It didn't take long for the poker hounds of the web to discover that caught-and-confessed online cheater "ZeeJustin" (Justin Bonomo) had resurfaced, filing a longish post on his own web site, then crossposting it over to the discussion forums at 2+2. This blog touched on the twinned ZeeJustin and JJProdigy scandals some time back, so rest easy --- you're not in for a boring re-hash.
Rather, take a few minutes to read ZeeJustin's take on the situation, given the few weeks he's had to step back and think it through. There'd been some wondering as to what Bonomo was up to in this "gone to ground" period, and this post provides some of the answers. Bonomo also added a few replies to the earliest comments and questions made to his crossposting in the 2+2 groups.
Whaddya think? This blogger says better, but not great --- the kid's had a harsh lesson in growing up but the blinders are still at least partially in place. Sites such as Party have to maintain a "zero tolerance" policy toward cheaters --- confiscating all funds in the cheater's account(s), just not those directly traced to the cheating efforts --- to deter others from doing the same thing. If there's no penalty for the behavior, there's no risk.
So it's hard on Young Mister Bonomo that he's out six figures or more, but it just has to be that way... for the integrity of the game itself. This is said with no overt fondness toward Party Poker, nor animosity towards Bonomo. The problem is that Bonomo has rationalized his behavior in a manner similar to a shoplifter who believes that his thefts don't really cost anyone anything, since the insurance company pays for the loss. By dehumanizing or corporate-izing Party and other sites as faceless and unfair entities, Bonomo can then justify his unethical behaviors --- a case of getting Big Brother before Big Brother gets you.
I don't buy it. It's a better spin, but spin nonetheless.
Bonomo suggests that, despite his current hiatus, in the end it just won't matter. Because there's other online sites he can play. Because he wants to move to "live" games instead.
And in saying that, he shows that he still doesn't get it.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Celebrity Poker Showdown, Take Two
One of the latest pebbles to ripple the surface of pokerdom is a recent piece appearing in that bastion of higher reporting, the New York Post. In the piece, writer Peter Lauria sounds the drums-o'-doom for poker as a no-longer-hot, no-longer-cool activity. Like we haven't heard that one.
Lauria cites both the recent Diet Pepsi commercial, featuring Daniel Negreanu, Phil Hellmuth and Scotty Nguyen, and the decline in viewership of a couple of long-running poker broadcasts as evidence of poker's decline, and dutifully digs up his own talking head to spout nonsense facts for the sake of the story.
(As an aside, in the commercial above, Negreanu looks a bit too uncomfortably like one of our favorite "Adult Swim" characters --- an unfortunate instance of what happens when people with pointed chins wear goatees... and don't have their agents screen the results.)
Of course, Lauria's piece is just page-fillerin' pap, but Lauria gets the creds for one thing --- it turns out he used "jumping the shark" and "Celebrity Poker Showdown" in the same piece just a couple of days before I did.
The shame of it all. I are besmirched. By a Post writer, no less.
Thank God the coincidences end there. Were I to write a poker piece that begged any pretense of seriousness, the last thing I would do would be to use as my leading statistic an overview of the decline in viewership of "Celebrity Poker Showdown" as viable evidence of poker's waning popularity. Yes, and because "Full House" ran for eight seasons and 192 episodes, it's one of the most seminal examples of American comedy.
Mark Twain said it better, when he popularized Benjamin Disraeli's famous quotation on "lies, damned lies and statistics." [With a thank-you to reader Michael Albert, for clarifying the source (see comments below) -- CB.] Or maybe Stan Lee's more your taste: "'Nuff Said."
Frankly, your faithful blogger can't stop laughing --- not only at the lameness of the Post piece, but at a couple of the snipes at the inky turd by a couple of poker-blogging biggees, Wil Wheaton and Bill Rini. Genuine outrage --- or even the pretense thereof --- is simply misplaced at uninformed, wipe-your-ass-with-it hackwork such as this. (And I'm referring to the Post crap, not to Bill's or Wil's stuff, which I respect and read often.)
Talking heads are talking heads for a reason; the game involves filling the page, selling ads and papers, and beginning the cycle anew. It doesn't matter if the writer knows a damn thing about the topic at hand (as, clearly, Lauria doesn't), as long as the piece is done with reasonable skill or follows the tried-and-true formula used in such matters. All it has to do is generate interest, which in turn generates dollars. And Lauria seems to have succeeded on that count rather well.
Normally, it wouldn't be worth a mention. But my thanks for the good belly laugh to all involved.
Lauria cites both the recent Diet Pepsi commercial, featuring Daniel Negreanu, Phil Hellmuth and Scotty Nguyen, and the decline in viewership of a couple of long-running poker broadcasts as evidence of poker's decline, and dutifully digs up his own talking head to spout nonsense facts for the sake of the story.
(As an aside, in the commercial above, Negreanu looks a bit too uncomfortably like one of our favorite "Adult Swim" characters --- an unfortunate instance of what happens when people with pointed chins wear goatees... and don't have their agents screen the results.)
Of course, Lauria's piece is just page-fillerin' pap, but Lauria gets the creds for one thing --- it turns out he used "jumping the shark" and "Celebrity Poker Showdown" in the same piece just a couple of days before I did.
The shame of it all. I are besmirched. By a Post writer, no less.
Thank God the coincidences end there. Were I to write a poker piece that begged any pretense of seriousness, the last thing I would do would be to use as my leading statistic an overview of the decline in viewership of "Celebrity Poker Showdown" as viable evidence of poker's waning popularity. Yes, and because "Full House" ran for eight seasons and 192 episodes, it's one of the most seminal examples of American comedy.
Mark Twain said it better, when he popularized Benjamin Disraeli's famous quotation on "lies, damned lies and statistics." [With a thank-you to reader Michael Albert, for clarifying the source (see comments below) -- CB.] Or maybe Stan Lee's more your taste: "'Nuff Said."
Frankly, your faithful blogger can't stop laughing --- not only at the lameness of the Post piece, but at a couple of the snipes at the inky turd by a couple of poker-blogging biggees, Wil Wheaton and Bill Rini. Genuine outrage --- or even the pretense thereof --- is simply misplaced at uninformed, wipe-your-ass-with-it hackwork such as this. (And I'm referring to the Post crap, not to Bill's or Wil's stuff, which I respect and read often.)
Talking heads are talking heads for a reason; the game involves filling the page, selling ads and papers, and beginning the cycle anew. It doesn't matter if the writer knows a damn thing about the topic at hand (as, clearly, Lauria doesn't), as long as the piece is done with reasonable skill or follows the tried-and-true formula used in such matters. All it has to do is generate interest, which in turn generates dollars. And Lauria seems to have succeeded on that count rather well.
Normally, it wouldn't be worth a mention. But my thanks for the good belly laugh to all involved.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
In the Kick Ass Krosshairs...
Recent updates to Kick Ass Poker's "This Week in Poker" blog include an open-letter-style rebuttal to a recent Lee Jones/Card Player article about short stacks near the bubble in MTTs. Shorter entries include commentary on the switch from Gordon Phil to Hellmuth Phil at Bravo's Celebrity Poker Showdown; a quick peek at teenpatti.com (an Indian poker variant); and a glance askew at a couple of new poker-themed gifts you may or may not want to receive. Action's to you!
Is it Poker? Indian Game Teenpatti Hits the Web
Ever wonder what all those New Delhi-based contract programmers and service reps do when they're not working for Party Poker? At last, KAP's squadron of crack researches has stumbled across the answer.
Teenpatti, which translates roughly as "three cards," is a popular Indian poker variant somewhat akin to three-card guts. More specifically, it's a variant of the British poker game brag, with some gin-rummy trappings tossed in as well, and aggressive betting is the hallmark of the game. The betting is aggressive... until you actually look at your cards, at which time you lose the option to make further raises.
Say what?
Seriously, it is poker --- and it's a great reminder of just how vast the poker family of games really is. Go check out the rules over at the www.teenpatti.com site, and you'll see hand rankings and betting procedures similar to most other forms of poker. You've got your trips, straights and flushes --- or rather, trios, runs and colours. Yes, it's a three-card game where straights and flushes count, and like other three- and four-card games of its kind, straights outrank flushes. That's correct, as per hand probabilities: it's only when five or more cards are involved in a hand that flushes become relatively more difficult to build than straights.
But it's the betting which really sets teenpatti apart from more staid members of the poker family. As an attack-with-attitude contest, teenpatti looks to rank right up with hold'em games. There are only two states in teenpatti for a player that's still active in a given hand --- "blind" and "seen". "Blind" means that you haven't yet looked at your three private cards, whereas "seen" means that you have. And the kicker? Once you look at your cards, becoming "seen," you can only raise or fold (until only two players remain); only players who have yet to look at their cards can do the equivalent of "calling," and the last player who stays in without looking at his cards gets an opportunity to call and ask for a compromise... though the other player doesn't have to accept that offer and can continue the betting. Yikes.
Even with fixed-limit wagers (the standard variation), the opportunity for wild rounds of betting is all but unlimited. Whoever said fixed-limit games couldn't be dangerous?
So there it is --- if you're brave or foolhardy and your tastes in poker run to the exotic, then give teenpatti a whirl.
As for me, I think a nice, quiet no-limit tourney is next on the agenda.
Teenpatti, which translates roughly as "three cards," is a popular Indian poker variant somewhat akin to three-card guts. More specifically, it's a variant of the British poker game brag, with some gin-rummy trappings tossed in as well, and aggressive betting is the hallmark of the game. The betting is aggressive... until you actually look at your cards, at which time you lose the option to make further raises.
Say what?
Seriously, it is poker --- and it's a great reminder of just how vast the poker family of games really is. Go check out the rules over at the www.teenpatti.com site, and you'll see hand rankings and betting procedures similar to most other forms of poker. You've got your trips, straights and flushes --- or rather, trios, runs and colours. Yes, it's a three-card game where straights and flushes count, and like other three- and four-card games of its kind, straights outrank flushes. That's correct, as per hand probabilities: it's only when five or more cards are involved in a hand that flushes become relatively more difficult to build than straights.
But it's the betting which really sets teenpatti apart from more staid members of the poker family. As an attack-with-attitude contest, teenpatti looks to rank right up with hold'em games. There are only two states in teenpatti for a player that's still active in a given hand --- "blind" and "seen". "Blind" means that you haven't yet looked at your three private cards, whereas "seen" means that you have. And the kicker? Once you look at your cards, becoming "seen," you can only raise or fold (until only two players remain); only players who have yet to look at their cards can do the equivalent of "calling," and the last player who stays in without looking at his cards gets an opportunity to call and ask for a compromise... though the other player doesn't have to accept that offer and can continue the betting. Yikes.
Even with fixed-limit wagers (the standard variation), the opportunity for wild rounds of betting is all but unlimited. Whoever said fixed-limit games couldn't be dangerous?
So there it is --- if you're brave or foolhardy and your tastes in poker run to the exotic, then give teenpatti a whirl.
As for me, I think a nice, quiet no-limit tourney is next on the agenda.
"Re-Phil 'er Up!" -- Gordon Out, Hellmuth in at Celebrity Poker Showdown
News from the world of televised poker blipped prominently on our radar screens this past week. While it had long been known that Phil Gordon was unlikely to continue on as the co-host of Bravo's Celebrity Poker Showdown, what remained to be seen was who would form the new team, with Kids in the Hall alum Dave Foley. This week, we got the answer --- the new host expert is the Poker Brat himself, Phil Hellmuth.
Hmmm. It's a shrewd move, from this perspective. Say what you will about Hellmuth's warm-'n'-fuzzy demeanor and vibrant animal magnetism (tongue wholly within cheek there, of course) --- after all, the new Phil in town is never at a loss for words on the topic. But we'll come back to him in a sec.
