The Order of the Flop

This might be about as arcane as it gets when it comes to poker tournament reporting, but I’m going to write about it anyway. One of those quirky little “issues” that sometimes come up among those who have done this sort of thing over and over and over again. Definitely not as important as other, more pressing issues, like, say, those involving journalistic integrity (such as Jon Katkin wrote about on Pokerati over the weekend). But kinda sorta interesting not only to those who write about poker tournaments, but to those who read such reports, too.

And maybe kinda sorta related to those larger, more meaningful concerns, too. Let me explain.

The “issue” -- I’m going to keep using the scare quotes -- is whether or not in games that have community cards to report the flop as it comes or to reorder the cards from high to low. E.g., if the flop comes (as in the above pic from a past WSOP), is it better to write out the cards in the order they land on the table or should the flop be reported as ?

Whenever this debate arises among poker reporters -- as it did over Twitter last night a little bit -- I can’t help but think of the fight between the “Big-Endians” and “Little-Endians” in Jonathan Swift’s Gullivers Travels.

You remember, the factions Gulliver encounters in the land of Lilliput, with one group insisting upon first breaking eggs on the big end and the other adamant about breaking them on the small end? War erupts between Lilliput and nearby Blefuscu over the matter, and thousands die as a result.

Talk about a hard-boiled story! (Rim shot.)

B.J. Nemeth is a lead proponent of ordering the flop. As he explained on Twitter last night, not only does he always reorder the three cards from high to low, when there are paired cards he likes to order them by suits, too. Says Nemeth, “Personally, when the cards are the same (2 or 3 kings, for example), I list them alphabetically by suits. c-d-h-s,” adding “I don't consider that to be required, but I like consistency. And I can always identify my own updates years later.”

“Orderers” such as Nemeth champion resetting the flop because they believe it increases readability. In a sense, they are doing for the reader the small amount of mental work each player must do when he or she looks at the flop. The further ordering of suits on paired boards is perhaps a little idiosyncratic, but as Nemeth says he doesn’t “require” that of himself. (Or others?)

“Non-Orderers,” meanwhile, will report the cards as they appear on the table, as is. “The flop is the flop,” is how Paul Oresteen put it last night on Twitter, defending the decision not to reorder the cards when reporting. (It should be added that we are speaking here of the flop only; obviously it is vital to report the flop, then the turn, then the river in correct sequence!)

Like I said, a big part of me wants to dismiss this whole debate like a bunch of discarded eggshells. But B.J.’s comment about being able to “identify [his] own updates years later” got me thinking that perhaps there is something meaningful here, something that actually suggests this “issue” is of at least some relevance, if in an indirect way.

Like Paul, I’m a “Non-Orderer.” I write the flop as it comes. It’s part of my mindset as a reporter, as someone who is not allowed to alter the facts when reporting. I understand the “readability” argument just fine, but I can also imagine taking that idea further to justify other alterations and embellishments when reporting. I’m with Paul -- the flop is the flop. And the turn is the turn and the river is the river. Those elements of the hand -- like the bets and other happenings relevant to the way the hand plays out -- I don’t change.

However, I do allow myself the freedom to engage my readers when telling the story of the hand by the introduction of other, contextual matters that heighten interest, as well as by turns of phrase and other examples of what might (immodestly) be called “creativity” that serve to make the report more interesting. Or, to put it differently, to increase readability. And that stuff I’ll order in whatever way seems most appropriate. Additionally, that introduction of personal style is also how I might “identify my own updates years later” (if there weren’t a name attached to the hand report, that is).

That said, as someone who respects and appreciates others’ styles and approaches, I’ve nothing but love for the Orderers. And thankfully, I don’t think any of those with opinions about ordering flops is invested heavily enough in the “issue” to take up arms over it.

Although now that I think about it, I know B.J. always carries that titanium spork in his bag.

WSOP and POV

Had an especially enjoyable weekend, spent with family while occasionally following the WSOP coverage at PokerNews and WSOP.com.

My birthday was on Saturday, and thus it was nice to be able to hang out at home to celebrate the day for a change rather than spend it 2,500 or so miles away.

Got to visit with my Mom and brother some. From my brother I learned about two new things. First he told me all about the Wilhelm scream. Then he taught me what a trebuchet was. He said he wanted one. I asked him what that was and he explained it to me. Then I asked him why he wanted one.

“Have some stuff I want to launch,” he said.

The WSOP launched nearly two weeks ago, and they are already up to starting Event Nos. 22 and 23 today. (See the full day-by-day schedule here.) After having been right in the thick of it there at the Rio from start to finish for the last several years, it is interesting -- and useful, I think -- to observe the Series from afar as it has progressed through these first couple of weeks.

The fact is, it is often difficult to have any sort of broader perspective at all about the WSOP when there. Especially when immersed in the business of closely covering a single event, which has generally been the case for me since I started covering the sucker in 2008. Point of view gets all narrowed down and blinkered.

One writer whose perspective I have particularly enjoyed following thus far is that of Dr. Pauly. Pauly gets a lot of accolades for his WSOP reports on Tao of Poker, so my chiming in (again) and adding another clapping of hands to the already loud applause ain’t gonna make a lot of difference. Indeed, anyone wandering over here during these first couple of weeks to see what I might be writing about prior to heading out to the WSOP is certainly already following Tao and so knows already how good it gets over there.

But if somehow you aren’t already reading Tao of Poker -- and if you have an interest in following what’s happening at the WSOP -- let me encourage you to go over and read Pauly’s account of the scene during the Event No. 16 final table from Saturday night: “2011 WSOP Day 12: Hellmuth Chokes and Prohibition Ends at the Mothership.” That was the $10,000 2-7 Draw Lowball (No-Limit) Championship in which John Juanda denied Phil Hellmuth his 12th WSOP bracelet.

