When Winners Lose, and Losers Win

Been following from afar the progress of the European Poker Tour event in Barcelona and the World Poker Tour one over in Cyprus. Have buddies reporting from both tourneys, and so have had some extra interest to follow the coverage from both.

The big news out of Cyprus seems to be the low turnout -- just 181 players for the $10,000 buy-in main event, although a number of “name” guys made it to the Mediterranean island (including several Full Tilt pros). F-Train has some thoughts about the turnout and the event as a whole. They are currently down to their next-to-last day over there, with Layne Flack, Nenad Medic, and Huck Seed all still alive with two tables remaining.

Meanwhile, they just finished up over in Barcelona yesterday, where 479 players made it for the main event. That one had a €8,300 buy-in -- the equivalent of a little over $12,000. Most of the PokerStars guys followed the EPT and played in that one. The 20-year-old Carter Phillips, a PokerStars qualifier, won the event last night. Everyone will next be getting together over in London for the WSOPE which starts a week from today.

Roland de Wolfe of the U.K. finished 15th at EPT Barcelona, despite losing a controversial hand on Day 3 of the event in which he mucked a winner, and his opponent showed a loser. That’s right. Strange stuff.

The hand was a blind-vs.-blind hand in which German Tobias Reinkemeier (who’d go on to finish 30th) was in the small and de Wolfe in the BB. Not sure what happened preflop -- someone had raised and the other called, as there appears to be a small pot built up. The flop came . Looks like Reinkemeier checks, de Wolfe makes a bet, Reinkemeier check-raises, and de Wolfe calls. The turn is the . This time Reinkemeier makes a sizable bet, and de Wolfe calls. The pot is about 100,000 at this point.

The river then brings the . Reinkemeier checks, de Wolfe quickly bets 95,000, and Reinkemeier thinks for a moment then calls. De Wolfe’s expression shows he thinks he’s beat, and he turns over one card -- the -- making as though he’s ready to muck. He says “king-high” a couple of times as well. Reinkemeier -- who hasn’t shown his hand -- says he wants to see de Wolfe’s hand, and a resistant de Wolfe does not comply. Instead he pushes his cards forward to the point where they are touching the mucked cards.

Once de Wolfe’s cards touch the other cards -- this happens very quickly -- Reinkemeier triumphantly flips over his -- a busted flush draw, just queen-high! The dealer then digs de Wolfe’s cards out and turns them both over -- he had , not even a draw, but king-high was in fact the best hand. The floor is called, and after a lot of discussion the pot is awarded to Reinkemeier. No shinola! See for yourself:



Obviously de Wolfe made a mistake by forcing his cards into the muck, even if he (very reasonably) thought his king-high had to be beat. So the hand pretty clearly illustrates the lesson about not mucking your cards without making sure you don’t hold a winner.

What I think about, though, when I watch this hand is how challenging it is for the reporter standing alongside the table charged with telling the world about what happened. I wrote a bit about this phenomenon back during the WSOP in a post called “Seeing Is Believing.” “When you see a hand like that, you start distrusting your senses,” I wrote, noting how sometimes your instinctive response is to check with someone else if what you saw really and truly occurred.

That this particular hand was captured on video -- and interviews with the players about the hand were conducted as well -- is terrific. Makes the story of the hand all the more compelling. And believable.

Because without the video, would you believe it?

Both players do very strange things here. De Wolfe mucks before seeing his opponent’s hand. And Reinkemeier calls a nearly pot-sized bet on the river with queen-high. In the interview afterwards, Reinkemeier explains how he believed de Wolfe’s range there at the end was polarized -- either he has a flush or air -- and that since he’d seen de Wolfe muck bluffs without waiting for his opponent to open his hand before, he knew he could call and perhaps win even if his queen-high was the worst hand. (A translation of some of what Reinkemeier is saying appears a few pages into the 2+2 thread about the hand.)

Like I say, the hand makes me think of situations where I’ve watched and reported on hands in which players call huge bets with very little (e.g., ace-high or king-high), or hands in which players muck without waiting to see opponents show their hands.

The latter situation can be especially perplexing when it comes to reporting, as the “story” of the hand seems somehow incomplete -- as though there’s a loose end there still dangling afterwards. A “showdown” in which no cards are shown? I saw this happen a few times at EPT Kyiv, in fact, with players mucking as soon as their opponent’s called their river bluffs. (I mentioned one example in a post from Day 1b, actually.) Most disorienting for the observer, particularly if he or she is charged with the task of explaining it all to someone who wasn’t there to see it.

But I suppose that challenge is part of what makes reporting from these tourneys more interesting, too. You think you’ve seen it all. You’re standing next to a table watching another boring little blind-vs.-blind hand unfold. Snoozerama....

Then, suddenly... the world turns upside down! A winner loses and a loser wins! Madness!

The Poker Hall of Fame: Will Anyone Be Worthy?

Yesterday the names of the nine finalists to be considered for induction into this year’s Poker Hall of Fame were announced.

