it looks like real money is because you got people... [playing in the games] like Ivey and them that have uncountable amounts of money that don’t care. The people that play are people that, you know, they don’t care until they go broke.”

Matusow then spent some time talking about a specific live hand Tom Dwan played versus Phil Ivey in which Matusow believed Dwan played much too loosely when calling a check-raise from Ivey with nothing but an inside-straight draw.

The hand was from that Full Tilt Poker Million Dollar Cash Game, and I’m assuming it was one where Matusow himself was present. I haven’t seen that hand and thus am not sure what the context was or whether Dwan may have been planning a later-street bluff. In any case, for Matusow the hand exemplified the “don’t care”-attitude toward money he says Isildur1 and his opponents are demonstrating.

On Endorsements and Their Effect

Schwartz then asked Matusow “How much do the Full Tilt disbursements kind of drive these games and turn it into this sort of circus?”

Matusow had no concrete answer to this question. In fact, he started off saying “no comment,” but then added “you think it [i.e., the fact that some of the players are FTP pros and thus are being compensated in some way for playing in these games] kind of has something to do with it.”

A good question, actually. Kind of reminded me of a discussion that came up in the comments to a post over on Pokerati from last December. One commenter asked “is there any possible way these players actually are not playing for that much and it is merely b.s. so the poker site can get more traffic...?”

The subsequent discussion suggested most thought it was a bit outlandish to think Full Tilt would “invent” a player like Isildur1 and have its pros play him for what appeared to be real high stakes but what in actuality was not -- all for the sake of attracting some publicity and (potentially) some more action on the site.

Schwartz isn’t suggesting that the money isn’t “real,” of course (I don’t think). But he is implying that some -- perhaps a significant percentage -- of it isn’t really coming out of the players’ pockets, and that the site itself is the reason why this is the case. If you think about it, the idea isn’t that different from that of the commenter who wondered if “these players actually are not playing for that much.”

On the Difference Between Live Money and Online Money

Later in the show, Matusow comes back to this issue of online poker not being “real poker” -- and I think ultimately adds yet another idea or theory to (try to) support that thesis.

Matusow is asked about his current business venture, Deep Stacks University (an online training site). After discussing Deep Stacks a bit, Matusow noted that for him a primary motive for getting involved with the business was simply to get out of the house and stop playing online poker.

We’ve heard Matusow talk before about the negative influence online poker has on him. As he told the hosts, “it takes over my life, it destroys my life... it totally consumes me.” He quickly moved on from talking about Deep Stacks, though, and instead mentioned how he recently had a very successful three-week period of live play at the Commerce Casino. That then led him back into the subject of online poker not being “real.”

“It’s a video game,” said Matusow. “If you watch those big games... where is the skill? They’re just shipping in $200,000 on 60/40s over and over and over. I mean, it’s an absolute joke. It’s comical. I mean, people look at it as real money, but it’s really not. They’re just numbers. And it’s not real money. If them guys had to use their real money -- like if they were playing in a live game with those kind of moneys -- you think they’d be throwing it in like that?”

Of course, earlier in the conversation Matusow had referred to a live hand in which Dwan had done just that, but no matter. I think we can now list at least three reasons why Matusow (or others) might regard the super-high, “nosebleed”-stakes games as not “real poker”:

1. The object of the game is different from that of “real poker.” (That is, the object is primarily to see who can avoid going broke first, not necessarily to make as much money as possible).

2. Site endorsements (and/or other staking arrangements) make it less likely players are playing with their own money, thereby making the game less “real” in a relative sense.

3. The nature of online play -- where real money can be so easily be regarded as “just numbers” -- makes the game different from “real” (i.e., live) poker.

All three of these reasons have to do with money and its significance. That is to say, for Matusow the online game -- especially the highest-stakes variety played by Isildur1 et al. -- introduces way too many mitigating factors that upset the meaning of the money involved to allow it to be considered “real poker.”