As we all know, Celebrity Poker Showdown has never been about the actual poker being played. However, original co-host Gordon's "official" statement about his own departure, no doubt written weeks or months ago, belabors the obvious. As Gordon put it:
“I no longer have any contracted obligations to the producers of Celebrity Poker Showdown, so I am ready to move on… After 42 episodes of Celebrity Poker, I just want to see people play in turn, bet more than $200 into a $5K pot, and know when they have the nuts. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than saying ‘Phil Hellmuth loses another big pot, and it looks like he’s ready to implode!’ on national television.” (This last, in case you're wondering, refers to Gordon's oft-expressed desires to be the expert commentator on a "serious" poker show... a la Howard Lederer, Mike Sexton or Gabe Kaplan.)
At the minimum, we'll give Gordon points for prescience. Truth is, his parting release disses the overall concept behind Celebrity Poker Showdown but isn't as forthright with the underlying truths: the show has long outlasted the expectations of both Gordon and the rest of us, and it's no surprise he's bored with the gig. Because of that, Gordon's release is just a bit of an eye-opener --- there's no way he could have been under the delusion that this program would be anything else than the Entertainment Tonight fodder it is.
And that's why Bravo's signing of Hellmuth, if not a stroke of genius, is nonetheless a savvy move. Hellmuth's not likely to be talking much about the poker being played, anyway, except, for the expected quotient of "This is how [insert celeb here] should've played it if they wanted to be like me" entries. And in the context of the show, it might well fit. Besides, visual Odd Couples always play well, and the original Gordon/Foley pair ranked right up there with Laurel and Hardy, Penn and Jillette, maybe even Little Dot and Little Lotta.
Time will tell. Maybe Celebrity Poker Showdown has, instead, just hit its "Jump the Shark" moment. In the poker context, that'd be all the more fun.
Hmmm. It's a shrewd move, from this perspective. Say what you will about Hellmuth's warm-'n'-fuzzy demeanor and vibrant animal magnetism (tongue wholly within cheek there, of course) --- after all, the new Phil in town is never at a loss for words on the topic. But we'll come back to him in a sec.
As we all know, Celebrity Poker Showdown has never been about the actual poker being played. However, original co-host Gordon's "official" statement about his own departure, no doubt written weeks or months ago, belabors the obvious. As Gordon put it:
“I no longer have any contracted obligations to the producers of Celebrity Poker Showdown, so I am ready to move on… After 42 episodes of Celebrity Poker, I just want to see people play in turn, bet more than $200 into a $5K pot, and know when they have the nuts. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than saying ‘Phil Hellmuth loses another big pot, and it looks like he’s ready to implode!’ on national television.” (This last, in case you're wondering, refers to Gordon's oft-expressed desires to be the expert commentator on a "serious" poker show... a la Howard Lederer, Mike Sexton or Gabe Kaplan.)
At the minimum, we'll give Gordon points for prescience. Truth is, his parting release disses the overall concept behind Celebrity Poker Showdown but isn't as forthright with the underlying truths: the show has long outlasted the expectations of both Gordon and the rest of us, and it's no surprise he's bored with the gig. Because of that, Gordon's release is just a bit of an eye-opener --- there's no way he could have been under the delusion that this program would be anything else than the Entertainment Tonight fodder it is.
And that's why Bravo's signing of Hellmuth, if not a stroke of genius, is nonetheless a savvy move. Hellmuth's not likely to be talking much about the poker being played, anyway, except, for the expected quotient of "This is how [insert celeb here] should've played it if they wanted to be like me" entries. And in the context of the show, it might well fit. Besides, visual Odd Couples always play well, and the original Gordon/Foley pair ranked right up there with Laurel and Hardy, Penn and Jillette, maybe even Little Dot and Little Lotta.
Time will tell. Maybe Celebrity Poker Showdown has, instead, just hit its "Jump the Shark" moment. In the poker context, that'd be all the more fun.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Gifts for the Poker Fanatic... One Thing Leads to Another
It used to be that the only place to find one-off gifts specifically themed for the poker player was in the Hammacher-Schlemmer catalog. But those were indeed the old, dark days, before there was ever a book called "I, Moneymaker" or even personalized avatars on Full Tilt.
Still, some gifts still to seem to be the type straight out of the Auntie Sophie --- Ante Sophie, if you prefer --- group. "Auntie Sophie" gifts? Those are the gifts you receive from loving but knowledge-poor relatives still needing to cross you off their list. "Oh, little Johnny plays poker, now?" This category includes the stylin' WPT-branded bottle opener on the right, available for $6.95-plus-shipping through the merchandise store over at the World Poker Tour. (Or, one presumes, for 99 cents at a "Just Deals" or "Big Lots" near you... if you're willing to wait a couple of years.) Nonetheless, Auntie Sophie remains dear to our hearts; she means well, though she's always a sucker for the over-branded crap.
So, hey there, you hot young poker stud. Surely there can be no other way to impress your poker savvy and coolth upon your friends other than to whip out this bottle opener, and listen to all four of the Mike Sexton soundbites the thing plays as you pop the top off another Milwaukee's Best, or Old Milwaukee, Michelob Extra Foam or whatever the WPT's Official-Beer-of-the-Endorsement-Contract-Period happens to be.
Looks like dorm-room fodder to me.
But let's say you're the lucky recipient. Now if you're really on a roll, have the ol' mojo flowing and possess poker coolth beyond all mortal imaginings, then your magical handling of the bottle opener might lead you to that other nirvana... Chick-ville. W00t!! And if the stars do align, some magical night, then you might need the link to these folks as well.
W00t!! W00t!! Be careful, though; the object(s) of your amorous desire are still likely to be not-as-impressed if you carry one of these condoms around in your wallet for three years, even if it does carry that stylin' poker look and... ahem... feel.
(Sorry. The site's surplus of cheesy double entendres got to your faithful blogger for a moment, there.)
There's just not much that can be added to a gem of an idea such as this. What will they think of next? Besides, we're pretty sure poker condoms have crossed the boundary line for gifts you might receive from that Auntie Sophie you hold so dear.
Poor gal. If she only knew.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Lee Jones and "The Clock": Revenge of the Short Stacks
Poker Stars' site-host/media-spokesman Lee Jones offered food for thought in his recent column in Card Player, "Folding Aces." The piece starts with Jones's recounting of a letter from a poker-playing friend, who offered a rare tourney anecdote, folding pocket aces pre-flop near the point of a Poker Stars tournament when the "bubble" was about to burst. In this case, it was easily the proper play, because the "cash" in this qualifier was the same for all who survived the super-satellite bubble: a seat to a higher tourney. The friend prevented herself from even a low risk to her middlish stack, and was justly rewarded when the bubble burst --- and she moved on --- a short time after.
What happened, though, was that Jones then twisted his piece from an examination of one thing (the interesting risk-vs-reward concept involved with this pre-flop dumping of rockets) to a diatribe against another, that bane of online tournaments --- the inevitable slow play that takes place before the bubble bursts.
Interesting indeed, because the two are absolutely unrelated. Dumping the aces in a situation like that presented in the column was the right play, independent of the "... everyone was taking the clock to the max and even timing out..." line in the friend's letter that seems to have raised Jones' hackles. And let's be honest: No one enjoys the tedious play just preceding the point where each site's software cries "Uncle!" and forces everyone to play hand-for-hand.
But there's a lot more here than meets the eye.
When Jones made the jump to the topic of "the clock," his piece jumped the tracks. It turns out that his thoughts and comments on his second topic are, at the least, open to debate. So take a moment to read the Jones diatribe, and then resume your readin' here.
Back so soon? Well, let's give credit where credit is due: Jones offers some excellent observations --- along with inadvertent comments on human behavior --- when he notes the following:
(a) It makes little net difference (on a table-by-table basis), because if eveyone is slow-playing until their time clocks elapse, there's no net gain in hands played for any table;
(b) So much time elapses during that period when everyone is stalling that the blinds rise out of all proportion to the preceding play, and what results is a crapshoot.
Jones takes a shot at all the "Einsteins" who do this, without considering that they really have no choice in the matter. If all the other players left at this point of a tourney are "taking the clock," then even the pure-as-freshly-fallen-snow among us have no real choice but to do the same thing. Or, as Einstein might have quipped (if he were a poker player), Extremespeed = Minus Chip Count. Figure that one out. In 30 seconds.
Jones continues by citing all the e-mails that he and Poker Stars receive. "'Give us more play! More blind levels! Deeper stacks!' And within reason," he adds, "we do that." And then Jones reaches the edge of reason, stating that "Stalling like that in a tournament is cheating. It's against the spirit of the game and tournament directors in brick-and-mortar events don't even tolerate it."
Wait-t-t, hold on there. I've never played in a big brick-and-mortar tournament (just a few teensy ones), but every single account I've read of a large tournament talks about how the hand-to-hand action slows down as the bubble approaches. Folks dither, dawdle... and dither a little bit more. Brick-and-mortar tournaments do have "the clock," and yes, by all accounts, tournament directors do step in when someone gets a little too obvious in their dawdling. But pretending that no one plays more deliberately in a "real life" tourney when the bubble looms is every bit as dishonest as labeling all online players who "take the clock" as "cheaters."
Not convinced? Well, then look at it this way: There is no difference between a poker player who "takes the clock," and a winning football team, in the last minutes of a game, that lets the play clock wind down to "1" before snapping the ball. Both are playing within the constructs and rules of the game, at a time when the situation demands strategies markedly different than during most other periods of play. That the play is tedious and maddening is a sign that the structure and rules of the game itself are imperfect, not that the participants are "cheaters."
We'll cut Jones a little bit of slack, though, and assume it's just frustration from reading the same e-mail five thousand times. And let's take a look at a couple of things that Jones skipped over in his need to vent:
1) The higher the buy-in, the more obvious the stalling as the bubble looms. If you play in a tourney with a $5 or $10 buy-in, you really won't see much change in the speed of the play until the bubble gets tight. You also tend to see the true stall only from the very shortest of stacks. Conversely, the behavior Jones mentions occurs most often in the big-dollar events, where even the refund of the buy-in that surviving the bubble represents represents a significant return on the time spent to that point. If I've spent three hours chasing what looks to be $10... so what? But if I've spent three hours chasing what looks to be $300... then yes, there's heightened incentive. And what makes it worse, from the viewpoint of the sites involved, is that they can measure exactly how long each hand takes. The spike in time and resources used is so damned easy for them to see, much easier to quantify than for their brick-and-mortar counterparts.
2) The blind structures within any given site and tournament are vital to the topic, far more so than Jones allows for in his piece. The flatter the blind structure (when all components are considered), the less of an effect that stalling has. In his piece, Jones created an example that illustrates exactly how --- relative to the number of hands that are being played --- the blinds might be climbing three times as fast as at earlier stages of the same tournament. And he's... ummm... the man; he's in a position to know.
At some point I'll provide a table to our readers that compares the relative values of blinds and antes for several online sites' multi-table-tournaments; such a comparative table points out a few things you might not otherwise realize. But that's a topic for another post. For now, let's stay on track and address those couple of things that Jones got wrong --- or ignored --- in the interests of pursuing the diatribe.
First, each online site has the option of adjusting its programming for exactly when a tournament near the bubble converts to hand-for-hand play. The most recent tournament I played in at Stars was over 1,000 players, but it still didn't going to hand-for-hand until exactly one player was left to be eliminated before the bubble was cracked. That's fine in a 100-player tournament, but given the number of tourney participants Stars pulls in (usually large, like this one), it's downright stoooopid.
"But wait," comes the chorus, "that's how they do it in real life."