There you will find...

considered commentary on the make-up of the field (a mix of old school mixed-game vets and online-trained neophytes)

a few behind-the-scenes tidbits regarding those who made the final day

an account of the food-and-beverage-prohibition subplot at the so-called “Mothership,” theatrically lifted once play reached heads-up

anecdotal sketches of various crowd characters, all of which add up to a comprehensive portrait of the audience’s attitude toward watching poker played with no community or “up” cards

a glimpse at side action between ultra-keen bookmaker Neil Channing and underdog Benjo

the shifts of momentum and mood during heads-up play

And more. Then comes a postscript covering other WSOP events plus extracurricular activities at the Rio sportsbook and elsewhere, again peppered with lots of fun, generally unseen stuff that helps convey what it’s like to be there.

There are a few others whose WSOP reports I find myself actively seeking out day-after-day in addition to checking in on the usual news outlets. These include (but are not limited to) Jesse May’s Poker Farm posts, Snoopy’s articles and blog posts over on Black Belt Poker, Jess Welman’s nifty “WSOP By the Numbers” pieces on the BLUFF site (here’s the latest), and Nolan Dalla’s always awesome WSOP.com reports and wraps.

Am also every day checking out PKRGSSP’s great compilation posts, too, which often point me to other stuff worthy of attention. (I wonder if PKRGSSP knows he has successfully revived a tradition begun by the erstwhile Blogfather, Iggy, with his “uberposts” each weekday?)

But to get back to Pauly, it’s that ability to combine close details and “big picture” stuff that makes his reports special, one of many reasons why they are so worthwhile. Like I say, it’s hard enough to have any kind of larger perspective at all when there, let alone successfully convey it to an audience in a way that makes sense (and is entertaining, too).

Have about a week more to try to appreciate the “big picture” before I launch myself Vegas-ward. Looking forward to it, for sure, but also have been glad to have had this chance to “see” it all from afar via others’ POVs.

Inside Jokes

Am still a little ways off from heading Vegas-ward. About a week-and-a-half before I leave, after which point I’ll be there until the end helping cover this summer’s WSOP for PokerNews. Part of me feels like I should be there already, but I’m also very much enjoying getting to spend some extra time with family before heading out.

Have been continuing to follow the live reporting and streaming as well as the many articles, posts, podcasts, tweets, and other messages being sent from the Rio to the rest of the world. More than ever, the internet helps those of us who aren’t there at the WSOP keep up with what is happening both at the tables and elsewhere.

Of course, there’s no substitute for being there, really. I was reminded of that yesterday when I started seeing retweets from a new Twitter account -- @RedBullRobbie. The likely-fake-but-who-really-cares account purportedly represents the wit and wisdom of Robbie Thompson, the tourney director/announcer. That’s Robbie pictured above, presiding over Event No. 2, the $25,000 Heads-Up No-Limit Hold’em Championship.

Anyone who’s been around a WSOP final table over the last few years is familiar with Robbie, who among other things is known for his appetite for seemingly endless quantities of Red Bull. Speaking of, I remember vividly an experience from a final table last summer in which I became even more familiar with Robbie’s beverage of choice. And when I say familiar I mean I was wearing it. (Read more here.)

I remember going in to help cover a final table one other time last year, and Robbie was there. “How’s life, Robbie?” I greeted him. “Good,” he replied, then paused a beat. “I lie sometimes.”

I’m remembering another occasion when I went to cover that EPT event in Kyiv, Ukraine and Robbie was there directing the tourney. When I saw him, I immediately went over and said hello.

“Hey, I have a question,” I continued. “Shoot,” he replied. “I came 5,000 miles to ask this. Is flash photography allowed anywhere inside the Amazon Room?” “Why I oughta...” he answered with a grin, walking away.

The answer is no, of course. As Robbie has explained about a hundred thousand times to those watching final tables at the Rio.

Anyhow, whoever is sending tweets from @RedBullRobbie is doing a good job conveying his personality, and those of us familiar with him are enjoying it. I responded once yesterday, and B.J. Nemeth pointed out that it was likely the account wasn’t really Robbie. To which I answered “Keep us informed. If fake, we can toss it away, send it back, give it up, release...”

It was an inside joke, there, referencing the many colorful ways Robbie describes players folding their hands. Am guessing perhaps 3% of my followers caught the allusion. I remember in years past making up further, exaggerated variations on Robbie’s call of players folding around to the blinds.

“Jeff mucks, Antonio says no thank you, Phil asks for a refund, David returns it for insufficient postage, Oscar wants to speak to the manager...”

While I’m definitely enjoying my time at home, I look forward to heading back out, getting inside the Rio, and seeing Robbie and all of the other familiar faces once again.

Meanwhile, check in on those final table live streams at WSOP.com where you might very well catch a glimpse of Robbie circling the table and calling the action.

Bang!

Poker in the Wild: Jesse May & Brandon Adams on Chaos & Order

The player, announcer, reporter, and author Jesse May is reporting from the World Series of Poker. His posts can be found over on a relatively new website, called The Poker Farm. Great news for those who enjoy well-written, insightful reporting and storytelling about the goings-on at the WSOP.

American by birth (he grew up in New Jersey), May became a big part of the U.K. poker scene starting over a decade ago thanks initially to his involvement as both a player and commentator during the first season of the ground-breaking “Late Night Poker” show (in 1999). He’s been commentating on various shows ever since, earning him the nickname “The Voice of Poker” across the pond.

Not too long ago, I had the opportunity to interview May for Betfair Poker. The interview appears in two parts on the site, with the first part mainly focusing on his poker-themed 1998 novel Shut Up and Deal and the second on the origins and influence of “Late Night Poker.”

I’m seeing four posts thus far from May over at The Poker Farm.

