Another House Hearing: Ways & Means (No Ends)

Some buzz yesterday regarding this “Hearing on Tax Proposals Related to Legislation to Legalize Internet Gambling” in which the House of Representatives’ Committee on Ways and Means discussed various topics, including proposed bills to license, regulate, and tax online gambling in the U.S. Much of that buzz seemed quite positive. That is to say, we heard a lot of “this is good for poker” talk, primarily inspired by what seemed to be a renewed, sincere focus of legislators on the subject of online gambling.

Have to say, while I found the hearing somewhat engaging, I didn’t really see a great deal to get excited about. In truth, the whole hearing struck me as a largely theoretical discussion with not a lot of practical value, particularly with regard to that fast-approaching deadline for compliance with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 -- coming on June 1, 2010.

That’s real, I’m afraid. The UIGEA is law, and banks and other financial institutions will have to comply with it in less than two weeks. The rest of this stuff has a big “what if” hanging over it.

Importantly, the point of yesterday’s hearing wasn’t to discuss legalizing the operation of online gambling sites in the U.S., but rather “proposals related” to legalizing online gambling -- primarily the idea of how to tax it. That’s what the Ways and Means Committee does. They’re all about writing tax laws. Thus, as the opening statement of the committee chairman Sander Levin (D-MI) indicates, “the issue of whether Internet gambling should be legal [was] not the subject of this hearing. That debate will take place in another venue outside of this Committee’s jurisdiction.”

Unlike earlier hearings, then, such as have taken place over at the House Financial Services Committee (the most recent being in December 2009), there was an intention yesterday to focus more on how legalized online gambling might work in the U.S. rather than to open up the question of whether or not the U.S. should get into the game and allow (with licensing and regulation) online gambling sites to operate in this country.

In other words, unlike in December, where it was H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act proposed by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) that occasioned the hearing, here it was the proposed bill of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), H.R. 4967, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act, that was given more attention.

Of course, as McDermott (left) pointed out in his statement, his bill “would work in tandem with the bill introduced by Congressman Frank” and is therefore meaningless without Frank’s or some other licensing and regulatory scheme for online gambling already being in place. And, really, there’s no discussing this issue without acknowledging the larger debate -- that is to say, it is of limited value to talk about how licensing, regulation, and taxation would work without having first settled the matter of whether or not legislators want to license, regulate, and tax online gambling.

So that necessarily came up yesterday, too -- namely, talk of Frank’s bill (which he also summarized) and some debate over whether or not the U.S. really wants to make it legal for online gambling sites to operate within its borders.

Incidentally, as has been the case all along, there was a lot of fuzzy language yesterday about “internet gambling” being legal or illegal. See, for example, Chairman Levin’s statement above where he says the meeting wouldn’t be over “whether Internet gambling should be legal.” To be precise, the issue concerns the legality of operating online gambling sites in the U.S., not the legality of online gambling per se. The former is clearly unlawful at present; i.e., if you are located in the U.S., you cannot legally start up an online gambling site. The latter is less clear; i.e., if you are located in the U.S., you can (for the most part) gamble online.

Anyhow, like I say, the debate over whether or not the U.S. should allow sites to provide ways to gamble online did come up yesterday, despite the Chairman’s saying it wouldn’t. It had to.

And so we heard Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) in his statement expressing horror at the notion that the country would stoop to sanction online gambling in this way, finding it “unfathomable that Congress would consider legalizing a currently illegal activity that imposes harm on the most vulnerable members of our society just to raise money for more big government spending.”

Goodlatte (left) also brought up the sad case of a constituent’s son who, having built a sizable debt by gambling online, took his own life, adding that “financial ruin and tragedy are not uncommon among online bettors.” Sort of recalled Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) of the House Financial Services Committee misrepresenting studies about gambling and suicide and yammering on about how “internet gambling is the crack cocaine of gambling.” Bachus had a chance last week to share that observation with ABC News, something he’s gleefully said before in committee hearings and elsewhere.

Goodlatte brought up a much more salient point when he noted that “there is also bipartisan opposition in Congress to efforts to legalize illegal Internet gambling activity” (i.e., to legalize online sites in the U.S. providing a means to gamble within a licensed, regulated, and taxed framework). That’s why I see yesterday’s hearing as mostly a theoretical exercise. We can talk all we want about how taxation might work within some sort of federal regulatory and enforcement framework, but if legislators aren’t going to vote to implement such a framework, it’s really just a lot of whistling in the dark.

