WSOP to Delay Main Event Final Table by 4 Months

Play of the final table of this year's World Series of Poker $10,000 No-Limit Hold'em Championship event will be delayed until November 9, 2008, four months after the originally scheduled July 16.

The purpose of the delay is to bring a sense of immediacy to ESPN's broadcast of the final table on November 11. In previous years, viewer interest in and suspense over ESPN's broadcast of the WSOP Main Event final table has been tempered by the knowledge that the outcome of the tournament had been determined months before. This will make the broadcast coverage of the final table more like a sporting news event and less like documentary history.

In my opinion, this will be very likely good for generating interest and viewer ratings for ESPN's broadcast. That, in turn, will be good for the poker world in general as the continuing boom in televised poker translates into enthusiastic new players coming to the game and injecting more money into the booming poker economy as they find their feet in public cardrooms, both brick-and-mortar and online.

At the same time, the announced change has an arbitrary and capricious air to it, leaving many players feeling hurt, offended, and doubtful. Several discussion threads on the 2+2 forums have erupted and caught fire with player debate about the schedule change, with commenters opposing to the change vastly outnumbering its supporters.

2+2 commenter objections to the four month delay include:

• Some weaker players who might stumble into the Big Dance's final table through good fortune and a rush of lucky cards. The four-month delay may enable these players to prepare for the final table through coaching and training, presumably from top-level professionals who had been busted out earlier.
• Because earlier segments of this year's WSOP coverage will be broadcast before the final table is played, this will give final table players the opportunity to review footage of their opponents, at least those who caught the eye of ESPN's crew or happened to play at a TV table in the earlier levels.
• The length of time between the prior levels and the play of the final table provides an unparalleled opportunity for dealmaking and outright collusion among final-table players.
• Some commenters believe that final table players may face violence or threat of violence from supporters of other players.
• Non-US-resident final table players face an additional burden of getting through customs and immigration for a second trip to the US in November.
• The extended time between the earlier levels of the tournament and the final table will likely increase the media spotlight shining upon final table players, and some of these players may not crave this attention.

These objections seem to me (with one exception) to be overwrought reactions to a change imposed by an unaccountable authority. No poker player in her right mind, for example, would want anything to do with the Big Dance if she wished to avoid the limelight. The Big Dance is not just another tournament that happens to provide an overlay because of the abundance of donkeys' dead money. It is widely considered to be the most important tournament in poker, with it's winner identified as the World Champion. This has been true since its inception. Amarillo Slim Preston becoming a media darling, appearing multiple times on the Tonight Show, for example after he took the crown (defeating a field of players three orders of magnitude smaller) in 1973. Some World Champions have claimed that the action they have gotten in subsequent years because of enthusiastic punters who want to take on the champ has been more financially rewarding to them than the actual prize money they won. Winning the Big Dance is about celebrity and notoriety.

The other objections seem small issues to me, except one: the prospect of collusion.

It is tough enough to keep poker clean under normal circumstances; and the final table of the World Series of Poker is about as far from normal as poker gets. Some of us still remember the scandal from the 1997 WSOP, eleven years ago, when Adam Roberts threw the $2500 7-Card Stud event to Maria Stern, allowing Stern to claim the bracelet in exchange for the greater part of the prize money. That scandal rocked tournament poker, and that was before the days of media scrutiny. The new final table play schedule may do great things for televised poker ... but an ugly collusion scandal on a par with the Adams/Stern debacle would cause orders or magnitude more damage to the image of poker than we sustained in 1997, because of the attention of the all-seeing eye of television.

Earlier in As I Please:
World Series of Poker Registration FUBAR
Cards at WSOP Provoke Players' Revolt
WSOP Tournament Director Quits
Fiction TV

Tags: poker world series of poker wsop espn harrahs twoplustwo television televised poker media celebrity collusion cheating

What Almost Every Poker Author Gets Wrong About Starting Hand Selection in Texas Hold'em

Raise It Up! Originally uploaded by abostick59.

In just about every book about Texas Hold'em that I've read[1], the authors discuss starting hand selection in the same way: They sort starting ranges by position, starting with early position (under the gun and the next two seats, in a ten-handed game), middle position (the next three seats), late position (the cutoff seat and the button), and the blinds. Hand selection is invariably presented in that order of position. starting tight in early position, and loosening up in later and later position.

But that is directly the opposite of how hold'em players experiences multiple hands of poker. The dealer button moves clockwise each hand, and in each hand the action runs clockwise from the dealer button. After each hand, a player's position gets earlier and earlier. Rather than starting out tight and loosening up as one's position gets better, as the books recommend, a player following their recommended strategy should be playing more and more tightly as one's position gets worse and worse with each hand — until one takes the blinds and is rewarded with the dealer button and can open up one's play again.

The early-middle-late convention for outlining hand selection is an old, time-honored format. Bobby Baldwin's chapter in the original Super/System, originally published in 1978, follows the convention. I don't have a copy of it on hand to consult, but I recall John Fox's Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon (1977), about Gardena-style five-card draw, also followed the convention in its coverage of starting hand selection.

If I were to write a textbook about hold'em, which would surely include discussion of starting-hand selection, I would start with play on the button, and proceed through the earlier positions, just as players actually experience the situations about which they must make decisions.

[1] The significant exception is Gary Carson's The Complete Book of Hold 'Em Poker, which is a detailed discussion of what kind of hold'em hand is playable in what circumstance under various game conditions, and only at the end of the chapter does Carson offer a table of hands with which to open the betting under the gun.

Tags: poker holdem hand selection pedagogy poker books poker theory position

Poker Hand: Best. Call. Evar.

Over at the 2+2 Mid-Stakes Limit Hold'em forum, forum members are discussing the virtues of bluffing and thin value betting after the last card. I take the position that a player should bet for value on the river when there is enough likelihood of being called by a player with a worse hand, but that bluffing should be reserved for one's very worst hands, the ones that have no chance of winning a showdown. Game theory tells us that the size of the range of losing hands that should be bluff-bet relates to the size of the range of the hands that should be bet for value the way the bet size relates to the pot size. And there should be a wide range of hands with which a player checks and calls a bet, and a range where the right move is to check-fold.

Here is a hand I played last Thursday that illustrates bluff-betting done right. I was playing in the Oaks Club, in Emeryville, in the $15-$30 hold'em game. I was in middle position in seat 4. The player under the gun, in seat one, limped in. I squeezed my cards and saw the queen and nine of hearts, good enough for a call in this spot. I limped in, and the player in the cutoff seat raised. The player in the big blind called, under-the-gun called, and I closed the action with my call.

The flop came 8-7-6 rainbow, giving me overcards and an open-ended straight draw. The pair outs to my nine were probably no good, because they would very likely make someone else's straight. The big blind checked, under-the-gun checked. I chose to check and see how many bets I would have to pay after the preflop raiser bet. To my surprise, though, he checked after us, giving us a free look at the turn card.

That card was the deuce of spades, putting two spades on the board. Big blind checked. Now the under-the-gun player fired a bet. I called with my estimated nine outs (six straight outs, two queen outs, and spades that make my hand counted as half an out and rounded down). The preflop raiser and the big blind dropped out, leaving me head-up with the turn bettor. While the dealer burned and turned the river card, my opponent loudly said, "No spade!" The river card was the three of clubs, making the board 8-7-5-2-3, with no possible flush. My opponent bet out once more.

Now it was time for me to go into the tank. I had planned to check after him if he had checked to me, hoping that my unimproved queen-high was enough to win a pot. My opponent was a loose-agressive player who bluffs a fair amount, and sometimes makes a point of showing his bluffs. When he does show his bluffs, they are low cards that miss the flop — precisely the sort of cards one should be bluffing with, because they have no other way of winning. So I figured either my hand was way behind a strong hand like a straight, or it was very likely ahead of a pure bluff. Would the villain be bluffing more often than one time in seven in this spot? I thought it very likely.

I called the bet. "Good call," said my opponent. He didn't turn his hand over. I didn't turn mine over either. "No pair," I said. He held onto his cards. He clearly didn't want to show his hand. I turned over my unimproved queen-high. He stared for a moment, and mucked.

"You called me down with queen-high!" he said. "You didn't show me any respect at all."

"Actually I called because I do respect your play," I replied, quite sincerely, while I stacked the chips.

I described the hand later to Debbie. She paid me the wonderful compliment of saying that my call was a "Sabyl call."

Tags: poker bluffs bluffing game theory oaks holdem two plus two hand history

Where Is the Best Place to Stash Your Poker Bankroll?

image source Card Player

Poker players, at least those who play in brick-and-mortar cardrooms and casinos, usually wind up handling and keeping amounts of cash that would boggle the minds of most people who aren't initiates of the green felt.

So where should you keep your poker bankroll to avoid having it stolen?

SavingsAdvice.com presents a conversation with someone who ought to know the best place to hide money — a burglar! The anonymous burglar speaks from his experience about where he looked first for money and valuables, and where he wouldn't bother looking.

