The Urge to Keep Writing, Continued

Had a lot of good comments on that post from a couple of days ago, titled “The Urge to Keep Writing.” Some nice words, too, for which I thank the commentors.

Since not everyone might’ve seen the comments -- and since this is, in fact, one of those “milestone” posts (today’s is the 1,200th) that tend to inspire the same kind of self-reflection I was engaging in on Tuesday -- I thought I’d use today’s post to share some of what was said in response to that one.

The post was mainly me wondering aloud about the place and/or relevance of poker blogs these days. For a variety of reasons, it seems fewer are writing them and fewer are reading them. And so I found myself thinking that morning about Hard-Boiled Poker and my desire to keep posting, despite these contrary trends.

In the post I made a reference to the “five minutes” out of each day I estimated it took folks to read my daily missives, and speculating whether or not these days that might be too much to ask. F-Train noted how in today’s media-saturated world the cut-off seems to be around three minutes. Thus, when confronted with a “wall of text” such as will happen sometimes when someone lands at Hard-Boiled Poker, some might quickly click elsewhere rather than commit.

F-Train concluded by agreeing that blogs still have a place, even if they aren’t as central to our conversations about poker as they might’ve been a few years back. NT then commented that these other, competing forms of communication or “social media” such as Facebook and Twitter will probably also eventually fade from prominence, presumably to be replaced by something else.

Hoyazo chimed in, building on a point that F-Train had raised regarding the fact that after several years of writing about poker, it has become harder for everyone to find something new about which to write. Thus, says Hoyazo, the move by many away from blogs and over to Twitter is partly related to the fact that folks simply have less to say nowadays than they might have in the past.

Luke in his comment picked up on a sentence in my post where I mentioned being much more “cognizant of having an audience” today than I was when I first started the blog long ago. He smartly adds that we all have an audience -- always -- whether we recognize that fact or not.

Finally, Drizztdj pointed out how time constraints keep him from blogging as much as he’d like, something I think most of us who keep blogs can appreciate.

As I said on Tuesday, I do remain inspired to continue posting here regularly. I’ll definitely keep all of these thoughts and ideas in mind, though, as I move forward.

While I write for many reasons, I probably wouldn’t keep at this if I didn’t believe I was communicating in a meaningful way with others. In other words, it’s important to me that whatever it is I’m doing here represents a worthwhile contribution to our many conversations about poker. And not just a bunch of “walls of text” standing as barriers between me and you!

Thanks again for the feedback, folks. And thanks also, again, to everyone else for reading.

Poker Fictions: Comedy vs. Drama

You might’ve heard some recent news about a new poker show reportedly in the works -- not another game show, but something a little different.

Apparently the creators of the well-regarded Showtime series “Weeds” are planning a new poker-themed comedy called “Whales.” The half-hour show “revolves around a group of brilliant and quirky young people, some of them Harvard and MIT graduates, who move to Las Vegas to live in a lavish apartment while pursuing the $10 million prize at the World Series of Poker.” That’s about all the report on the new show gives us, aside from some more background on the show’s producers, at least one of whom is described as “an avid poker player.”

Initial response in the poker community to the show seems positive, I’m guessing mostly because “Weeds” has proven a winner among many in that crowd. I’ve seen a few episodes of “Weeds,” a show with a novel premise involving a middle-class woman who upon the death of her husband ends up selling marijuana in order to support herself and two kids.

Now that I think about it, I am recalling some references to poker in the few episodes I watched of that show, too. Seemed like there might have been an older character on there who played online poker, but I might be thinking of some other series. (Like I say, I’ve only seen “Weeds” a few times, and it has been a while since I did.)

While the producers’ resumes might be the main reason why poker people are reacting positively to “Whales,” I’m wondering if some aren’t simply glad to see an attempt made at a poker-themed comedy as opposed to yet another drama.

Since the poker “boom” in 2003, there have been a string of films and TV shows revolving around poker. Nearly all have been primarily dramas. And almost none have been well-received, either in the poker community or by the public at large.

That original series on ESPN, “Tilt,” from 2005 comes to mind, the one starring Michael Madsen as a player nicknamed “The Matador.” That one got a lot of attention at the time, and while some liked it, most reviews were lukewarm at best. Then came those films -- All In (2006), Lucky You (2007), Deal (2008) -- which like “Tilt” tried to shoehorn a dramatic story into the world of high-stakes tournament poker, and in all cases were coolly received by audiences, both by poker people and everyone else.