The first, dated June 1, is titled “Poker is going back to the Wolves,” and immediately addresses how the events of “Black Friday” fundamentally altered poker’s long-established world order, in a sense sending poker back to the pre-Moneymaker days when the dichotomy between sponsored or “patched” players and everyone else didn’t exist -- when poker’s “class” system (as we might call it) was based more directly on success at the tables than by other commercially-driven factors.

May expresses excitement about the prospects afforded by this new arrangement -- “I’m clapping my hands with glee,” he writes -- a revived poker world suddenly shot through with adrenaline and emotion, with nearly everyone now playing without the safety net of sponsorship.

That theme of poker “going back to the wolves” is furthered in May’s subsequent posts. “You Sanctimonius Little” addresses Full Tilt Poker’s petulant response to the Phil Ivey announcement and lawsuit. “Brits in Flow” reflects on the British players’ early successes at the WSOP. And “Brandon Adams Blog” finds May replying to a post by Adams on the “Macroeconomic Woes” site in which the Full Tilt pro addresses some of May’s observations.

The latter exchange between May (left) and Adams (right) particularly caught my attention yesterday. Not long ago I made reference to Adams’ own poker novel, Broke (2008), which I’ve recently picked up. I’ve heard Adams praise May’s novel in the past, and he does so again at the start of his post from yesterday, titled “The Center Cannot Hold,” when he notes how he considers Broke as “an afterword” to May’s story.

Adams then addresses some of the things May says in those first couple of posts about the altered significance of wearing patches at the WSOP and the Ivey-FTP feud. Adams, some might recall, sent a highly provocative tweet on April 16th (subsequently deleted but not before it was passed around by many) stating that “Full Tilt is run by much more honorable people than Pokerstars. So your [sic] money is much more likely to be safe there.”

Adams defends his decision to continue to wear an FTP patch, explaining he is doing so both out of “loyalty” to the site and some of his friends who work there and out of “fear” that poker might lose whatever sense of legitimacy sites like Full Tilt Poker once seemed to give it thanks to their having helped create (really) the whole idea of a poker “pro.”

Adams agrees with May that the poker world fundamentally changed on April 15. But whereas May is energized and excited by what’s to come, Adams is terrified. “Like Jesse, I also see poker going back to the wolves,” writes Adams. “But, unlike him, I view this as the worst thing imaginable.”

Adams goes on to recommend we all resist following the course chosen by Ivey (and many, many others by this point) and continue to show patience with Full Tilt Poker -- not just for FTP’s sake, but for the sake of poker, generally speaking. As Adams says, “My fear is simply that, if Full Tilt can’t hold it together, poker will enter a dark phase.”

As Adams’ own shaky confidence in Full Tilt Poker suggests, if what he is saying is true, poker’s prospects are especially dim. Indeed, my first thought when reading that statement was to think FTP hasn’t shown much evidence it can “hold it together,” and thus I’d hate to believe the rest of us are depending on that happening.

May also responds cynically to Adams’ suggestion, noting that in his view Full Tilt Poker’s poor leadership has already done a lot to create the chaotic, “center cannot hold” situation Adams fears. And to say that unless those in charge at FTP change their ways PDQ, “the dark days are already here.”

A most interesting bit of back-and-forth here by a couple of poker’s bright thinkers. I can’t help but think Adams is a bit too swayed by that loyalty he professes to his sponsoring site. I do find provocative Adams’ point that online poker “successfully sold” an idea about poker to the culture at large, causing “many people [to] look at poker as almost like a normal industry.” But really, after Black Friday -- and most particularly after Full Tilt Poker’s abject failure on all fronts since April 15th -- I certainly don’t see FTP ever successfully selling such an idea about poker’s legitimacy again. And I don’t really believe the stubborn wearing of an FTP patch is going to change that very much.

As mentioned, Adams himself admits the wearing of the logo is mostly symbolic. He “doesn’t expect financial benefit from wearing a patch,” but he does feel that “loyalty” to FTP and “fear” about what a patchless poker world represents. But as was the case with Absolute Poker and UltimateBet before, the patch has come to symbolize a lot of other not-so-nice stuff, too -- stuff that utterly explodes any notion that poker or online poker is a “normal industry.”

Is poker “going back to the wolves”? Or has it always been that self-interested, uncivilized, immoral, savage world it was when the game first made its way across the continent a couple of centuries ago -- despite the often-successful recent efforts of some to convince us otherwise?

(EDIT [added 10/24/11]: Adams has of late been responding to some belated response both to his 4/16/11 tweet and 6/8/11 blog post. Today he answered some questions about both from Subject:Poker’s NoahSD over on the PokerFarm site. Click here to read.)

Steven Levitt and Thomas Miles’ “The Role of Skill Versus Luck in Poker: Evidence from the World Series of Poker”

You might have heard something a couple of weeks ago about the appearance of another one of those academic studies into the old “skill-vs.-luck” debate poker. In this one, researchers Steven D. Levitt and Thomas J. Miles analyzed results from the 2010 World Series of Poker in order to shed some light on the issue. Their findings were published last month by the National Bureau of Economic Research in a paper titled “The Role of Skill Versus Luck in Poker: Evidence from the World Series of Poker.”

I was recently reminded of this study, and then reminded myself that since I’m teaching that “Poker in American Film and Culture” class I have an academic affiliation giving me access to the full essay. Incidentally, the skill-vs.-luck question was a constant topic of discussion in my class this spring, coming up either directly or indirectly in practically everything we read and watched.

I had a chance to read the study this week, and thought I’d pass along a summary of its methodology and findings along with some reaction.

Summary

Levitt you might know as the co-author of the best-selling Freakonomics (2005), one of those books that like Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point (2000) found a wide audience with its accessible explanations of various cultural phenomena, in this case using economics to guide its causal arguments. He’s currently a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, where Miles also teaches in the university’s law school.