We need a short digression to explain the wrongness of this one. The classic science-fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein popularized an overly fancy word, verisimilitude, which means: the quality of appearing to be true or real. In practice, it means trying to make the not-real as real-seeming as possible, or, as it applies here, to make the bits and bytes of an online casino as similar as possible to their real-life, brick-and-mortar counterparts.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the ISP: we've learned that online and casino poker are related, but different games. That's why mirroring what takes place in a live tournament at bubble time is simply the wrong approach. Online poker is more dependent on "the clock." It's not a matter of why or how or because; it simply is. The truth is that an online poker site can come closer to mimicking the feel of a live tournament at bubble time by doing things less like a live tournament, not more.
What should Stars consider? The straightforward fix is to change the onset of hand-for-hand play, so that it takes place when a certain percentage of players need to be eliminated to burst the bubble, rather than a single one or two. As an example, a 2000-player tournament might pay out to the top 180 players (9% of the entrants). Rather than going to hand-for-hand when the field reaches bubble-number-plus-1, there's no reason it can't go hand-for-hand when it reaches bubble-number-plus-percentage-of-entrants. In this example, that percentage might be 0.5%. 0.5% of 2000 = 10 players, which means that the software would kick everyone to hand-for-hand play when the field gets down to 190... the 180 of the actual cashing number plus the 10 calculated by the percentage. It wouldn't eliminate the slow play, but it would damn well take the worst of the edge off the practice.
However, there's still another avenue to explore. Stars is one of the few sites that uses a two-part clock: the standard amount of time that the player gets to make their normal decision, plus a time bank of 60 seconds for use in crucial situations. (And yes, short-stack players use the remainder of their bank time at the bubble, which makes the "clock" problem even worse.) But what if instead of this static, two-part approach, Stars and other sites went to a dynamic, regenerating time bank?
Imagine, if you will, a setup where you received 60 seconds of time to play any consecutive ten hands. As the oldest hand dropped out of memory, the time you spent during that hand would be added back into your revolving time bank. 60 seconds doesn't sound like a lot, but let's be honest: most people would be folding most of their hands anyway, and by doing it quickly, they preserve their time bank for those three or four hands out of the current ten when they actually might have decisions to make.
A setup like this would all but eliminate the stall-stall-stall-fold game that defines online bubble play. The argument against it would be that it has no real-life counterpart.
And that, friends, is exactly the point.
What happened, though, was that Jones then twisted his piece from an examination of one thing (the interesting risk-vs-reward concept involved with this pre-flop dumping of rockets) to a diatribe against another, that bane of online tournaments --- the inevitable slow play that takes place before the bubble bursts.
Interesting indeed, because the two are absolutely unrelated. Dumping the aces in a situation like that presented in the column was the right play, independent of the "... everyone was taking the clock to the max and even timing out..." line in the friend's letter that seems to have raised Jones' hackles. And let's be honest: No one enjoys the tedious play just preceding the point where each site's software cries "Uncle!" and forces everyone to play hand-for-hand.
But there's a lot more here than meets the eye.
When Jones made the jump to the topic of "the clock," his piece jumped the tracks. It turns out that his thoughts and comments on his second topic are, at the least, open to debate. So take a moment to read the Jones diatribe, and then resume your readin' here.
Back so soon? Well, let's give credit where credit is due: Jones offers some excellent observations --- along with inadvertent comments on human behavior --- when he notes the following:
(a) It makes little net difference (on a table-by-table basis), because if eveyone is slow-playing until their time clocks elapse, there's no net gain in hands played for any table;
(b) So much time elapses during that period when everyone is stalling that the blinds rise out of all proportion to the preceding play, and what results is a crapshoot.
Jones takes a shot at all the "Einsteins" who do this, without considering that they really have no choice in the matter. If all the other players left at this point of a tourney are "taking the clock," then even the pure-as-freshly-fallen-snow among us have no real choice but to do the same thing. Or, as Einstein might have quipped (if he were a poker player), Extremespeed = Minus Chip Count. Figure that one out. In 30 seconds.
Jones continues by citing all the e-mails that he and Poker Stars receive. "'Give us more play! More blind levels! Deeper stacks!' And within reason," he adds, "we do that." And then Jones reaches the edge of reason, stating that "Stalling like that in a tournament is cheating. It's against the spirit of the game and tournament directors in brick-and-mortar events don't even tolerate it."
Wait-t-t, hold on there. I've never played in a big brick-and-mortar tournament (just a few teensy ones), but every single account I've read of a large tournament talks about how the hand-to-hand action slows down as the bubble approaches. Folks dither, dawdle... and dither a little bit more. Brick-and-mortar tournaments do have "the clock," and yes, by all accounts, tournament directors do step in when someone gets a little too obvious in their dawdling. But pretending that no one plays more deliberately in a "real life" tourney when the bubble looms is every bit as dishonest as labeling all online players who "take the clock" as "cheaters."
Not convinced? Well, then look at it this way: There is no difference between a poker player who "takes the clock," and a winning football team, in the last minutes of a game, that lets the play clock wind down to "1" before snapping the ball. Both are playing within the constructs and rules of the game, at a time when the situation demands strategies markedly different than during most other periods of play. That the play is tedious and maddening is a sign that the structure and rules of the game itself are imperfect, not that the participants are "cheaters."
We'll cut Jones a little bit of slack, though, and assume it's just frustration from reading the same e-mail five thousand times. And let's take a look at a couple of things that Jones skipped over in his need to vent:
1) The higher the buy-in, the more obvious the stalling as the bubble looms. If you play in a tourney with a $5 or $10 buy-in, you really won't see much change in the speed of the play until the bubble gets tight. You also tend to see the true stall only from the very shortest of stacks. Conversely, the behavior Jones mentions occurs most often in the big-dollar events, where even the refund of the buy-in that surviving the bubble represents represents a significant return on the time spent to that point. If I've spent three hours chasing what looks to be $10... so what? But if I've spent three hours chasing what looks to be $300... then yes, there's heightened incentive. And what makes it worse, from the viewpoint of the sites involved, is that they can measure exactly how long each hand takes. The spike in time and resources used is so damned easy for them to see, much easier to quantify than for their brick-and-mortar counterparts.
2) The blind structures within any given site and tournament are vital to the topic, far more so than Jones allows for in his piece. The flatter the blind structure (when all components are considered), the less of an effect that stalling has. In his piece, Jones created an example that illustrates exactly how --- relative to the number of hands that are being played --- the blinds might be climbing three times as fast as at earlier stages of the same tournament. And he's... ummm... the man; he's in a position to know.
At some point I'll provide a table to our readers that compares the relative values of blinds and antes for several online sites' multi-table-tournaments; such a comparative table points out a few things you might not otherwise realize. But that's a topic for another post. For now, let's stay on track and address those couple of things that Jones got wrong --- or ignored --- in the interests of pursuing the diatribe.
First, each online site has the option of adjusting its programming for exactly when a tournament near the bubble converts to hand-for-hand play. The most recent tournament I played in at Stars was over 1,000 players, but it still didn't going to hand-for-hand until exactly one player was left to be eliminated before the bubble was cracked. That's fine in a 100-player tournament, but given the number of tourney participants Stars pulls in (usually large, like this one), it's downright stoooopid.
"But wait," comes the chorus, "that's how they do it in real life."
We need a short digression to explain the wrongness of this one. The classic science-fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein popularized an overly fancy word, verisimilitude, which means: the quality of appearing to be true or real. In practice, it means trying to make the not-real as real-seeming as possible, or, as it applies here, to make the bits and bytes of an online casino as similar as possible to their real-life, brick-and-mortar counterparts.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the ISP: we've learned that online and casino poker are related, but different games. That's why mirroring what takes place in a live tournament at bubble time is simply the wrong approach. Online poker is more dependent on "the clock." It's not a matter of why or how or because; it simply is. The truth is that an online poker site can come closer to mimicking the feel of a live tournament at bubble time by doing things less like a live tournament, not more.
What should Stars consider? The straightforward fix is to change the onset of hand-for-hand play, so that it takes place when a certain percentage of players need to be eliminated to burst the bubble, rather than a single one or two. As an example, a 2000-player tournament might pay out to the top 180 players (9% of the entrants). Rather than going to hand-for-hand when the field reaches bubble-number-plus-1, there's no reason it can't go hand-for-hand when it reaches bubble-number-plus-percentage-of-entrants. In this example, that percentage might be 0.5%. 0.5% of 2000 = 10 players, which means that the software would kick everyone to hand-for-hand play when the field gets down to 190... the 180 of the actual cashing number plus the 10 calculated by the percentage. It wouldn't eliminate the slow play, but it would damn well take the worst of the edge off the practice.
However, there's still another avenue to explore. Stars is one of the few sites that uses a two-part clock: the standard amount of time that the player gets to make their normal decision, plus a time bank of 60 seconds for use in crucial situations. (And yes, short-stack players use the remainder of their bank time at the bubble, which makes the "clock" problem even worse.) But what if instead of this static, two-part approach, Stars and other sites went to a dynamic, regenerating time bank?
Imagine, if you will, a setup where you received 60 seconds of time to play any consecutive ten hands. As the oldest hand dropped out of memory, the time you spent during that hand would be added back into your revolving time bank. 60 seconds doesn't sound like a lot, but let's be honest: most people would be folding most of their hands anyway, and by doing it quickly, they preserve their time bank for those three or four hands out of the current ten when they actually might have decisions to make.
A setup like this would all but eliminate the stall-stall-stall-fold game that defines online bubble play. The argument against it would be that it has no real-life counterpart.
And that, friends, is exactly the point.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
This Week in the KAP Poker Blog...
This week, Kick Ass Poker's original-content poker blog served up the skinny on the Costa Rican police's raid on Bodog boss Calvin Ayre's estate; pointed out a couple of interesting (if not really useful) tournament-result tracking sites on the web; shared the latest tidbits on the U.S. gub'mint's anti-gambling legislation; and offered a link to a site that helps you find the nearest land-based poker rooms... even if they're not that close. Check it out!
Finding Your Nearest "Brick-and-Mortar" Poker Room
One of the greatest benefits of doing a news-'n'-commentary poker blog is the chance to point out some of the real cool tools on the web. One that I've used on a few occasions is Card Player's poker-room locator.
In a nutshell, it's way-y-y more convenient to find those casinos that offer poker than any other method I've seen, and so it gets the kudos here. Using it couldn't be easier... if you're lucky enough to be in one of the 28 states currently offering some form of land-based poker. Simply surf on over, type in your current zip code (or the zip code corresponding to an area you might be visiting) and presto! --- information on each of the nearest casino poker rooms pops to your screen.
With the knowledge that the sites that are programmed into the map itself are not necessarily up to date, it's still a damn good tool. A quick glance at the totals by state (lower on the page) shows each of the 28 states currently housing poker-offering casinos, and the map admittedly works best when you live in or have a zip code within one of those states. So, for a location such as Atlanta, you can't just type in an Atlanta zip code (such as 30309) and go from there; the map would zoom back out to the start and give you no viable results.
What you can do, however, is pick any of the nearby states that do have a land-based poker game, and go from there. For instance, a click onto the link for "South Carolina" shows the two casinos available at Little River, near Myrtle Beach on the SC/NC border. Obviously, that would still be a helluva day trip from Atlanta, but that's not the point; rather, it's that the information is available for you, in a format that's easy to grab and understand. Similarly, one can click on Mississippi and explore the Tunica option, or check out any of the 27 different casinos listed in Florida, or even the Louisville thing (actually, across the Ohio River in Indiana). Poor Atlanta, indeed. It's about an equal distance to the real-life poker rooms in any direction, and that distance is some distance, indeed.
But beyond the casinos in those 28 other states, the Card Player site makes it easy to check out ideas for vacations or trips of even longer mileage. That's right: the same finder page for U.S. rooms also includes a collection of international poker-room links. You can find a legal place to play poker in no less than 75 other countries, according to the site info, and while your chances of actually visiting them all are slim, it's nice to know they're there, isn't it?