You might recall how the process by which Hall of Famers would be named was changed somewhat this year. Rather than just have a small group of insiders pick one or two for the honor behind closed doors, the process was opened up a bit, with the public invited to participate in online voting during WSOP.

Toward the end of the Series the WSOP Commish Jeffrey Pollack announced the names of the top 10 vote-getters, then explained how the next step of the process would be for a group called the Poker Hall of Fame Governing Council either to remove or add names before sending the list along to the people who’d be voting on whether folks would get in. (In other words, while the public got to start the process, the insiders still get to control who gets considered for real.)

The Poker Hall of Fame Governing Council didn’t add any new names to the list of top 10 vote-getters, and only removed one -- Tom “durrrr” Dwan. Thus, the nine who are to be considered are Barry Greenstein, Dan Harrington, Phil Ivey, Tom McEvoy, Men Nguyen, Scotty Nguyen, Daniel Negreanu, Erik Seidel, and Mike Sexton.

The real voters consist of the living Hall of Fame members -- of which there are 15, they say -- and 15 more members of the poker media. They’ll be submitting their ballots by October 2, and for someone to picked he’d have to have at least 75% of the voters say “yes” to the question of his candidacy. The winners are to be announced in a ceremony on November 7 to take place during a dinner break at the 2009 WSOP Main Event final table.

The criteria for selection are that (1) “a player must have played poker against acknowledged top competition,”(2) “played for high stakes,” (3) “played consistently well, gaining the respect of peers,” (4) “stood the test of time,” and (5) “for non-players, contributed to the overall growth and success of the game of poker, with indelible positive and lasting results.”

Also, interestingly, when the voters send in their ballots they are being invited to write in candidates for 2010. Those write-in candidates will be automatically added to the list next year (i.e., will not have to be picked either by the public vote or the HOF Governing Council adding their names to the ballot).

So, really, while the public does now have a “say” in the whole process, there are a lot of checks along the way to ensure that the public doesn’t say anything too terribly crazy. That said, the new process does add some suspense to the whole business of picking Hall of Famers, and certainly makes the HOF a more prominent part of the WSOP and professional poker scene.

Indeed, one element adding suspense is the fact that while everyone is curious about who might get picked, there remains another possiblity -- that no one will make it at all.

Wouldn’t that make for an awkward award ceremony? It could happen.

Voters are only allowed to vote for three of the nine finalists. That makes it impossible for all nine to make it in this year, since there’s no way all nine can get 75% of the voters to say “yes” for them. If my math is correct, the highest number of Hall of Famers we can possibly see will be three. Let’s say all 30 voters cast ballots, and all 30 submit the maximum three “yes” votes. That’s 90 votes, and with 30 voters a person would need at least 23 “yes” votes to make 75%. Three players could get there, but that would leave less than 23 votes as a remainder.

So there’s no possiblity of all nine making it. But there is a possibility that none of the nine make it. In fact, given the way the process has been set up, I’d say there’s a real chance of that happening.

Look at the list of nine candidates again. Then look at the criteria. There are ways of weeding out certain folks, sure. The younger guys, though worthy in other ways, probably can’t reasonably be said to have “stood the test of time” yet. A couple of others might have lost some support (or “respect of peers”) thanks to some extracurricular stuff. That said, I think any voter is probably going to have at least five or six guys who rank as legitimate choices here, and so when voting for three will be necessarily made to vote “against” two or three they feel probably deserve the honor, too.

Let’s say five of the nine finalists end up getting a significant number of votes here. In fact, let’s go so far as to say the voters will only be focusing on five guys. Which ain’t gonna happen (each of the other four will probably get at least a vote or two, probably more), but let’s pretend it does.

So the 90 votes would be divided among those five. If divided evenly, none of them will come close to making it, as each will only get 18 votes, or 60% -- well shy of the needed 75%. And, like I say, there probably won’t be 90 votes submitted for just five players, as the others will take some of those votes away. There will have to be overwhelming support for one candidate for him to get in, and given the group that has been proposed, the votes might be divided in such a way as to make it hard for that to happen.

In the end, one guy will probably make it, actually, but I’d be surprised if two are inducted. And, like I say, zero is possible -- unless the Poker Hall of Fame Governing Council steps in and changes the rules after the voting, which could well happen if no one gets the 75%. They could decide to allow the top vote-getter in regardless of how many votes he gets, so as to ensure at least one player gets in. In fact, that option probably should have been included from the start -- and I’d bet it will get included going forward if it does happen that no one gets the 75% this year.

’Cos while the whole idea of having a Poker Hall of Fame might be debatable, if yr gonna have one, you have to put people in it now and then.

Matching Up Poker and Tennis

Was up late again last night watching Event #13 of PokerStars’ World Championship of Online Poker, the $300+$20 Seven-Card Stud event. Early in the evening, I had the U.S. Open on as well, watching the hard-fought, three-set battle between the 19-year-old Caroline Wozniacki of Denmark (pictured) and the Russian Svetlana Kuznetsova.