The best place to keep money, the burglar says, is a bank, of course. But if you insist on ready access to your bankroll after hours:

Your best strategy, then, is to actually leave some money in obvious places for the burglar to quickly find (the same applies if you keep all your money in the bank). This can not only save your other stash of money, but may actually keep the burglar from destroying your place as he looks for where you have hidden your money. If they believe they may have found the cash that you have in the house, they are much less likely to keep looking (remember, they want to get out asap). In the end, if you hide all your money well, you may win a moral victory in not letting the burglar find the money, but you’ll likely have much more damage done to your place that will end up costing you more in the long run....

His number one recommendation for money was in toys in a young child’s room. As he explained, young children don’t have money, they have an abundance of toys and most parents don’t trust a child around money. Therefore, parents will rarely hide money there. In addition, when money is hidden, it is usually hidden away neatly and securely — a child’s room is rarely a neat place making it an unlikely place for money to be hidden. Plus with all the stuff in a child’s room, it is not someplace that a burglar can search quickly and get out (rule #2).

If you have a safe, it should be professionally bolted down so it can’t easily be removed. If you leave some token money for the burglar to find in the places they normally look for money, then anyplace you wouldn’t normally consider a place to hide valuables will usually keep those valuables safe. The underside of trash cans, inside laundry detergent, inside false packaging (but only if the packaging appears real and is in the appropriate place - “When you find a Campbell’s soup can in the bedroom, you have a pretty good idea there is money inside”) were some examples he gave.

There's a follow-up post, Don’t Hide Money In The Toilet: More Conversation With A Burglar, in which the anonymous burglar reveals the places he always looked for valuables, because they are the usual places people with something to hide hide them. Don't hide your bankroll in: the resevoir tank for a toilet, a cereal box, anywhere in your refrigerator or freezer, or in or around your bed.

Tags: poker bankroll money hiding place burglar burglary crime safety tips security cash howto

Awe-Inspiring Poker Hand Pits Aces vs. Kings vs. Queens

Here is an amazing hand of poker from last year's broadcast of the Party Poker European Open III.

With blinds of $1K and $2k, Dennis O'Mahoney opens the action at $6K to go, holding pocket kings. Darren Hickman has pocket queens and raises $20K.. Achilleas Kallakis goes into a huddle, with pocket aces, eventually deciding to raise all-in with his stack of $66K. Two players acting afterwards fold pocket sevens and pocket fives! Now it's O'Mahoney's turn to put on his thinking cap. Eventually he folds. Hickman calls Kallakis' all-in bet, and the two see a rainbow board of 2-3-K. The turn is a 4, and the river a Q, and Hickman's rivered set of queens crack Kallakis' pocket aces. If O'Mahoney had stayed in the hand he would have won a huge pot, but he had made a good preflop fold.

Just how incredible is this hand? When you think of it, not very. The odds against being dealt pocket aces are 220:1 against. At a six handed table, you expect to see someone dealt aces slightly less often than once in every thirty-seven hands on average. The numbers are the same for kings and queens, so if you neglect card depletion effects, the probability of three players having AA, KK, and QQ are going to be somewhat less than 1/37 cubed, or about one deal in fifty thousand. (At a ten-handed table, it is more like one deal in 10,800).

Now remember that poker has been televised for some years now, and in preparing the broadcast, the producers pick out the interesting hands. AA vs. KK. vs. QQ guaranteed to be interesting, even if — perhaps especially if — one or both of the players holding KK and QQ make good laydowns before the flop. Have there been fifty thousand deals of hold'em hands dealt at tables with card-peeking cameras since the advent of televised poker? I don't know, but I would guess that the actual number is somewhere in that order of magnitude. So it isn't surprising that sometime in the recent history of televised poker this confrontation between AA, KK, and QQ took place. And it's no surprise at all that a poker buff would put it up on YouTube. If you wait long enough in poker, everything is going to happen.

Tags: poker hold'em tournament aces cracked youtube video party poker european open probability tv poker

UK Court of Appeal Rules Poker Is Not a Game of Skill

Angus MacKenzie reports for Eurosport that the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has determined that luck predominates over skill in the game of poker, and so poker is subject to the regulation of the UK's Gaming Act of 1968.

Derek Kelly was found guilty of breaking the Gaming Act because a club he operated, the Gutshot Private Members Club, charged entry fees for the Texas hold'em poker tournaments it hosted. Kelly appealed, asserting that poker is a game of skill like chess or bridge, and should be treated under the law in the same way. The Court of Appeal heard Kelly's argument, but ruled against him.

The element of skill in poker is the basis of its legality in licensed cardrooms in California.

Had the Court of Appeal ruled in Kelly's favor, this would have opened the way for private clubs to offer poker games and tournaments to their members. As it is, poker is limited to casinos licensed under the Gaming Act.

Tags: poker law court gambling gaming chance skill uk

Susie Bright Interviews Jamie Gillis

Susie Bright interviewed male porn star and director Jamie Gillis last week. That is, I think it's her interviewing him, but it seems like she did all the talking.

Gillis started making pornographic loops in 1970. Then the porn movie business exploded in the seventies (the "Golden Age"), and exploded again into videocassettes in the eighties. He invented the "Gonzo" genre of porn in 1990 with his video On the Prowl.

SB: For those people who don't know, what is gonzo? What did you want gonzo to be?

JG: All I wanted to do was just go out into the streets and meet people. Bring a girl out – maybe to a dirty bookstore or something — and just throw her to the wolves.

SB: Your first movie in that style was "On the Prowl." You took a pretty girl out and she said, "I'll fuck whoever wants to if you'll let us tape it." A lot of people will think everyone jumped at the chance. But of course, they didn't! There was a lot of tension. People were afraid of being conned, or that it wasn't real, or that she would cut their balls off in some crazy... There's this tension that they don't know if they can trust you with their nuts.

JG: It's a very unusual offer. Sure!

SB: (Laughing) Yes it is!

And in the late nineties, Gillis was a regular in the Oaks Club, playing (what else?) seven-card stud. That was where I met him and played against him from time to time. It's been a few years since I've seen him, but Susie Bright explains why in passing: he is living in New York now.

I got search hits a few days ago for "jamie gillis poker." It turns out that someone was asking about him on 2+2. According to rumor, he is now a poker pro. That's funny – he wasn't that good a player when I knew him. But then again, neither was I.

(via Xeni Jardin at Boing Boing)

Best. Poker Dream. Evar.

Alan Jaffray, in a Terrence Chan's LiveJournal, tells of a dream he had about playing a novel form of triple-draw lowball at the World Series of Poker:

I've never played live triple draw outsider of ARG events.

I had a nightmare about it, actually. I'd satellited into the $50K HORSE, but showed up a couple hours late, just in time for the triple draw round which had been added at the last minute. Instead of shuffling and dealing standard cards, the dealer gave each player a wooden box containing steamed buns over cabbage, the underside of the buns displaying the card value. I managed to use the provided spatula to peek at my bun-cards, but fumbled while preparing my discards - one of them broke open and my hand was declared dead. Then I woke up.

I'm reasonably sure this is not, in fact, a procedure commonly in use in live triple draw games.

(via Mason Kong)

"I'd Do Her" Journalism in Poker

Patti Beadles has been a Net citizen for at least a decade and a half, so she is much more practiced at dealing with this sort of thing than, say, Alison Stokke.

But the fact that she has the right stuff to handle it is still no excuse for the sort of coverage Aaron Hendrix is providing at PokerPages.com of the Ladies' World Champion No-Limit Hold'em Event at the World Series of Poker:

My future wife #2

Sunday, 10th of June 2007 01:45 PM

(Aaron Hendrix reporting)

I'm sorry Shannon (who is playing by the way), but I have to break up with you. I've always wanted a woman with neon pink hair. If I got a strobe light it would be like psychedelic man.

That's a little less tacky than saying, "I'd hit that," but not by much.

Poker still has a Boy's Club atmosphere — check out the user icons on the 2+2 forums — but when you're representing poker to the world, you really shouldn't put that face forward, especially when covering the women's tournament.[1] Aaron Hendrix loses extra style points for threatening in public to dump his girlfriend for someone hotter (as Lynn Kendall just pointed out to me while I was talking this post out with her).

[1] Of course, the very concept of a segregated "Ladies" tournament is deeply problematic, but it's been a tradition of the WSOP almost from the beginning.

(via Keith Fichtmaier posting in Patti's LiveJournal)

Harrah's (Partially) Un-Bars Richard Brodie

Harrah's management has relaxed its ban of Richard "Quiet Lion" Brodie from Harrah's properties, and Brodie can play in the World Series of Poker:

Thanks to the quiet diplomacy of WSOP commissioner Jeffrey Pollack and to many of my fellow poker players vouching for my character, Harrah’s has decided to allow me to play in the remainder of the WSOP and lifted the ban on my entering their properties. I’m still learning the details of why this was handled this way but it’s looking more and more like a big mistake. As usual everyone at Harrah’s was friendly and professional. I will post more details as they become available but I can now eat at the buffet without fear of arrest.