As I say, there was a lot of positive reaction to the hearing. The Poker Players Alliance liked it, saying that the “hearing underscores the increasing Congressional interest in a license and regulated online gaming environment.” Michael Waxman of the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative also suggested that the “hearing showed is that there has been significant progress made in educating members of Congress about this issue,” characterizing the hearing as “a home run” (as reported by PokerNews).

I think those who want to see some sort of licensing and regulation were encouraged because despite the occasional pathos-filled non sequitur from Rep. Goodlatte, the hearing was characterized by a lot of sincere discussion about licensing and regulating online gambling.

But it’s all theoretical -- all a big “what if” -- and in fact that’s why I think the discussion went the way it did. That is to say, the only way legislators can talk directly about licensing and regulating online poker is to set the primary question of whether or not it should be done aside. As Chairman Levin made clear, the question of whether or not to license and regulate online gambling was not within the Ways and Means Committee’s jurisdiction. That’s why they could talk so directly about it. (Maddening, I know.)

Bill Rini’s piece from last week about “The Future of Online Poker” convincingly argues that any such licensing and regulation is still way, way down the road. I think the hearing yesterday, rather than providing any real encouragement to the contrary, only reinforces Rini’s argument.

Sure, there’s been some progress. But we’re still miles and miles away from anything tangible. Meanwhile, the UIGEA is right up ahead at the next intersection. Nothing theoretical about that.

I Got Rhythm

The PokerStars Spring Championship of Online Poker concluded on Monday evening. Drizz and I did a live blog for the Main Event’s final table, which actually went much faster than it seemed like it should have.

In the live blog, Drizz made a note once they’d gotten down to three-handed (around 9:15 p.m. ET) of how ridiculously deep each player was in terms of big blinds (166, 119, and 95 respectively). Find a comfortable seat and grab some popcorn, was his advice.

Indeed, as we’d both experienced several times over during the course of SCOOP, we were expecting a long, long time of it, especially with the 30-minute levels. On top of that, the final three couldn’t come to terms regarding a deal. First awarded $1,162,350, second $851,775, and third $627,300. The trio’s discussion had been amiable, but one player preferred to play it out, and so they did. With more than half a million dollars separating first and third, it surely felt like no one would be in too big of a hurry to gamble it up.

However, it was just a few minutes later we’d see one player surprisingly bluff off his entire stack. Then after 15-20 minutes or so of heads-up the two remaining players were both dealt pocket pairs, they got it all in preflop, and BOOM we were done before 10 o’clock.

I spent another hour or so finishing up the last wrap of SCOOP (detailing all of Day 2 of the Main Event), and hit the sack. Was dead to the world just a few minutes later.

But by 1 a.m. I was wide awake. And hungry. Next thing I know I’m up making myself a roast beef sandwich.

Now it’s Wednesday morning and I’m still feeling like the body rhythms are a bit skewy. Am I tired? Am I hungry? I can’t tell.

Thankfully I’ve got one more week here to get everything back into some semblance of normal before heading out to Las Vegas to help cover the World Series of Poker once again. Will be taking off early next week, then the first events begin on Friday, May 28. I’ll be there for the start, then will have a one-week excursion down to Lima, Peru to help cover the Latin American Poker Tour event there (first week of June). Then I’ll be back in Vegas for the remainder of the Series.

It goes without saying I’m excited (and grateful) to be heading back out for a third go-round at the WSOP.

Long time readers recall my reporting on my first trip out in 2008. All was brand new, fresh, stirring.

Last year’s return tour of duty was also fun and satisfying, although necessarily the experience was different -- perhaps a little more routinized in some respects, although still pretty fascinating to be there helping chronicle the spectacle that is the WSOP.

I expect this year will be still different, with a lot that’s familiar, but a lot that will have changed, too. Mentally speaking, I’m already settling into a “go with the flow”-type, open-minded approach to it all. Not unlike a player sitting down at a table full of new opponents. The game is the same, but let’s just play a round or two and see what we’re dealing with here, why don’t we?

I mentioned rhythms above. It is fascinating how the human animal seeks out these patterns, rhythms, what have you -- almost as part of that complicated survival instinct we all possess (I’d say). That’s something I already know I’ll have to be ready for this time around, whenever something ain’t exactly as it was before (which will happen, no doubt).

In my detective novel, Same Difference (which has nothing to do with poker, by the way), I tried to make that facet of human nature -- the way we seek & slip into patterns -- a theme of sorts. It is at least a recurring motif, I suppose -- namely, the notion that we have these rhythms, routines, patterns that help us organize our ideas of ourselves.

In fact, the title -- which has a couple of different connotations -- is partly meant to refer to how the detective looks for patterns in people’s behavior, i.e., searches for that “same difference” coming up more than once, thereby becoming meaningful (like a clue). You know, like when we notice a poker player looking back at his stack of chips when an especially good river card lands. A new, different behavior, that when repeated becomes significant.