While the political climate makes it unlikely that brick-and-mortar poker rooms will soon proliferate across the Bible Belt, you gotta have dreams. In the meantime, you know the routine: home games, private clubs, the bar games and leagues, and the Internet. See you there.
In a nutshell, it's way-y-y more convenient to find those casinos that offer poker than any other method I've seen, and so it gets the kudos here. Using it couldn't be easier... if you're lucky enough to be in one of the 28 states currently offering some form of land-based poker. Simply surf on over, type in your current zip code (or the zip code corresponding to an area you might be visiting) and presto! --- information on each of the nearest casino poker rooms pops to your screen.
With the knowledge that the sites that are programmed into the map itself are not necessarily up to date, it's still a damn good tool. A quick glance at the totals by state (lower on the page) shows each of the 28 states currently housing poker-offering casinos, and the map admittedly works best when you live in or have a zip code within one of those states. So, for a location such as Atlanta, you can't just type in an Atlanta zip code (such as 30309) and go from there; the map would zoom back out to the start and give you no viable results.
What you can do, however, is pick any of the nearby states that do have a land-based poker game, and go from there. For instance, a click onto the link for "South Carolina" shows the two casinos available at Little River, near Myrtle Beach on the SC/NC border. Obviously, that would still be a helluva day trip from Atlanta, but that's not the point; rather, it's that the information is available for you, in a format that's easy to grab and understand. Similarly, one can click on Mississippi and explore the Tunica option, or check out any of the 27 different casinos listed in Florida, or even the Louisville thing (actually, across the Ohio River in Indiana). Poor Atlanta, indeed. It's about an equal distance to the real-life poker rooms in any direction, and that distance is some distance, indeed.
But beyond the casinos in those 28 other states, the Card Player site makes it easy to check out ideas for vacations or trips of even longer mileage. That's right: the same finder page for U.S. rooms also includes a collection of international poker-room links. You can find a legal place to play poker in no less than 75 other countries, according to the site info, and while your chances of actually visiting them all are slim, it's nice to know they're there, isn't it?
While the political climate makes it unlikely that brick-and-mortar poker rooms will soon proliferate across the Bible Belt, you gotta have dreams. In the meantime, you know the routine: home games, private clubs, the bar games and leagues, and the Internet. See you there.
Poker Almost-Resources on the Web
Some of the modern wave of Internet poker players stop at almost nothing in an attempt to improve their game... nothing, that is, in the informational sense. Whether it's analyzing and improving their own play, or trying to learn everything they can about the other folks at the table, these players continually chase after the Holy Grail of Poker Knowledge.
Sure, Poker Tracker is the leading play-analysis software, and a slew of competitors such as PokerStat are on Tracker's heels. A number of sites offer instant hands-odds and other calculation-based poker information, and if you haven't visited PokerStove, you've missed learning about a neat package. Let's not forget to toss out a "Hi!" to the folks over at Wilson Software, who've produced player-training software packages since the days when poker wasn't even cool.
I could make up a dozen posts on the topic of poker software and online resources, toss in the links to match, do the happy-poker-camper shuffle and wander off to another topic. But, hey, what's the fun in that?
It's every bit as entertaining to check out those online tools that are trying to carve out there own online poker niche... but for one reason or another, just don't quite get it done. Such is the case with a site that was tossed out at a recent online table, a reference to go visit thepokerdb.com. Thepokerdb.com advertises itself as "your free source for tracking online tournaments and players." It turns out that it's only the tournament results for one site, PokerStars, but there's an impressive database here anyway, with over 425,000 players and all Stars tournament results since February of 2004.
Impressive, if not useful.
If you're someone who's played in a lot of Stars tournaments, or know someone who has, then amuse yourself by heading over to thepokerdb.com, register, type in the screen name, and check out all those tournament results. I'm in there, though I play only seldom at Stars, and even then only in some private tournaments. (Those don't show up.) And that's the big problem with a site like this: it can tell you that a player might be good, but it cannot tell you that a player isn't good, because the lack of information about poker skill is not the same as the lack of poker skill itself. Important difference.
So what this site is, in essence, is a brag forum for folks that play a lot of tourneys on Stars. Cool enough if we don't make any more of it than that.
A similar site is Tournament Reporter, which gathers tourney results from many more sites but offers stats on them over a much shorter period of time, a maximum of 60 days. Again, it's a fun idea that suffers in the execution. I don't see any way that this software tracks players who change their screen names on Party, and I know that it doesn't track Prima with any accuracy whatsoever. I've played lots of tourneys at Prima in recent months, but according to this site my screen name doesn't exist. Bzzzzz. I believe this absence is caused by the fact that most (if not all) of the action on the Prima Network comes through the various poker "skins," not the core Prima site itself. (Skins are sites that subcontract to the main poker software engine, but market themselves independently.) Since most Prima players participate through these skins, it means the Prima core stats are largely useless. There's also no way to combine player performances across sites such as Stars and Prima, even if the player uses the same screen name at both.
But let's give these database sites gold stars for the effort, at the least. Both are stabs at establishing a global database of online tournament performance, which would have some meaningful value. But that day is a long way off, if ever.
Sure, Poker Tracker is the leading play-analysis software, and a slew of competitors such as PokerStat are on Tracker's heels. A number of sites offer instant hands-odds and other calculation-based poker information, and if you haven't visited PokerStove, you've missed learning about a neat package. Let's not forget to toss out a "Hi!" to the folks over at Wilson Software, who've produced player-training software packages since the days when poker wasn't even cool.
I could make up a dozen posts on the topic of poker software and online resources, toss in the links to match, do the happy-poker-camper shuffle and wander off to another topic. But, hey, what's the fun in that?
It's every bit as entertaining to check out those online tools that are trying to carve out there own online poker niche... but for one reason or another, just don't quite get it done. Such is the case with a site that was tossed out at a recent online table, a reference to go visit thepokerdb.com. Thepokerdb.com advertises itself as "your free source for tracking online tournaments and players." It turns out that it's only the tournament results for one site, PokerStars, but there's an impressive database here anyway, with over 425,000 players and all Stars tournament results since February of 2004.
Impressive, if not useful.
If you're someone who's played in a lot of Stars tournaments, or know someone who has, then amuse yourself by heading over to thepokerdb.com, register, type in the screen name, and check out all those tournament results. I'm in there, though I play only seldom at Stars, and even then only in some private tournaments. (Those don't show up.) And that's the big problem with a site like this: it can tell you that a player might be good, but it cannot tell you that a player isn't good, because the lack of information about poker skill is not the same as the lack of poker skill itself. Important difference.
So what this site is, in essence, is a brag forum for folks that play a lot of tourneys on Stars. Cool enough if we don't make any more of it than that.
A similar site is Tournament Reporter, which gathers tourney results from many more sites but offers stats on them over a much shorter period of time, a maximum of 60 days. Again, it's a fun idea that suffers in the execution. I don't see any way that this software tracks players who change their screen names on Party, and I know that it doesn't track Prima with any accuracy whatsoever. I've played lots of tourneys at Prima in recent months, but according to this site my screen name doesn't exist. Bzzzzz. I believe this absence is caused by the fact that most (if not all) of the action on the Prima Network comes through the various poker "skins," not the core Prima site itself. (Skins are sites that subcontract to the main poker software engine, but market themselves independently.) Since most Prima players participate through these skins, it means the Prima core stats are largely useless. There's also no way to combine player performances across sites such as Stars and Prima, even if the player uses the same screen name at both.
But let's give these database sites gold stars for the effort, at the least. Both are stabs at establishing a global database of online tournament performance, which would have some meaningful value. But that day is a long way off, if ever.
Anti-Gambling Measure Reaches Floor of U.S. House
This week, the latest push by the United States' federal government against internet gaming was back in the news, as separate measures received consideration in both Houses of Congress.
The first of the two recent happenings took place last Tuesday, when Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) announced plans to attach his venerable Internet Gambling Prohibition Act to other legislation in an attempt to "piggy-back" the proposal onto the books. Kyl's measure, co-sponsored by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR), was the legislation that was killed largely through the efforts of now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff a few years back.
At almost the same time, a related measure sponsored by Rep. Terry Leach (R-IA) cleared a sub-committee in the House on a unanimous voice-vote, meaning that it will come up on the main floor at a later date. Leach's bill is actually the reworking of the Goodlatte measure that we outlined here in an earlier post. In an amazing coincidence, Rep. Goodlatte just happened to be chairing the committee considering the proposed measure that day (on behalf of an ailing Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC]). For a little bit of insight on how committees and sub-committees work, click this link.
It's important to clarify the targets of these legislative pushes. The measures aren't aimed at internet gamblers specifically, whose actions are already technically illegal (yet, for all reasonable purposes, unenforceable). In the Kyl legislation, the push is to target the financial institutions and Internet-access providers whose services allow Americans to gamble online. As taken from the release:
"A spokeswoman for Pryor says the measure would target Internet gambling sites by blocking credit card and similar financial transactions that currently fuel the business."
The legislation from the Goodlatte/Leach camp also attempts to outlaw the operation of financing channels, but tries to create additional definitions of what is and isn't acceptable gambling. (Basically, whatever the government can assure itself a slice of falls into the "acceptable gambling" category, and included in the unacceptable category would be any offshore poker site you could name.) The astute among you might ask if passing a U.S. law against non-U.S.-based businesses is as pointless as it sounds, but remember, there are other motivations behind the Goodlatte push.
So the skirmishes continue. Soon enough there'll be more noise from the selective-morality crowd, and if it fits here, you'll read about it. In the meantime, speak up and join the fight. Writing or e-mailing your Congressman or Senator is always recommended, unless that person is named, say, Leach or Goodlatte or Kyl or Pryor. Those folks have already decided that they know what's best for you.
The first of the two recent happenings took place last Tuesday, when Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) announced plans to attach his venerable Internet Gambling Prohibition Act to other legislation in an attempt to "piggy-back" the proposal onto the books. Kyl's measure, co-sponsored by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR), was the legislation that was killed largely through the efforts of now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff a few years back.
At almost the same time, a related measure sponsored by Rep. Terry Leach (R-IA) cleared a sub-committee in the House on a unanimous voice-vote, meaning that it will come up on the main floor at a later date. Leach's bill is actually the reworking of the Goodlatte measure that we outlined here in an earlier post. In an amazing coincidence, Rep. Goodlatte just happened to be chairing the committee considering the proposed measure that day (on behalf of an ailing Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC]). For a little bit of insight on how committees and sub-committees work, click this link.
It's important to clarify the targets of these legislative pushes. The measures aren't aimed at internet gamblers specifically, whose actions are already technically illegal (yet, for all reasonable purposes, unenforceable). In the Kyl legislation, the push is to target the financial institutions and Internet-access providers whose services allow Americans to gamble online. As taken from the release:
"A spokeswoman for Pryor says the measure would target Internet gambling sites by blocking credit card and similar financial transactions that currently fuel the business."
The legislation from the Goodlatte/Leach camp also attempts to outlaw the operation of financing channels, but tries to create additional definitions of what is and isn't acceptable gambling. (Basically, whatever the government can assure itself a slice of falls into the "acceptable gambling" category, and included in the unacceptable category would be any offshore poker site you could name.) The astute among you might ask if passing a U.S. law against non-U.S.-based businesses is as pointless as it sounds, but remember, there are other motivations behind the Goodlatte push.
So the skirmishes continue. Soon enough there'll be more noise from the selective-morality crowd, and if it fits here, you'll read about it. In the meantime, speak up and join the fight. Writing or e-mailing your Congressman or Senator is always recommended, unless that person is named, say, Leach or Goodlatte or Kyl or Pryor. Those folks have already decided that they know what's best for you.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Costa Rica Police Make "Ayre," Raid Bodog-Boss Calvin's Place
Tired of reading those stories about Florida retirees who've had their dime-ante poker games raided by cops at the behest of lawmakers trying to make a point? Well, here's proof that it happens in places other than America. In fact, the gendarmes in Costa Rica have recently one-upped anything we've seen in our papers in quite some time. Last Saturday, a police force estimated at between 60 to 100 in strength conducted a mass raid at the Costa Rican estate of Bodog founder and CEO Calvin Ayre.