(via Spencer Sun)

World Series of Poker Registration FUBAR

ADB Fold'em wanted to play in the first event at the World Series of Poker, the $500 Casino Employees tournament on Friday, June .. He did everything right: registered in advance on the WSOP Web site, sent in a cashier's check for entry fee payment, and got a confirmation. It ought to have been straightforward for him to get his seat assignment, sit down, and play. It wasn't:

Now I get in line. The line does not move. Many folks are just walking up to their buds and joining the line in that manner. After an hour, the line has moved maybe 20 feet. We are assured by a Harrah's employee that "We'll come get you if it gets close", sort of like the airlines do to get folks through security in time to make their flights. OK.

Another hour passes. The line has moved maybe another 40 feet. Several of us in line point out to a Harrah's employee that we have preregistered and we ask if there isn't some other place we should go, rather than in the main line. The employee then says "Let me go find out, I'll be right back." This from 3 or 4 different employees. None ever return. I am becoming concerned about the speed of things. I can see that the line, which is 3-4 abreast in the hallway becomes about 10-12 abreast as it makes the turn toward the tourney area. A co-worker from CSP comes by. Apparently he stood in line for 4 hours that morning and has his seat. He offers to go into the tourney area and try to find out if there are alternatives. He returns and says I should get in a line inside the tourney area. OK.

I get in the new line inside the area, jumping maybe 500 others. Now I can see the cashiers' windows as folks register. The lines into the windows are not single file, but about 2-3 abreast, so it's difficult to detect any line movement in this new line either. It appears to take about 5 minutes for each person at the cashier. It's announced that the event is being put back an hour to 6PM. OK.

My line doesn't move at all. There are at least 40 people in front of me headed for the the one cashier at the end of our line. Hundreds of others are also waiting in line. The loudspeaker announces that players should take their seats, the event is starting. A massive chorus of boos erupts from all of us still trying to get to the cashier. Despite help from a friend who works for Harrah's, who tried to get me on a faster line, I could see I was more than an hour away from getting a seat. At 6:45, having stood on line for 4 1/2 hours, I finally gave up and left. NOT OK.

The WSOP has begun. Are we having fun yet?

Harrah's Bars Richard 'Quiet Lion' Brodie from Its Properties

Harrah's Entertainment has barred high-stakes poker and video poker player Richard "Quiet Lion" Brodie from all its properties in California, Nevada, and Arizona. This effectively 86es Brodie from the World Series of Poker as well.

On May 10, Harrah’s sent certified letters to several high rollers informing them that their business was no longer wanted at Caesars Palace or any of the other Harrah’s properties in Nevada, California, and Arizona. I was one of them. I called the office of Tom Jenkins, regional vice president, and got a call back from Terry Byrnes, the VP of customer service. He told me I was being 86ed because they couldn't figure out how to make a profit off me.

What happened is that Brodie got lucky: He hit two royal flushes on a $300-per-pull full-pay Deuces Wild video poker machine at Caesar's Palace last April. He also hit quad deuces twice on the same machine.

If you play video poker, you know that these things happen from time to time. You also know that you can go on long dry spells between hot streaks like this. Brodie adds:

I hit four huge royal flushes in the last year at three of the Las Vegas Harrah’s properties. Not surprisingly, I’m ahead, although I’ve put 80% of it back. This seems to rub them the wrong way. But I have trouble imagining the thought process that would cause someone to decide that kicking out one of your most loyal customers is an appropriate solution to the problem of him having extremely good luck. If they think the machines are too loose, make them tighter. If they think they are giving me too much in comps, give less. They control every aspect of the game. Except luck. And kicking out players who have been lucky makes about as much sense as banning people from playing the lottery because they win it.

Reactions to lucky streaks in video poker are not unique to Harrah's, but the usual response is to cut down on the promotional offers to players who aren't losing as much as they hoped. Even that is potentially unsound business: lucky players get unlucky and you want them to be at your place when that happens.

If it weren’t for the WSOP, I’d laugh about this rather than cry. I don’t think they’re trying to punish me, I just think they don’t understand their business and are compounding one costly mistake – offering way too much in comps and incentives to video-poker players – with another.

Yes, that's right: Brodie is barred from all Harrah's properties, not just the casino floors; and Harrah's hosts the World Series of Poker. Brodie is being unjustly punished for honest play in the face of bad judgment by Harrah's casino hosts. It doesn't even compare to counting cards in blackjack!.

When I named Brodie the most hated player in poker, I was joking. He simply doesn't deserve this. Harrah's management is being idiotic. They certainly don't need bad publicity from dumb moves like this when the WSOP is off to such a rocky start.

(via Spencer Sun)

Jim Geary's Monopoly Game for Poker Players

Jim Geary recasts the Monopoly game board for poker players:

Go	= Day Job Paycheck, skim $200 for poker
Mediterranean Avenue	= Paul Phillips
Community Chest	= Get Layne another Jack and Coke, receive $25 toke for services
Baltic Avenue	= Barbara Enright
Income Tax	= Neteller takes 10% of your bankroll
Reading Railroad	= Puggy
Oriental Avenue	= Phil Hellmuth, Jr
Chance	= Pay Poor Tax: Toke Floorman $15
Vermont Avenue	= Amir Vehidi
Connecticut Avenue	= Mensky
Jail (just visiting)	= visiting Matusow

Etc. ...

Read the whole thing.

Cards at WSOP Provoke Players' Revolt

photo credit: PokerWorks

Poker Players at the World Series of Poker are extremely dissatisfied with the decks of cards that were especially commissioned for the tournament series.

The United States Playing Card Co. produced the special decks for Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., which hosts the WSOP at the Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. The decks feature large rank indices without suit pips in the opposite corners to traditional card designs, and "Poker Peek" indices in the traditional corners. Suit pips on the face of the card are reduced in size, making it difficult for players to distinguish between suits of the same color.

PokerWorks quoted 2005 World Champion Greg Raymer as saying "There is no way any poker player has played with these cards before today." Players during the first event of the weeks-long tournament series chanted, "New cards! New cards!" An unnamed Harrah's executive claimed that players in the high-stakes cash games refused to play with the new card designs.

photo credit: PokerWorks

Harrah's and U.S. Playing Card executives are scrambling to replace the unsatisfactory decks. A truck with 300 replacement decks is on its way to the Rio. Supposedly, USPC was to produce a total of 18,000 decks of cards for delivery to Harrah's over the course of the WSOP. Aborting production of the newly designed cards cannot be coming cheap.

The WSOP was already opening under a cloud due to the sudden departure of tournament director Robert Daily two weeks ago. It remains to be seen whether Harrah's staffers remaining can overcome the challenges they are facing and run a successful tournament series. The success of the WSOP is the success of poker, and so poker enthusiasts are hoping the WSOP is a success.

(via Spencer Sun)

WSOP Tournament Director Quits

WSOP Tournament Director Daily Resigns Two Weeks Before Events Begin

WSOP Director Leaves Harrahs Accepts Post with DG Holdings, Ltd.

Contact: DG Holdings, Ltd., 702-575-0808, info@dgholdings.co.uk, Additional release(s) forthcoming, Photos available upon request

UNITED KINGDOM / LAS VEGAS, May 17 /Standard Newswire/ -- DG Holdings, Ltd. (DGH) has announced that Robert Daily, former World Series of Poker Tournament and Events Director has agreed to become a member of the DG Holdings board, leading the company's online gaming platform division.

DGH is a privately-held, international investment group with offices in Europe, Asia Pacific and South East Asia. The DGH gaming division was formed more than four years ago to develop a state-of-the-art gaming platform that enables fully-integrated, on-line gaming operations.

Mr. Daily leaves Harrah's after 11 years in various capacities. During his tenure, he served as the 2005 WSOP Event Manager and 2006 WSOP Tournament Director. Bob received the prestigious 2007 Chairman's Award for his efforts.

"I have greatly enjoyed my years with Harrah's, and especially the World Series of Poker," said Daily, who was again appointed as the upcoming 2007 WSOP Event Director before announcing his departure. "I have every confidence this year's WSOP will run smoothly and efficiently and if I did not feel strongly that the tournament was ready, I would not have left at this time.

"After my resignation, DGH approached me to join their group as a board member to provide leadership to their online gaming platform – especially poker – and I couldn't pass up the opportunity. I have made many great friends within the poker industry and I look forward to working with them in the future from a different perspective."

Robopoker, who watches the news a lot more closely than I do, points out the detail that Daily resigned before DG Holdings hired him. Something is rotten in the state of Harrahs.

(Whatever you think of bots in poker, his blog is a good one, and other poker bloggers should show Robopoker some link-love.)

Behavioral Study Suggests Japanese and Americans Look at Faces Differently

LiveScience.com reports that research by a Japanese behavioral scientist strongly suggests that how people look at faces is culturally determined.

Masaki Yuki of Hokkaido University was inspired by the different styles of emoticons in the United States ( :-) and :-( ) and in Japan ( (^_^) and (;_;) ).

Prof. Yuki's research indicates that Japanese people tend to take emotional cues from faces by concentrating attention on the eyes, while Americans tend to look at mouths.