Anyhow, as I say, I am greatly looking forward to finding my rhythm once again when back on the WSOP beat. Who could ask for anything more?

Checking in on the 2010 WSOP Tournament of Champions Voting

A little over two months ago, the World Series of Poker announced the return of the Tournament of Champions, this time fashioned as a kind of “all-star” event for which most of the entrants would be determined by fan balloting conducted via the WSOP website. (I wrote a post at the time discussing the earlier versions of the TOC, the first incarnation of which dates back to 1999.)

A lot of hype at the time regarding this event, a $1 million freeroll in which 27 will compete. The event will begin on June 27, with the final nine coming back on July 4 to play it out.

Five of the 27 will be the winners of the previous WSOP-sanctioned version of the TOC (2004-2006), Annie Duke, Mike Matusow, and Mike Sexton, joined by the 2009 WSOP Main Event champ Joe Cada and 2009 WSOP Europe Main Event champ Barry Shulman. Two more spots are going to go to “sponsor exemptions.” Back in April, it was announced one of those will be filled via by an online qualifier winning a seat via Harrah’s WSOP online site (on which U.S. players cannot play). Details on that here.

That leaves 20 spots to be determined by fan voting. All living WSOP bracelet holders are eligible.

Two months ago today -- on March 18 -- voting had been open for just three days. Here were the top 50 vote-getters on that day as listed in random order on the WSOP site:

Howard Lederer, Eli Elezra, Men Nyguen, Alexander Kravchenko, Jamie Gold, Dan Harrington, Erick Lindgren, Doyle Brunson, Prahlad Friedman, Erik Seidel, David Sklansky, Johnny Chan, Freddy Deeb, Tom McEvoy, David Benyamine, Jeffrey Lisandro, Jason Mercier, Antonio Esfandiari, Humberto Brenes, Annette Obrestad, John Juanda, Philip Galfond, Daniel Negreanu, Hoyt Corkins, Chris Ferguson, Alexandre Gomes, Layne Flack, Jennifer Harman, Joe Hachem, Daniel Alaei, Daniel Schreiber, Barry Greenstein, Phil Ivey, Phil Hellmuth, Ted Forrest, Dario Minieri, Carlos Mortensen, Scotty Nguyen, Vitaly Lunkin, Chris Moneymaker, Amarillo Slim Preston, J.C. Tran, Sam Farha, T.J. Cloutier, Peter Eastgate, Kenny Tran, David Williams, Greg Raymer, Allen Cunningham, and Huck Seed.

About a month later (on April 16), the WSOP delivered a presser listing the current top 20 in alphabetical order. Here’s that list:

Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan, T.J. Cloutier, Allen Cunningham, Antonio Esfandiari, Sam Farha, Chris Ferguson, Barry Greenstein, Joe Hachem, Jennifer Harman, Dan Harrington, Phil Hellmuth, Phil Ivey, John Juanda, Howard Lederer, Daniel Negreanu, Scotty Nguyen, Greg Raymer, Huck Seed, and Erik Seidel.

Unsurprisingly, all 20 of those names were among those listed in the top 50 back on March 18.

I checked back today -- May 18 -- exactly two months after I looked back in March, and here are those currently being listed as the top 50 vote-getters (again in random order):

Jason Mercier, Sam Farha, Chris Moneymaker, Doyle Brunson, Hoyt Corkins, Kenny Tran, Antonio Esfandiari, Howard Lederer, Peter Traply, Freddy Deeb, David Williams, Jennifer Harman, Peter Smurfit, Erik Seidel, Jeffrey Lisandro, Jennifer Tilly, Philip Galfond, Annette Obrestad, Alexander Kravchenko, Humberto Brenes, Joe Hachem, Billy Baxter, Carlos Mortensen, Phil Hellmuth, David Sklansky, Allen Cunningham, Chris Ferguson, Greg Raymer, Dario Minieri, Tom McEvoy, Daniel Negreanu, David Benyamine, Johnny Chan, J.C. Tran, Erick Lindgren, Barry Greenstein, Men Nguyen, Eli Elezra, Layne Flack, Peter Eastgate, Scotty Nguyen, T.J. Cloutier, Jamie Gold, Ted Forrest, Amarillo Slim Preston, Huck Seed, Vitaly Lunkin, Phil Ivey, Dan Harrington, and John Juanda.