Early reports of the fiasco-in-progress soon surfaced in some of the major online poker media outlets --- such as this piece from Card Player --- and quickly shed some light on a situation gone awry.
According to a statement released by Ayre, the police had been tipped that illegal gambling --- in the form of home-style casino action --- was taking place that evening inside Ayre's "Bodog Compound" estate. And when the police arrived, sure enough, the place was a beehive of activity: there was a wrap-up party taking place for Ayre's show, which is filmed in San Jose (Costa Rica's capital, and also the locale of the Ayre estate). But no gambling. Just a normal batch of loud-'n'-crazy drunks.
Think it was a quality tip that led to the raid? Think again. Here's what the Ayre statement offered on the matter:
“It has now come to our attention that these suspicions were based solely on an inaccurate article published in a Costa Rican tabloid newspaper, which erroneously reported on aspects of the Forbes magazine article that features me as the subject of its cover story."
Alright, here's a quickie quiz: Excepting anything having to do with Michael Jackson, when's the last time a major raid --- 60 to 100 freakin' armed men --- conducted a raid based on a tip from a tabloid?
And for gambling? A raid that large ought to at least net a liuetenant from a Columbian cartel, shouldn't it? Was there nothing better for the Costa Rican version of S.W.A.T. teams to do on a Saturday night?
Oh, but we hadn't heard the whole story yet... in more ways than one. It turned out that there was a gambling connection with some validity: the wrap-up party was for the finishing of shooting for the “Calvin Ayre Wildcard Poker” series, a six-part program that also will focus much of its attention on Ayre's own lifestyle. Also, there was a poker tournament connected with the filming of the show, a $500,000 challenge that actually was a freeroll... there was no cost to enter for the high-roller players that participated. Apparantly, that's where some of the confusion began. According to the subsequent local reports:
"Ayre, a 44-year-old Canadian, denies he violated any Costa Rican gambling laws because there was no cost to the participants to enter the $500,000 poker challenge that was taped, he said. In addition, Bodog.com of which he is CEO and founder, had disclosed earlier Monday that the actual poker games that are part of the show were filmed at the Channel 7 television studio in Sabana Oeste." Ayre went on to say that at no time was he detained or arrested, and that the party was still a "success," although it was relocated to a nearby hotel, where, for the remainder of the evening, Ayre resumed "partying with models, celebrities, and poker pros,” poor guy that he is. Heh.
But he wasn't the only one doing the partying, meaning the lawyers for everyone will get a little bit richer later on. Seems that when the raid went for naught, many of the police helped themselves to a free meal from the party's buffet, and three of the cops even stripped and went for a dip in the pool.
I'm guessing this was one raid for which there was no shortage of volunteers; by all accounts, Compound Bodog sounds like the Playboy Mansion, removed to Costa Rica. And besides, the donut shops are seldom open on Saturday nights.
Despite the fact that six Ayre/Bodog "bodyguards" were detained by immigration authorities, the show must always go on. Ayre might even add the incident to the final episode of “Calvin Ayre Wildcard Poker." As he said in his subsequent statement: “It could make a nice and exciting ending to a show watched by millions of people around the world. After all, it is reality television.”
Early reports of the fiasco-in-progress soon surfaced in some of the major online poker media outlets --- such as this piece from Card Player --- and quickly shed some light on a situation gone awry.
According to a statement released by Ayre, the police had been tipped that illegal gambling --- in the form of home-style casino action --- was taking place that evening inside Ayre's "Bodog Compound" estate. And when the police arrived, sure enough, the place was a beehive of activity: there was a wrap-up party taking place for Ayre's show, which is filmed in San Jose (Costa Rica's capital, and also the locale of the Ayre estate). But no gambling. Just a normal batch of loud-'n'-crazy drunks.
Think it was a quality tip that led to the raid? Think again. Here's what the Ayre statement offered on the matter:
“It has now come to our attention that these suspicions were based solely on an inaccurate article published in a Costa Rican tabloid newspaper, which erroneously reported on aspects of the Forbes magazine article that features me as the subject of its cover story."
Alright, here's a quickie quiz: Excepting anything having to do with Michael Jackson, when's the last time a major raid --- 60 to 100 freakin' armed men --- conducted a raid based on a tip from a tabloid?
And for gambling? A raid that large ought to at least net a liuetenant from a Columbian cartel, shouldn't it? Was there nothing better for the Costa Rican version of S.W.A.T. teams to do on a Saturday night?
Oh, but we hadn't heard the whole story yet... in more ways than one. It turned out that there was a gambling connection with some validity: the wrap-up party was for the finishing of shooting for the “Calvin Ayre Wildcard Poker” series, a six-part program that also will focus much of its attention on Ayre's own lifestyle. Also, there was a poker tournament connected with the filming of the show, a $500,000 challenge that actually was a freeroll... there was no cost to enter for the high-roller players that participated. Apparantly, that's where some of the confusion began. According to the subsequent local reports:
"Ayre, a 44-year-old Canadian, denies he violated any Costa Rican gambling laws because there was no cost to the participants to enter the $500,000 poker challenge that was taped, he said. In addition, Bodog.com of which he is CEO and founder, had disclosed earlier Monday that the actual poker games that are part of the show were filmed at the Channel 7 television studio in Sabana Oeste." Ayre went on to say that at no time was he detained or arrested, and that the party was still a "success," although it was relocated to a nearby hotel, where, for the remainder of the evening, Ayre resumed "partying with models, celebrities, and poker pros,” poor guy that he is. Heh.
But he wasn't the only one doing the partying, meaning the lawyers for everyone will get a little bit richer later on. Seems that when the raid went for naught, many of the police helped themselves to a free meal from the party's buffet, and three of the cops even stripped and went for a dip in the pool.
I'm guessing this was one raid for which there was no shortage of volunteers; by all accounts, Compound Bodog sounds like the Playboy Mansion, removed to Costa Rica. And besides, the donut shops are seldom open on Saturday nights.
Despite the fact that six Ayre/Bodog "bodyguards" were detained by immigration authorities, the show must always go on. Ayre might even add the incident to the final episode of “Calvin Ayre Wildcard Poker." As he said in his subsequent statement: “It could make a nice and exciting ending to a show watched by millions of people around the world. After all, it is reality television.”
Sunday, March 12, 2006
"This Week"'s Poker Highlights...
KAP's lively "This Week in Poker" blog brings you a look at the controversy surrounding the anti-online-gambling legislation sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA). Other new posts include an unintentionally (?!?!) hilarious ad from Atlantic City's Borgata casino, a quickie look at some of the poker-themed webcasts that are populating the 'Net, and a look inside poker author Lou Krieger's latest book, which just hit the shelves. Have fun and enjoy the reading!
Texas Radio and the Bad Beat
Okay, okay, it's "Big Beat," not "Bad Beat," referring to the song from The Doors, which brings to a close this week's two-outer on '60s and '70s music references. But the reason for this post's cheesy title is the proliferation of Internet radio stations and podcasts featuring poker as their reas'n fer bein', and one of the very largest of these hails from Austin, TX, a relative poker hotbed.
A friend recently referred me to Hold'Em Radio, a web station billing itself as the "world's only 24 x 7 poker radio station." That's true enough, but be advised that each week's schedule includes (as of now) about 10-15 hours of original programming and lots (and lots and lots) of repeats. Still, even 10-15 hours per week of original poker interviews, commentary and news is an excellent "happenings" source for the serious player, especially if the player isn't in Vegas, L.A. or Atlantic City. (And for you guys always looking for a little eye candy, you can check out occasional show-host Lexxy by clicking here.)
Anyway, it's fun to have one of these stations on your computer's media player, filling up the background as you plug away in yet another MTT. Yes, one of these stations --- there are quite a few stations like this, although not all are well known.
Two major outlets for poker on the airwaves are the Bluff-sponsored, syndicated "Nick and Wally" show, which airs every Wednesday at 8:00 ET on Sports Byline USA, Sirius Satellite Radio (122), and the Armed Forces Radio Network. Another long-time player in the poker-program biz is the Las Vegas-based Poker Talk Show, and yes, archived programs are at that link for your leisure enjoyment.
And we haven't even started on the subject of the true podcasts, dozens of which offer specialized poker content. Rather than try to list each and every one, it's easier for you to visit Podcast Alley, then type the word "poker" into the prominent "Search for a Podcast" box on the left. A recent search for poker 'casts brought up 50 different sites, although about 10 of those are false hits, meaning the true number is closer to 40. That's a lot of poker content, and a word to the wise: quality on these ranges from damned decent to damned dreadful. Yet many are still worth the visit. Just make sure you have Windows Media Player or RealPlayer on your machine (or, preferably, both) and listen away.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled poker game.
A friend recently referred me to Hold'Em Radio, a web station billing itself as the "world's only 24 x 7 poker radio station." That's true enough, but be advised that each week's schedule includes (as of now) about 10-15 hours of original programming and lots (and lots and lots) of repeats. Still, even 10-15 hours per week of original poker interviews, commentary and news is an excellent "happenings" source for the serious player, especially if the player isn't in Vegas, L.A. or Atlantic City. (And for you guys always looking for a little eye candy, you can check out occasional show-host Lexxy by clicking here.)
Anyway, it's fun to have one of these stations on your computer's media player, filling up the background as you plug away in yet another MTT. Yes, one of these stations --- there are quite a few stations like this, although not all are well known.
Two major outlets for poker on the airwaves are the Bluff-sponsored, syndicated "Nick and Wally" show, which airs every Wednesday at 8:00 ET on Sports Byline USA, Sirius Satellite Radio (122), and the Armed Forces Radio Network. Another long-time player in the poker-program biz is the Las Vegas-based Poker Talk Show, and yes, archived programs are at that link for your leisure enjoyment.
And we haven't even started on the subject of the true podcasts, dozens of which offer specialized poker content. Rather than try to list each and every one, it's easier for you to visit Podcast Alley, then type the word "poker" into the prominent "Search for a Podcast" box on the left. A recent search for poker 'casts brought up 50 different sites, although about 10 of those are false hits, meaning the true number is closer to 40. That's a lot of poker content, and a word to the wise: quality on these ranges from damned decent to damned dreadful. Yet many are still worth the visit. Just make sure you have Windows Media Player or RealPlayer on your machine (or, preferably, both) and listen away.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled poker game.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
That Ol' PhotoShop Magic
Sometimes an ad is so bad, it's very, very good. The reason? You can't put the thing out of your thoughts. It's effective advertising, because ads like this are a bit like all those crooked pictures on the wall at your great aunt's --- you keep staring at the things, not because you necessarily want to straighten them, but because your mind's telling you that... there's something wrong there.... The end result is that the ad sticks in your craw, becoming memorable, if not necessarily for the right reasons.
We have, for your enjoyment, an ad from the current newsstand edition of Card Player, pumping up the poker-room renovation/expansion at the Borgata in Atlantic City:
We have, for your enjoyment, an ad from the current newsstand edition of Card Player, pumping up the poker-room renovation/expansion at the Borgata in Atlantic City:
My oh my oh my.
As the ad proclaims: "It's no longer a secret. We're expanding our poker room. Start practicing." Well, of course they are, silly; then they won't have to play on reconstituted blackjack tables like the one shown in the ad.
But that's just the start. The mind reels when one gets sucked in by the phony imagery here. The last time I saw any player's hands that close to the dealer's chip rack, the hands finished the game not attached to the rest of the player, and Wendy's stock dropped six points. (Ba-da-bing!) But about those hands... my God. They aren't that model's, unless, that is, she's the illegitimate daughter of E.T. Just look at those mitts --- bigger'n her head, they are!