The only recent poker-themed film that seems to have escaped universal derision was the often wildly funny mockumentary The Grand (2007). Of course, one might argue that film’s success largely stems from the improvisational talents of the cast rather than the construction of a compelling (wholly fictional) narrative. (When I say “poker-themed film” I’m not referring to movies that include poker scenes -- be they integral or incidental -- but rather films in which poker is of primary significance. In other words, films which all would agree are about poker.)

As a fiction writer, I’ve purposely avoided trying to write poker-themed stories thus far. One reason is that I write so darned much about poker otherwise. Also, I think I’m a little intimidated by the prospect of trying to build a fiction around poker. How could I possibly say something new or fresh that hasn’t already been communicated thousands of times already in real-life poker games?

Hearing about “Whales,” though, has me wondering if perhaps those taking a comedic approach to their poker-themed storytelling might enjoy a slight advantage over those who try to create poker-themed dramas.

Whereas the dramatic writer is having to deal with the fact that so many possible plots and characters already exist in the real world of poker, the comedic writer doesn’t necessarily have to compete with reality so directly. Furthermore, the comedic writer probably also enjoys a greater license to exaggerate or even misrepresent reality than does the dramatic writer.

Think about how many criticisms levied against those dramatic films by poker players revolve around identifying inaccuracies in the way the game is represented. But if the main goal was more obviously to produce grins, I think the storytellers would be allowed a little more leeway in this regard, generally speaking.

Poker -- a game based on producing conflicts and resolving them -- is inherently dramatic. It is also a game full of absurdities and ironies, of people behaving oddly, of situations so outrageous one instinctively responds with laughter.

Stands to reason, then, that poker-themed fictions can go in either direction. Or both at once. Such is poker, I guess. Equally capable of making us laugh or cry.

The Urge to Keep Writing

I have this obviously malfunctioning mechanical pencil sitting here next to the computer. There’s a picture of me trying to use it -- again -- even though it doesn’t work properly.

It’s one of those throw-away, cheap plastic ones that comes with a few pieces of lead which once you get through you’re meant to toss the sucker in the garbage. That is to say, it isn’t designed to be used for very long, as it doesn’t really accommodate adding more lead the way the slightly more expensive ones do.

When I shake the pencil I can hear a couple of pieces of lead remain, and so am reluctant to get rid of it. But there’s definitely something wrong with it. Whenever I grab the thing to jot down a note, it only takes a few strokes for the lead to disappear mischievously back into the plastic tube. Notice up above how I couldn’t even make it through the last word of my short note.

I click the top a few times and begin anew, but if I press onto the paper with any force at all the piece of lead gets pushed back in once more. Still, I keep using the stupid thing, usually cursing a couple or five times before I get through whatever it is I was jotting down.

The note I was taking related to an idea I had for today’s post -- something about the blog itself. Didn’t have anything too definite in mind, but rather just wanted to ask for some feedback about what readers think about blogs such as this one and their current place in the larger scheme of things.

I’ve remarked before here how when I began the blog more than four years ago, there seemed to be hundreds of folks out there writing about poker on a regular basis, covering an amazingly wide spectrum of styles and abilities -- both writing-wise and poker-wise. But the rise of Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of interacting-slash-communication over the last couple of years has clearly edged blogs over into a more specialized location of this here virtual community we got goin’.

Such an observation was already being made by many over a year ago -- perhaps even earlier than that. Not just about poker blogs, but blogs, generally speaking. Most directly tied the so-called “decline of blogs” to the rise of other forms of “social media” such as the quick-hitting Twitter or other, non-verbal types of communication (e.g., fast-streaming audio and video, images, even games) with which those of us who use the internet on a regular basis are now very familiar.

Just think for a moment how you would spend an hour “surfing” on the internet in 2006 and compare it to what you do during that same hour today. How much of that time is spent reading articles (or blog posts) of more than 500 words today? How much in 2006?

When I began Hard-Boiled Poker, I did so because I enjoy poker and writing, and thought it would be fun to combine those two pursuits in a poker blog. I posted regularly -- even early on, when I wasn’t sure anyone at all was reading -- for no other reason than because it was fun to do. Over time I did attract a few readers, then a few more, then eventually found myself having joined what I experienced as an especially cool community of poker-lovin’ writers and readers.

My goal at first was to try to post every other day, which I essentially did for the first year-and-a-half of keeping the blog. I finally got wise to how folks read a lot more during the week than on Saturdays and Sundays, and so starting in January 2008 I decided to begin posting every weekday. This I’ve somehow managed to do without fail for what is now almost three years, even sometimes posting more than just weekdays, but adding posts on weekends, too (such as when I’m covering a live event).