I tend to enjoy watching the women’s matches more than the men, if only because the points tend to go longer, and so there’s more of a chance for some drama and suspense to be built up in a given point. The Wozniacki-Kuznetsova match was just terrific in this regard, with a lot of wild, lengthy rallies and spectacular winners that made you go “wow.”

The 19-year-old Wozniacki eventually took it down, outlasting Kuznetsova in three sets 2-6, 7-6, 7-6. She’ll now play the American Melanie Oudin in the quarterfinals, another teen sensation who also came back to beat a higher-seeded Russian yesterday, defeating Nadia Petrova 1-6, 7-6, 6-3.

While I was watching the Wozniacki-Kuznetsova match conclude, I had one of the stud tables open on the laptop, kind of idly noting hands go by when the players were between points. Perhaps unsurprisingly I started to become aware of the many similarities between tennis and poker. Probably goes for any poker variant, but somehow stud seemed especially poker-like last night.

Most stud hands tend to become heads up by fourth street, and thus more readily resemble the back-and-forth of tennis from that point forward. As hands developed, the betting reminded me of two players volleying, with a raise or three-bet looking like an attempt at a passing shot or hitting a line, trying to end the “point” right then and there. Some would prove winners; others “unforced errors.”

The fixed limit betting format also seemed to reinforce the comparison, insofar as the players’ relative status changed only incrementally, bet by bet, hand by hand. No one could win it all on a single play, but only by the lengthy accumulation of actions and results.

Finally, I found myself contemplating the whole “luck-vs.-skill” debate in light of the analogy I was almost involuntarily tracing. Certainly I was witnessing awesome displays of skill by Wozniacki and Kuznetsova, both in terms of athletic prowess and strategic, on-the-fly decision making.

But the players’ relative skill levels also helped create what seemed to be “lucky” moments here and there. I don’t have the stats before me, but it was clear Kuznetsova played a higher-risk (or “looser”) style, thereby hitting more winners (and aces) while committing more unforced errors (and double-faults). Some points would develop in such a manner that one player appeared to have a decided advantage -- like having positional advantage or the better starting hand in poker -- yet the other would somehow find a way to steal the point, to “get lucky” (so to speak) thanks to a fortunate bounce or a slight mistake from her opponent.

Yes, there’s definitely some degree of “luck” in tennis -- or at least elements of the game that, as is the case in poker, are constantly out of the player’s control. But like in poker, the skillful players tend to win out over time, and a match (or tournament) generally goes on long enough to ensure that will usually be the case.

There are many other parallels one could pursue -- momentum, confidence, focus, reading opponents’ strengths and weakness, and so forth. One of the winners of a WCOOP event, Joel Adam Gordon (a.k.a. “2FLY2TILT”) who won Event #4, the No-Limit 2-7 Single Draw event, and who also did well in last night’s stud event, made a similar comparison in his post-tourney interview with Otis. Said Gordon, he was “aiming to be one of the most versatile and well-rounded players around,” likening himself to “a tennis player who can play well on all surfaces.”

Yea, there are lots of ways to go with this analogy. I’ll stop there, though, and let you think about them. Ball’s in your court.

PokerStars’ WCOOP Continues

Been fairly well immersed in PokerStars’ World Championship of Online Poker the last three days, so that’s what we’ll discuss today here on Hard-Boiled.

I have written wrap posts for three of the events thus far. Will be doing so again tonight/tomorrow morning, then will have a few days away to go work the “real” job before getting back at it next weekend. Was sitting up ’til after eight a.m. today watching my event finally come to its conclusion, some 20-plus hours after it began.

I tried to nap a little as the night wore on, but it is hard, really, not to keep tabs on the action since one never really knows when the final table is going to happen in these things -- and I absolutely have to be at the computer when the final table begins. Sleep schedule all kinds of out of whack, dontcha know.

They have been drawing some enormous fields for these suckers. The event I was watching yesterday -- Event #9, a $200+$15 no-limit hold’em event -- had a $1 million guarantee, but drew over 11,000 entrants, making the prize pool more than twice that. Had a tourney on Saturday with more than 15,000 playing. And players are hopping on in over 100 different countries, too -- truly the “World Series” of online poker, you’d have to say.

For those of you interested in following some of the coverage, head over to the PokerStars blog and look for the WCOOP posts. They aren’t too hard to find. The wraps initially appear in the regular rotation -- amid the reports from EPT Barcelona -- there “above the fold.” If you look down on the right-hand side of the page you’ll see links to all of the event reports, and if you go to the WCOOP page on the blog you’ll find ’em all as well, along with Otis’ interviews of winners.

If that’s not enough WCOOP for you, Scott Huff is doing a daily podcast over on PokerRoad which also is a neat way of catching up on the action. He, too, is interviewing event winners and PokerStars pros. Huff remains the far-and-away chipleader when it comes to poker podcasting, so if you like The Poker Beat and his other shows, give this one a listen, too.