(Those of you who have taken the "Spot the Fake Smile" test should now be aware that involvement of facial muscles around the eyes is the giveaway of a real smile.

Yuki's finding that people of different cultures read faces differently is a challenge to the underpinnings of Paul Ekman's Facial Action Coding System. Ekman asserts that the emotional meaning of facial expression is pan-cultural. If people of different cultures perceive facial meaning differently, though, how can it be said at all that the inner emotional meanings are the same?

I'll leave that one for the semioticists to duke out, and move on to the takeaway for poker players: Sunglasses matter.

(via Boing Boing)

More Poker Bot Accusations on Full Tilt from Two Plus Two Forum Members

The $200-maximum-buyin no-limit hold'em games on Full Tilt Poker aren't the only games where players suspect bots are playing.

Posters to a thread on the Mid-High Stakes Shorthanded Limit Hold'em forum on TwoPlusTwo.com name a number of players whom they suspect to be bots that play in the heads-up (one-on-one) tables at limits ranging from $15-$30 to $200-$400. Once again the players named have remarkably similar Poker Tracker statistics. And they never seem to play each other, although they appear to be willing to play some of the players with strong reputations and winning track records.

The bot accusations come from Destroy the Poker Bots, a site that lists player handles on Ultimate Bet, Full Tilt, and Absolute Poker. (There's a page for PokerStars, but the list is empty.) The site is run by a 2+2 user with the handle MrGatorade. MrGatorade does not currently explain his criteria for including a player on his lists.

Why should you care about possible bots playing at heads-up tables? Here's what 2+2er Gildwulf has to say:

The amount of money going into the Full Tilt HU economy is extremely limited. It doesn't matter if you can beat a bot for 0.25bb/100 if his "exploitable" strategy is raping the fish 100 hours a week for 2bb/100. One bot is annoying; a dozen bots and that is a significant amount of money taken out of an economy that is not big enough to handle that kind of fish farming.

NB: Heads-up poker is the form of the game where bots are the most formidable, in which mathematical analysis and game theory can make a programmed player's game virtually unassailable.

Bot Scandal at Full Tilt Poker

Robopoker reports on a poker bot scandal at Full Tilt Poker that has spawned a discussion on TwoPlusTwo.com that has more than 1700 replies over four days.

2+2 user SukitTrebek's Poker Tracker hand history database revealed to him that a number of regular players in the Full Tilt $200 no-limit hold'em games are very likely bots. SukitTrebek carefully gathered evidence — including playing against the supposed bots and repeatedly taking advantage of giant holes in their game, until, first, the bot programmer apparently manually took over when SukitTrebek and the bot were head-up, and second, the bots would leave the table whenever SukitTrebek joined a game they were in.

SukitTrebek presented his evidence to Full Tilt's management, and kept goosing them from time to time. They asked him, in order to help their internal investigation, to not go public with his accusaution while their investigation went on.

The alleged bots disappeared from Full Tilt. Some weeks later, SukitTrebek received email from FullTilt saying that the investigation was complete. Not long after that, the bots reappeared! SukitTrebek went public on 2+2's Internet poker forum early Wednesday morning, and the thread exploded.

Late on Thursday, 2+2 user FTPSean, identifying himself as a representative of Full Tilt Poker, started a new thread:

After doing our due diligence in this case, we came to the following determinations:

• During the investigation we found the evidence to be inconclusive in supporting either determination (human or bot).
• After careful consideration, the evidence did not warrant the seizure of funds and permanent account closure.
• We stand by our decision. Having said that, re-opening an account after an investigation such as this one does not mean we have made an irreversible decision. We will continue to reevaluate this situation.

I particularly like the third bullet point in all its weaselly, waffly glory; We stand by our decision ... We will continue to reevaluate this situation. Robopoker says Full Tilt management is in "damage control mode."

Two things stand out to me from this story;

First, the bot operator is not terribly bright. If I were running a profitable bot on a poker site, and I had just had my account locked down and then reopened, I would not celebrate by firing up my bot at full capacity again. I think I would draw down my bankroll and lay low for a while.

Secondly, it is really surprising that this bot wins any money over time... except that the evidence is clear that it does. It was found out because the Poker Tracker data for a number of tight-aggressive players was uncannily identical, statistic for statistic. Robopoker claims that his own bots' statistics don't converge anywhere near that closely, because his pays attention to board texture and opponent playing style. SukitTrebek thinks this guy is not a very good poker player, but has stumbled into a formula for playing that is good enough to beat the games ... for now.

How can a bot that can't adjust to opponents still make money? That's easy: Mike Caro's Law of Least Tilt. A bot never tilts, It wins or loses according to the fall of the cards and the basic strength or weakness of its algorithm. Real human players almost invariably go on tilt — lose their psychological balance and play badly, perhaps without even realizing it. Tilt is responsible for a noticeable fraction of many players' losses. Bots don't tilt; and so a bot is going to have an edge against a human player who uses the same strategy as the bot.

Yahoo! Offers Real-Money Online Poker in Europe

Internet giant Yahoo! is offering online poker games for money to European customers. Yahoo! is in partnership with Gibraltar firm St. Miniver, Ltd., offering a branded user interface (or "skin," in online poker jargon) on the International Poker Network, owned by Swedish firm Boss Media AB. Customers can access Yahoo! poker through the firms yahoo.co.uk portal.

This is a huge change in the weather for online poker. Yahoo! is a titan among online brands. I imagine it is only a matter of time before other major Internet brands follow suit. The Gaming Intelligence Group, a firm that offers news and analysis of the online gambling industry, hints that eBay, Google, and Microsoft are likely prospects. (Historically, eBay is anti-gambling as well as anti-sex. The online payment service PayPal had been the main line of funding for Internet poker sites before it was acquired by eBay, but after the acquisition eBay swiftly pulled the plug.)

The news of Yahoo!'s entry into the online poker business broke concurrently with the news that Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass) had introduced the Internet Gambling Regulation & Enforcement Act 2007, legislation that would repeal last year's Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and provide for the regulation and taxation of online gambling in the USA. The UIGEA had a drastic impact on US players ability to play online poker, with most sites, including giant Party Poker, withdrawing from the US market.

(via Robopoker)

Unbeatable Strategy for Roshambo

Online poker site UltimateBet has just added Roshambo — the ancient game of rock-paper-scissors — to its repertoire of online competitive games for money.

My referral logs tell me that a lot of people are looking for a strategy to win at Roshambo. Here is my own unbeatable strategy for online Roshambo:

Take a six-sided die (d6). Each time you throw, roll the die. Choose your throw according to this chart:

1. rock
2. paper
3. scissors
4. rock
5. paper
6. scissors

This is a truly unbeatable strategy — using it, no opponent will be able to get any edge over you.

Alternatively if the circumstances are right, you may be able to use Eric Cartman's strategy for winning Roshambo.

But maybe you shouldn't be playing Roshambo online at all: UltimateBet is charging a 10% rake of the money wagered for each Roshambo match or sit-n-go.

Rock crushes Scissors, Scissors cuts Paper, and Paper covers Rock. But Rake beats all of the rest, over time.

Genderqueer Poker SF Erotica by Hanne Blank

Hanne Blank celebrated International Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Day by publishing on her Web site the hot (but PG-rated) story "A Game of Cards."

The plot of this work genderqueer poker science fiction erotica hinges on the play of a hand of Texas hold'em. And the plot is structured like a hand of hold'em. It's a nice piece of writing. It's completely safe-for-work; and at the same time it's really hot. Read it.

(via Debbie Notkin)

RoboPoker - New Blog Describes Using Bots at Online Poker Sites

There's a new poker blog in town: RoboPoker: My Life as an Online Poker Robot.

RoboPoker has been posting frequently since he started last Tuesday. Here's his first post:

Who I am.

I am a professional poker player. Over time, I will reveal as many details as I can in regards to the limits I play and the income I make, but suffice it to say that I make a very comfortable living via online poker. Yes, I run a "war room" of online poker-bots that do not tilt, sleep, or anguish over the tough calls.

I will not:

• Help you make your own bot.
  
• Sell you mine.
  
• Reveal any information that I think will endanger my income as a professional 'bot player.
  

I will:

• Offer an honest perspective of online poker from my unusual point of view.
  
• Post news items of interest to poker players of all types.
  
• Offer poker topics for discussion of interest to the bot coder/game theorist/mathmatical player
  

Now, I realize that I will be hated by most that would bother to respond to, or even read this blog. All I ask is that you give me a bit of time. As you learn the truth behind the paranoia, you'll find you have very little to fear.

I am not as afraid of poker bots as some people are. They are against the rules of essentially all online poker sites, so they are certainly "cheating," at least technically. Naive players seem to be terribly afraid of bots, thinking that they will be fleeced by these machines. I often wonder why they don't feel the same way about skilled flesh-and-blood players.

From the skilled player's point of view, especially from the professional player's point of view, bots are a bad idea primarily because of their unlimited potential to multiply. If a substantial fraction of the players online are well-programmed bots, then competition for the easy money of the bad players becomes tougher. It is in the flesh-and-blood pros' interests to keep the number of bots down.