Legislative battles over poker (especially online poker) appear to have motivated the pair’s study. Since the question of whether or not poker is a game of skill comes up so often in legal contexts -- and since the UIGEA “makes the legality of poker under federal law also depend on a skill-versus-luck inquiry” (the authors point out) -- there exists a need for such a study, especially since Levitt and Miles believe “there is little academic research on the subject.”

The pair spend some time at the beginning referencing the few other studies there have been and pointing out flaws in those studies’ methodologies before introducing their own. Essentially, what Levitt and Miles did can be summarized as follows: (1) looked at complete lists of all of the entrants of all 57 events at the 2010 WSOP, noting how each performed; (2) identified a select group of “high skill” players among the total entrants and compiled their results separately; (3) compared how the “high skill” players did versus everyone else.

Their conclusion? “High skill” players did better than everyone else at the 2010 WSOP. Much better, in fact. Of the 32,496 individuals who entered events last year, the 720 players the researchers pegged as “high skill” collectively generated an average return on investment (ROI) of 30.5%, averaging a profit of more than $1,200 per event. Meanwhile, the other 31,776 players’ average ROI was -15.6%, which translated to an average loss of over $400 per player per event.

For Levitt and Miles, this result provides “strong evidence in support of the idea that poker is a game of skill.”

I know what you’re thinking. How exactly did they determine who among those who came to play at the WSOP last year were “high skill” players?

They identified six factors, all of which related to previous demonstrations of success in tournament poker. They looked at 2009 rankings by BLUFF Magazine, Card Player, and PokerPages.com, identifying players finishing in the top 250 of those lists as “high skill.” They looked at POY stats from Season 8 of the World Poker Tour, counting anyone who had accumulated any POY points as “high skill.” (In the WPT POY system, points are awarded for deep finishes, with the amount of prize pool affecting how deep one must go to earn points.) Additionally, they identified any player as “high skill” who had previously won a WSOP bracelet as well as anyone finishing in the top 250 in earnings at the 2009 WSOP.

Obviously this represents a fairly subjective system for determining who is a “high skill” player and who is not, but that’s the approach they used. Predictably, the 720 players who made the cut as “high skill” -- only about 2% of the total -- on average entered 2010 WSOP events about six times as much as everyone else, and thus comprised about 12% of the total entries. On average, the “high skill” folks entered about 12 events each, while everyone else averaged playing about two, with the “high skill” folks laying out nearly $50,000 each over the summer while the rest each spent an average of a little over $5,200.

Even so, it is safe to say the 720 players the researchers highlighted had all certainly demonstrated at least some success in tournaments previously, and as noted they outperformed the rest of the field significantly at the 2010 WSOP.

Response

My initial reaction to the study -- aside perhaps from wondering a little about that set of criteria for identifying “high skill” players -- is to say that the findings are utterly unsurprising. Anyone who has paid even a little bit of attention to the professional poker circuit knows that many of those who win these suckers or who appear at final tables are players we’ve seen before. As much as luck plays a role in tournament poker, skilled players do tend to succeed at higher rates than do unskilled players (however one wants to define what it means to possess “high skill”).

Then I thought a little more about the study and its methodology, and had a couple of other, more skeptical thoughts about its findings.

For one, I feel like a study that focuses solely on results at WSOP tournaments can’t possibly be comprehensive enough to build a convincing argument “that poker is a game of skill.” What about cash games? And what about that much-shared opinion among the community of poker players that in fact cash games are a better indicator of skill than tournaments?

Secondly, I think the researchers have overlooked one crucial factor here when making the case that past winners continuing to be successful in poker proves that we are talking about a skill game.

At the end of the study, an analogy is suggested between poker and baseball. Over the past few years, teams that made the MLB playoffs have on average come back the following year to win more games than they have lost. So, too, have we seen poker players who performed well in 2009 winning more than they lost in 2010 (at the WSOP, anyway). “To the extent that baseball would unquestionably be judged a game of skill,” say Levitt and Miles, “the same conclusion might reasonably be applied to poker in light of the data.”

On the surface, the continued success of the researchers’ “high skill” players might indeed appear to support the idea that poker is like baseball -- that the good players keep winning because their skill outstrips that of their opponents.

But there’s another obvious reason why the good players keep winning at poker. The money. Unlike in baseball, poker players have to win in order to stay in the game at all. Not only that, since money is part of the game, it necessarily affects how the game is played.

The researchers do acknowledge how stack size influences strategy within tournaments, noting how players who have accumulated big stacks have more options available to them than do their short-stacked opponents. But they don’t say anything about how this same discrepancy works with regard to players’ bankrolls and approaches to tournament play. Not only can their “high skill” players play more tournaments, but in many cases they can play them differently than can everyone else!

Not to get too abstract here, but it seems to me that it wasn’t just skill or experience that helped those 720 players do well at the WSOP. Having financial security to play six times as many events -- to risk about 10 times as much money at the WSOP (on average) than everyone else -- necessarily put them in a position where they’d be more likely to reap greater rewards.

All of which is to say I’m not too sure whether this study is going to make its way into the courts as unambiguous support for the argument that poker is a skill game. Still, it was nice to see some poker-positive press about the study come out last month in the wake of the hugely hurtful hit poker took on Black Friday.

Lost in America

I wanted to write something about the current situation for online poker players here in the U.S., a little over six weeks after “Black Friday.” Was scrounging for a title and remembered that excellent 1985 comedy starring Albert Brooks and Julie Hagerty, Lost in America. A movie which begins with an ill-fated trip to Las Vegas, if I remember correctly.

There was a point about two weeks after Black Friday when I considered changing that tag line up there at the top of the blog where I identify myself as “an online poker player.” I mean, I wasn’t playing online poker. And in truth I wasn’t sure when I would again.

The two sites on which I had previously played -- PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker -- no longer served U.S. customers. I had an empty account on Bodog, a site I abandoned long ago when its traffic had died down to a point that I could rarely find games/limits I wanted to play. As I mentioned in that “Five Years” post (from 4/28/11), I still wanted to keep my poker blog. But I wasn’t really playing at all, and it was looking as though I may not for a good while.