Finally, most of you reading this probably are also aware Dr. Pauly has begun a weekly op-ed column over on PokerNews -- if not, lemme pass that along to ya. In his first (appearing yesterday), Dr. P talks about the WCOOP, his thesis evident in his headline, “WCOOP: It’s Good, But Let’s Make it Better.” Some good ideers in there. Some tongue-in-cheekiness thrown in here and there as well. Check it out.

For now, I’m gonna try to enjoy a few hours of rest here on Labor Day before my next event begins later today. Maybe get outside a bit and enjoy this terrific weather we’ve got going. If you ain’t busy satelliting yr way into the next WCOOP event over on PokerStars, that is.

(Incidentally, I have a new post today over on Film Chaw, reviewing the 1975 sci-fi cult flick A Boy and His Dog.)

Shovels, Clovers, Valentines, and Squares

FerricRamsium -- who is headed this week to Cyprus to help cover the WPT Merit Cyprus Classic along with F-Train -- was telling us in Kyiv about first playing cards with a relative (an uncle?). Whoever it was, this person shunned the usual names of suits, instead assigning the names listed above.

We all instantly decided we preferred those names for the suits, and thus began using them whenever possible.

“Squares” is particularly inspired, I think. Just turn yr head a little. See?

I continue with pot-limit Omaha, almost always sitting at the PLO25 six-handed tables. Had a nice first hand yesterday in which I not only flopped a valentine straight flush, but somehow got paid off by an opponent. Check it out (RSS readers might need to click through to see the replayer):



The PokerGrump may want to say something here about the mighty two-four (his fave hold’em hand), although I think its power is less obviously applicable in PLO.

A nice way to start a session, that. Found myself thinking a little afterwards about the odds of my having flopping a straight flush like that.

In this particular hand, there were two ways for me to get there with my . I’d need either to come, or .

Let’s see... with four cards in my hand, that makes 48 unknown cards. There are 17,296 possible flops -- (48/3)(47/2)(46/1) -- and only two of them would give me the straight flush. So I think that means we’re looking at a 1 in 8,648 shot here?

I quickly moved on from that bit of trivia, though, and began thinking about how significant suitedness is in PLO. In his first book, Pot-Limit Omaha Poker: The Big Play Strategy, Jeff Hwang has a short section called “The Importance of Being Suited” where he lists a “number of useful purposes” for having even just two suited cards in your hand. In Omaha Poker, Bob Ciaffone also speaks more than once to how vital it is to have suited cards in your hand.

“The importance of being suited even with little cards is obvious,” writes Ciaffone. “Even though you wouldn’t want to play a small flush-draw by itself,” he says, “there are lots of opportunities to play it in conjunction with another reason to be contending for the pot.”

So, says Ciaffone, he might raise preflop with 9-8-7-6 if it were double-suited, whereas he might just limp in if it were not. With the former hand, he can make a straight or flop a big wrap draw, then have a flush draw to back it up as well, which could put him in a situation where he’s freerolling against an opponent who has or is gunning for the same straight. Another small part of the equation is the fact that if he were up against an opponent drawing to a higher flush, he’d have a couple of his opponent’s outs in his hand.

I’ve heard some -- including top pros -- argue that suitedness can be much overrated in hold’em, noting how some players too often talk themselves into gambling with poor starters simply on the basis of their being “sooted.”

I suppose suitedness can be overrated in PLO, too, especially if a player starts getting into the habit of drawing to non-nut hands. But you’re definitely better off overrating suitedness in PLO than underrating it, I’d think. If I’m gonna see a flop in PLO, I always like to see a couple of shovels, clovers, valentines, or squares in my hand.

Have a good weekend, all.

WCOOP It Up: World Championship of Online Poker Series Starts Today on PokerStars

Sundays come once a week. FTOPS only happens slightly less frequently. But the WCOOP -- that is, the World Championship of Online Poker on PokerStars -- is special. And today it returns.

45 events! Quite a jump from the 33 that were offered last year. This is the eighth year Stars has run the WCOOP, and by now a bona fide tradition has been built up around the series. Stars has even created a special website -- wcoop.com -- for various record-keeping and passing along other WCOOP-related info.

Had hopes of perhaps participating this time around, as I did play in that “PokerStars WCOOP Journalist Event” yesterday afternoon. Was a pretty decent shot at a WCOOP seat, in that only 135 had been invited and 27 tickets were being given away.

Did pretty well for the first hour, nearly doubling my stack without ever having to show hands. (Or making hands, for that matter.) But the blinds rose rapidly, and suddenly the average stack -- which I was just below -- became about eight BBs or so.

That’s when a short stack who’d shoved all in three or four times did so again, and I picked up and decided it was time to gamble. Damned if he didn’t have A-K this time. The flop teasingly came A-Q-4, but a king followed on the turn and I was down to less than three big blinds. Was out soon thereafter in 57th or something.