It is in the interest of the poker sites' owners to keep the number of bots down to the extent that players perceive bots as a threat.

Personally, I welcome the RoboPoker blog and the player behind it. Whatever you think of the ethics of automated poker play online, sunlight is better than shadow. I would much rather have RoboPoker posting openly than only sharing the secrets of poker bots among a secret cabal, or remaining silent. People who care about online poker should read this blog, and learn.

The Most Hated Player in Poker

Who is the most hated player in poker?

Is it Phil Hellmuth, Jr., known for his temper and his arrogance, who was chosen as the most disliked player in a poll at Games-Poker.biz? Is it Josh Arieh, who showed no class at the final table of the Big Dance at the 2004 WSOP, broadcast on ESPN to a worldwide audience? Barry Shulman? Sam Grizzle? Dutch Boyd?

My pick for the poker player who is hated by the most people is Richard Brodie. He plays online at Full Tilt using the handle "Quiet Lion." He writes a blog, Lion Tales, that describes his life as a poker pro.

I've played with him a couple of times online at Full Tilt. He is polite and well-mannered, responding amiably to the people who talk to him about his notorious past.

But what is this notorious past, you might ask, and why is he hated?

Richard Brodie was employee #77 at Microsoft, hired in 1981, to join the small but growing firm's four-person Application Division. After writing a p-code C compiler that Microsoft would use for multiple-platform development of its applications, Brodie went on to create a word-processing program, intended to have a user interface compatible with Microsoft's new spreadsheet program, Multiplan.

Brodie's word processor was called Microsoft Word.

In every office in every business across the land, and in countless homes as well, you don't have to wait very long before you hear a cry of anguish and the exclamation, "I hate Word!" from people who have never heard of Phil Hellmuth, never saw Josh Arieh's bad sportsmanship on ESPN, and don't know Barry Shulman from Adam. Millions of computers work like demonic prayer wheels at gigahertz clock speeds, all adding ill-will and resentment to Richard Brodie's karmic burden.

Compared to that, Phil Hellmuth is a piker.

Statistical Properties of Poker Tournaments

People are starting to talk about a paper soon to be published about the statistics of stack sizes and player counts in poker tournaments.

Clément Sire, a French physicist as well as a poker player, noticed some patterns about stack size and number of chip leaders while playing in online tournaments. He developed a toy game and derived statistical properties from a tournament model based on that toy game that appear to match well the statistics of actual tournament results. The chip leader's stack size, apparently, scales with the logarithm of the number of players. Chip leader stack size, Sire found, is governed by the Gumbel distribution, a probability distribution that describes the maximum of some varying property: the hottest day in August in Oakland, for example, or the maximum level of a river during flooding season.

Sire's statistical model of poker tournaments can be used to predict the number of players over time, given the starting number of players, their starting stack size, and rate of increase of blinds and antes. As such, it can very likely be applied by tournament directors to optimize tournament structures, a task hitherto best done by Tex Morgan's TEARS (Tournament Evaluation And Rating System).

(via Tom Bayes and Gramina)

FBI Investigates Second Life for Online Gambling

Quoth Reuters:

FBI checks out gambling in 'Second Life'

FBI investigators have visited Second Life's Internet casinos at the invitation of the virtual world's creator Linden Lab, but the U.S. government has not decided on the legality of virtual gambling.

"We have invited the FBI several times to take a look around in Second Life and raise any concerns they would like, and we know of at least one instance that federal agents did look around in a virtual casino," said Ginsu Yoon, until recently Linden Lab's general counsel and currently vice president for business affairs.

Second Life is a popular online virtual world with millions of registered users and its own economy and currency, known as the Linden dollar, which can be exchanged for U.S. dollars. ...

Hundreds of casinos offering poker, slot machines and blackjack can easily be found in Second Life. While it is difficult to estimate the total size of the gambling economy in Second Life, the three largest poker casinos are earning profits of a modest $1,500 each per month, according to casino owners and people familiar with the industry.

The surge in Second Life gambling coincides with a crackdown in the real world by the U.S. government, which has arrested executives from offshore gambling Web sites.

Most lawyers agree that placing bets with Linden dollars likely violates U.S. antigambling statutes, which cover circumstances in which "something of value" is wagered. But the degree of Linden Lab's responsibility, and the likelihood of a crackdown, is uncertain.

"That's the risk; we have a set of unknowns, and we don't know how they're going to play out," said Brent Britton, an attorney specializing in emergent technology at the law firm Squire Sanders & Dempsey in Tampa, Fla.

Britton said Linden Lab could face criminal charges under the 1970 Illegal Gambling Business Act or the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The latter law, passed last year, takes aim at credit card companies and other electronic funds transfers that enable Internet gambling. ...

"It's not always clear to us whether a 3D simulation of a casino is the same thing as a casino, legally speaking, and it's not clear to the law enforcement authorities we have asked," Yoon said.

About Ginsu Yoon's curious statement in the last graf quoted, Mark Gritter, who pointed us to this story, has this to say:

Where has he been? Does he think the government has been cracking down on sports betting sites because they're too dumb to label themselves "simulations" of sports betting? Does somebody at the Justice Department actually see a difference between a 3-D simulation of a poker room and, well, an online poker room?

I can only agree with Mark here.

Poker Geeks Gone Wild at the European Poker Tour Grand Final

At the European Poker Tour Grand Final in Monte Carlo, on Saturday night Dusk Till Dawn held a lavish party, and Suffolk Punch Poker was there. Who was that doing a pole dance, baring their chest at the crowd's encouragement?

Bill Chen explains:

What really happened: There was a fairly wild (by US standards) party at Black Diamond in Monte Carlo. There was a stage and pole thing next to the dance floor. Of course the local hotties where dancing on stage (you see pictures of them).

So during one break the left the stage empty while the music was playing. Since I was close to the stage I got up there and started dancing suggestively with the pole. Encouraged by the crowd I started taking my shirt off. It just so happened most of the poker media were at this event so they had video and camera.

There's video, too? I hope it makes it onto YouTube.

(via Spencer Sun)

Old Card Mechanic Video by John Scarne

Mark Frauenfelder at Boing Boing points us to this vintage video, "Cheating in Gambling," featuring legendary card mechanic and poker authority John Scarne.

Remember The Sting? During the railroad poker game sequence, when Paul Newman's character Henry Gondorff was manipulating the deck of cards, the closeups were of Scarne's hands.

Frauendfelder claims that Scarne was his great uncle. Small world.

Lowball Wiki

Mark Gritter has just added a Lowball Wiki to his LowballGurus Web site. As of this writing it's a blank slate, with the only content being the introductory main page and a link to Wikipedia's entry on badugi.

Welcome to the lowball Wiki! This site is dedicated to the discussion of lowball games, including Triple Draw Lowball, Badugi, California Lowball, Razz, and Kansas City Lowball. In the future we hope to have theory discussions, hand histories with commentary, articles and article commentary, book reviews, site reviews, and other interesting content.

Where Are They Now?

Tom Bayes writes on LiveJournal:

Remember at the end of "Animal House" when we were told the future of several of the main characters (e.g. Senator and Mrs. John Blutarsky, Lt. Niedermayer killed by his own troops in Vietnam). Well, since online poker is coming to a crashing end, we need to know the future of our favorite poker personalities:

Chris Moneymaker: Opened sportsbar in Knoxville, TN. Jailed for running a Super Bowl "squares" pool.

Greg Raymer: Took a job as a park ranger at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument in Colorado. Rebuilt bankroll in the $5 games at Cripple Creek and Black Hawk....

Read the rest

Birth of a Card Shark

Yesterday I went down into the basement and dragged out the trunk where I keep a bunch of old papers, so I could bring to light the notebooks where I kept a diary from 1977 to 1980. I've been reading them from the beginning, finding them compelling despite their jejeune character. (I have what is perhaps an unhealthy appetite for my own writing, be it journal entries, old Usenet posts archived on Google Groups, or blog posts.)

Here is what I wrote about my first big win at poker. It takes place at SunCon, the World Science Fiction Convention held over Labor Day weekend in 1977 in Miami Beach, Florida. I was eighteen years old. It took place on Friday night and Saturday morning, September 2-3, 1977.

Later, I ran into Mike [Glicksohn] once more. He and a small entourage were going to their rooms to pick up money and cards for a poker game. I decided to join them, picked up a couple of bottles of Guinness from my room, and we all went up to one of the suites on the 14th floor [of the Fontainebleau Hotel]. Mike went off for a while to make a phone call, and when he got back the game began.

I had originally intended to spend not more than $5 in the game. This was the first all night poker game I had been to, and I fully expected to have bad luck. However, at one point there was no limit placed on the pot, so the betting was high. My cards were reasonably good, so I stayed in. I won the hand, to my relief (I was risking too much for my comfort). The game continued at the quarter or dime ante level for a while, then the stakes went up again, and I won again. This happened one more time, and I cleaned out Mike's money, leaving me with an IOU of $24.50 from him. We played at the dime level for the rest of the evening, and we quit at 5 AM. My total winnings were ~$150.