Yet we're missing the gist of the photo; after all, we should be congratulating this ad's heroine on that kickass pot she's raking in. She flopped a set of aces, and the poor sap next to her (the guy in the open shirt who's been bummed out ever since he missed out on the lead role on Tilt) rode his underset of queens to an expensive demise. But --- whoa! --- that happy dude on the right's flashing a heart jack that in no way fits anything on the board, yet he was in there for the ride, too. At the bottom, the ad's text advises that there will soon be "More Chances to Find Your Game." Close. That Mr. Sammy Farha-wannabe needs to find a game; as of right now his really sucks. In the meantime, I want him at my table.
Accidental brilliance. I can't for the life of me decide whether this is as clever a one-off ad as anything that's ever appeared in a poker magazine, or just another case of Intern Day at the ol' ad agency. I'm going to bet on the latter, but this is one pot I'm not going to cap.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Good Grief, It's Goodlatte!!
"Changes in attitudes, changes in latitudes, nothing remains quite the same. Through all of our running and all of our cunning, if we couldn't laugh we would all go insane." --- Jimmy Buffett
If you haven't been reading the ongoing theatrics concerning Congressman Bob Goodlatte (Rep., VA) and the reintroduction of his Internet Gambling Prohibition Act [IGPA], then you haven't been paying attention to much beyond that maniac chip-flinger in seat three. Intended as an upgrading of the Wire Act for modern times, this revision of the IGPA is intended to specifically criminalize the type of gambling that takes place over the Internet --- what most of you readers of this here blog are doing on a frequent basis.
The last time around, the efforts of Goodlatte & Friends were defeated largely by the work of now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff; the measure passed the Senate but never came to the floor of the House. This lap, the most effective opposition to the IGPA and related legislation is coming from outside the U.S., in the form of a World Trade Organization decision against the Wire Act and related American legislation as it exists today. Antigua, home of several online gambling concerns, successfully argued before the WTO that America's stance interfered with its (the U.S.'s) own international trade commitments.
The U.S. was given until April 3rd to bring its laws into accordance with the WTO's decision, but the Goodlatte legislation --- the only major pending legal activity on the topic --- would take the U.S. in the opposite direction, even farther from the requirements of the WTO decree. Nor is the U.S. the only major country searching for ways to regulate its virtual borders in these matters; Italy and Sweden have also been in the news lately on related matters.
Keep that in mind, for we'll circle back to the good Rep. Goodlatte in a bit.
The pro-gambling folks note several factors that work against Goodlatte's latest efforts. The international efforts of competing entities such as Antigua are one, of course. Another is that online/international gambling concerns are a much larger concern today than just a few years ago, with total combined valuations in the tens of billions of dollars... with the lobbying muscle to match. Third, the pending legislation doesn't prevent the online gambling; rather, it specifically includes such Internet activity as an addition to the list of banned "wire" commerce. So, the enforcement of said law would be another matter altogether.
Many opponents to Goodlatte --- American or otherwise --- point out the hypocrisy inherent in
the current laws. Mark Cuban, owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, recently chimed in with a lengthy post on the topic. Cuban's right, of course, as are the legions of others who've added similar comments to the chorus. Anyone with a thimbleful of common sense knows that the driving force behind the legislation is financial for most of the politicians involved in the push. Seriously, never put 30 Congressman in a large hall and say the words "sin tax," unless you've got a phalanx of janitors on standby to mop up the drool.
While sin tax is the motivator behind this legislation for most of the politicians, it's not the motivator for all. There's another issue here pertaining to something I think of as "face" legislation... and that's where one other hidden danger lies.
A huge number of proposed laws are introduced not because they have a reasonable chance of passing, but because the introduction and effort look so good to the introducing politician's core constituency. That's a big part of what's going on here; the effort looks good to the like-minded and generates lots of free publicity to boot. It's a win/win situation whenever a politician attempts to seize the moral high ground.
Fortunately, there's a surefire litmus test for determining when a "face" issue is at hand. Here's a quote from Goodlatte concerning the IGPA: "The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act is vital to protect our children and communities from the problems of addiction, crime, bankruptcy and family difficulties that come from gambling."
Did you catch the keyword that identifies this as a "face" issue?
The answer, of course, is "children." Despite the fact that all the problems cited by Goodlatte are real, the truth is that they're less attributable to the Internet, in the case of children, than most other forms of gambling. Here's a link to a Seattle-area story about underage gambling. It's very real, very serious, but in this too-frequent tale, the internet is nowhere to be seen. It's also true that sometimes the Internet is part of the tale, as in this blog's recounting last week of the scandal concerning online cheater JJProdigy, who, in the process of being stripped of $180,000 of winnings from Party, turned out to be only 16.
No doubt Goodlatte's support staff rubbed their hands in anticipation when they heard about that.
Seriously, though, the ploys used by most politicians in these matters are about gaining leverage, not --- appearances to the contrary --- about embarking on moral crusades. It's how the game is played. So, every time a JJProdigy or a Jack Abramoff pops up --- no matter the context --- it's ammunition for the other side.
And let's not even talk about that idiot with the GoldenPalace.com t-shirt who crashed the stage at the closing ceremonies of the Olympics. Golden Palace Casino, you might recall, is the same enthusiast of guerrilla marketing who once rented out temporary billboard space on mom-to-be Amber Rainey's eight-months-preggers stomach. (The lack of a link in this blog entry to Golden Palace is intentional, and a comment, if you will.)
So what happens from here?
First, the chances that the U.S. will get its laws in accordance with the WTO decree by the April 3rd deadline are approximately equal to the chances that I'll win the WSOP Main Event later this year. It ain't gonna happen. In fact (despite the pooh-poohing from some parts of the pro-gambling lobby), there's a reasonable chance that some form of the Goodlatte legislation could make it's way into law, if not immediately, then at some point in the next few years. It may be bad law, enforceable only selectively, but that's not the point. What is important to the legislators pushing it is that it creates the leverage by which the U.S. will gain control over the industry. Control = Dollars.
What would happen, in the wake of said enactment, would be a number of high-profile busts of big-dollar Internet players. If you think of it as a Napster-like process, in terms of going after the "culprits," you'll get the picture. The busts themselves weren't the point of the Napster lawsuits; it was the attempt to "reign in" the industry that was the key. The same approach might not even work for the Goodlatte faction here, but it's the only viable path they have for attempting to accomplish their goals.
Rest assured that it's not happening today. Nor tomorrow. But sometime, off in the future....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
One more update: Lou Krieger just sent me a note about the Goodlatte legislation. More specifically, he's excerpted from an e-mail that he received from an educated source, clarifying some of the provisions included in the legislation introduced by Goodlatte and others. So click on over to Lou's blog, and read for yourself. As currently proposed, some of the measures are draconian, but that's to be expected when hypocrisy and greed hide beneath the mask of moral righteousness. I hate to put it that directly, but it's the truth.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Book Review: Secrets the Pros Won't Tell You About Winning Hold'Em Poker
A worthy addition to any player's well-stocked poker library is Secrets the Pros Won't Tell You About Winning Hold'Em Poker, by Lou Krieger and Sheree Bykofsky ($14.95, Kensington Books). Before I go any further, I'll point out that I do know Lou and consider him a friend, and while I'm unfamiliar with any of Sheree's earlier work, I have three of Lou's books in my own collection. So take this mild "plug" warning to heart.
Lou's one of the old vets of poker-authordom, being a mainstay of the bookstore shelf since the days when one shelf actually held all the available poker titles. It's no surprise that this March 1 release from Krieger and Bykofsky meets the standards of Krieger's earlier works, offering up a capped pot full o' poker nuggets in a format that's both consistent in writing quality and easier to digest than many of its counterparts.
I'm one of those picky sorts that values quality writing (no matter the topic), because the better the writing, the easier it is for the reader to figure out exactly what the hell is going on. Compare this to something like the latest "Bluff Magazine" dreck from Antonio Esfandiari, and you'll understand the difference between decent word-work and random spewage from a player (Esfandiari) --- admittedly a wonderful player, too --- whose writing abilities stop roughly at the level of text messaging.
Woof.
Back to Secrets. Here's why you should at least consider adding it to your collection. Krieger and Bykofsky's effort is aimed squarely at the intermediate player (with an extra focus on ring-game action), and it's a book that starts with general categories of thought, then focuses in on a number of concepts that have the capacity to jump your game forward, a step at a time. The first third of the book, "Basic Strategies and Play," is in fact a primer of sorts, though it's well worth the read. Call it attitude correction --- this section will remind you what you should be thinking about, every time you sit at the table, rather than what you actually are.
From there the book delves into a number of topics, including "Tactics, Strategies, and Ploys," "Image," "Money" (about bankroll considerations), "Minimal Math" and more. The Tactics section is especially solid, as it offers up the second- and third-level logic behind certain types of plays that can help put some teeth into your desire to play selective/aggressive poker. The "Minimal Math" section, hamstrung a bit by the authors' needs to not get too arcane, nonetheless includes a couple of neat "odds" charts that might be worth photocopying and keeping near to your computer as you play.
(Digression warning here --- this reminds of me my older boat-anchor computer, still occasionally in use, which I festooned with all sorts of taped-on sticky notes as I learned my poker basics. My sticky collection still includes such gems as "You are a calling station," "Attack or fold!!," and "RELEASE on the check-raise, you damn fool!!" Which doesn't mean I always do any or all of the above, of course....)
Back to our review. I like to think of Secrets as a counterpoint to some of Sklansky's books, among the most seminal strategy guides on the market. Let's face it: Sklansky's efforts offer wonderful concepts but are as easy to digest as oh, a Metamucil sandwich. Secrets is the type of book that will help you take those poker concepts that you know about --- but haven't really taken to heart --- and help you implement then within your game.
Lou's one of the old vets of poker-authordom, being a mainstay of the bookstore shelf since the days when one shelf actually held all the available poker titles. It's no surprise that this March 1 release from Krieger and Bykofsky meets the standards of Krieger's earlier works, offering up a capped pot full o' poker nuggets in a format that's both consistent in writing quality and easier to digest than many of its counterparts.
I'm one of those picky sorts that values quality writing (no matter the topic), because the better the writing, the easier it is for the reader to figure out exactly what the hell is going on. Compare this to something like the latest "Bluff Magazine" dreck from Antonio Esfandiari, and you'll understand the difference between decent word-work and random spewage from a player (Esfandiari) --- admittedly a wonderful player, too --- whose writing abilities stop roughly at the level of text messaging.
Woof.
Back to Secrets. Here's why you should at least consider adding it to your collection. Krieger and Bykofsky's effort is aimed squarely at the intermediate player (with an extra focus on ring-game action), and it's a book that starts with general categories of thought, then focuses in on a number of concepts that have the capacity to jump your game forward, a step at a time. The first third of the book, "Basic Strategies and Play," is in fact a primer of sorts, though it's well worth the read. Call it attitude correction --- this section will remind you what you should be thinking about, every time you sit at the table, rather than what you actually are.
From there the book delves into a number of topics, including "Tactics, Strategies, and Ploys," "Image," "Money" (about bankroll considerations), "Minimal Math" and more. The Tactics section is especially solid, as it offers up the second- and third-level logic behind certain types of plays that can help put some teeth into your desire to play selective/aggressive poker. The "Minimal Math" section, hamstrung a bit by the authors' needs to not get too arcane, nonetheless includes a couple of neat "odds" charts that might be worth photocopying and keeping near to your computer as you play.
(Digression warning here --- this reminds of me my older boat-anchor computer, still occasionally in use, which I festooned with all sorts of taped-on sticky notes as I learned my poker basics. My sticky collection still includes such gems as "You are a calling station," "Attack or fold!!," and "RELEASE on the check-raise, you damn fool!!" Which doesn't mean I always do any or all of the above, of course....)