Interestingly, the March 18 and May 18 lists are almost identical, with just four names having dropped out of the earlier list to be replaced by new ones today. Those who were there on March 18 but gone today are Prahlad Friedman, Alexandre Gomes, Daniel Alaei, and Daniel Schreiber. Those on the May 18 list who weren’t there before are Peter Traply, Peter Smurfit, Jennifer Tilly, and Billy Baxter.

I’d speculate that aside perhaps from Billy Baxter -- who may be moving up the list thanks to his name turning up on that first page of the ballot (with his seven WSOP bracelets noted) -- the top 40 or so were essentially settled within those first few days of voting and haven’t changed much since. And it is likely that of those 20 who were leading a month ago, probably 18 or 19 will be there at the end, if not all 20.

All of which is to say, while the TOC voting has attracted some interest, there ain’t been a lot of drama as far as the actual vote has gone. Not thus far, anyway. Voting remains open through June 15, 2010, and the WSOP could spice things up a little by sharing some more info during the days leading up to the closing of the ballot.

Seems doubtful, though, that we'll be witnessing any “June Surprise” as far as the WSOP TOC vote goes.

Talkin’ Tourneys

Had an interesting weekend full of tourney watching & reporting. And playing!

The PokerStars Spring Championship of Online Poker is winding down at last, meaning I’ll have a week or so to recharge before heading Vegas-ward for another summer of WSOP.

Was another all-night affair last night, this time spent chronicling the Main Event -- the two-day, $10,300 buy-in, no-limit hold’em tourney the winner of which is scheduled to earn $1,162,350 (barring a final table deal) as well as the 114th (!) SCOOP winner’s watch. There are 27 players left in that one (out of the starting field of 615). Click here to read all about Day 1.

I say I played some as well this weekend. As noted here before, tourneys aren’t normally my thing. But they may become so. Hard to be reporting on these suckers constantly without desiring to jump into the fray now and then.

SCOOP Satellite (I run good)

Momentarily possessed with a mild case of SCOOP fever, on Friday I jumped into one of those hyped-up, turbo-style, rebuy satellites to the “Low” version of the Main Event (with a $109 buy-in). The tourney was just $1.10 to enter, and as it happened I had a few T$ (tourney dollars) in my account, so ended up using exactly $3.13 worth of those as I rebought once and took the add-on.

There were 257 entered, and after all of the rebuyin’ and add-onin’ it worked out that the the top 11 would win tickets, with the 12th-place finisher taking $85 or so. After about 90 minutes there were 24 players left, and somehow I’d zigzagged my way to 15th with a slightly below-average stack. At that point pretty much everyone was in shove-or-fold territory. In fact, looking back, aside from the very start of the tourney, I don’t think I ever had much more than 20 big blinds, and usually was sitting with less than 10.

Couldn’t pick up a hand for a while, and soon found myself dead last -- 17th of 17 -- and looking like I’d be bubbling. But I won a hand or two, including one especially lucky hand where I’d shoved with K-J and got called by a fellow holding K-Q. The flop came A-Q-10, the turn was another 10, then the river brought a surprising king to give me the straight. I don’t think I played a single hand after that, and eventually made it into the top 11 and won my seat.

It did cross my mind just to take the $109 worth of tourney cabbage and run, but those thoughts didn’t last long. Had happened before where I’d won a seat into the Sunday Million on the cheap, but decided to cash out. Considering this was essentially a freeroll, I thought I’d go for it.

SCOOP Main Event (I run not so good)

As it happened, when the tourney cranked up late Sunday afternoon my attention was divided as I was simultaneously writing a recap of another SCOOP event, so conditions weren’t ideal for concentrating on my table. Still, I chipped up a bit during the first few levels, then fell back to the starting stack of 10,000 or so. Wasn’t picking up hands to speak of, really, although did get A-A in the big blind the one time I was given a walk (no shinola).

Bled a few more chips after an unsuccessful steal or three. Then it was during hour three that the pivotal hand came up for me. Sorry I don’t have the hand history handy, but I remember it fairly well.

I had about 8,200 when I managed to pick up pocket aces again in middle position. I raised 3x, and only the fellow on my left called. He’d done a lot of calling, including showing down hands as light as ace-high, and as a result was down around 5,500. The flop came Q-J-6 rainbow and I continued for about two-thirds pot. When he quickly called, I thought he’d probably paired the queen or jack. I also thought he’d keep calling with just that lone pair.

The turn was a five, and again I bet something like half the pot. He again called, leaving himself less than 3,000. The river was a four, I bet about half of his stack, and he quickly pushed all in. I had something like 1,500 more to call with the pot around 10,000, so I did.