A week after Black Friday I had spent a small amount of time and energy looking into depositing options at a couple of the sites that still served U.S. customers. But meeting with some initial resistance I quickly gave up. I could have made it happen, I am fairly certain, but I lacked the resolve to see it through. (Probably says something about the nature of my commitment to the game, actually.)

Then, a few days after that fifth-anniversary post I won a whole dollar via a freeroll (and then a sit-n-go) on Carbon Poker. And two weeks later I managed to score another, larger success by earning $100 in a freeroll on Hero Poker. Since then I’ve split time between the two sites, occasionally playing those 11-cent SNGs on Carbon and some six-handed PLO10 on Hero.

Since April 15, more sites have left the U.S. market. For a variety of reasons, Victory Poker pulled out just a few days after Black Friday, initially moving its U.S. players over to Cake Poker, then more recently sending all the rest over to Cake and shutting down altogether. Then “Blue Monday” (5/23/11) saw the domains for both TruePoker.com and DoylesRoom.com seized by the DOJ, apparently due to their being part of the Yatahay network on which also resided the popular sportsbook Bookmaker.com.

Last week came news that the Merge network -- on which we find both Carbon Poker and Hero Poker -- was temporarily going to stop taking new U.S. players, although Americans who already had accounts would still be able to play, deposit, and withdraw as usual. Apparently that decision was primarily due to Merge needing time to handle the additional traffic the network has seen since April 15. No word on when Merge will again allow new U.S. players to sign up, although it sounds like it could be anywhere from 1-3 months. (A couple of Merge skins -- Sportsbook and Hero Poker -- had already made the decision to stop taking new U.S. players prior to last week.)

All of which is to say, options are dwindling. Bodog is still around, although it appears U.S. poker players aren’t terribly excited about jumping into the games over there as the site has seen only a small uptick in traffic on its poker tables since Black Friday. Cake Poker is also today sitting at about the same level, traffic-wise, as on April 15 (according to PokerScout). There’s the Everleaf network where a site named LuvinPoker is starting to be promoted a bit, but I don’t know much about what’s happening there.

Another option for U.S. players, Rise Poker, popped up last week. Rise Poker offers freerolls with real money prizes -- i.e., you can play there without depositing. There is also a “VIP Membership” for $19.99 a month which gets you into lots of other tourneys and opens up further game play options. They’ve launched a blog and forum, too, over there, where some of my buds (including F-Train, Dr. Pauly, Change100, and Benjo) can be found writing.

Rise Poker is part of the ZEN Gaming Network. I’d actually heard of ZEN previously because I know someone who played on another site on the network, NLOP.com (National League of Poker). She enjoyed playing the games there, having gone deep in a tourney once and winning a small amount. If I’m not mistaken, I believe the player pools for both Rise and NLOP are now combined.

Thanks to winning that little bit of cabbage via those freerolls, I’m still calling myself “an online poker player,” although am not pursuing my hobby as often or at the same level of seriousness as I did before. I’m curious to know what other U.S. online poker players are doing at this point. My sense is most are still sitting on the rail, discouraged from trying to fuss with depositing on other sites (as I was back in April). Lost, so to speak.

So let me ask my American readers who also call themselves online poker players... what have you been up to since April 15?

Angry Poker

The 2011 World Series of Poker is in full swing now, with the first nine events having begun, seven bracelets won, and two more tourneys starting up today, the $1,500 No-Limit Hold’em Six-Handed event (Event No. 10) and the $10,000 Omaha Hi-Low Split-8 or Better Championship (Event No. 11).

Was following coverage off and on over the weekend. That is, when I wasn’t distracted by my cat, Sweetie, screeching like I’ve never heard her do before. Sweetie is an indoor cat, and a neighbor cat that lives outdoors has been coming around to visit, disturbing her windowsill slumbers. These standoffs between the two -- just a thin piece of glass separating them from some wild, whiskery warfare -- have been riveting to watch, although I think Sweetie is starting to get a little stressed out by having to keep on her guard like that.

The poker has been fairly exciting, too. In between clicking back-and-forth between several sites to follow the action, I have also continued to dial up the live streaming of final tables that is happening over on the WSOP site.

As I mentioned last week, the picture and sound are both good, and with an announcer tableside and a view of the community cards, one can follow what’s happening well enough. Was most interested last night to watch Allen Bari win Event No. 4 ($5,000 No-Limit Hold’em), his heads-up battle with Maria Ho successfully pulling me away from the one going on between Sweetie and Intruder Cat.

I thought it was funny afterwards to see Lex “RaSZi” Veldhuis tweet that “The world just got a little angrier” as he congratulated Bari on his win. Veldhuis was alluding to Bari’s reputation as an against-the-grain type of guy (one way to put it) whose self-confidence occasionally rubs some the wrong way.

In an interview with Kristy Arnett of PokerNews after his win, Bari demonstrated that irascible personality a little when responding to her question about whether it would’ve been humbling for him to have lost after entering heads-up play with such an enormous (almost 6-to-1) chip lead.

“Tournaments are nonsense,” says Bari. “They’re all variance. Anybody who plays with me and talks with me knows that I know my stuff, so it doesn’t matter. This bracelet means nothing except now these randoms who all hate me won’t talk sh!t about me.”

I was thinking about Veldhuis’ comment about the world getting “angrier” when reading a couple of other items later last night, too.

There was an article over on the Fox News site from Saturday titled “Families Face Dire Straits After Online Poker Shutdown” that gave a little sketch of Brian Mogelefsky, a player who has had a burgeoning career as an online grinder abruptly altered by the events of Black Friday.