All of which I found intriguing, if not entirely convincing. It all depends on how you look at it, yes? While I’m sure Matusow is not the only one thinking these thoughts about those games on Full Tilt, I can readily imagine rational responses to each of his theories that would constitute hard-to-refute defenses of the “reality” of the poker being played.

Is it “real” poker being played by Isildur1 and his opponents? Who can say for sure?

Is real interesting, though. Both the games and what people say about them.

More Uncertainty: Legality and Online Poker

When it comes to “legal stuff” and online poker, I never feel entirely comfortable offering my opinions. Or even simply reporting what the hell is going on. I mean, I think I am a decent reader and even once in a while stumble on a good ideer or response to this or that. But when it comes to commenting confidently on this particular subject, my first instinct is usually to try to change it.

The fact is, current state and federal laws regarding online poker/gambling here in the U.S. are ambiguous at best, and the process by which new laws and regulations come to be is often also mysterious for most of us. Rarely does anything seem perfectly clear, and when it does, such moments of clarity are often frustratingly fleeting. There’s always an appeal, it seems. And an appeal of the appeal. And so forth. Never mind “running it twice.” These guys appear willing and able to run it a hundred times if they have to, with the rules changing each time along the way.

This week came a couple of stories regarding some of many ongoing legal machinations, neither of which necessarily offered any further clarity for us on this subject. Or comfort. One was a ruling from the Kentucky Supreme Court on the Commonwealth’s efforts to seize 141 domains hosting online gambling sites. Sounds like that one has turned the other way once again. For now, that is. (It’s always “for now.”)

If you recall, it was back in September 2008 that we first heard that a Circuit Court judge had granted Governor Steve Beshear’s order to “seize” the domains which hosted sites allowing Kentucky residents to gamble online. Seemed like a pretty obvious usurpation of authority, as though somehow Kentucky could rule the entire interwebs and take control of sites according to its own predilections.

A hearing was held the following month, and the Circuit Court ruled in favor of Beshear et al. If the offending domains didn’t start blocking Kentucky from accessing the sites they were hosting within 30 days, the domains would be forfeited to Kentucky. A “forfeiture hearing” was then scheduled, then delayed. Then the case wound up in the court of appeals, where it was determined Kentucky wasn’t king of the internet after all.

The sucker then went to the state’s Supreme Court -- an appeal of the appeal -- where it has been for the last long while. Finally, this week the Supreme Court ruled that, in fact, the ruling in the Court of Appeals didn’t hold “due to the incapacity of domain names to contest their own seizure.”

In other words, the owners of the domains -- who remained “anonymous registrants” and were represented by others -- have to come forward and defend themselves (says the Ky. Supreme Court). So the decision in the Court of Appeals has been reversed. (Full decision here.)

The Poker Players Alliance has commented, saying it “understands the technical nature of the decision” made by the Supreme Court, and that it “remains confident that, once that issue is cured, the Supreme Court” will see the light and uphold the previous decision of the Court of Appeals to deny Kentucky the right to seize the domains. I like the choice of metaphor there -- what we are looking at here is in fact an illness than needs to be “cured” before we can go forward.

Is this incurable, though? Who knows?

The other item of special note this week concerned House Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) telling PokerNews that he did not anticipate another delay would be granted for implementation of the final regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

Another story that sounds, well, a little sick-making.

If you recall, those final regs were set to go into effect on December 1, 2009, but the feds granted six more months to consider other legislation, meaning the current deadline for U.S. banks and financial institutions to start blocking transactions with online gambling sites is now June 1, 2010.

Earlier this year, Rep. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) -- one of the first authors of the legislation that ultimately became the UIGEA -- decided to use his standing in the Senate to start blocking the President’s nominees to fill positions in the Treasury Department. Frank told PokerNews that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner has said he wouldn’t allow any further delays specifically because of Kyl’s tactics.

Frank remains confident, however, that even after compliance with the UIGEA becomes mandatory in June, its standing will be tenuous. “Once it goes into effect, banks are going to raise hell,” he told PN, anticipating the banks’ subsequent complaints will lead to the UIGEA’s repeal.