He turned over 8-7 (sooted). He’d flopped a gutshot, turned an open-ender, and got there. Now I was down under 3,000, and feeling not-so-great about my luck. Or my skill.

I did double up once before finally going out. Ironically, I ended up pushing a stack of about 10 big blinds with K-J and was called by K-Q (just like in the satellite). No miracles for me this time, though, and I was done in around 11,000th of the 19,188 who played.

BBT5 (all good again)

By then the BBT5 -- the Battle of the Bloggers 5 Invitational -- had gotten started. There were 112 entered in that one. I won’t bore you with all of the details, but I ended up making it through to the money (top 18) and then the final table.

When that final table started, I typed “let’s stop the tournament and finish up in November.” Then added, “I want a shot at some sponsorships!” Seemed like a good idea, but we ended up playing it out anyway.

At that point I was short-stacked (natch), but so were about five or six others. Ended up lasting to seventh for a modest cash, which made the miserable SCOOP performance go away pretty quickly. Thanks again to AlCantHang for the invite and pulling together the BBT5.

I believe there is one more tourney to go in the series this coming Sunday (5/23), although I have a feeling I might be sitting that one out in order to spend time with Vera before heading west. There are still a couple more Mookies and Poker from the Rail events, all leading toward the BBT5 Tournament of Champions on May 27th. Check Al’s post for more details.

Moving back over to the reporter side of things tonight for Day 2 of the SCOOP Main Event. Will be live blogging the final table with my buddy Drizz (who cashed in that SCOOP Main Event-Low, by the way!), so check the PokerStars blog for that some time during the early evening.

Completing the Circle: WSOP Bloggers Roundtable

The second part of my “WSOP Bloggers Roundtable” is now up over on Betfair Poker. This one includes contributions from Change100, “Mean Gene” Bromberg, AlCantHang, ESPN’s Andrew Feldman, Chops, and Pokerati Dan.

If you missed part one -- featuring F-Train, Brad “Otis” Willis, Benjo, Michele Lewis, Dr. Pauly, and Jason “Spaceman” Kirk -- the idea was to ask some of your favorite poker bloggers (who have covered the World Series) questions about the 2010 WSOP as well as about their past WSOP experiences.

I seriously could have asked a couple dozen more to contribute here, but I had to stop somewhere. Will probably try something similar down the road, at which time I might try to recruit others.

I asked six questions altogether. The first was simply asking which stories and/or players the bloggers were most looking forward to covering. I then asked about the new events (the $50,000 “Poker Player’s Championship,” the $25,000 NLHE six-max event, the newly-formatted Tournament of Champions, etc.) as well as their opinions about the November Nine, back for a third year.

Next was a question about the current status of the World Series of Poker and its overall significance to poker, generally speaking. That is, to what extent does the health of the WSOP serve as an indicator of the health of the game overall? Some interesting -- and varied -- responses to that one.

Finally came two questions about covering the WSOP -- one asking about the bloggers’ most memorable experiences while reporting, and the other asking what they liked most/least about working the Series. Those questions might have elicited the most compelling responses of all -- some great stories in there.

I can’t say I necessarily anticipated anything in particular when coming up with this here ideer, but in the end I was blown away by how thoughtful and entertaining the responses were. If you like poker, the WSOP, and good writing about both, you’ll absolutely dig this roundtable.

I know we live in a “tl, dr” (“too long, didn’t read”) world, where anything over 140 characters is viewed by many as an undesired commitment. But if you’re reading this blog, I’m gonna go ahead and assume you’re probably the sort of person who doesn’t mind lengthier stuff -- so go check it out!

WSOP Bloggers Roundtable, Part 1 (F-Train, Brad “Otis” Willis, Benjo, Michele Lewis, Dr. Pauly, and Jason “Spaceman” Kirk)

WSOP Bloggers Roundtable, Part 2 (Change100, “Mean Gene” Bromberg, AlCantHang, ESPN’s Andrew Feldman, Chops, and Pokerati Dan)

Is Punning a Vice, or Vice-Versa?

Had a most pleasant evening last night going out with Vera to see Norah Jones perform.

Vera has followed Jones more closely that I have, so she was more familiar than I was with most of the 20 songs Jones and her five-member backing band performed. It was a somewhat tightly-scripted performance, with apparently very little improvising along the way, although that didn’t take away from the energy and enthusiasm of the show.

The opening act was a solo performer named Elvis Perkins who was very charismatic as he moved through his eight-song set, accompanied by guitar (both regular acoustic & 12-string) and an expertly-played harmonica. Kind of surreal-leaning folky stuff -- the songs all seemed to veer off into “American Pie”-type word- and image-association craziness. A lot of fun. Vera found out afterwards he’s the son of the actor Anthony Perkins (Psycho), and I guess there was a touch of that Norman Bates charm-slash-eccentricity about him.