As I sat here this morning fighting with that damned pencil once again, I recognized that there’s something maybe a little stubborn about posting with such regularity. I continue to get lots of hits, and I know from the feedback I receive (both in comments and via other means) that folks are reading. Even so, I can’t help but think I could perhaps change the way I am contributing to our ongoing conversations about poker.

Not saying I’m planning any big change right away, but just wondering what others might think. I continue to enjoy keeping the blog, and only rarely do I experience writing my weekday post as something arduous. Sometimes I have other writing assignments or responsibilities that make it harder to keep to my schedule -- and occasionally, like today, force me to post a little later in the day than I would otherwise. (Included among those other tasks is the writing of a second novel, to which I’m increasingly wanting to devote more time, too.)

While I get a lot of personal satisfaction out of writing my posts here, I’m also now very cognizant of having an audience -- much more so than when I began the blog -- and so try with every post to provide something of value to the reader. It is my hope with every post that the reader who makes it all of the way to the end has gotten something from doing so... that is, feels the five minutes or so was time well spent.

But as I mentioned above, I sense it becoming more difficult these days to tear many away from Facebook or Twitter or other places for those five minutes. So by writing another post here today, am I being inflexible by doggedly sticking to the same routine? Like with the pencil? Or like with my poker playing, where I also tend to stay with the familiar, perhaps to my detriment.

F-Train wrote a thoughtful piece at the end of last week titled “The Decline of Poker Writing” in which he addressed a few different issues regarding the current state of “poker media” and the availability (and quality) of jobs within that small world. I may be addressing a related issue here when I suggest that the decline in poker writing (in the form of blogs) is related also to a decline in poker reading -- speaking quantitatively, that is.

If any of these musings inspired some thoughts of your own, do share ’em. Thanks once again to those who took the five minutes and made it to the end of the post. And once again, I sincerely hope it was worth it.

Secret (and Not-So-Secret) Identities in Poker

The flesh-and-blood appearance of the young Swedish player Viktor Blom at the World Series of Poker Europe a few weeks back caused something of a stir in the poker world. That was because Blom, of course, is the player most believe to be “Isildur1,” he of the multimillion-dollar swings over on Full Tilt Poker that captured everyone’s attention during the latter months of 2009.

While the prize pools at the WSOPE pale in comparison to the stakes Isildur1 was playing a little under a year ago -- remember that $1,356,946.50 pot he lost to Patrik Antonius?! -- Blom had what some might consider a successful series, highlighted by a 16th-place finish in the WSOPE Main Event.

The £33,582 Blom won for that achievement (the equivalent about $52,000) would not have even gotten him to the flop in that big hand against Antonius last November. But still, his deep run got a lot of attention, especially when he and Phil Ivey -- one of Isildur1’s many big-name Full Tilt opponents -- were sitting one-two in chips at one point on Day 2.

This wasn’t the first time Blom has appeared at a live tourney. He was at the 2009 WSOPE as well as the 2010 EPT Grand Final in Monaco. He did bail at the last minute from playing in the televised Party Poker IV Big Game last spring, but has been out and about enough to become a recognizable figure (and the subject of a hilarious photoshop thread on Two Plus Two, from which comes that picture below).

That said, Blom had never before drawn as much attention as he did at the 2010 WSOPE. It was highly interesting to see how those reporting on Blom handled the issue of whether or not to identify him as Isildur1.

As far as I know, Blom still hasn’t publicly acknowledged that he is Isildur1. In fact, when asked directly by Bluff Europe back in December 2009, Blom denied it altogether. “I am not the one you are looking for,” said Blom to the magazine. “Keep looking.”

Thus are most commentators continuing to choose their words carefully whenever connecting Blom to his apparent online identity. It’s an awkward situation, but it’s also a very familiar one in the world of online poker. I’ve had the chance to report on both live and online events, and in either venue there is always some awareness of -- and varying levels of pressure or need either to refer to or not to refer to -- that other “world” in which the same actors are known to operate.

Sometimes the connection between a player’s “real” self and his or her online identity is wholly unambiguous and without controversy. Tom Dwan is durrrr. Daniel Negreanu is Kid Poker. Greg Raymer is Fossilman. The names are almost interchangeable, recognizable to nearly everyone.

Other times, there are legitimate doubts about whether this or that person can be linked to a particular username. Or not-so-clearly-defined guidelines not to “out” someone who doesn’t wish to be identified.

It’s that latter issue that is especially curious when it comes to poker.

The internet inherently introduces all sorts of challenges when it comes to identity, insofar as it all but requires us to create “virtual” selves in order to communicate. So part of what we’re talking about here isn’t specific to poker at all, but just part of what it means to interact on these here interwebs.