As I have written about numerous times here, even if the UIGEA is an ambiguous, murky law that probably couldn’t hold up to any court challenges, its going into effect is nevertheless going to have consequences on U.S. players of online poker, knocking many out of the game due to increased difficulties getting money onto the sites.

When I appeared on Lou Krieger’s “Keep Flopping Aces” podcast last month, he asked me what I thought would happen with regard to the UIGEA during 2010. I told him my sense was that I did not feel very confident that it would be repealed this year, nor did I think any other legislation would likely be passed.

By way of explanation, I said hoping for either a repeal or the passage of new legislation was sort of like pulling for a poor player in a poker tourney to win. He’d need a lot of breaks just to reach the final table, then still more examples of good timing and fortuitous cards to win in the end.

Of course, using that analogy served a particular purpose for me -- it enabled me to avoid speaking more particularly about things about which I have little clue.

In fact, I suspect most of us are essentially short-stacked when challenged to understand “legal stuff” and online poker.

Raising the Stakes for Poker on TV: “High Stakes Poker”

Found time yesterday to catch up on the first five episodes of “High Stakes Poker” of 2010. These mark the start of the sixth season of the Game Show Network series which first aired in January 2006. The format of the show has remained essentially the same from past seasons, although with a couple of changes this time around.

The show returns to the Golden Nugget where it began in Season 1 and had returned for Season 5. One big difference is the removal of A.J. Benza who had previously joined Gabe Kaplan in the commentary booth. With Benza gone, Kara Scott has joined the show to host short segments and interview players.

The removal of Benza from the show garnered a lot of reaction on the forums, including a still-ongoing “Online Petition to bring Back AJ Benza for HSP” thread on Two Plus Two. For those joining that cause, the thinking is the “HSP” hosting/commentating formula had worked well for the first five seasons, so there was no reason to muck with it.

I, too, liked Benza’s contribution to the show. Despite being a funny guy himself -- Benza’s initial appearance on the Ante Up! show (in June 2008) was one of the funniest episodes of that podcast I can recall -- Benza mostly played the straight man to Kaplan on “HSP.” The pair (both Brooklyn natives, actually) seemed to have great chemistry and added a lot of flavor to the proceedings, both with the poker commentary and the humor.

So I wasn’t necessarily happy either when I’d heard Benza wouldn’t be returning, although that doesn’t mean I’m not glad to see Kara Scott on the show. When I first saw Scott at the 2008 World Series of Poker Main Event, I’d known she’d been a presenter or host on a couple of different poker shows in Europe, having worked on “Poker Night Live” and with the European Poker Tour. Scott made a deep run in that year’s WSOP ME, finishing 104th. I remember writing a little about her in a recap about one of the Day Twos here and having written a post about her late in the day over on PokerNews.

Scott does well, I think, in her somewhat limited role on “High Stakes.” I was surprised, actually, at how little screen time the producers give her, though in the short interviews both her poker knowledge and ease before the camera serve her well. This week, Jennifer Newell and I wrote a new “He Said/She Said” column for Woman Poker Player in which we discussed the subject of women and poker shows, and we both ended up remarking on how we thought Scott was underused on “HSP.” You can read those pieces here: He Said / She Said.

Meanwhile, Kaplan still gets to crack wise often enough. There do seem to be a few more quiet stretches with Benza gone, but Kaplan carries it well enough, and I remain a big fan of his humor and his poker commentary.

There are a couple of other small format changes to note. I’m noticing the frequent use of a graphic now and then to update us on stack sizes at the table -- a plus. (The minimum buy-in for the game is $200,000, with two players, Phil Ivey and Tom “durrrr” Dwan, having bought in for $500,000.) Also, Daniel Negreanu is hosting a brief “Did You Know” segment that is interesting enough, I guess.

What remains most interesting -- and the biggest reason why the show tops my list of faves on teevee -- is the poker. Many fascinating hands already on these first five episodes. I’m not gonna rehearse them here, both because I’d rather not spoil ’em for those who haven’t watched and intend to, and because I can’t hope to provide real analysis, but just share the reactions of a poker player/fan.