That said, I’m reasonably sure Elvis wouldn’t even harm a fly.

The whole night was more than a little inspiring, really -- seeing artists submit their carefully-crafted work to a receptive audience -- and I found myself thinking at times during the evening about this second novel idea I have brewing, as well as other creative endeavors. (My first -- Same Difference -- is available on Amazon.)

Poker -- in all its variants -- obviously can serve as an opportunity for creativity.

In the brief moments here and there I’ve been able to play lately, I’ve been sitting at low buy-in no-limit hold’em tables, kind of thinking in the back of my mind that I’d like to play a little more NLHE this summer when I’m in Vegas reporting on the WSOP. Having been locked into fixed limit HE for quite a long time, it hasn’t taken long to become reacquainted with the differences between the games -- including appreciating the many ways one can be imaginative in NLHE when taking different lines on hands.

Writing about poker can also afford one chances to be creative, even in the context of reporting.

Engaged in a fun little conversation on Twitter a couple of days ago in which the subject of puns and tourney reporting came up. As I mentioned yesterday, Pat Pezzin had gone deep in the 2-7 Triple Draw SCOOP event I was covering, a game in which whenever one chooses not to discard it is called “standing pat.” Was joking on Twitter a little about possible headlines should Pezzin triumph.

Pezzin did actually stand pat on his elimination hand, and I guess he was probably the last Pat standing. So I grabbed a screenshot of the last Pat standing standing pat.

No wonder I enjoyed the concert so much last night -- being so easily amused and all.

I wrote kind of a lengthy exegesis here on the topic of puns & wordplay last summer in a post titled “Does Humor Belong in Poker Tournament Reporting?” There I concluded that there is certainly a place for grins in tourney reporting -- even those grins that tend quickly to turn grimaces when provoked by a bit of wordplay such as the above. As long as doing so didn’t interfere with the clear communication of what the hell was happening, that is.

Over on Twitter the other night, B.J. Nemeth -- the lead reporter for the World Poker Tour -- chimed in to point out his self-imposed anti-punning stance. Which I respect, obviously, as one of the many approaches to reporting, particularly in the especially capable hands of Nemeth who infuses a lot of information -- and, I’d argue, creativity -- into his reports.

No, I’m not saying avoiding puns makes one’s reporting small potatoes. Although I could see how one might call such a person a commentator.

(Rim shot.)

Security Leakin’, of SCOOP Speakin’, and C’mon, Everybody We’re Going Streakin’!

Was busy delivering the scoop on SCOOP again last night (and this morning), and so once again am running low on mental fuel this afternoon.

If I did, I might’ve written something about the latest shenanigans at Cereus -- there’s been yet another security issue over there -- but as I say I haven’t the energy at the moment to do so. Just as well, really, as all I’d have to add would be to reiterate my distaste with Cereus, to recommend new players avoid signing up at UB or Absolute Poker, and perhaps to laugh a little at the absurdity of it all.

In other words, to join in the (deserved) piling on.

For those unfamiliar, click here to read the original report over on Poker Table Ratings of the vulnerability at Cereus concerning their encryption mechanism. (There are follow-up pieces over on PTR as well, if you click around.) You might also see UB.com COO Paul Leggett’s initial response to the news, of which he says he’s “very shocked” to learn. And here is UB.com spokesperson and media & operations consultant Joe Sebok’s note on the matter, too -- not posted on his UB.com blog (yet?) but rather over on PokerRoad.

As I said, was pretty much solely occupied with writing up several different SCOOP events here of late. Here’s how I spent the last 24 hours or so, if you’re curious:

In Event No. 24-Medium, the $109 buy-in Deuce-to-Seven Triple Draw event, Buckeye 119 took it down. Team PokerStars pro Pat Pezzin had chips deep in this one, but finished 14th, thereby thwarting my opportunity to have built a headline around the phrase “Standing Pat.” Also some funny chat reported here, thanks to the appropriately-named player Needleking.

In Event No. 25-High, the $2,100 buy-in Stud/8 event, Gunslinger3 took it down, ultimately outlasting Team PokerStars Pro George Lind III to do so.

And in Event No. 26-Low, an $11 NLHE event, *guerillaz* carried the day, coming out on top of a huge, 16,498 player field. Tourney ended on a crushing bad beat for runner-up fysass1881. Post contains an utterly appropriate reference to Frank the Tank’s “We’re goin’ streakin’!” scene in Old School.