But when it comes to poker, “identity” is actually part of the game. Who I am -- or even better, who you think I am -- is of great relevance to how you are going to play against me. And vice-versa.

Thus might a player’s desire not to be “outed” become significant to the reporter, then, because to do so could be construed as influencing the game on which one is reporting -- something which no conscientious reporter ever wants to have happen. Even if the player hasn’t made such a desire known, I think most reporters are at least aware that it is probably best to exercise some prudence when publicizing such connections.

The Blom-Isildur1 case is obviously special. No one reporting on the WSOPE and referring to Blom as Isildur1 was passing along some previously unknown revelation that could be said to change the way Blom’s opponents approached him. (Although there was that one, odd story from the Main Event in which Ivey apparently was overheard asking someone -- perhaps with tongue in cheek -- “Who’s Isildur?”)

Is interesting, though, to consider how in professional poker -- now that the online game has grown so considerably -- we are almost always thinking in terms of these two distinct worlds, with nearly everyone, it seems, having one foot in each.

Poker & Pop Culture, Revisited

In yesterday’s post I referred to some references to poker in popular culture. Got me thinking further about other, similar examples, both of late and from further back in history.

I have a piece over on Betfair Poker today that refers to one such example, the awesomely-named Thanatopsis Pleasure and Inside Straight Club, a poker club that involved members of the famous Algonquin Round Table from the 1920s. The article kind of revives an old series of columns I had begun over on PokerNews some time ago.

These “Poker & Pop Culture” columns have had a bit more shelf life than some of the other articles I’ve written, and I find myself going back to them every now and then. In fact, just yesterday on Twitter my friend B.J. Nemeth made a reference to how poker came up a lot on the old “Star Trek: Next Generation” series, and I was able to point him to a fairly long piece compiling all of those references.

Anyhow, here’s a list of all 20 of those “Poker & Pop Culture” columns I’ve done, with links to each.

The Thanatopsis Pleasure and Inside Straight Club (10/8/10)
Poker and Space Exploration (7/21/09)
‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’ (5/19/09)
Herbert O. Yardley’s ‘The Education of a Poker Player’ (4/28/09)
‘California Split’ (4/14/09)

Mainstream Magazines on the Poker Boom (3/31/09)
Wild Bill Hickok and the Dead Man’s Hand (3/17/09)
Hold’em Hand Nicknames (3/3/09)
Mark Twain (2/17/09)
Matt Damon and Ed Norton Enter the 1998 WSOP (2/3/09)

The Films of W.C. Fields (1/20/09)
Kenny Rogers’ ‘The Gambler’ (12/30/08)
Dogs Playing Poker (12/17/08)
Bret Maverick (12/2/08)
Gabe Kaplan (11/18/08)

Poker-Playing Presidents (11/4/08)
CBS and the World Series of Poker (10/21/08)
Critical Reception of ‘The Cincinnati Kid’ (10/7/08)
Amarillo Slim Goes on Johnny Carson (9/23/08)
Moss & Dandalos, Dazzling With Dollars (9/9/08)

Some of these are definitely better than others, I think, but I’m gonna guess there’s bound to be at least one or two items of interest to most folks in there somewhere. My favorites include the one about C.M. Coolidge's “Dogs Playing Poker” paintings, the one telling the story behind ”The Gambler,” and the Star Trek one.

I’ve had more than a few posts here on Hard-Boiled Poker that have fit under this “Poker & Pop Culture” heading, too. I think I might create a separate page listing all of those posts/articles in the near future.

If you happen to click through and read any of those pieces, come back and let me know what you think. Meanwhile, have a good weekend all.

Seeing Poker “Out in the World”

“Played poker when I arrived in Reno, now trying to buy the band back for the show tonight.”

Saw that on my Twitter feed last night, a tweet from Steve Martin, comedian, actor, and banjo player. Martin is currently touring with a bluegrass-playing outfit, the Steep Canyon Rangers. As that tweet indicates they just had a gig in Reno. (Martin is relatively new to Twitter -- follow him @SteveMartinToGo, if yr innersted.)

Not the first time Martin has made a humorous reference to poker. Some might remember his appearance on the “Late Show with David Letterman” (back in February 2009) when he told a story about playing online poker under the influence of Ambien. I wrote about that here in a post titled “Steve Martin Is a Card,” including linking to a clip of him telling the story. Funny stuff.