Back to our review. I like to think of Secrets as a counterpoint to some of Sklansky's books, among the most seminal strategy guides on the market. Let's face it: Sklansky's efforts offer wonderful concepts but are as easy to digest as oh, a Metamucil sandwich. Secrets is the type of book that will help you take those poker concepts that you know about --- but haven't really taken to heart --- and help you implement then within your game.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
This Week's "This Week in Poker" Highlights...
Lots of new material here for KAP fans to savor... just scroll down and check out the recent posts. A major article looks at the recent JJProdigy/ZeeJustin online cheating scandals, and shorter posts include an entry in the "next generation" of B&M casino poker tables, a look at a couple of precious moments in that barren landscape otherwise known as Fox Sports Net poker, and an overview of the first two rounds of action at the 2006 National Heads-Up Poker Championship, to be televised next month on NBC. The action's to you.
2006 National Heads-Up Poker Championship
For the the biggest poker names this weekend meant business as usual... meaning another high-entry, soon-to-be televised tournament. While we're busy watching second- and third-tier college basketball teams play their way into the Big Dance --- which is gonna be trouble for Atlantic Sun champ Belmont, a conservative school that doesn't allow Dancing (!) --- 64 of the biggest card heavies in the world have been banging heads in the early rounds of the 2006 National Heads-Up Poker Championship. The event is taking place at Caeser's in Las Vegas, being filmed for broadcast on NBC the weekend of April 16th, and at this writing the first two levels of play have been complete.
First, let's do the SPOILER ALERT!!! thing again right here. If you don't wan't to know any of the early results, read no further.
Second, if you'd like to keep tabs on the proceedings beyond the first two rounds, or if you have a favorite you'd really like to track, then the best source might be the live logs over at Card Player Magazine's site.
Third, if you want to read about something here besides televised poker, then you're also in luck --- we'll be drifting off to other topics after this short post. But the reason for this post is that sometimes the most intriguing matchups take place in the early rounds, and most of those will receive brief (if any) television exposure.
So, a few highlights from Rounds 1 and 2:
Hold That Tiger: Tiger was the fave at Doral this weekend, and won. Tiger II (a.k.a. Phil Ivey) was the fave here, and didn't. Ivey went out in the first round to Erik Seidel.
What, No Poker Babes? And as for the fairer sex, they took a 1-for-5 beat in Round 1 as well. Annie Duke... Evelyn Ng... Cyndy Violette... Jennifer Tilly... all gone. Only Dee Luong made it to Round 2, where she lost to Scott Fischman.
Caution, No Flammables: The random draw dropped Mike "The Mouth" Matusow and Phil Hellmuth into the same one-eighth of the total 64-player bracket. Both lost their opening matches, too, and Hellmuth's departure means no repeat winner, either. Viewers on the lookout for poker-punk behavior are at this point left rooting for someone like Josh Arieh or Sean Sheikhan. Arieh was one of the two survivors of the Matusow/Hellmuth region of the bracket --- "Jesus" Ferguson was the other. Talk about a tough early draw. This eight-player region pitted Matusow, Hellmuth, Arieh, Ferguson, Chip Reese, Freddy Deeb, Eli Elezra and David Williams. Sheesh. As for Sheikhan, he's survived his own tough early road, getting by Gus Hansen and Doyle Brunson.
Don't fret if you think that there won't be any big names or exciting poker to watch in the later rounds, either, meaning the majority of the stuff you'll actually see on the tube. One example: A huge Round 3 showdown matches Daniel Negreanu against T.J. Cloutier. (Can't wait for that one.) Other big clashes are the Ferguson/Arieh match, along with Barry Greenstein/Amir Vahedi and Michael Mizrachi/Sam Farha. More big names still in the hunt include Ted Forrest, Huck Seed, and author/player James McManus, the last of the "celebrity" entries, meaning those players who were famous before they played big-time poker (i.e. Tilly, Jerry Buss or James Woods). Not that those folks can't play poker, either.
Good stuff, indeed. Put it on your calendar for the middle of April.
First, let's do the SPOILER ALERT!!! thing again right here. If you don't wan't to know any of the early results, read no further.
Second, if you'd like to keep tabs on the proceedings beyond the first two rounds, or if you have a favorite you'd really like to track, then the best source might be the live logs over at Card Player Magazine's site.
Third, if you want to read about something here besides televised poker, then you're also in luck --- we'll be drifting off to other topics after this short post. But the reason for this post is that sometimes the most intriguing matchups take place in the early rounds, and most of those will receive brief (if any) television exposure.
So, a few highlights from Rounds 1 and 2:
Hold That Tiger: Tiger was the fave at Doral this weekend, and won. Tiger II (a.k.a. Phil Ivey) was the fave here, and didn't. Ivey went out in the first round to Erik Seidel.
What, No Poker Babes? And as for the fairer sex, they took a 1-for-5 beat in Round 1 as well. Annie Duke... Evelyn Ng... Cyndy Violette... Jennifer Tilly... all gone. Only Dee Luong made it to Round 2, where she lost to Scott Fischman.
Caution, No Flammables: The random draw dropped Mike "The Mouth" Matusow and Phil Hellmuth into the same one-eighth of the total 64-player bracket. Both lost their opening matches, too, and Hellmuth's departure means no repeat winner, either. Viewers on the lookout for poker-punk behavior are at this point left rooting for someone like Josh Arieh or Sean Sheikhan. Arieh was one of the two survivors of the Matusow/Hellmuth region of the bracket --- "Jesus" Ferguson was the other. Talk about a tough early draw. This eight-player region pitted Matusow, Hellmuth, Arieh, Ferguson, Chip Reese, Freddy Deeb, Eli Elezra and David Williams. Sheesh. As for Sheikhan, he's survived his own tough early road, getting by Gus Hansen and Doyle Brunson.
Don't fret if you think that there won't be any big names or exciting poker to watch in the later rounds, either, meaning the majority of the stuff you'll actually see on the tube. One example: A huge Round 3 showdown matches Daniel Negreanu against T.J. Cloutier. (Can't wait for that one.) Other big clashes are the Ferguson/Arieh match, along with Barry Greenstein/Amir Vahedi and Michael Mizrachi/Sam Farha. More big names still in the hunt include Ted Forrest, Huck Seed, and author/player James McManus, the last of the "celebrity" entries, meaning those players who were famous before they played big-time poker (i.e. Tilly, Jerry Buss or James Woods). Not that those folks can't play poker, either.
Good stuff, indeed. Put it on your calendar for the middle of April.
Nuggets of Hilarity in the FSN TV Poker Mire
Watching poker on Fox Sports Net tends to be, charitably stated, a bit of an acquired taste. The Poker Superstars Invitational Series --- at least as far as the first year's set-up goes --- was a poorly structured affair manufactured more to fill air time than to provide scintillating poker competition. It's tough to watch players position themselves through a series of preliminary rounds, rather than necessarily trying to win. Call it the poker equivalent of the NHL regular season and playoffs, and it all left viewers without that "Clash of the Titans" feel that marks the best of the televised WSOP or WPT events. Toss in the ad nauseum reruns of each and every episode, and we get to see the same not-very-exciting action time and again.
That said, there's a couple of moments in the FSN poker coverage that you just don't want to miss.
As this is written, FSN is airing its neverending reruns of the "semifinals" episode of the first season. At this point the tournament has transitioned to head-to-head-matchup format, best two out of three. Both semifinals take up just one show, and when you watch the second semifinal, pairing Antonio Esfandiari and Todd Brunson, you're in for a bit of a treat. Let's just say that it's not a long match. Nor is it exciting. But worth watching? Absolutely.
The theme behind the above is best generalized under the category header "aggressive play," and another gem of a TV poker moment (on the same topic) comes along in the Full Tilt-sponsored "Learn From the Pros." This one's in the episode "Defending the Blinds," and we drop in here as co-host Howard Lederer narrates coverage from an unnamed tournament.
We get to see noted aggressive player Carlos Mortensen, on the button, finding himself with a suited J-7, then trying a steal-raise. In the big blind is Mike "The Mad Genius" Caro, author of "Caro's Book of Tells." Caro must have picked one up here, because he comes back over the top of Mortensen's steal attempt... without looking at his hole cards.
Mortensen's expression, as he realizes that Caro has played back at him so audaciously, is one of those precious moments that any good poker player will enjoy. And yes, we'll even give you a...
SPOILER ALERT!!!
... before you read any further. Not that we even know what event this hand comes from, but still...
Very well, then. Mortensen, with a half-quizzical look o' death towards Caro, mucks his steal attempt. Hilarious. Mortenson had the guts to try to steal against two random blinds, but when the price was hiked, he couldn't follow through and make the play against one random blind instead.
And of course, the kicker: Caro rakes in the chips, checks his pockets, and discovers a thoroughly worthless offsuit 8-2. And that's priceless, too.
It would have been nice if we could have seen the context of the play, to better evaluate the chip stacks and comparative positions and such things. Chances are good that Caro's play took advantage of a game-theory concept called utility function, but that's a topic for another post. It's also likely that while this fit the show's concept of "Defending the Blinds," it wasn't really that in this case --- it was instead an instance where Caro made a rock-solid on a Mortensen tell.
So go check these airings out. Each contains one of those odd moments in televised poker that stands apart from its trappings, and that's sometimes the best viewing of all.
That said, there's a couple of moments in the FSN poker coverage that you just don't want to miss.
As this is written, FSN is airing its neverending reruns of the "semifinals" episode of the first season. At this point the tournament has transitioned to head-to-head-matchup format, best two out of three. Both semifinals take up just one show, and when you watch the second semifinal, pairing Antonio Esfandiari and Todd Brunson, you're in for a bit of a treat. Let's just say that it's not a long match. Nor is it exciting. But worth watching? Absolutely.
The theme behind the above is best generalized under the category header "aggressive play," and another gem of a TV poker moment (on the same topic) comes along in the Full Tilt-sponsored "Learn From the Pros." This one's in the episode "Defending the Blinds," and we drop in here as co-host Howard Lederer narrates coverage from an unnamed tournament.
We get to see noted aggressive player Carlos Mortensen, on the button, finding himself with a suited J-7, then trying a steal-raise. In the big blind is Mike "The Mad Genius" Caro, author of "Caro's Book of Tells." Caro must have picked one up here, because he comes back over the top of Mortensen's steal attempt... without looking at his hole cards.
Mortensen's expression, as he realizes that Caro has played back at him so audaciously, is one of those precious moments that any good poker player will enjoy. And yes, we'll even give you a...
SPOILER ALERT!!!
... before you read any further. Not that we even know what event this hand comes from, but still...
Very well, then. Mortensen, with a half-quizzical look o' death towards Caro, mucks his steal attempt. Hilarious. Mortenson had the guts to try to steal against two random blinds, but when the price was hiked, he couldn't follow through and make the play against one random blind instead.
And of course, the kicker: Caro rakes in the chips, checks his pockets, and discovers a thoroughly worthless offsuit 8-2. And that's priceless, too.
It would have been nice if we could have seen the context of the play, to better evaluate the chip stacks and comparative positions and such things. Chances are good that Caro's play took advantage of a game-theory concept called utility function, but that's a topic for another post. It's also likely that while this fit the show's concept of "Defending the Blinds," it wasn't really that in this case --- it was instead an instance where Caro made a rock-solid on a Mortensen tell.
So go check these airings out. Each contains one of those odd moments in televised poker that stands apart from its trappings, and that's sometimes the best viewing of all.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
The Next Wave of Table Games
From the "This is Not a Plug" Department, I've gotta admit that I was intrigued when I ran across the fulltiltmag.com article a month or two back that promoted... errr, examined... the new PokerPro video monitor-driven poker table from the folks at North Carolina-based
PokerTek. While this blogger detests "reviews" that are thinly disguised promotional pieces, there's enough meat on the conceptual bones of PokerTek's new tables to visit the topic here.