Nice little series they’re putting on over there at Stars. Not so little, actually. A decent poker site, I’d say. Definitely a better choice than some sites, if yr lookin’ for somewheres to play.

“What do you do?”

We’re all familiar with the question “What do you do?” Is often one of the first ones asked when meeting someone new. Most of us have well rehearsed answers prepared, so much so the response becomes a kind of reflex. This is what I do. This is who I am.

I mentioned at the end of yesterday’s post how I’d been to my father’s retirement party a few days ago. Got asked the “What do you do?” question a lot that night, actually. Was an especially fun, memorable time, and I wanted to share just a couple of quick thoughts from it here.

My father has worked at the same place for more than 40 years. In other words, for a long time he has always had a ready answer for “What do you do?”

In some respects the party was a kind of “This Is Your Life”-type deal for him, with friends, family, and colleagues from across the decades all turning up to show their appreciation and support. Indeed, I also had the chance there to reunite with a number of people whom I hadn’t really seen since I was a child or perhaps a teenager. I met a lot of other people, too -- colleagues of my father, past and present -- and so, like I say, it was an enjoyable night of socializing with a lot of people from a variety of backgrounds.

Have noted here recently about how I am also stepping away from a long-time place of employment. My decision wasn’t in any way connected to my father’s retirement, but I will say that I have known for a long time I wouldn’t be working in the position I was in for forty-plus years the way he did.

Long ago, Pop had found for himself a genuine “calling,” and had the additional good fortune of finding a place that fit especially well with what he wanted to do. For me, I knew that in my job I was neither pursuing a genuine “calling” nor was I working at a place that was suitably nurturing, challenging, rewarding, what have you.

Given that I’ve just left a job, I found myself in the potentially awkward position of having to introduce myself a little differently than I have over the past few years. I’m a freelance writer, I told everyone, and after a few times of doing so it became more comfortable to say. When pressed further, I explained that while I’m writing in different areas, one in which I spend a lot of time and energy is poker. Most were intrigued by that, and it made for some interesting conversation.

Some readers might recall my having written here in the past about how, generally speaking, I have tended not to volunteer such information in these types of gatherings. A couple of posts -- “The Double Life of the Poker Player” and “Poker at the Dinner Table” -- spring to mind.

In any event, it was during one such conversation with an elderly couple -- both septuagenarians -- about my poker writing that the husband mentioned his wife liked watching poker on television. She then explained how much she enjoyed watching that mean man lose to the girl the other day. “She was just twenty-one!” she said.

I knew immediately to whom she was referring. You probably do, too. She’d seen the NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship a couple of weeks ago, and was referring to Annette Obrestad’s second-round victory over Phil Hellmuth. I explained to her that a lot of people enjoyed seeing that one turn out that way.

I came away from that conversation thinking how NBC, ESPN, and others have done pretty well in their efforts to package poker as a kind of sporting event or game show, thereby making it seem interesting to a wide audience, including those who may not have otherwise considered the idea of watching people sit around a table playing cards something to see.

I also thought about how I liked having that reference point for future conversations about what I do with people otherwise outside of our little pokery world. Just about everyone I spoke to the other night had at least caught a glimpse of poker on ESPN, or seen the commercials for PokerStars or Full Tilt Poker. They know there is such a thing as professional poker and that media cover it.

Helps simplify the explainin’ somewhat, when it comes to my trying to answer that question “What do you do?”

Stars, Stories, SCOOP

More reporting for PokerStars Spring Championship of Online Poker over the weekend. Covered a few more events, including three that each featured some “name” players doing well, therefore making the report perhaps a bit more interesting to write.

First came Jennifer “jennicide” Leigh’s win in Event No. 18-Low, the $22 buy-in fixed limit hold’em event played as a “turbo” tourney (i.e., five-minute levels). I actually played in this event, having won a seat some time ago, and while I outlasted 3,000 or so competitors I busted a couple of hundred spots shy of the money. The tourney was kind of insane in terms of the structure -- 3,802 players and it was done in a little over four hours. By the end Leigh and her opponent started heads-up play with about 9.5 million chips each, and the stakes were 600,000/1,200,000!

One aspect of that tourney I especially enjoyed was the fact that the third-place finisher, The Tick, had apparently never played a SCOOP event before. He showed a little bit of newbieness during the deal-making that the final three players made, but all were very cool and accomodating of each other, each recognizing that it was essentially flipping a few coins from that point forward. You can read the recap of Event 18-L here.

Later that night/morning (Saturday/Sunday), I was writing up Shaun Deeb’s waffle-crushing victory in Event No. 17-Medium, the $162 buy-in pot-limit Omaha event (six max. w/rebuys). Deeb played well, but ran incredibly well down the stretch, seemingly hitting every flop hard whenever he had an opponent all in.