By now, references to poker in popular culture have become quite commonplace. I thought it was interesting at the time to note how the story Martin told on Letterman -- a story that involved his betraying a familiarity with online poker and not really having to explain it at length to the audience in order for his joke to be understood -- could be taken as another piece of evidence that poker (and even online poker) had “surfaced” in the mainstream.

There have been at least a couple of other items of late which one might say further exhibit poker’s prominence in popular culture. Last week Vera Valmore and I were watching “The Office” when an allusion to the World Poker Tour popped up kind of surprisingly, eliciting a laugh of recognition from us both.

One of the episode’s storylines involved Pam, the former receptionist now salesperson, struggling to make any commissions in her new position. She comes up with a plan -- a kind of bluff, if you will -- to embellish her salary. She tells Gabe Lewis, a coordinating director for Sabre, the company that has taken over the one for which Pam works, that she is the “Office Administrator” and has not seen payment on her checks for her duties as such.

Toward the end of the episode, Gabe calls Pam for a meeting and explains to her that he’s searched through the last three years’ worth of records and has found nothing to indicate the position she claims to have exists. Yet he’s reluctant to accuse her of anything untoward.

“Can you just admit... admit...?” he impotently utters. He can’t say it. “Admit what?” Pam replies with defiance. He ultimately backs down, unable to come right out and call her bluff. Afterwards, Pam explains how she approached the situation.

“The first lesson of watching World Poker Tour at 2 a.m. -- you play the opponent, not the cards,” she explains.

Kind of unexpected, that, but an apt application of the oft-repeated bromide from the WPT and other poker commentary dating back many, many years before.

One last item to share, another indication of poker’s continuing emergence into the mainstream -- this neat, newly-updated “Map of Online Communities” that some of you might have seen getting referenced a lot yesterday.

The map attempts to represent graphically the amount of "social activity" happening in a given community, something the mapmaker explains isn't necessarily demonstrates by the number of members but by other indicators of how much the sites are actually used to facilitate social interaction. Thus, the larger the community on the map, the more socializing that is happening there.

Clicking on the picture (or here) gets you to a larger version, where you can more clearly see Facebook’s dominance and the emergence of Twitter and Skype being illustrated by their relative size. And if you look in the lower right corner, you’ll see a section for “Forums,” where the poker forum Two Plus Two actually rates a small little island situated in between the similarly-sized Lay It Low (a site for “lowriders”) and the larger gaming and trading community D2JSP.

For poker even to show up on the map is noteworthy, I think. Although, like I say, we’re starting to become accustomed to seeing poker “out in the world” (so to speak).

Tournaments Are Like Short Stories, Cash Games Like Novels

Anybody here remember Squeeze? That cool pop/rock outfit who were part of the group of Beatlesque Brits including Elvis Costello, Nick Lowe, XTC, and a few others?

Squeeze had a couple of great songwriters in the group -- Glenn Tilbrook and Chris Difford -- who often were listed as co-writers of most of their tunes, further encouraging the Beatles comparisons. Jools Holland, the well-known TV host of The Tube (in the 80s) and the long-running Later... with Jools Holland, was there early on, too, and came and went during the band’s career as it stretched out over a couple of decades.

Argybargy (1980) was always my fave Squeeze LP, with East Side Story (1981) a close second. The former is packed with memorable pop nuggets like “Pulling Mussels (From the Shell),” “Another Nail in My Heart,” “Separate Beds,” among others.

The tune kicking off the second side of my U.S. copy of the record is “If I Didn’t Love You.” (Not sure, but I think the U.K. version might have a different running order.) As the title suggests, the song kind of reflects on a difficult relationship, and includes a great little couplet that inspired the title of this post: “Singles remind me of kisses / Albums remind me of plans.”

Think I’m gonna have to write about Argybargy sometime on my music blog -- 33 1/3 Revolutions Per Minute -- if I can find the time to do so. Have been busy with a lot else of late, writing-wise, though, including writing more fiction than I have in a good while.

It was last fall that I got my first novel -- Same Difference -- out into the world, although it took a while after that for it finally to become available on Amazon and elsewhere. It’s a detective novel, set in mid-70s New York City, with the story carrying the detective-narrator Richard Owen through a number of different episodes and locales that betray my fascination with ’70s culture and film.

Since then I’ve begun working on a second novel -- not a sequel but a new story with a different set of characters and altogether new setting. Also, as was the case with Same Difference, I am not intending to involve poker in this one, either, although there will be some gambling, I think.

Has been a while since I’ve tried shorter fiction, although I did have a short story ready when Dr. Pauly called on me recently regarding his Truckin’ series. The story is called “Burial Detail” and it’s another hard-boiled-type mystery. If you’re curious, check out the October 2010 issue of Truckin’ and let me know what you think. For those on the fence about whether or not to commit to a whole novel by yr scribblin’ friend, read the story and perhaps that’ll help you decide.