The article cites John Pappas of the PPA saying that approximately 50,000 full-time players have been “deprived” of their income. While I obviously oppose any sort of prohibition against online poker, I have to admit I’m never all that moved by this “honest living” argument some want to make when petitioning for its regulation.

Obviously only a very small percentage of those who play poker -- online or otherwise -- can be said to earn a living from it. Always seems to me this line of reasoning ignores about 95% of the real consequences of having a licensed and regulated industry. Does help highlight the whole “freedom” thing, though, as Mogelefsky’s story demonstrates.

At the conclusion of the Fox piece, we read that not being able to stay at home and support his family by the income he’s been able to make playing online means Mogelefsky “plans to attend the World Series of Poker in Vegas to test his mettle in live games.” It is this very move -- of the online poker grinder using Black Friday as reason to take a WSOP shot -- that Change100 addressed in her guest post on Tao of Poker that appeared yesterday, titled “Apocalypse Now.”

Change picks up on the “pure, unadulterated desperation” in the air at the Rio and in other Vegas poker rooms these days, with lots of players -- both in the tourneys at the WSOP and at the cash tables -- seeming as though they are playing with a lot more on the line than has been the case in the past. (EDIT [added 9 p.m.]: For another take on the more-serious-than-fun vibe at the Rio during the first week of the WSOP, see Jon Katkin's “Off to a Slow Start” over on Pokerati. And Gary Wise offers a similar sentiment in “The Ugliest WSOP.”)

Veldhuis’ tweet about Bari and the “angrier world” was partly in jest, I suppose, but it weirdly fits with the more-antagonistic-than-usual atmosphere in which poker is being played these days. Will be interesting to see how things go at the WSOP these next couple of weeks, and what it will be like there when I finally arrive on June 21.

Perhaps by then the fights, lawsuits, accusations, and so forth won’t be on the front page and things will have calmed down a bit. I mean, we can only stay angry for so long, right?

Then again, Sweetie’s battle has been going on for a few days now. You tell me... does she look like she’s ready to give in?

One Million Dollars

Not a lot of time for scribbling this morning, though I did want to share a brief reaction to yesterday’s announcement at the World Series of Poker of “The Big One,” that $1 million buy-in WSOP bracelet event scheduled to take place in 2012. If you haven’t heard about The Big One, you can head over to Betfair Poker where I wrote a bit about it today.

Besides making history as the largest-ever buy-in poker tournament -- WSOP or otherwise -- The Big One will also mark the first time (to my knowledge) that part of the prize pool for a WSOP event will be taken out to be given to a charity. A little over 11% of the players’ entry fees will go to One Drop, a charity started by Guy Laliberté who no doubt was a driving force behind the creation of the WSOP event.

A million dollars. Evokes Dr. Evil from Austin Powers. As does the bald-headed Laliberté, although I think it is safe to say the Cirque du Soleil founder is clearly on the side of good here.

A number of big names have already indicated their intentions to play in the event, including Patrik Antonius, Bobby Baldwin, Johnny Chan, Tom Dwan, Tony G, Gus Hansen, Daniel Negreanu, and Laliberté. A special platiunum bracelet will go to the winner, and the payout structure will be flattened a bit so that the top 20% of finishers get paid.

I mentioned at the end of the Betfair piece how the whole idea of having a $1 million event seemed to turn tournament poker upside-down. Rather than offering a chance to risk a little to win a lot, here we have an event where the buy-in will exceed the first-place prize money for the great majority of the events. At the 2010 WSOP, only three events saw the winners make seven-figure scores: the $50,000 Poker Player’s Championship (Event No. 2), won by Michael Mizrachi ($1,559,046); the $25,000 No-Limit Hold’em Six-Handed event (Event No. 52), won by Dan Kelly ($1,315,518); and of course the Main Event (Event No. 57), won by Jonathan Duhamel ($8,944,310).

I also noted there at the end of the Betfair piece how all of the other drama from the first week of the WSOP had made it so The Big One wasn’t even “the big one” when it came to this week’s stories. Probably not what WSOP organizers expected a week ago when preparing to make the announcement yesterday.

I don’t think anyone was particularly surprised by the announcement of a million-dollar event. The $250,000 buy-in “Super High Roller” tournament that was added to the Aussie Millions schedule earlier this year in a way signaled the possibility that such an event was coming, perhaps sooner than later.

I wrote about that one back in January in a post titled “Hard to Relate: On the $250K Aussie Millions Super High Roller.” Obviously The Big One will be similarly hard for most of us to relate to, never mind the way it will be impossible to “relate” the bracelet won in that event to the several hundreds won in other WSOP events over the last 40-plus years.

Although I tend to lean toward the “purist” way of thinking and thus often instinctively resist massive innovations or changes to the WSOP, I do recognize that one element making the WSOP special is the way it accommodates such a wide variety of games and buy-ins. So I actually don’t mind this new event being added, despite the fact that The Big One is going to throw everything out-of-whack records-wise. Will also be highly interested to see who ultimately ends up participating, much more so, probably, than how the tourney actually plays out.

All of which is to say I’m intrigued by this million-dollar buy-in WSOP event. Meanwhile, I’ll go back to trying to build further upon that one dollar I won over on Carbon Poker a while back, which I’ve currently run up to a handsome $2.28.

Perhaps by the time The Big One goes off next summer I’ll have written my book on how to beat $0.11 Turbo short-handed sit-n-gos.

Following the Action (Ivey, Full Tilt Poker, and the 2011 WSOP)

I’ve mentioned here a couple of times how I’ll be going to Las Vegas to join in the coverage of the World Series of Poker a little later than usual this summer. After being there start-to-finish the last three years, I’m spending these first couple of weeks of June enjoying some family time before I head out on the 21st. When I get there I’ll once again be live blogging with PokerNews, sticking around through July 19th when the 2011 version of the “November Nine” has been determined.