So I’ll be on the rail, reporting on a few of the events along the way, then live blogging the Main Event at the end. Head over to the PokerStars blog where I’ll be filing reports along with my buds California Jen, Change100, Drizztdj, and Otis.

By the way, I dunno if you guys ever happen to read the PokerStars blog, but it is a terrific one. Very entertaining and talented folks writing over there. Really, if you read their reports from the various circuit events they cover -- the ones either sponsored by PokerStars or at which Stars pros are playing -- you find some of the best poker writing around. Have to say I am always glad whenever I get the chance to help contribute over there.

Given my other obligations, most of my railing and reporting from the WCOOP will be happening on the weekends, so my first recap won’t come ’til tomorrow. Here’s the full schedule (all times ET; prize pool guarantees in parentheses):

Event 1 -- Thu., 9/3, 14:30, $215 6-max. NLHE ($1,250,000)

Event 2 -- Thu., 9/3, 16:30, $215 Razz ($200,000)

Event 3 -- Fri., 9/4, 14:30, $215 6-max. PLO ($500,000)

Event 4 -- Fri., 9/4, 16:30, $215 NL 2-7 Draw w/rebuys ($200,000)

Event 5 -- Fri., 9/4, 20:00, $109 8-Game (5-min lvls) ($50,000)

Event 6 -- Sat., 9/5, 12:45, $109 NLHE ($1,000,000)

Event 7 -- Sat., 9/5, 14:30, $215 PL 5-Card Draw ($200,000)

Event 8 -- Sat., 9/5, 16:30, $215 LHE ($400,000)

Event 9 -- Sun., 9/6, 12:45, $215 NLHE ($1,000,000)

Event 10 -- Sun., 9/6, 14:30, $10,300 NLHE ($2,000,000)

Event 11 -- Sun., 9/6, 16:30, $530 NLHE (2-day) ($3,000,000)

Event 12 -- Mon., 9/7, 14:30, $215 4-max. NLHE ($500,000)

Event 13 -- Mon., 9/7, 16:30, $320 7-Card Stud ($150,000)

Event 14 -- Tue., 9/8, 14:30, $320 6-max. Mixed HE ($300,000)

Event 15 -- Tue., 9/8, 16:30, $320 Limit Badugi ($100,000)

Event 16 -- Tue., 9/8, 20:00, $1,050 NLHE ($500,000)

Event 17 -- Wed., 9/9, 14:30, $530 NLHE Trip. Shoot. ($500,000)

Event 18 -- Wed., 9/9, 16:30, $320 8-Game ($300,000)

Event 19 -- Thu., 9/10, 14:30, $320 6-max. PLO (1R1A) ($400,000)

Event 20 -- Thu., 9/10, 16:30, $320 Limit 2-7 TD ($100,000)

Event 21 -- Fri., 9/11, 14:30, $215 NLHE w/rebuys ($1,250,000)

Event 22 -- Fri., 9/11, 16:30, $530 Limit O/8 ($400,000)

Event 23 -- Fri., 9/11, 20:00, $320 NLHE (10-min lvls) ($300,000)

Event 24 -- Sat., 9/12, 14:30, $530 Heads-Up NLHE ($1,000,000)

Event 25 -- Sat., 9/12, 16:30, $320 H.O.R.S.E. ($400,000)

Event 26 -- Sun., 9/13, 12:45, $215 NLHE ($1,000,000)

Event 27 -- Sun., 9/13, 14:30, $25,500 Heads-Up NLHE

Event 28 -- Sun., 9/13, 16:30, $1,050 NLHE (2-day) ($3,000,000)

Event 29 -- Mon., 9/14, 14:30, $320 PLHE/PLO ($400,000)

Event 30 -- Mon., 9/14, 16:30, $320 NLHE (2x Chnce) ($600,000)

Event 31 -- Tue., 9/15, 14:30, $320 6-max. PLO w/rbys ($700,000)

Event 32 -- Tue., 9/15, 16:30, $530 7-Card Stud Hi/Lo ($200,000)

Event 33 -- Tue., 9/15, 20:00, $1,050 NLHE ($500,000)

Event 34 -- Wed., 9/16, 14:30, $215 NLHE (big antes) ($500,000)

Event 35 -- Wed., 9/16, 16:30, $320 PLO/8 ($500,000)

Event 36 -- Thu., 9/17, 14:30, $530 6-max. NLHE w/rbys ($1,000,000)

Event 37 -- Thu., 9/17, 16:30, $2,100 6-max. PLO ($600,000)

Event 38 -- Fri., 9/18, 14:30, $530 NLHE (1R1A) ($1,000,000)

Event 39 -- Fri., 9/18, 16:30, $1,050 6-max. LHE ($400,000)

Event 40 -- Fri., 9/18, 20:00, $215 NL O/8 (10-min lvls) ($200,000)

Event 41 -- Sat., 9/19, 14:30, $530 Heads-Up PLO ($250,000)

Event 42 -- Sat., 9/19, 16:30, $2,100 8-Game ($350,000)

Event 43 -- Sun., 9/20, 12:45, $215 NLHE ($1,000,000)

Event 44 -- Sun., 9/20, 14:30, $10,300 H.O.R.S.E. ($1,000,000)

Event 45 -- Sun., 9/20, 16:30 $5,200 NLHE (2-day) ($10,000,000)

Some interesting-looking events in the mix, such as the turbo-styled 8-game event (No. 5), the four-handed NLHE (No. 12), Badugi (No. 15), and the NLHE tourney with “big antes” (No. 34). That no-limit PLO/8 event with ten-minute levels (No. 40) looks pretty nutty, too.