It occurred to me that reading a short story is perhaps not unlike sitting down for a sit-n-go or even a multi-table tournament. That is, you know before you start what sort of time commitment -- often not too considerable -- you’re getting into. And you also pretty much know you will be taking it all of the way to the end, however the end happens to transpire.

Meanwhile, you probably aren’t going to be reading an entire novel at a single sitting. I’ve been told by some who’ve read Same Difference that it does succeed as a “page-turner,” with characters and plot twists that make you want to keep reading. But I doubt anyone would ever read it start to finish without taking a break at some point. In that way, novels might be compared to cash games, where you can come and go as you please.

I say Squeeze made me think of this analogy, but there’s an observation Alfred Hitchcock once made about film adaptation that probably suggested it to me as well. It comes up in Francois Truffaut’s interviews of Hitchcock, where the master of suspense compares the experience of watching a movie to reading.

“A film cannot be compared to a play or novel,” says Hitchcock. “It is closer to a short story, which, as a rule, sustains one idea that culminates when the action has reached the highest point of the dramatic curve. As you know, a short story is rarely put down in the middle, and in this sense it resembles a film. And it is because of this peculiarity that there must be a steady development of the plot and the creation of gripping situations....”

Think about it. A poker tournament “sustains one idea,” that is, the efforts of all to claim every last chip and be the winner. In other words, all of the action or “gripping situations” that happen -- while perhaps meaningful in different ways to the individual players -- necessarily also contribute to that single “point” of it all, i.e., to determine a winner. Thus is the tourney like a short story.

A cash game, meanwhile, might have lots of different “ideas” that interact in complicated ways, depending on the disparate approaches taken to the game by the players. A “theme” might well emerge (e.g., the game is especially “loose”) that perhaps gives some coherence to it all and helps one interpret the various scenes and characters. But in the end, there can be lots of different ideas that come into play before the “action has reached the highest point of the dramatic curve.”

And, importantly, you can always stop in the middle, if you like.

Stacks Get Big, Emotions Run High: ESPN’s Coverage of 2010 WSOP Main Event Continues Tonight

Tonight on ESPN we’ll see two more hours of coverage devoted to the latter half of Day 6 of the 2010 World Series of Poker Main Event. Looking forward to it, I am.

At the end of play on that day, just 78 players remained of the original field of 7,319. There would be just two more days of poker in July, from which emerged the final nine who will be returning to the Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino in November to play the sucker out once and for all.

On the whole, I’ve been enjoying the coverage thus far, and I especially like that ESPN decided to devote more hours to these latter days of play than to the Day 1s. Sure, we got to know certain figures -- like the barking man, Ted Bort -- more closely than we might’ve cared to along the way, but overall I’m appreciating how the storytelling has gone thus far. Makes sense spending more time on these later days, when really just about every hand is significant, considerably affecting the shape of the “plot” we’re watching unfold.

Tonight I’m especially looking forward to one hand in particular, one that I’m almost certain will be included. It occurred right at the end of the night, a huge hand between Manuel Davidian and Filippo Candio. (By the way, if you’re one of those following ESPN’s coverage and looking to avoid spoilers, you might stop here and come back to this post tomorrow.)

Looking back, I see that in July I titled my Hard-Boiled Poker post about that day “Intense.” Funny -- I didn’t even mention this particular hand in that post. But I think I was still feeling its effects when I wrote it.

If I recall correctly, they had reached that point in the evening where just 10 minutes remained on the tourney clock. The procedure then is to stop the clock and draw a card to determine how many more hands will be played. I believe they pull from a deck just five cards -- a three, four, five, six, and seven -- and whichever card is randomly selected from those dictates how many more hands will be played before stopping.

The card-drawing ensures all tables play the same number of hands during that final portion of the evening. A four was drawn that night, and so we were within those final four hands when this big one took place.

On Day 6 I had moved around a bit, covering different areas as the day went along as part of the PokerNews team there live blogging the proceedings. As we got close to the end of the night, I was sent over to the secondary feature table to grab chip counts once the players there began bagging up. So I happened to be there when this hand between Davidian and Candio happened.

I won’t recount all of the particulars of the hand here -- you can read my post about the hand over on PokerNews, if you like -- but basically a series of raises before the flop created a situation in which Candio was all in with A-K against Davidian’s pocket tens, a king flopped, and Candio’s hand held up. The hand gave Candio more than 5 million chips, which put him near the top 10 at night’s end. Meanwhile, Davidian was crippled to around 100,000, and in the very next hand would be eliminated in 80th place.