I’m also using this time to work on a few other things, including devoting a few days to a summer workshop that’ll help me further develop my “Poker in American Film and Culture” class, which I’ll be teaching again in the fall. Am also working each day on another novel, for which it is nice to have a routine of sorts in place to continue.

Feels a little weird not to be there in the Amazon Room as things kick off, never mind submitting daily reports here on HBP. (Those will start once I’m out there.) But as anyone stopping by this blog well knows, there are a lot of other good places to go to follow the action at the WSOP.

Besides the usual detailed reporting from all of the events over at PokerNews, the WSOP.com site is offering some added goodies this year, too, including plans to live stream all of the final tables from the preliminary events, aside from the $25,000 Heads-Up NLHE Championship (Event No. 2) and the $50,000 Players Championship (Event No. 55) which will be shown on over on the available-to-some-but-not-all-namely-me-ding-dang-it ESPN3.

I did not look at any of streaming from the final table of the $500 Casino Employees NLHE event (Event No. 1) yesterday, which apparently played down to four players. Play was awkwardly halted at that point because of that new rule preventing the playing of more than 10 levels in a single day. That restarts at 3 p.m. Vegas time, although most of the attention today will probably be on those WSOP Main Event rematches (also to be shown on ESPN3).

I did, however, take a peek at the live streaming on Tuesday when they set up a camera during the first round of the $25K Heads-Up. That’s a screen shot of the scene, with two matches happening -- John Duthie vs. Sorel Mizzi on the left, and Phil Laak vs. Jonathan Duhamel on the right. There was no commentary, and not a lot to see or hear from such a distance. However, the picture was crystal clear, the sound good, and I imagine at final tables the set up will be more conducive to following what is happening, especially with an announcer nearby calling out the action. Will have to check in later today to see how it all looks.

Of course, there are also a number of other sites I’ll be checking on regularly during these couple of weeks before I get out to Vegas, including Tao of Poker, Pokerati, Wicked Chops, BLUFF Magazine, CardPlayer, Poker Listings, ESPN’s Poker Club, the Two Plus Two forums, and a few other places. QuadJacks also continues to capture my attention from time to time with their ongoing live radio show. And after two years on Twitter I now seem to be following a large number of folks who are sending out WSOP-related stuff on a regular basis. All of which is to say I feel pretty well connected with what’s happening inside the Rio here at the start.

Of course, the primary drama this week isn’t happening inside the Rio at all, but rather out here on the intertubes where Phil Ivey and Full Tilt Poker have openly declared war on one another.

After Ivey’s Facebook posting and press release Tuesday night, his electronically-filed lawsuit against Tiltware LLC was made public yesterday afternoon. There we learn that Ivey is seeking $150 million in damages as well as the ability to sever his relationship with FTP to pursue opportunities elsewhere -- i.e., freedom from the “Non-Competition Covenant” in his contract with Full Tilt.

Looks like Ivey is saying Full Tilt Poker failed to uphold its end of their agreement when it conducted its operations illegally (as suggested by the DOJ’s indictment and civil complaint unsealed on April 15) and when it failed to segregate players’ funds and thus allow for Americans to cash out in a timely fashion.

Regarding the first point, when Ivey joined up with Full Tilt in early 2004, he did so under the impression that Tiltware “would provide software and related support for the conduct of legal online poker.” Being charged with bank fraud, money laundering, and violating the UIGEA is here presented as reason to say Full Tilt wasn’t conducting itself legally.

Meanwhile, the lawsuit also references the agreement between the DOJ and Full Tilt to allow for the return of funds to American players, then explains how the company “failed to maintain a reserve account sufficient to satisfy the return of funds to U.S. players.” This failure is connected to Ivey’s “professional reputation” being “severely damaged” (as was mentioned in Tuesday’s press release), partly because of players’ “mistaken belief that Phil Ivey has the ability to cause Full Tilt Poker to return the player’s [sic] funds.”

There’s an interesting section in the lawsuit listing a number of quotes (“public comments”) by people angrily asserting how unfair or -- to use my word from a couple of posts ago, “unseemly” -- it would be for Full Tilt Pros to play at this year’s WSOP. In any event, Ivey is here maintaining that Full Tilt’s actions add up to a “breach of covenant” and thus entitle Ivey to get out of his agreement with FTP and get that $150 million in damages, too.

The lawsuit additionally happens to mention that the amount owed to U.S. players is also “approximately $150,000,000.” Put together with Ivey’s press release -- where Ivey asserted he was acting “on behalf of all poker players” and that he planned to “dedicate the entirety of my time and efforts to finding a solution for those who have been wronged by the painfully slow process of repayment” -- this might suggest that Ivey is somehow by this lawsuit attempting to recover the funds in order to deliver them to the players himself. Is Ivey here challenging to take over the role once played by his friend Barry Greenstein as the “Robin Hood of Poker”?

Many have understandably expressed cynicism about that possibility, though, noting additionally how the lawsuit seems more likely to have the effect of lengthening the amount of time that will pass before U.S. players will get paid -- or even make it less likely for that to happen at all. Would work well in a comic book or fairy tale -- heroic Ivey conquering villainous FTP for the greater good -- but that ain’t how it works here in the real world.

Thus it is hard to say for certain what are the precise factors motivating Ivey here. However, Full Tilt Poker thinks they know. Last night Full Tilt Poker (or Tiltware) fired back -- initially via PokerNews’ Twitter account, no less (!) -- a terse, petulant response to Ivey’s press release and lawsuit.

“Contrary to his sanctimonious public statements,” the statement begins, “Phil Ivey’s meritless lawsuit is about helping just one player -- himself.” It goes on to say directly that in order “to further enrich himself at the expense of others,” Ivey’s lawsuit has been timed so as to “thwart pending deals” to facilitate the return of U.S. players’ funds. The statement then alleges Ivey owes the site considerable funds himself.