You might note also how PokerStars has added variety to the starting times throughout, making it a lot more feasible for folks who aren’t in North America to join in the fun.

Good luck to those playing WCOOP events this year. And if somehow you don’t have a PokerStars account already, go get you one.

iMEGA Suit Claiming Unconstitutionality of UIGEA Dismissed

I wake up this morning and, as I often do, I start the day reading through some of the previous day’s poker news.

Early in my journey I notice an article suggesting what appears to be good news with regard to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. There was a 3rd Circuit District Court decision yesterday regarding the case brought by the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association versus the U.S. Attorney General. You remember that case -- the one in which iMEGA challenged the UIGEA as unconstitutional (for several reasons).

Sounds like the District Court decided to rule against iMEGA and uphold the UIGEA. But somehow its decision is being understood as positive for online poker. So says the article, which ends with the hopeful statement that the ruling represents “a small step in the right direction for the future of Internet gambling.”

But really, that article is not so much an article as just a brief summary of an article appearing on another website. As it happens, the website being referenced is one the journalistic credibility of which has long been questioned thanks to numerous examples of misreporting, citation of “gambling industry insiders” who are in fact the site’s own writers, and frequent examples of sensationalistic rumor mongering.

Nonetheless, I follow the link.

A closer look at the article that appears on the questionable site reveals it, too, doesn’t represent original content, but merely paraphrases an article appearing on the iMEGA website -- that is to say, an article focusing on iMEGA Chairman Joe Brennan’s interpretation of the ruling as having clarified that the states, not the federal government, have the priority to say what is and what is not unlawful internet gambling. Says Brennan, since “there are only a half-dozen states which have laws against Internet gambling, [that] leav[es] 44 states where it is potentially lawful.”

To their credit, all three of these articles additionally link to the actual ruling. Which is a good thing. Because if one takes the time to read the actual ruling -- it is just ten pages, after all -- one discovers that, well, there ain’t so much to be all that hopeful about here.

The District Court ruling summarily rejects all of iMEGA’s various claims of unconstitutionality, some of which, such as the claim the UIGEA somehow violates First Amendment rights, seem quite a stretch -- obvious attempts by the group to throw lots of arguments out there in the hopes that one sticks.

The ruling then rejects iMEGA’s appeal that the UIGEA should be rendered “void for vagueness.” “We reject Interactive’s vagueness claim,” say the ruling’s authors. “The Act clearly provides a person of ordinary intelligence with adequate notice of the conduct it prohibits.”

Indeed, in its defense of the UIGEA’s non-vagueness, the ruling points out what those of us who have read the UIGEA already know, namely, that the Act as it is written does not define “unlawful internet gambling” and instead defers to individual states’ laws regarding such. Nor do the regulations that were later finalized offer such a definition, again reiterating the states’ authority here.

So iMEGA’s suit has been dismissed. The UIGEA has not been voided as unconstitutional. In other words, nothing, really, has changed with regard to the UIGEA. It went into effect on January 19, 2009. Banks, payment processors, and other institutions still will be made to comply starting December 1, 2009. And, like it always did, the law defers to individual states to decide what is and what is not “unlawful internet gambling.”

It remains to be seen, of course, whether or not we see any legislation hurried through during the next three months that might alter the legal landscape. It also is not clear at the moment what exactly is going to happen come December, though I think it is safe to say that if nothing changes the chance of your encountering some sort of difficulty when attempting to deposit to your favorite online poker site will perhaps be greater after 12/1/09 than it is right now.

But I’m unconvinced there’s much that is encouraging about yesterday’s ruling. And a little puzzled by how news about it seems to be suggesting there is.

Topping Off

I said something last post about my playing pot-limit Omaha lately and that things are going relatively well. Added up the month yesterday and it turned out August was the best month of the year for me, despite a horrible start and a week of practically zero play when I was in Kyiv. I did win that media tourney that week -- did I mention that? (ha) -- so, yes, August was nice indeed.

One highly beneficial move I made this summer with regard to PLO was reading Jeff Hwang’s new one, Advanced Pot-Limit Omaha, Volume I, which I made reference to here about three weeks ago. As usual, I have been mainly sticking with the $25 buy-in, six-handed tables. I’ve played extended stretches of PLO50 before, where one will encounter a few more savvy players but not a huge difference in skill. Bigger swings, though (natch), so I am remaining within the comfort zone.