The first episode was dominated by Phil Hellmuth’s swift downfall, a rapid sequence that kicked off the season with a delicious sampling of schadenfreude. Although Kaplan says something about prop bets being forbidden this season, there have been several discussed already, including that big one involving Phil Ivey going vegetarian for a year. Meanwhile, Ivey once again shows his incredible acumen at the table, Negreanu struggles once again on the show, and other players come and go.

This most recent episode (the fifth one) was probably the most entertaining to watch so far. There were several all-in hands, though with a couple of exceptions most were not caused by the stacks being short but rather were consequent to a series of postflop decisions. One especially interesting hand took place between Jason Mercier and Ivey, a hand which Mercier recounts in an article from yesterday over on PokerListings.

Of course, the big highlight was the hand between Phil Ivey and Tom “durrrr” Dwan that concluded the fifth episode -- kind of a jawdropping hand on the order of the one from last year involving Dwan, Barry Greenstein, and Peter Eastgate. Ivey starts the hand with over $1 million, and Dwan with around $750,000. Watch and enjoy yourself:



I was saying last week how I hadn’t had a lot of time for watching poker on teevee. But if I’m only going to watch one show, this has got to be the one, yes?

2010 WSOP Schedule Stuff

The news of that WSOP Tournament of Champions got me looking at the schedule for this summer once again, something I hadn’t really done much since it was first announced back in December. You can check out the 2010 WSOP schedule in full here.

A few items of note here as I look over the sucker once more.

No Main Event on Fourth of July. This year Sunday, July 4 has been scheduled as an off-day for the WSOP -- the Main Event this year begins on July 5. If you recall, in 2009 the Fourth of July (a Saturday) was one of the four Day Ones for the Main Event (Day 1b), and drew only 873 players, the lowest of any of the Day Ones. That helped create the fiasco that was Day 1d, when 2,809 players ended up playing while hundreds more were turned away.

Then again, it isn’t quite right to call July 4 “off-day” for the WSOP this year, as it looks as though two other events -- Event No. 54, the last of the six open-field $1,000 no-limit hold’em tourneys & Event No. 56, a $2,500 NLH event -- will be playing their final tables that day. And the TOC final table (also scheduled for July 4) will make three. Am glad, though, that the schedule-makers saw the problem with trying to get folks out to start a new tourney -- esp. the Main Event -- on the Fourth of July.

Everyone who wants to gets to play the Main Event this year. Preregistration is open for all 57 bracelet events, and those registering to play in the Main Event will find a section of the form noting how “you may request which First Day you prefer to start.” All four days are listed (7/5, 7/6, 7/7, and 7/8), and one is directed to rank the four days according to preference. “Placement in the event is not guaranteed and will be based on availability,” explains the form, meaning you don't necessarily get your first choice. Also, if you don't indicate a preference, “you will automatically be placed based on availability.”

Seems like not too much to ask, and a simple solution to last year’s problem. There will be those who complain about having not their first choice come July, but those complaints won’t be nearly as loud or significant as what we heard last year from those who were shut out of the Main Event.

The juice. Glancing at the structure sheets for this year’s events, the “juice” -- that is, the amount taken out of the prize pool as “entry fees” and “for tournament staff” -- appears to be the same for most of the events with just a couple of exceptions. For the $1,500 and $2,000 buy-in events, a total of 10% will be withheld this year as opposed to 9% last year.

Of course, those $1,000 events (eight total this year) also have 10% taken out, as will the Casino Employees Event No. 1 ($500 buy-in). The larger the buy-in, the lower the percentages, e.g., the $50,000 “Poker Player’s Championship” (Event No. 2) will have just 4% taken out, just like the $40K event last year. A total of 6% is taken from the prize pool for the $10,000 buy-in events, including the Main Event.