I started keeping track at 12 players, and Deeb knocked out 9 of the last 11, including the entire final table. The other players were making note, too, including “Exclusive,” a.k.a. Team PokerStars Pro Noah Boeken (who ended up finishing third):

Exclusive: its really that easy huh
shaundeeb: lifes good
shaundeeb: i say nuts preflop
shaundeeb: knowing I will end with it
Vingtcent: i'm starting to understand how you're the most successful mtt player ever

We remember Deeb saying something a few months ago about “retiring” from MTT play, but clearly he’s still in the thick of it. Here’s that recap of Event 17-M.

Finally, last night/morning was also made especially entertaining by the presence of a certain player named “#1_Lucky_One” in Event No. 19-High, the $2,100 buy-in no-limit hold’em event with “big antes” (i.e., antes that started with the first level and were larger than typical for the structure throughout). He was leading the event with about 100 players left, at which point I began searching around a little online to see who he was.

Turns out one finds the name most frequently associated with none other than Phil Hellmuth. Indeed, Kevmath had started a sweat thread over on 2+2 for folks to express themselves over the spectacle. The chatbox became increasingly crowded, too, as the tourney wound on.

Interestingly, “#1_Lucky_One” had been keeping quiet for much of the event (apparently) -- at least since I started watching him. But suddenly he got into a fairly big tête-à-tête with the player sitting next to him, Alex “mistakooll” Keating, when the latter engaged him about an incident at the 2009 WSOP. Keating had knocked Hellmuth out of a LHE event there, and Hellmuth had responded with his typical poor sportsmanship.

During that exchange we all learned that “#1_Lucky_One” has 5,000 friends on Facebook. He also offered to buy Alex “a bottle of Dom” in an effort to make amends for his poor behavior last summer. And he agreed to let Alex wear his bracelet, too.

I’m not making this up.

“#1_Lucky_One” then started to play a little less steadily, especially as other players got in on the fun. He’d lose most of his stack, build it back up again, then (quite dramatically) plummet again to end the tourney in 21st place. Ended up chronicling quite a bit of the scene there in the lengthy wrap post for Event 19-H.

Back at it tonight. I did get a respite from the writing back on Friday night, when I attended a very fun retirement party for my Pop, at which I enjoyed some reunions with people I hadn’t seen in many years, and also had some interesting conversations with some of them about poker. Plan to write about that in the next day or two.

Meanwhile, see you back over at the PokerStars blog!

Another Round, and a Roundtable

Another all-nighter for yr humble insomniac. In fact, the tourney I’m covering -- which started yesterday afternoon -- is still going as I type.

Not running so good, am I. Indeed, truth be told, I’m mostly just crawling.

Brock “t soprano” Parker, winner of two bracelets at last summer’s World Series of Poker, is trying to claim a little SCOOP bling here in Event No. 12-High, the $2,600 No-Limit Hold’em (with Knockout Bounties).

Parker is currently the short stack with three players left, though that ain’t botherin’ him. As evidenced by this recent chatbox exchange with Team PokerStars Pro Maridu Mayrinck:

Maridu [Team Pro]: just out of curiosity what time is it for each of you guys?
t soprano: clobberin time
Maridu [Team Pro]: lol

All of which means I’ve got a lot else to write here this morning. But let me take the opportunity to point everyone to the first installment of my two-part “WSOP Bloggers Roundtable” over on Betfair Poker.

I think I’ve mentioned this here once or twice before. I invited 12 different poker bloggers, all of whom have covered the World Series of Poker over the last few years, each to answer six questions about the upcoming WSOP and their own experiences covering it. The first six-handed roundtable went up this morning, featuring F-Train, Brad “Otis” Willis, Benjo, Michele Lewis, Dr. Pauly, and Jason “Spaceman” Kirk. The second part will appear next Friday.

Over on Twitter this a.m., the PokerGrump likened my organizational skills to Tom Sawyer’s sneaky efforts to get his pals to whitewash that fence at the beginning of Twain’s novel -- i.e., get others to write my column for me. Hey, I’m not exactly denying it, but really, it’s not every day a person gets to whitewash a fence, is it?

Nor is it everyday one gets to assemble so many excellent pokery anecdotes and insights in one place, so go check out “WSOP Bloggers Roundtable, Part 1” -- and stay tuned for Part 2.

Back to the tourney for me. If my weary brain is any indication, it has been “clobberin time” for several days now.

But I’m off the canvas! I’m not out yet! Looks like Parker just went out in third. Let’s do this!