The comfort zone largely exists for me over on PokerStars, too, where there are many, many more PLO games going than on any other site. Also my fave (by far) for software and support. Even the bonuses aren’t bad. So probably 80% of the time I’m playing (or more), I’m playing on Stars.

With regard to the software, Stars has added some features over the last few months. Sometimes takes me a while to find them, and I’m sure there are a few of which I’m not even aware. The ones I know about, though, I generally like.

For example, there’s a new security feature I’m using in which I punch in a PIN in addition to my password when logging in. Also just this week figured out there was an option now to show or not to show one’s hole cards when all in. Only just discovered this after seeing several hands in which players were all in prior to the river, but the hole cards weren’t flipped over until the end, including hands in which I was involved. The hole cards will only be shown if all players involved have checked “Show Hole Cards When All-In (Ring Games)” under “Options.” I don’t feel that strongly one way or the other on this one, though I suppose I like the idea of having the choice.

Just below that option is another relatively new feature, the “Auto-Rebuy (Real Money Ring Games)” option. (Other sites have a similar feature, I know.) When you click the option, a box pops up that allows you to modify your auto-rebuying in various ways:



At the PLO25 tables, I am seeing a few players who are auto-rebuying whenever they fall below the maximum buy-in. Have also encountered a few short-stackers who have it set to auto-rebuy their usual $5 buy-in whenever they are felted. (No worries -- eventually that latter group will be rolling heavy weights around and against each other in the fourth circle of Dante’s Inferno, if I’m not mistaken.)

I personally have not chosen the option to auto-rebuy. Not yet, anyway. I do buy in for the maximum, and usually will top off if I ever slip down between $15-$20 or further. But I do it manually -- partly out of habit, but partly because I suppose I like remaining aware of how much I’m up or down overall, something that’s easier to keep track of when not auto-rebuying.

There are certainly a few good reasons to auto-rebuy (something the pros do regularly, I believe). Nothing sadder than making a straight flush versus someone holding the ace-high flush and only having a short stack with which to play. Also, auto-rebuying can perhaps make it more difficult for less aware opponents to keep tabs on how you’re doing.

I recall once many months ago -- before this auto-rebuy feature was in place -- playing at a table with a player who was obviously manually rebuying to the maximum whenever he fell even a quarter below it. Guy was very active, involved in a high percentage of pots, and after a hundred hands or so I’d thought I’d gotten a read on him as a tricky, somewhat capable player.

That’s when I realized he still had exactly $25 in his stack. He might have been decent, but he sure wasn’t winning. Later looked in PokerTracker and realized the guy had dropped two-and-a-half buy-ins during those hundred hands! (Some detective, huh?)

Anyhow, I’m leaving the option unchecked for now, but probably will eventually set it where I want it and take advantage. What are your thoughts on auto-rebuying in ring games?

The Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show, Episode 18: Gun Shy Gambler

Hope everyone had a good weekend. I know I did. Needed it, too, after a fairly exhausting week of work and “real” life stuff. Week began with that marathon sequence of plane rides back home from Kyiv, so it took a few days for the body and mind to resume all the normal rhythms. Wasn’t ’til Friday that I was back in sync, to be honest.

What did I do? Played some poker. Missed out on that “WCOOP Bloggers Freeroll” thing that happened yesterday over on PokerStars -- a freeroll satellite that awarded 18 seats into a World Championship of Online Poker event. Got the email but somehow overlooked the details and so never registered.

I did, however, get an invite to another freeroll happening this week, something called the “PokerStars WCOOP Journalist Event” which is also going to be awarding some free tickets into WCOOP events. Will try to make that one. Would be very cool to sneak my way through and somehow land a free seat.

Meanwhile, I’ve been playing pot-limit Omaha, mostly six-handed, and doing fairly well. In addition to collecting some cabbage, I managed yesterday to reestablish my Silver Star status on PokerStars for September. Have maintained that for the most part all year, and with it have been trading FPPs for cash whenever possible.

Also this weekend I pulled together and posted a new episode of The Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show, this one called “Gun Shy Gambler.” Show starts with a reading from the John Fox book Play Poker, Quit Work, and Sleep Till Noon! (1977). You might recall I wrote something about that book about a month ago. The excerpt is a funny anecdote in which Fox tells about a scheme he came up with to gather statistical data at the poker tables. It is called “Counting Beans,” and yes, the title is meant literally.

The rest of the show is taken up with an episode of the old time radio show The Lone Ranger. A pretty good one, involving a gambler who becomes gun shy after having killed a man, then is forced to deal with his problem when the brother of the man he killed returns to confront him. There’s some card-playing, too, in there.

You can download the show by clicking here. Or just play it right here, if that’s how you roll:



By the way, I have been chatting with someone about the possibility of having the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show start airing on one of these internet radio networks. Would probably start out going back to the first episode and playing the old shows -- sort of like putting them into syndication -- then add new ones when the time comes. We’ll see where that goes. I’ll certainly let you know about it here if and when that happens.