The hand produced a lot of emotion from both players -- unrestrained excitement from Candio, and utter dejection from Davidian. That’s one reason why I think it’ll air tonight. Also, it involved Candio, who has already been shown on ESPN a few times and who would go on to experience some more good fortune and make it to the November Nine. He’s already begun to emerge as a significant “character” in the story, so I think we’ll be seeing another episode in his WSOP adventure tonight.

I remember another reporter afterwards asking me about the hand. He wasn’t a guy I knew, and my sense was he was a non-poker writer there to put together some sort of feature about the WSOP. I think he had a one-day media pass or something, if I’m not mistaken.

He had been standing right next to me as it happened, but seemed a little uncertain what it was that we had witnessed. He wanted to know how big the pot was, and what those chips signified. In fact, it seemed like from his questioning that he didn’t necessarily know that it wasn’t really five million-plus “dollars” that had gone to Candio there, but tournament chips.

He also asked me about Candio’s excited reaction afterwards, and whether or not I thought it was out of bounds. I told him it was perhaps a little much, but that I didn’t necessarily think it was that objectionable. I notice in my hand report I mention the reaction, but don’t linger over it too much. It was part of the story there, to be sure, but my instinct at the time was not to focus on it too greatly.

To be honest, that question from the other reporter wasn’t necessarily an easy one to answer. It’s hard sometimes to say what is excessive and what isn’t when it comes to players’ reactions. Like many, I much prefer the players who manage to restrain themselves from getting too carried away with the celebrations. But I also understand that in some cases -- such as the end of Day 6 of the WSOP Main Event -- that might be easier said than done.

I’m going to guess that Candio gets a bit of heat on the forums from some after tonight’s broadcast, although it depends in part on how his reaction afterwards is presented. Would be surprised if ESPN’s emphasis did not highlight the emotions on display after the hand was over. Which will be understandable, if that’s how the story indeed gets “told.”

Just like the players, I suppose you could say those doing the reporting can show differing levels of restraint, too.

Break-Even Poker

Was talking to Vera Valmore some over the weekend about what has become a kind of ongoing frustration for me at the tables. The post title gives you an idea. Ding-dang it I keep runnin’ in place!

I still consider myself a recreational player, one of those part-timers who maybe takes the game a bit more seriously than most but who for a variety of reasons will never likely rise above the micro- and low-limit games where I feel most comfortable.

That said, over the years I’ve consistently managed to eke out some profit from my hobby, ending each year up enough to withdraw some cabbage from my accounts. Nothing too spectacular, but it’s always been nice to recognize that I’m coming out ahead. Better than the alternative, anyway.

That hasn’t really been the case over the last year or so, however, where my records -- which I still carefully keep after every session -- show I have essentially become a “break-even” player for quite some time. Still better than losing, sure. But a little bit trying after having come out ahead previously.

While talking to Vera, I found myself trying to diagnose the problem. I realized soon there were probably multiple explanations for why I’d seemingly hit a wall the way I had. Or, to choose a less violent metaphor, “plateaued.”

But to single out one particular issue, I realized that my thinking with regard to individual sessions had become such that I was virtually guaranteeing I was going to limit my successes at the tables. Let me try to explain what I’m realizing I’m doing...

I wrote a post here early last year called “On Being Results Oriented” in which I confessed to being such. Which, really, is like confessing to being human. In that post I make reference to a chapter in Tommy Angelo’s Elements of Poker in which he addresses the subject -- and makes a similar confession.

“When I win, I think I played better than I did,” he writes. “When I lose, I think I played worse than I did.”

Like a lot of players, I play the same sort of mind games with myself following sessions. And really, a further lack of discipline with regard to reviewing sessions and hands -- something I admit I’m not doing at all these days -- helps make it easier simply to tell myself I “played good” or “played bad” depending on how I ended up at session’s end.

That’s a problem, obviously. But that’s not the one I’m wanting to highlight here. Rather, I want to talk about another issue comes up for me during the session itself, often happening right about the same moment -- that is, just after the session has begun and the first few decisive pots in which I’ve been involved have occurred.

To use Angelo’s terminology, I most often begin my sessions with what feels like my “A-game.” That is to say, that’s when I am almost always paying close attention to my opponents, making what I think are good decisions, and approaching the game in such a way that I believe I have all of my “tools” or plays available to me.

In other words, I’m smart when I start.