Had to love Benjo’s response to Full Tilt’s response, shared by Dr. Pauly yesterday: “That's the fastest Full Tilt has responded to anything since Black Friday.”

Hard to compare the legalese of the lawsuit with the “oh-yeah-well-you-suck-even-worse” reply delivered by Full Tilt’s consistently-self-sabotaging PR department. And indeed, it is also difficult to know precisely how all of this will play out, although I tend to agree with the Poker Lawyer’s smart, birds-eye-view-like assessment that whatever happens with the dispute, all of this airing of dirty laundry “will further blacken the shiner the industry’s been sporting since Black Friday.”

So much action to follow. In a way, not being on the floor reporting on events has probably made it a little easier to keep up with it all. I’ll be glad finally to get there, but it appears there will be plenty to occupy me in the meantime.

Ivey to Full Tilt Poker: The Writing Is On the Wall

“So this is either the greatest statement of all time or the greatest hoax of all time.”

So tweeted John “JimmyLegs” Wray last night during the crazed back-and-forthing on Twitter following the appearance of a stunner of a statement on Phil Ivey’s Facebook page. During that brief, wild period when the statement’s validity was still unknown (Had Ivey’s Facebook account been hacked? And since when did Ivey post on Facebook?) we read and reread the message, kind of awkwardly delivered in several segments there on his “wall.”

Ivey said he was “deeply disappointed and embarrassed that Full Tilt players have not been paid money they are owed,” adding that he was further bothered by the fact that as a result some were unable to compete in this summer’s WSOP. He added that he was not going to play in this year’s WSOP, noting “I do not believe it is fair that I compete when others cannot.”

He went on to express dismay about harm to his reputation, blaming “the inactivity and indecision of others.” Then, stating that he was acting “on behalf of all poker players,” he announced that he was filing a lawsuit against Tiltware, Inc., the company that originally developed Full Tilt Poker’s software and which along with Pocket Kings Ltd. and the Kolyma Corporation apparently forms part of that byzantine corporate structure amid which FTP operates. (Incidentally, when Clonie Gowen sued Full Tilt Poker back in 2008, all three of these companies, plus other individuals, were listed in the suit.)

The message concluded “I sincerely hope this statement will ignite those capable of resolving the problems into immediate action,” adding a promise that “I will... dedicate the entirety of my time and efforts to finding a solution for those who have been wronged by the painfully slow process of repayment.”

Talk about a bombshell. But was it legit? The statement appeared as though it could be. This was, in fact, Ivey’s “official” Facebook page. And his non-appearance in the $25,000 Heads-Up No-Limit Hold’em Championship (Event No. 2) that had gotten underway about three hours before made it seem as though it could well be real.

But no one knew for sure. Not yet. Some expressed doubts over Twitter, citing various reasons for it being a fake. I noted that the battle between the “Fake Ivey” and the “Real Ivey” was as intriguing as some of the heads-up matches I’d been following on PokerNews and the WSOP.com site. In response to JimmyLegs’ proclamation that it was either an awesome message or an equally awesome hoax, I agreed.

“Yes, a polarized range,” I said.

Soon, though, we learned that, indeed, the statement really had come from the eight-time WSOP bracelet winner, with the Entities over at Wicked Chops getting a confirmation from Ivey’s manager. Eventually the statement was pieced together to appear as a press release on philivey.com.

It’s a helluva play by Ivey, apparently decided upon very recently and without many others’ knowledge. Close friend Barry Greenstein obviously had no idea, having spent the bulk of his allowance to outbid everyone in that $25,000 WSOP Fantasy draft last week to have Ivey on his team. Daniel Negreanu, speaking on the QuadJacks show late last night, also noted that he and others had little idea Ivey was going to make such a move.

It’s easy to say after the fact, but the play kinda fits with Ivey’s image. In a way. “I’ve been told I’m intimidating,” he says in that Full Tilt Poker commercial, the one in which he cheekily claims he’s just sitting there, “playing the same game you are... well, kind of.”

When we step back and think about the “game” Full Tilt Poker has been playing, it’s obvious Ivey is approaching this sucker completely differently.

Not obvious what exactly Ivey is suing Tiltware for (or for how much?), although I assume all will come clear soon. And while it is unknown what effect Ivey’s announcement and lawsuit will ultimately have on the FTP payout situation, the great majority of reactions to his statement appear to be overwhelmingly positive. I think many are just glad to see someone -- especially a person as prominent and influential as Ivey -- standing up and recognizing something has gone very wrong at Full Tilt Poker.

I thought initially about what I’d said yesterday about it perhaps appearing “unseemly” for some of the Team Full Tilt pros to show up and play the WSOP as if nothing were amiss. I did think some of the key figures -- e.g., Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson, Ivey -- might not show for Event No. 2, and perhaps might lay low for a few days or longer while FTP tried to push toward some kind of resolution. Didn’t really dream, though, that it would play out quite like this.

But man, when was the last time the poker world went more than a few weeks without surprising the hell out of us? Again!

It will certainly be interesting to see what happens next. That lawsuit -- whatever exactly it concerns -- should prove immensely curious to many. And of course the WSOP itself now moves forward amid even further uncertainty, minus one of its greatest stars, and with many other long-time celebs now receiving a new kind of scrutiny. Will it now be even more “unseemly” for other Team Full Tilt players to continue to enter events?

As he often does at the tables to his opponents, Ivey has put a lot of people to a tough decision.

About three hours after Ivey’s announcement, David “Chino” Rheem sent what I considered a thought-provoking tweet, kind of summing up the weird start to this year’s WSOP. “Don’t know what 2 expect @WSOP this year,” said Rheem. “[I] feel like I’m part of something that isn’t genuine anymore w/o online q’s & @philivey. #aintdasame.”

I don’t know about the WSOP being more or less “genuine,” but I definitely agree with Rheem that it sure ain’t gonna be the same. That said, I couldn’t be more interested to see what will come next.