One other bit of extracurricular activity this weekend was my first post over on FilmChaw, the movie blog established by our friend and esteemed author of Stupid/System, Julius Goat.

Ever since I saw the 1980 film Humanoids from the Deep, I knew I had a desire to respond. Thanks to Monsieur Goat for affording me the opportunity to do so. Lot of good writers and cool stuff over there at FilmChaw, so if you are into movies (both good and bad), check it out.

Let’s all have a good week. Fall is almost here. Our high temperature today is in the sixties, if you can believe that. Time for football. And the WCOOP! I’ll be doing some writing over on the PokerStars blog for that, recapping a few events and helping live blog the Main Event at the end. And if this freeroll thing works out, maybe I’ll be playing in the sucker, too. A massive schedule -- 45 events! -- this year, with satellites running ’round the clock, natch. For the complete sked and a ton of other info, go to PokerStars’ new WCOOP website for the skinny.

Cheap Trick Getting Better All the Time

“This next one is from our new album. It just came out this week, and the song is called ‘Surrender.’”

Recognize that, don’t ya?

I like all sorts of music, tending most often to listen to jazz (from Birth of the Cool through ’70s fusion), funk/R&B, so-called “classic” rock, prog rock (with a special affection for German “Krautrock” of the 70s), various ambient/electronic stuff, and what might be called Beatlesque pop.

Regarding the latter, I chose that adjective “Beatlesque” to distinguish a certain kind of popular music -- that kind with connections to Vaudeville/Tin Pan Alley in which the goal is to create those little three-minute pleasure-producers that often combine sweet melodies and singalong lyrics -- from other chart-topping (i.e., also “popular”) varieties.

The Beatles (about whom I’ve written here more than once) transcended genres, sure, but they are their own genre, too. And I have a soft spot for those bands whose ethos tends toward the “Beatlesque.” Which would include acts like XTC/Dukes of Stratosphear, Robyn Hitchcock, Todd Rundgren/Utopia, Klaatu, Belle and Sebastian, Tears for Fears, the Smithereens, Electric Light Orchestra, and others I’m not remembering at the moment. Even Radiohead or Coldplay could be said to fall into the category now and then. In fact, given the extent of the Beatles’ influence, you could probably take just about any popular act from the ’70s onward and find at least one tune that lands them at least temporarily in the category.

The ’70s, of course, is where that quote from above comes from. 1979, specifically, from the Beatlesque band Cheap Trick’s Live at Budokan.

A couple of years ago I wrote a post here about Cheap Trick praising their early career. I still think their first four studio albums, plus the endlessly fun Live at Budokan, are about as good as it gets when it comes to power pop drawing from both the early (“red album”) and late (“blue album”) Beatles modes.

The irony of Cheap Trick’s career, I suppose, is that when they finally fully acknowledged their “Beatlesque” identity and recruited George Martin -- the Beatles’ producer -- to take the helm on an album (1980’s All Shook Up), they kind of lost their way a bit. Still managed to churn out a few modest pop gems here and there, but never (to me) managed to produce anything quite like the consistently enthralling (and rocking) pop suites of their early records. The rock critic Ira Robbins feels similarly, and has written eloquently in many places (including Cheap Trick liner notes) about the band. Here’s his overview of their career.

Now, thirty-plus years after those early days, Cheap Trick is still kicking. And they’ve returned to acknowledging unashamedly their Beatle-ness. In that post from a couple of years ago, I mentioned how the band had performed in its entirety Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band a few times that year in order to mark the 40th anniversary of the LP. At the end of the post I mentioned how cool it would be to hear the performance. I did end up seeing some YouTube clips of it with so-so sound, but hadn’t really come across a decent audio recording out there.

Now there is one. It just came out this week.

A new CD and a DVD of the show have been released, featuring the entire Pepper album, plus a track from the show’s first act when they played non-Pepper Beatles stuff. And it rocks. If you like Cheap Trick and/or the Beatles, pick it up. You won’t be disappointed.

The releases come in time for Cheap Trick’s revival of the Pepper show next month -- in Las Vegas, in fact. I remember all summer hearing the ads for the new performances. There will be nine shows (Sept. 13-15, 17-19 and 21-23) at the Las Vegas Hilton. (More info here.) Wish I could go, but there’s no chance I can escape the “real” life (again) and get over there.

Now that I think about it, the Beatles were pretending to be another band, too, when they did Sgt. Pepper, putting on the costumes and making like they were someone else. Maybe it is this “role-playing” idea that further fascinates me here, since I, too, am so frequently playing a role (as the poker player and reporter, Shamus)? Maybe that’s why I’m digging this new release so much?

Nah. No need for psychological self-scrutiny here. I know why I like Cheap Trick’s Sgt. Pepper Live. Same reason why I like their early records so much.

It kicks ass!