All those $1,000 events. The addition of those extra $1,000 buy-in NLH events attracted a lot of attention when the schedule was first announced. If you recall, there was one -- called a “Stimulus Special” -- last time around, while this time there are six. The Ladies Event (No. 22) and the Seniors Event (No. 34) also remain $1,000 buy-in events.

One might think that adding all of those low buy-in events -- while still keeping the same overall total of 57 events -- might have altered the WSOP landscape, class-wise. That is, are the low buy-in events taking over the schedule? Actually, no. In 2009, there were 38 events with buy-ins $2,500 or lower. In 2010, there are 37. And we’re looking at the same number of $10,000 buy-in events (10), too, plus once again a couple of biggies (the $25,000 six-handed NLH Event No. 52 & the $50K “Player’s Championship).

The clock is ticking. The other thing that TOC announcement has done is made me more aware that we’re only a little over ten weeks away from the thing kicking off, thanks to that Jack Link’s Beef Jerky countdown clock staring you right in the face on the WSOP home page.

Won’t be long. Jeez, I can almost smell the beef, water, sugar, salt, dried soy sauce, maltodextrin, fructose, monosodium glutamate, flavorings, hydrolyzed corn protein, sodium erythorbate, paprika extract, and sodium nitrate now.

The Tournament of Champions 3.0

Yesterday it was announced that there will be a “Tournament of Champions” at this summer’s World Series of Poker, reviving an event that last officially took place in 2006. The new TOC will be a 27-player freeroll tournament with a $1 million prize pool, $500,000 of which will go to the champions’ champion.

The field will include 20 players voted on via an internet poll. Only “living WSOP bracelet winners” are eligible as candidates. (No dead guys!) In his article about the event, Stephen A. Murphy notes there are currently 521 living bracelet holders.

Only one vote per email address, so ballot-box stuffing will only work to the extent that a person uses multiple emails. Voting is now open and will remain so through June 15. One can track how the voting is going by checking the current “Top 50” vote-getters (presented in random order) on the WSOP site. Should be interesting to watch that list over the next three months to see which players prove most popular.

Five more spots will be filled by the TOC winners from its last incarnation (2004-2006), Annie Duke, Mike Matusow, and Mike Sexton, plus last year’s WSOP Main Event winner Joe Cada and WSOPE Main Event winner Barry Shulman. The last two seats are being reserved for “wild card exceptions” -- no word as yet what that means, although Harrah’s VP Ty Stewart has said it could be that those spots will be taken by winners of online tourneys.

Sounds like the TOC, like the Main Event, will have its own delay (of sorts) insofar as the tourney is set to begin on Sunday, June 27 and then conclude on the following Sunday, July 4 (an off-day for the WSOP -- the Main Event begins the following day). The TOC will be a televised event, too (on ESPN, natch).

I’m referring to this as TOC 3.0 because the “original” TOC -- the one envisioned by Mike Sexton in the late 1990s and run from 1999-2001 at the Orleans Casino -- while not specifically connected with the WSOP, not only shared the same name but had a couple of features not completely unrelated to those of the new TOC.

That original Tournament of Champions lasted for three years (1999-2001). There was an entry fee ($1,500 the first year, and $2,000 the next two), but it was not an open tournament. Rather, one earned the right to enter by various means, including winning a WSOP bracelet, winning a TOC-sanctioned event, winning the TOC itself, or being a member of the Poker Hall of Fame.

Reading about the original TOC online, I’ve encountered conflicting reports on those qualifications, but you get the picture. The idea was to create a “champions” event involving the best of the best -- sort of like the “Tour Championship” that comes at the end of the year in golf to which only the top money winners for the year are invited.

One other nifty aspect of the original TOC -- it was a mixed-game event that featured different games throughout. The first two days players rotated between limit hold’em, Omaha eight-or-better, and seven-card stud. Then on the final day, the last 27 players played no-limit hold’em.

That first year, 1999, there were 664 entrants, and David Chiu was the winner, with Louis Asmo finishing second and Doyle Brunson third. There was a somewhat famous hand between Chiu and Asmo at the final table, one in which following some preflop action Chiu folded pocket kings face up, and Asmo revealed he held pocket aces. Click here to read Lee Munzer’s description of that hand, along with an interview with Asmo.