Mike Glicksohn was the only person named in my diary, but if memory serves, Ted Pauls was also in the game. And maybe Ron Bounds...?

That win was the high water mark of my poker career, until I began playing public cardroom poker twenty years later, in 1997.

Online Poker Is Rigged!

Internet discussion forums have been torn by debates about the integrity of online poker sites since the advent of Internet gambling. At last, Bill's Blog has proof has been found that online poker is rigged!

This blow-up of a game at Party Poker clearly shows the computerized dealer dealing from the bottom of the deck!!!1!

(via TheRonin on 2+2)

Jamie Gold Wins the Big Dance

Quoth Card Player:

Jamie Gold raises to $1,700,000 and Paul Wasicka makes the call. The flop comes Qc8h5h. Paul Wasicka bets $1,500,000 and Jamie Gold moves all in. Wasicka calls and shows 10h10s. However, Gold turns over Qs9c for a pair of queens. The turn is the Ad and the river is the 4c.

Paul Wasicka is eliminated from the tournament in 2nd place and earns $6,102,499.

Jamie Gold wins the $10,000 Main Event, the bracelet and $12,000,000.

My friend Sabyl Cohen busted out in 56th place, well into the money. She was the last woman remaining in this year's field.

Real Live Poker-Playing Preacher

In Tomball, Texas, a suburb of Houston, reports SF Gate, a Baptist minister named Ken Shuman has an unusual ministry. Quoth David Ian Miller in SF Gate:

[Shuman is] now the general manager of Main Street Crossing, a popular coffee shop and live-music venue in Tomball, Texas, that has become a kind of Christian community center. By day, it's just a coffee house. But on nights and weekends several ministries, including Shuman's Wellspring Church, hold their worship services there. They also run a host of activities, including discussion groups and poker games three nights a week.

"The idea is mostly to provide a fun place to hang out," Shuman says. "We don't do heavy evangelism." Still, he adds, it's often easier to connect with the faithful over a round of Texas hold 'em than from behind a conventional pulpit.

Shuman was an ordinary Baptist preacher who led an ordinarily successful congregation when he had a crisis of faith. He left his church and eventually found a place at Main Street Crossing, a coffee house that serves beer and wine, with live performance space that is available both for music group bookings and Christian fellowship meetings.

I've heard that you tell people that despite being a pastor, you will "whup their ass" at poker. Is that true?

(Laughs) I don't know where you got that quote from, but the thing is, well, I told you I was a success junkie. So whatever I do, I want to do it well. And so I decided after the first night of poker that I had to learn how to play simply because there were people there, and I'm trying to connect with people, and what better way than to sit down at a table for three hours with a group of people and play cards?

So I started reading books and learned how to play poker at a pretty good level. And actually, as of last week, I am the point leader for the league that plays at our place.

And how do your new visitors respond to an ass-whupping, poker-playing pastor?

You know, most typical church people look at me like: "You left this nice big church to come do this? And now you're drinking beer and playing poker? You've lost the faith." And I just have to live with all that. I'm not worried about impressing the church people. What I'm worried about, or what I'm most concerned with, is just connecting with these people that play poker.

And I feel like I pastor all of them. I know about when they are going in the hospital, I know about the surgeries they have, I know about their marital problems, because they have begun to see me as a pastor that they can trust.

I think the biggest issue out there today for a lot of folks is they just don't think there is anybody they can trust with their stuff. They think he's gonna preach to me, or just tell me to come to church or pray a little harder and everything will be fixed. I believe we're all broken people. We're just broken in different places, and we all have addictions, and that we just need to come clean with all that and say: "Life is a journey, and faith is a journey. Wherever you are in that journey, let's journey together, and maybe we can help each other as we go."

My understanding is that gambling isn't approved of by Southern Baptists. Do your poker games include gambling?

No. They don't. It's just a league. The players don't pay to play. And there can be no exchanging of money at any of our sessions. If we did, we would lose our license – our beer and wine license – and feasibly they could shut us down, and feasibly they could haul me to jail.

Another Bracelet for Bill Chen

Bill Chen has won a second WSOP bracelet, in the $2,500 short-handed no-limit hold'em event.

Bill is in a solid first place in the WSOP best all-around player standings. Even if he doesn't make any more showing for the rest of the WSOP, he will have made his mark and is on the board as an important tournament player. He will surely be on TV, make the cover of Card Player, et cetera. Which leads me to wonder:

Is celebrity poker ready for Bill Chen?

Friends of Bill C.

I met Debbie at the Oaks Club tonight because, on a rare free Wednesday evening so that we could play in the evening hold'em tournament. Something unusual was in the air.

"You're a friend of Bill's, right?" Dan Huseman asked me when I sat down in the 15-30 game before the tournament. Ummm, no, I've never even been to a meeting.

No, he wasn't talking about Bill W., co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous and the Twelve Step movement. Instead, he was referring to Bill Chen, who Tuesday won the $3,000 Limit Hold'em event at the World Series of Poker.

Bill has been a long-time poster to rec.gambling.poker. I first met him when he came to the home game I hosted for a while. There was a period of time, before he moved to Philadelphia to work for a financial trading company, when Bill dominated the Oaks' Wednesday and Sunday tournaments.

But there's more: Oaks Club regulars pwned the $3K limit hold'em event – casino manager Larry Thomas made the final table also, eventually making 6th place.

Congratulations to Bill Chen on winning his first WSOP bracelet. I'm sure it won't be his last.

(But no joy for either me or Deb in tonight's tournament, alas.)

Puggy Pearson 1929-2006

Legendary poker player Walter Clyde "Puggy" Pearson died on Wednesday, April 12.

Puggy Pearson grew up in a working poor family in Tennessee. He enlisted in the US Navy at the age of 16, and he honed his cardplaying skills while he was in the service. After his discharge, he followed the white line in the middle of the highway from game to game during the heyday of the Texas road gamblers. Such players as Amarillo Slim Preston, Doyle Brunson and "Sailor" Roberts were his peers.

Pearson wasn't just a poker player, but a multitalented game player. He was, among other things, a world-class pool player. He had a slogan, which he had painted on the side of the RV that he drove in his later years:

I'll play any man from any land any game he can name for any amount he can count. (Providing I like it!)

Pearson supposedly passed his notion of a freezeout – a game where everyone buys in for a fixed amount and plays until one player has all the money – was adopted by Benny Binion for the fledgeling World Series of Poker during its second year in 1971. Consequently, some people call Pearson the father of tournament poker. Pearson himself won his WSOP world championship bracelet in 1973.

I only played with Puggy once, in a cash game at Binion's Horseshoe during the 2003 WSOP. It was a forced-move feeder game into another forced-move feeder game, and the brush was quite busy. Puggy kindly told me, soon after I sat down, to make sure that the brush knew I was in the game, to preserve my position on the forced-move list.

(via buckeyebrain on the LiveJournal's Poker community)

Phil Hellmuth Jumps the Shark

Phill Hellmuth vs. Bill Fillmaff

The tagline is "One has the nuts. The other is nuts." The promoters coyly don't tell us which one is which.

(Click here if you are wondering precisely who is Bill Fillmaff.)

The Law of Unintended Consequences

The New York City transit workers' strike has had an unusual effect: it appears to have sent online poker playing through the roof.

DeviatedNorm posts to LiveJournal's WTF, Inc. community a press release from the publicist of online poker site Doyle's Room:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact: Kevin Manning
212-999-5585
kmanning@5wpr.com

MTA TRANSIT STRIKE RESULTS IN RECORD ONLINE POKER NUMBERS

Online Poker Site DoylesRoom.com Sees Record Amount of Players During Early Stages of MTA Transit Strike

December 20, New York – It is only mid-afternoon, but already internet poker site DoylesRoom.com is seeing record numbers online in the New York City metro area. It appears, due to this mornings New York City transit strike, many commuters are staying home from work and playing poker online.

Normal peak hours for online poker are between 8pm EST and 1am EST, but today, many accounts that are active only in the evening hours went live by as early as 10:00am EST in New York City and surrounding areas affected by the strike illustrating the fact that many commuters that opted to “work from home” were instead playing online poker.

“At first we didn’t know what was going on with the flood of players we were getting from New York City,” stated Marty Wallace, COO for DoylesRoom.com. “Then we realized that the transit strike they’ve been threatening since this past Friday finally took place.”

The winter season is the peak time for online poker rooms like DoylesRoom.com because people spend more time indoors away from the cold and log online. With the addition of a transit strike in New York City, those numbers have reached record levels.

###

Doyle’s Room (www.DoylesRoom.com ) is the only online poker site endorsed by poker legend, Doyle Brunson. The site is a leading poker provider for North American players and is an international hub for Texas Hold ’em and other popular poker games. Players at DoylesRoom.com can play for free to learn the game, or engage in real game play against players throughout the World.