PokerTek. While this blogger detests "reviews" that are thinly disguised promotional pieces, there's enough meat on the conceptual bones of PokerTek's new tables to visit the topic here.
Yes, these tables are already in place at a handful of locations worldwide, including casinos in Florida and Oklahoma here in the States. Kinda cool, to be sure. So take a moment to check that PokerTek link, watch the promo video, get a feel for what's coming down the pike. I'll wait.
... da-dum-dum-da-dee-dum... da-dum-dum-dee...
Ahh, thanks for indulging. So whaddya think? Cool? Even way cool? Here's the skinny from this prognisticator: These tables, or something similar, are indeed the wave of the future. From the casinos' point of view, an innovation like this attacks and improves the cost/benefits ratio that's so dear to their bottom line --- more hands played, less labor and training, and so on. And players, for the most part, will adapt. I'm old enough to remember when video slots (and video poker) appeared, and I remember the reactionary backlash in that the arm-pulling of the "one-armed bandit" was a vital part of that particular gaming experience.
That particular myth didn't take too long to be debunked, of course. The electronic slots all still have pull-arms, and those arms do work... but no one uses them.
That said, I'd wait a bit before rushing out and loading up on that PokerTek stock (even assuming it's publicly held). These tables might be catching on and play well, but the security of each player's individual screens is something that's likely to be modified over time. Check that promotional video closely, and what you won't find are specific screen grabs for the individual players. It's obvious that player-to-player security is an overriding concern, and while the PokerTek site doesn't offer detail, it's a safe bet that the individual player screens are highly polarized or utilize twist technology that makes the screen content hard to view from anywhere but directly in front --- meaning that player's screen.
Hard, I said, but not impossible... and that's where the current table's weakness lies. Down cards need to be down --- that's a poker absolute. So, unless each player who sits at one of these tables receives a complimentary supply of index cards and duck tape, they'll be worrying more about shielding their hands from prying eyes than anything else. I doubt the laughing, good-natured players in the promo accurately mirror that wily old vet who'll drop his lucky lighter on the floor then accidentally bump his neighbor's shoulder (and peek over it) as he retrieves it.
Heh. Therefore, expect PokerPro v2, which features not 11 monitors, but 21. The extra 10 would an additional set of mini-monitors (one for each player), solely for the display of hole cards, and each would covered by a cheap-but-durable-and-stylishly-colored plastic lid that pivots up, with collapsing side guards to prevent prying eyes from tuning in. Voila, kiddies... your hole cards are now secure.
As for PokerTek, they don't need to send me a check for product-concept services. They just need, in poker terms, to plug a hole in their game. Oh, yeah, and redo that hokey promo video.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Action and Reaction to ZeeJustin/JJProdigy Cheating
** - Added new updates: JJProdigy Returns
This post would start off with a "FLASH!! STOP THE PRESSES!!" --- except the news ain’t quite that new. If you monitor poker news on the web with any frequency, then you already know that two hot-‘n’-risin’ Internet poker wunderkinds have crashed and burned in separate (but related) incidents the past two weeks. Both incidents began on Party Poker, then spread to PokerStars and other sites, and in both cases, evidence of simultaneous play under multiple accounts was uncovered. Both players had their accounts frozen, funds seized, and were banned from Party and other sites.
Let’s do the mandatory backfill. A couple of weeks back, congratulatory posts appeared on poker-discussion site 2 + 2, lauding online whiz kid JJProdigy for taking down the $140,000 first-place prize in Party Poker’s weekly $500,000 Guarantee tourney. A funny thing happened on the way to the bank, however: other site participants who participated in the same tourney recalled that first place was won by the unknown account "ABlackCar," rather than JJProdigy’s own widely known account, which had also participated but busted out earlier in the tourney.
Sure enough, an investigation by Party Poker conclusively found that ABlackCar and JJProdigy were one and the same real-life player, with the resultant stripping of the $140,000 first prize, an additional $40,000 in JJProdigy’s other account, and the closing and banning of JJProdigy from the site. PokerStars subsequently found similar activity on their site, and also banned JJProdigy, and at least one other site has as well, though that has not yet been publicly disclosed.
Who, one might ask, is JJProdigy? Word has leaked that the wunderkind is an actual kid --- 16 years old, to be precise. So his identity won’t appear here. One wry comment in passing, however: JJProdigy rose to fame by winning the celebrated PokerStars Leaderboard challenge with Gigabet, Exclusive and other big online names over the month of August, 2005. Good thing it was summer vacation.
You’d think lightning wouldn’t strike twice, but it did, as only a few days later an even bigger name was exposed as being an angle shooter in the online games. Justin Bonomo, a 20-year-old rising star who is (to date) the youngest player ever to make the final table at a European WPT event, was also exposed, again through unwise forum postings that pointed directly to the existence of multiple and simultaneous-played accounts. Bonomo --- widely known online by the handle "ZeeJustin" --- had approximately $100,000 seized from six different Party accounts, his own widely known one and five others. Each of the six were created with distinct biographical and geographical information, yet all six were traced back to the same physical computer. The six accounts:
ZeeJustin
IBLUFFUOUT69
jwilson55
vapoker58
mehsab
greenb272
While JJProdigy’s admittance of guilt included a concocted story concerning his "grandma"’s account that came straight outta Paul Bunyan, Bonomo’s confession ‘fessed up to the real motivator, greed. Here’s the paragraph from Bonomo/ZeeJustin’s "My Statement" post on 2 + 2 that cuts to the core:
First of all, the accounts were NOT created solely for MTT use. They were originally created for SNG play. It got to the point where everyone knew that ZeeJustin would steal the blinds often, and everyone called him liberally. I created these accounts to erase this loose image. Everyone would be readless against me, and it was a huge advantage. These accounts all did very well in the big SNGs on PartyPoker.
To paraphrase other comments, both players also attempted to rationalize their cheating by noting that some other online players also cheat in this manner, and that "hacks" were available to exploit certain software weaknesses to allow cheating of this type easier. Bonomo’s posting, in particular, offered up curiously twisted logic, pointing the dreaded Finger of Evil back at Party Poker for (a) being easy to exploit, and (b) then having the audacity to seize funds at least partially obtained through said illegal exploitation. Illegal, mind you, in terms of Party’s own ToC; I ain’t a lawyer (though I talk a good game), so we’ll stay away from the other stuff.
There. Backfill thus completed, it’s time to step away from our two l’il naughty boys for a bit. Let’s just say that right now, JJProdigy and ZeeJustin are… lyin’ low.
What should be of most concern to the thinking online poker player is not how and why these kids cheated, but how and why their cheating --- and the sites’ inevitable reactions to it --- will affect the online game. Because, and make no mistake about it, the other sites are scrambling to re-evaluate their security measures, participation rules and more in the wake of this affair.
Unsurprisingly, the most vocal of the other site hosts has been Lee Jones over at PokerStars. Lee was quick to post the results of Stars’ own investigations, showing that for both JJProdigy and ZeeJustin, the cheating wasn’t limited to Party. However, a difference in how Stars enacted their banishment of Bonomo/ZeeJustin, when compared with Party’s actions, shows the flux of the situation.
Here are two rapid-fire 2 + 2 posts from Jones:
(Post #1)
Hi folks -
We did our own review of ZeeJustin and unfortunately, found that he'd been playing multiple accounts in several tournaments at PokerStars.
* We confiscated the money that he won illicitly.
* We closed his accounts and banned him from PokerStars.
* We are returning the money he won illicitly to players who were harmed by his actions in those same tournaments.
Obviously, we don't like doing this, but the evidence was incontrovertible. We will do whatever it takes to keep our games and tournaments clean.
Best regards,
Lee Jones
PokerStars Poker Room Manager
(Post #2)
Hi folks -
As regards ZeeJustin...
1. He had a single extra PokerStars account which he rarely used.
2. His big tournament win on PokerStars was legitimate (we checked it carefully). The amount of money that we ascribed to illicit play was relatively small (less than $5K), and we confiscated that entire amount. We permitted him to cash out the balance over that….
Right at the bottom is the important difference: Party confiscated everything, whereas Stars confiscated only that which they could trace directly to cheating, and allowed Bonomo to withdraw the rest. As for the $140,000 from JJProdigy’s big tourney win, that was redistributed directly to the players in that tourney, with all other finishers being bumped up one spot and receiving an accordant jump in prize money.
A key sub-topic has arisen asking what the plans are for the redistribution of the remaining seized funds, which may explain why Stars was hesitant to grab the remainder of Bonomo’s account funds in the first place. Party, on the other hand, confiscated the additional $40,000 that JJProdigy had in their system. This commentator actually favors Party’s actions in this matter, even though it puts Party --- already viewed in some quarters as draconian for their actions in the Empire matter --- in the delicate position of having possible financial incentive to find (or even create) cheaters, just to have reason to confiscate some more funds.
It’s possible, but a bit paranoid. Mass seizures of account funds without specific provocations would raise red flags across the ‘Net, and give a company like Party --- i.e.: publicly held --- the type of black eye most dreaded: A reason for stock prices to go down.
That said, Party must be public and proactive concerning what they do with funds seized from indirect cheating. Since it’s impractical to check back into every tournament or ring game ZeeJustin or JJProdigy ever played, there’s no easy way to distribute those remaining funds. Online posters favor a freeroll (of course) for site members, but other options include a very public development or incremental enhancement of security/anti-cheating measures, or even a donation to a worthy cause, such as anti-underage gambling efforts. One can’t help but wince when learning the real age of a JJProdigy or a ZapAA, the 17-year-old bounced from the final table of Paradise’s Million Dollar Freeroll. One hates to think of kids like these --- and they are, precisely, half-too-smart little boys in a grown-up’s world --- becoming a cause celebre for a politician with an axe to grind.
And that’s precisely why Stars’ stance is wrong. In a court case, for example, damages awarded are often both actual and punitive. The actual damages are designed to restore the situation to what it should be, and the punitive damages are the disincentive to the infractor to repeat the bad behavior. In the case of Bonomo, Stars’ seizing of all of his remaining funds would have been the punitive damages, as Party did with JJProdigy’s additional 40K. Lacking the boldness to take that step (at least temporarily), Stars now opens itself up to be perceived as a site "soft" on cheaters.
A prediction: We’ll see more changes in site rules in the coming weeks, and not only at Stars.
Moving on, moving out.
Online cheating? Of course it occurs, but its effect on the vast majority of us is small to nil. That said, occasionally a bump occurs in the process of things that causes an industry to size itself up and re-evaluate some things. JJProdigy and ZeeJustin may well represent that bump in this instance. There will always be cheaters, and sooner or later, the vast majority of cheaters will be caught. The reason for such a confident statement is that the process of detection is seldom a smooth flow, but rather an expanding layer of steps and processes that pull down or eliminate new and ever-changing categories of cheaters. So a smug, happy, self-confident cheat ultimately wakes up one morning to find out that his angle has been exposed, or that his secret has been inadvertently let out by another. That’s the fear and the truth for the perennial cheater, always cautious, always side-stepping ahead.
In a way it’s sad to see a Justin Bonomo exposed and his "public" poker career so prematurely aborted. I have no personal ill will towards Justin, no reason to care beyond the general ethic concerns all of us should share. Sure, there’s a general satisfaction in seeing another angle-shooter removed from the game (temporarily or not), but the world moves on. Rest assured that whatever spots Bonomo occupied in the poker universe --- both good and bad --- will soon be filled by another.
A shout-out goes to two other poker bloggers whose monitoring of the boards helped bring clarity of the issue to the web. Bill Rini offers some detailed, excellent commentary, and MissT74 (a.k.a. Tanya Peck) probed Poker Stars’ customer service department for related policy information. Good job, guys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)