In 2000, 440 players entered the event, with a computer programmer named Spencer Sun taking the title. The great poker reporter Andy Glazer participated that year (as he did in ’99, I believe), and finished a respectable 35th. Glazer reported on the event for PokerPages, and you can read what he had to say here: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3.

In 2001, there were 402 entries, and Brian Saltus won, defeating T.J. Cloutier heads up. Scotty Nguyen finished third, and Miami John Cernuto fourth. Lee Munzer wrote up the first day of action for PokerPages here (giving Andy Glazer a chance to concentrate on playing), then Glazer wrote up Day 2 and Day 3.

The TOC was discontinued, then the name was used again for that one-table, ten-player event won by Annie Duke in 2004. I mentioned this one last week -- no entry fee, $2 million prize pool, winner-take-all. Harrah’s had recently acquired the WSOP, and as they donated the prize pool, the TOC became associated with the WSOP.

In 2005, 111 players earned their way into the event by winning either WSOP bracelets or WSOP Circuit events. A bit of a hubbub that year also as three additional players -- Phil Hellmuth, Doyle Brunson, and Johnny Chan -- were allowed to play as “sponsor exemptions,” and in fact all three did well, finishing 13th (Chan), 10th (Brunson), and third (Hellmuth). Mike Matusow won the event and the $1,000,000 first prize. The rest of the prize pool -- another $1 million -- was divided among the other eight players who made the final table.

In 2006, the TOC was reduced to a 27-player invitational tourney, with the nine WSOP Main Event final tablists and 11 WSOP Circuit event winners all playing along with seven other “exemptions.” Mike Sexton won that year, defeating Daniel Negreanu heads-up. Again, the prize pool -- donated by Harrah’s -- totaled $2 million, with half of that going to Sexton for winning.

Now, after a four-year hiatus, the TOC is back. Already seeing debates on Twitter and in the forums about the new format. Kind of a popularity contest, really, as far as who will primarily make up the field. But it should prove interesting nonetheless -- another good buzz-creator.

I see Dr. Pauly has already shared his voting guide. Who is getting my vote? Billy Baxter FTW!

Finding the Time

“If this were yesterday what time would it be now?”

Asked Vera of me late last evening. By then most of the clocks in the house had already been readjusted to account for Daylight Savings Time. But still, certain questions remained.

Somehow the day the clocks change always sneaks up on us. In the fall, it’s a pleasant surprise. (A-ha, extra hour of weekend to enjoy!) In the spring, though, when we lose that hour, it always feels like an especially rude theft from our rightfully allotted period of leisure.

And now it’s Monday morning already. Work to do.

Speaking of leisure time, I did get a chance over the last couple of days to sit at the online tables briefly. After a spell of nothing but Rush Poker (pot-limit Omaha) for a few weeks, I’ve moved back over to the ring games for the most part, splitting time between PLO and limit hold’em. I will every now and then jump back into the Rush Poker pool once in a while for a few quick laps, though.

Going back and forth like this highlights a couple of key differences between the formats. One, obviously, is all that rushing that goes on in Rush Poker. No time for nothin’. You do end up logging right about three times as many hands than in the ring games. I say “logging” rather than “playing,” because, well, you aren’t really “playing” a lot of those hands that are whizzing by. You’re folding them and letting others play them. Or quick folding them.

The other big difference is obvious, too -- the whole “table image” game-within-the-game that gets mostly lost in Rush Poker, but which is essential in the regular ring games.

I realize going back to the ring games how much I enjoy this aspect of poker. The collecting of clues. The telling of tales. The stuff that happens when we slow down, take a look around the table, and start figgerin’ what it is all these people are up to with their checks and bets and raises. And what it is we are up to, too.

I wish I had more time to reflect on these things. If this were yesterday, there’d be time to do so. But the weekend’s gone and I’ve got to get to work.