Sean Hamel
Account Executive
5W Public Relations (www.5wpr.com )
45 West 45th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 999-5585 x239
Fax: (646) 328-1711
Email: shamel@5wpr.com

Note: I checked both the 5W Public Relations Web site and the site of Doyle's Room and could not, at first attempt, locate an online copy of the press release, so I can't independently confirm its veracity myself. However, the Chicago Tribune has a news story reporting the same basic facts, and also reports that BetOnSports.com's poker room has had a 30-35% spike in users today.

(hat tip to Lynn Kendall)

An End to No-Limit Hold'em at Lucky Chances

As of Wednesday, December 14, Lucky Chances Casino in Colma, Calif., no nonger spreads no-limit Texas hold'em. Under pressure from the California Department of Justice's Division of Gambling Control, the city of Colma passed an ordinance establishing a $200 maximum bet ceiling, and Lucky Chances managment chose to voluntarily comply.

This means an end to the fabulously juicy baby no-limit hold'em games Lucky Chances began to spread in April, 2004, as well as the much bigger $1000-minimum- buyin game they've spread for much longer.

The issue is the California Gambling Control Act, which took effect on Jan. 1, 1998, four months before Lucky Chances opened. Among other things imposed a moratorium in the expansion of gambling in cities lasting until 2010. Lucky Chances' opening was explicitly exempted by the CGCA. Not long afterwards, the city of Colma, with the express approval of the Division of Gambling Control, removed the city's ordinance that imposed a $200 betting limit, and Lucky Chances introduced no-limit hold'em.

Artichoke Joe's Casino, in nearby San Bruno, lost a lot of business when Lucky Chances opened, and lost more when the Colma bet cap was removed. It seems that customers have a idiosyncratic preference for competent dealers, consistency of decisions by floor personnel, and quality of food. Dennis Sammut, owner of Artichoke Joe's, did what any savvy business owner does when customer service issues result in a drop in business: he complained to the Division of Gambling Control. After five years of legal maneuvering, the DGC reversed itself and sent a letter to the city of Colma informing them that lifting the $200 bet cap violated the moratorium on expansion of gambling in cities. At length, the city, and Lucky Chances, have opted to comply.

The story isn't over yet: According to the San Mateo County Times the Colma City Council voted to lift the betting limit if one of three things happens: state law is changed to allow it; the city wins a court challenge of the DGC's ruling; or if a majority of Colma voters approve the removal of the betting limit.

The San Mateo County Times article will disappear behind a firewall shortly. See more below the fold.

City agrees to casino betting limit

But move could cost city $1.8 million annually
By Julia Scott, STAFF WRITER

COLMA — Faced with the possibility of the city's only casino losing its license for violating state law, the City Council voted Wednesday night to voluntarily impose a state-required betting cap — but they also gave themselves an out.

In July 2005 — six years after the state Division of Gambling Control expressly approved a City Council ordinance removing upper betting limits on all card games at Lucky Chances Casino — the Division sent the town a letter informing it that its unlimited betting violated the California Gambling Control Act. The letter asked the city to reduce its individual betting maximum to $200 on poker and Asian games like Pai Gow.

The law took effect Jan. 1, 1998 — four months before the opening of Lucky Chances. It prohibited "expansion of gambling" in existing casinos, which state officials say includes unlimited betting.

Now, faced with losing 16 percent of their annual budget because of the limit, the City Council is calling the language of the Act confusing and its application arbitrary, since Artichoke Joe's Casino of San Bruno continues to enjoy unlimited betting with state approval. They point out that the state division, part of the Attorney General's office, did not find fault with unlimited gambling when Lucky Chances opened in 1998.

"For seven years, we've had this practice. For seven years, the state never said anything to this town," said City Attorney Roger Peters.

The city stands to lose as much as$1.8 million annually as a result of betting caps. The casino generates about $3.7 million a year for the city — one-third of its total budget.

"The money has become the town's backbone in terms of our ability to provide services," said Assistant City Manager Laura Allen.

Confronted with a number of possible penalties, including loss of the casino's license, the City Council voted unanimouslyto limit betting to $200 on Wednesday. At the same time, however, they voted to revoke those limits if a state bill is passed allowing it; if the town were to win a legal challenge against the state; or if a majority of Colma voters overturned the limits. The town has not yet asked a judge to rule on the matter, but it has hired a lobbyist to meet with legislators in Sacramento.

The council decided to hold a special meeting early next month to authorize a citywide vote on the issue. It was not clear what legal weight a vote would carry, since the Division has said it would violate state law if it were to become effective before the year 2010.

The council also passed an ordinance to consider language proposed by Lucky Chances to skirt the new limits by placing more betting squares on the tables, thereby increasing maximum betting limits. The casino voluntarily introduced $200 betting caps on its poker and Asian games for the first time on Wednesday.

Division of Gambling Control spokesman Nathan Barankin said that his agency first learned of Colma's unlimited betting from their Bay Area competitors. Those competitors were allowed to continue unlimited betting because they had received their licenses before the creation of the Gambling Control Act, whereas Lucky Chances had not.

Posted by abostick at 09:05 AM | Comments (0)

Andy Bloch and the World Poker Tour

Andy Bloch isn't too happy about the release [PDF] players have to sign before playing in a World Poker Tour event.

I'm in Vegas and I want to play poker, but I won't be playing the World Poker Tour at the Bellagio, or any more WPT tournaments, until the WPT changes the player release that they force every player to sign before playing. The current release sets practically no limit to what the WPT can do with a player's name and likeness, and the WPT has shown that it will exploit players' names and likenesses beyond what any of us accept as reasonable. I've tried negotiating with the WPT, but they will not make any significant changes. I'm not the best known player (I'm sure Chris Ferguson's decision not to play will have more of an effect) so not playing the WPT may hurt my career, but I think it's a risk worth taking.

Here is the language to which Bloch objects, with the specific portions to which he objects the most emphasized:

1) Grant of Rights. Player acknowledges that WPT Enterprises, Inc. and its successors, assigns and licensees (collectively, “WPT”) will be recording, filming, photographing and exploiting films and/or television specials or other audio visual works of and/or about the Tour Event (jointly and severally the “Programs”). Player consents to such filming and exploitation of the Programs, and hereby irrevocably grants to WPT the right to film, record, edit, reproduce and otherwise use Player's name, photograph, likeness, signature, biographical information, appearance, actions (including, without limitation, revealing Player's hole cards), conversations (including, without limitation, “behind the scenes” footage and filmed interviews with Player) and/or voice (the “Recordings”) in, and in connection with, the Programs and/or the “World Poker Tour” and in connection with the distribution, advertising, publicizing, exhibition, and exploitation thereof and of other audio-visual works (including, without limitation, “behind the scenes” productions and public service announcements) and any and all derivative, allied, subsidiary and/or ancillary uses related thereto (including, without limitation, merchandising, commercial tie-ins, publications, home entertainment, video games, commodities, etc.), in whole or in part, by any and all means, media, devices, processes and technology now or hereafter known or devised in perpetuity throughout the universe.

Bloch compares this to the equivalent clause in Harrah's WSOP Circuit player release:

In consideration of my being permitted to participate in said promotion, I do hereby accept and irrevocably authorize Showboat Casino Hotel and its successors and assigns (including but not limited to ESPN) to print, publish, televise or otherwise utilize my photograph or any likeness of me for promotional purposes without compensation.

Bloch comments, While the line between permissible "promotional purposes" and impermissible merchandising needs to be defined a little bit, the WSOPC release is a lot better than the WPT's "any and all derivative, allied, subsidiary and/or ancillary uses related thereto (including, without limitation, merchandising, commercial tie-ins, publications, home entertainment, video games, commodities, etc.)".

Bloch has a degree from Harvard Law School and is a member of the bar, but is not at the present time practicing law.

To my own eye, it looks to me like the WPT is treating the players like patsies. Their waiver is, on the face of it, unacceptable. There are things that are reasonable for them to want to use players' likenesses -- video and print advertisments for the show, for example, but there are a whole range of subsidiary rights for which the WPT has no legitimate need. If I play in a WPT event, they get to use my likeness in video games, and I don't get paid for it. Hell, there's nothing in this agreement that would prevent the WPT from licensing fictional print, movie, or TV rights to the players as characters.

The WPT is treating the players like patsies. Andy Bloch is doing the right thing, and I hope that his example gets a lot of attention.

(via Paul Phillips)

International Man of Mystery

Yesterday I was at the Oaks Club. I played some other games for a while, and eventually was called to a seat in the $15-$30 hold'em game.

Apparently I'm the subject of some discussion in the game. As I approached the table, Denny Dahlgren, one of the day-shift prop players, said to me, "We need your help here. Give us a multiple-choice question, with three or five choices, of what it is that you do."

Very interesting! My stock answer to the question of what I do for a living has been for some time "freelance editor," but it's actually been a while since I've had any billable hours to charge. Are some of the regulars trying to get a line on me? I would think they'd already have done so by now. I come to the Oaks to play sometimes during afternoons, sometimes in the evening, and very occasionally stay there overnight for a marathon session trying to recoup losses in a good-seeming game.