I’m not saying I never make any mistakes early in sessions, nor that I’m necessarily going to be a better player than my opponents when I first sit down. But I do think whatever edge I might have is usually greatest there during the early stages of play.

Then come those first few significant hands in which I’m either rewarded for my good play or suffer some misfortune and am not. Such is poker. Here’s the revelation I had, though -- it doesn’t matter which way things turn out in those early hands, I almost always stop playing my “A-game” and descend into my “B-” or “C-game” where I’m no longer drawing on all of my “tools” or moves, my game having become artificially restricted, thus making my decisions less optimal.

It goes differently depending on whether I have started out winning or losing, but I think the consequence is largely the same. I might be smart when I start, but then dumb I become.

If I start out winning those first few pots -- and getting ahead -- I am suddenly conscious of an urge to leave. I don’t want to lose the profit I’ve gained, and I’m certain this fear is affecting everything in a negative way. It’s not that I necessarily tighten up and grow more conservative, but something is happening to knock me off my “A-game” and limit my ability to build on my early profit.

On the other hand, if I lose money early on -- which more often than not happens after coming out on the wrong side of a so-called “coin-flip” or two, or experiencing hands in which I play correctly and get the money in good, but fail to win -- I also start playing sub-optimally, though the reasons for doing so are different. I press a bit, desirous to get back what I’ve lost, and probably too become overly loose and -- even worse -- passive.

And to go back to results, the consequence of all of this seems to have been a lot of short winning sessions and a few longer losing ones. Which currently has been adding up to a whole lotta break-even poker.

I could pull out hand examples and go into all of this in greater detail, but I don’t want to go on much longer here. The point is I’m realizing my sessions almost always seem to be marked by these two distinct stages -- an initial “A-game” period followed by a period in which I play less well.

I’ve talked here before about how Vera is an equestrian who rides dressage and competes on a regular basis, so she’s familiar with the psychology of sports/competition -- and how we often tend to psyche ourselves out of performing at our best. So she’s a good one to talk to, and I think helped me realize this particular problem.

Of course, it isn’t the only problem I’m having, I think. But an important one definitely worthy of some attention.

Washington Dealt Out

You probably heard that as of yesterday, PokerStars is now prohibiting players in the state of Washington from playing for real money at the site.

To be specific, you cannot play at Stars if you are currently a resident of Washington, nor can you play on the site if you are visiting Washington. In fact, current residents can’t even go outside of the state and play either, as their accounts will remain blocked from real money play as long as they have Washington addresses.

The news came quite abruptly -- without any real forewarning -- prompted, it appears, by the Washington state Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding the state’s law against online gambling. That ruling came a little over a week ago. The law had been challenged as violating a federal commerce clause regarding interstate business, but it looks like the state’s Supreme Court wasn’t swayed by that argument, and thus decided not to fiddle with the state legislature’s earlier decision to make online gambling illegal (back in 2006, I think).

While Washington-based players scramble to figure out what to do next, many are speculating both about why PokerStars decided to pull the plug once and for all on Washington, as well as what might happen next.

Some are suggesting that PokerStars’ decision to block Washington customers -- rather than merely to recommend they consult applicable state and local laws before playing -- is connected to Barney Frank’s proposed bill, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2267), which was passed by the House Financial Services Committee which Frank chairs and still awaits consideration by the full House.

If you recall, that bill, designed to create a mechanism by which to license and regulate online gambling in the U.S., had a number of amendments added to it by the House Financial Services committee, including a couple concerning “bad actors” or sites that would be denied licenses to operate in the U.S. going forward thanks to their having failed to comply with federal and/or state gambling laws prior to the new bill being passed. (Click here for a rundown on H.R. 2267 and all of those amendments.)

PokerStars has already said it doesn’t feel as though it should fall into that “bad actors” category, stating that in its view -- and that of the site’s legal counsel -- those amendments would not “adversely affect the availability of a license for a respected operator such as PokerStars” whose “activities in the US are and at all times have been lawful.”

Thus does blocking Washington state’s residents appear to some as fitting with the strategy to remain lawful and thus available to receive a license should H.R. 2267 ever become law.

Others wonder what this might mean moving forward.

Those folks are wondering about things like states “opting out” of the new law, should it pass. Or whether this decision might mean that if it were to happen down the road that PokerStars was not granted a license to operate in the U.S., it would not try to do so anyway. Or what other U.S.-facing sites (like Full Tilt Poker, especially) will be doing with regard to Washington. Among other concerns.

As with most things related to online poker/gambling and the law, I can’t claim to have any real idea where we’re headed. The news about Washington clearly isn’t good, though, whatever it may indicate.