I've never heard anyone else asked quite in that manner what they do for a living anywhere, let alone at the Oaks. Evidently I am something of an enigma to some people there. Then again, Denny is the sort of opponent I like to see in the game, tough though he is, because he is skilled at connecting with the other players and making the game enjoyable to play. Perhaps I was just the topic of the moment, with which he was jollying up the other players.

I sat down and posted to get a hand. Naturally someone ahead of me raised, and I had to get out.

A few moments thought provided me with the following: "One: Internet security consultant. Two: Big game hunter. Three: Student. Four: Professional poker player. Five: Accountant."

Denny and a couple of other players all picked "student." Denny said, "That was on my list of guesses when we were talking about it."

"Student" is of course the correct answer right now. The regulars who pay attention know that I'm not a poker pro, for the simple reason that they don't see me logging enough hours at the table to make a living.

But that didn't stop me from making the faux complaint, "So nobody thinks I'm a poker pro, huh? When am I ever going to get any respect from you guys?"

Casinos of Destruction

Mississippians paid the price for their state's peculiar laws about gambling when Hurricane Katrina struck. The law allows only "riverboat" gambling, which in practice means that casinos are built up upon large, rudderless barges permanently moored on the waterfront.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that when Katrina made landfall, the storm surge and ferocious winds tore casino barges from their moorings and washed them ashore, causing substantial damage:

"That sombitch smacked my building, swept all my merchandise and guns out, and pushed that safe clear across the parking lot," said John Godsey, standing in the rubble that used to be his pawnshop and looking up at the wrecked Casino Magic right next to it in the parking lot. "This building would probably still be standing if the casino hadn't hit it." ...

The lavish Palace was lifted sideways onto a walkway, and the adjacent Sports Zone gambling hall cleared a path a half-mile inland. The east side of the city around its shell is a disaster zone, with splintered wood from former houses littered for miles.

The 134,500-square-foot Grand Casino Biloxi, the state's largest coastal casino, cut a swath of wreckage across Highway 90 where one part wrecked the historic Hotel Tivoli and a museum under construction, and another part flattened apartments and homes.

If the law had allowed casinos to be built on solid ground, the damage in Biloxi, severe though it was, would have been substantially lessened.

High-Stakes Roshambo

Greg Costikyan might think that Roshambo - the game of rock, paper, and scissors - is a degenerate game, but that doesn't stop it from being an important decision-making tool. The New York Times reports on what just might be the Roshambo matchup for the highest stakes on record:

Takashi Hashiyama, president of Maspro Denkoh Corporation, an electronics company based outside of Nagoya, Japan, could not decide whether Christie's or Sotheby's should sell the company's art collection, which is worth more than $20 million, at next week's auctions in New York.

He did not split the collection - which includes an important Cézanne landscape, an early Picasso street scene and a rare van Gogh view from the artist's Paris apartment - between the two houses, as sometimes happens. Nor did he decide to abandon the auction process and sell the paintings through a private dealer.

Instead, he resorted to an ancient method of decision-making that has been time-tested on playgrounds around the world: rock breaks scissors, scissors cuts paper, paper smothers rock.

In Japan, resorting to such games of chance is not unusual. "I sometimes use such methods when I cannot make a decision," Mr. Hashiyama said in a telephone interview. "As both companies were equally good and I just could not choose one, I asked them to please decide between themselves and suggested to use such methods as rock, paper, scissors."

Officials from the Tokyo offices of the two auction houses were informed of Mr. Hashiyama's request on a Thursday afternoon in late January.

They were told they had until a meeting on Monday to choose a weapon. The right choice could mean several million dollars in profits from the fees the auction house charges buyers (usually 20 percent for the first $200,000 of the final price and 12 percent above that).

(via Eric Holtman)

Stupid Cheater Update

I wrote: If I were low enough to collude in an online poker tournament, I don't think I'd be so amazingly dumb as to post about it in my LiveJournal. Hell, I'd at least friends-lock the damn thing. The post is now friends-locked. I guess the torrent of angry comments he got from Paul Phillips' pointer clued him in.

He writes in his current entry:

paul phillips taught me a lesson today.

a lot of posts will be friends only for the time being.

One hopes the lesson he learned was more than just "if you're going to cheat, don't post it publicly to your blog."

Meanwhile, I sent the post to the PokerStars support team, and this is the response I got:

Hello Alan,

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately there is not enough information here to identify the player in the journal. We offer dozens of these qualifying tournaments every week, and there are many qualifying players in each one. It is nearly impossible to find one player based on the information provided.

You should note that what the players did was actually very stupid. Not only was it against our rules, but it was also strategically a dumb play. If the players had enough chips to be able to limp into the prizes when they combined stacks, they had enough chips to try and both make the prizes.

The term chip dumping is reserved for players who share chips in order for both players to last longer in a tournament. It does not apply to players trying to knock each other out and halve their total possible payout.

If you have any further questions about this or anything else, please let us know!

Regards,
Dan
PokerStars Support Team

If the PokerStars hand history database is in any shape at all, using the information in the post ought to be very straightforward. It should be all the more easy given that ronny bojangles described in detail the play of more than one hand. If I had a zipfile containing all PokerStars hand histories from March 16 and 17, I guess that I could pinpoint the hands in question and identify the perpetrator in something on the order of an hour, most of which would be spent debugging the perl script.

Secondly, that's a very restrictive definition of chip-dumping. If one player in a group of colluders has an overlay in terms of playing ability in a tournament (or even is a substantially better player than the others in the group), then the expectation of the group as a whole is increased at the expense of the other players in the tournament if the weak players in the group blow off their chips to the strong player. This doesn't fit "Dan"'s definition of chip dumping, which demands that the practice enhance the likelihood of all participants' winning, but it is clearly collusion, it clearly has a negative impact on the non-colluding players' EV, and it falls within what most experienced players would label as "chip-dumping."

"Dan"'s reply makes me substantially less confident in the ability and willingness of PokerStars' management to confront collusion. Maybe Ed Felten is right and I was wrong about whether countermeasures against collusion can keep it down to a reasonable level.

Stupid Cheater of the Week

Think of this as the Poker edition of Jeralyn Merritt's regular Stupid Criminal of the Week feature on TalkLeft.

Paul Phillips points us to this amazing post on LiveJournal by one ronny bojangles:

so I've officially gone from poker player to strategist.

tonight, seth (played wednesday night cards with us last week) and I played a $10+$1 turbo/rebuy tourney for a seat to the $215 NL buy-in $350,000 guaranteed weekly on pokerstars. I think around 62 total people in the qualifier. after rebuy/add-on period was over, 8 places qualified, 9th paid $170.

it got down to about 18 people and me and seth were at the same table. I was 1-up on him (sitting to his left, acting after him most hands). I had about 6000 in chips and he had about 4000. The only way we figured either one of us would get a spot is to dump our chips to each other. blinds were so fast that if we played alone we'd get knocked out around 11th and 10th, which pays nothing. since I was in best position, we both decided that we should dump chips.

I was in SB, seth was on button. BB had around 10x BB, so with a raise and a call he would probably fold. Everyone folded to seth, who I told to go all in with A8o. I had 87d and I reraised all-in over Seth. BB folded his 3k, so that was guaranteed to one of us as is. If I sucked out a 7 or diamonds on seth I'd have more than enough chips to qualify. If seth's hand held up he'd have more than enough chips to qualify. We decided that we'd shoot for one seat and take the payout.

I lost the hand to seth, and lost my remaining 800 a couple hands later. Seth got a qualifying seat to the $215 easily. We sold the seat for $180.

Seth spent $33 between rebuys and add-ons. I just spent the original $11. So we worked out the deal that we'd take our buy-ins out of the $180, then split the rest of the money 60/40. In the end, I earn $54 and seth earns $82. And it was all so easy, but very lucky.

The highlight of the tourney was right before the first break. I was in about 11th position out of around 44. Under the gun, I go all in with KQo, hoping to pick up the blinds or get a low stack to call. The whole point of turbo rebuy tourneys is to get as many chips as you can as fast as you can. I ended up getting called by 3 people, and lost that pot. I was down to $90, and after the break the blinds were going up to $100/$200. I'm BB first hand, so I'm all in regardless. I get 1 call, AQ vs my 98. I end up getting a straight. Two hands later, I have AJ. I double up again.

I doubled up so many times that I was in 4th position with about 26 people left. But the blinds came so fast and my hands were garbage that I just tried to hold out. Then I got put next to seth and gave him my chips.

I feel great because of this. For once, teamwork worked. Everything went according to plan and I'm $54 richer because of it.

If I were low enough to collude in an online poker tournament, I don't think I'd be so amazingly dumb as to post about it in my LiveJournal. Hell, I'd at least friends-lock the damn thing.

Stuey

Last night was a movie night for Debbie and I, and because we're the last kids on the block who do not subscribe to Netflix, we drove to Reel. Debbie spotted High Roller in the New Releases section and immediately picked it up. It's a biopic about the life of three-time poker world champion Stu Ungar, written and directed by A. W. Vidmer. We agreed on it as our pick of the night, and rented it.

I'm not at all sorry we did, but I won't recommend the movie to everyone. (More below the fold, including spoilers.)

What