I don’t play these stud games all that often, aside from when I occasionally sit down in the 8-game mix games. (I also will play razz now and then.) And when I do play, it is just about always in ring games and practically never in tournaments.

While watching the action last night, I thought more than once about John Lukacs’ denouncing of “seven-card stud, high-low” is his 1963 article “Poker and American Character.” That’s the piece I took a couple of posts to discuss last week (part 1 & part 2).

Lukacs, raised on five-card draw (which he deems “classic” poker), says in his article that “seven-card stud resembles a gambling game with poker nomenclature but not very different from flipping seven pennies and betting on them in turn.” Too much luck, not enough skill — or at least too much diminishment of the “psychological factors” — says Lukacs.

I suggested last week that Lukacs may not have understood seven-card stud especially well. It’s true, I suppose, that any game for which we lack a familiarity with strategy and/or an appreciation for its required skills has the potential to look like “flipping pennies” to us. As I said, I don’t play these games a lot, and I guess there were times last night when I might’ve talked myself into thinking it was just a card-drawing contest, if I didn’t know better.

Heck, for someone who hasn’t played golf before, even that game perhaps might look like a collection of random actions compiled together in the name of competition. But for those who have played the game seriously, they know how complicated the strategy can be, as well as how greatly skill does affect players’ relative success.

Last night’s event featured a number of skilled players, and once the final table began it was apparent from the rapidity of players’ actions that generally speaking all knew exactly what they were doing with pretty much every decision they were making. There was one notable exception, however, right at the final table bubble when there were nine players remaining.

The game had just moved to razz (from stud high). The way the tourney worked, they played 20 minutes of each game before switching, with each game change also bringing an increase in the stakes. There were two tables left, one four-handed and the other five-handed.

At the four-handed table, a few hands had gone by with a player named CianoMar having won a couple of pots to move his stack to around 325,000. That was below average at the time, but there were three or four other players in much worse shape at the time. Not sure, but I think in those hands he won CianoMar had started with an ace and was able to bet his opponents out of the hands by fourth or fifth street.

Then came a hand in which CianoMar bet with a queen showing, then kept pushing the action as he drew a nine and then a jack. Finally the player folded on sixth street, but it was odd to see him remain aggressive with two face cards up.

On the next hand, he stayed in again with a king showing, and when he stuck around after drawing a ten on fourth street it was obvious he hadn’t realized the game had changed to razz. I noticed railbirds in the chatbox starting to type “omg” and the like, noting there that CianoMar was in error. I also saw players on the other five-handed table start to talk to one another about how he didn’t realize the game was razz.

Finally a player at CianoMar’s table typed “it’s razz dude” (or something) and CianoMar quickly corrected his course. By then he’d slipped all of the way down to 75,000 — 9th out of 9! — and was in danger of bubbling the final table. But he caught some cards and scraped back to nearly 500,000 by the end of the level. (He’d eventually finish fourth.)

A bit of an ethical dilemma there, I suppose, for his opponents, one of whom decided it prudent to let him know of his mistake. I’d say it was unfortunate that observers in the chatbox could’ve affected the action there, too. (I believe it isn’t until the final table that observer chat is finally turned off.)

Was kind of wild to see that happening at such a crucial moment in the tournament. Of course, we’ve all been there, I imagine. I know I have when playing mixed games, not realizing until after a hand or two the game had changed.

I guess in a way those few hands which CianoMar misplayed could be said to help prove the point that these games are in fact very different from “flipping seven pennies.” After all, the player who thought he was playing stud during the razz level clearly didn’t have an equal chance to win those hands!

Go to: Hard-Boiled Poker

During August I experimented some with playing three and four tables, but mostly stuck to two-tabling as has been my preference pretty much since I began playing online. Was sitting at two tables yesterday and once again briefly experienced a phenomenon that I’ve been meaning to write about for a while, something I imagine is probably familiar to anyone who routinely multitables.

I had opened two tables of my regular six-handed pot-limit Omaha game. Within a few orbits on each I was essentially even — perhaps up a few bucks — having more than doubled my starting stack on one while losing my stack and having to rebuy on the other.

On the table where things were going well, I’d chipped up not with a single big hand but by winning several small- or medium-sized pots. I was raising from late position a lot, often forcing folds either before or on the flop, and generally encountering little resistance from what seemed to be tight-passive opponents.

On the table where I’d lost my starting stack, I’d run into a check-raise the first time I tried to c-bet a flop, then lost some more on a failed bluff. Soon I was down to less than half my buy-in, at which point I normally top off rather than try to play with a short stack. But I picked up A-A-x-x and ended up getting all of what I had left in the middle. Was up against two opponents and lost, and so had to rebuy.

The latter table featured what seemed to me a couple of decent players, so the combination of uncooperative cards and my opponents made things difficult for me. And, I’ll add, kind of created an image — both to my opponents and to myself — that I wasn’t such a strong player. Meanwhile, on the former table I had both confidence and what appeared some wariness of me and my bets from the other players.

There I was — same username, same icon on both tables. But two very different players.

I continued to play, and realized soon enough that as hands went by I was further building on those two disparate images at each of my tables. On the good table, I kept adding to my stack, raising and pushing the action in ways that were continuing to be profitable. Meanwhile, on the bad table, I became passive, limping into pots when I perhaps should’ve raised, folding in situations when I perhaps should’ve called, and so forth. I wasn’t losing more, but I didn’t feel as though I was doing what was necessary to put myself in situations where I could win, either.

Thus the phenomenon — perhaps unique to the two-tabler, although I suppose those who play more tables probably experience some variation of it, too, — of playing as two separate, very different types of players at once. Ever have that happen to you?

Had a moment yesterday when I played two hands almost simultaneously that seemed to highlight the contrast most vividly. I’ll start with the good.

Hand began with the UTG player limping. The next player folded, and I limped as well from the cutoff with . Could’ve raised, but I’d just open-raised the previous hand from the button. Also I’d just as soon see a flop with this one before proceeding, and didn’t mind a multi-way pot, either. All of which is to say I had conscious reasons for my play (which I couldn’t really say was the case at the other table).

The button called, the SB folded, and the BB checked, so there were four of us in the hand when the flop came .

It checked to me, and I unhesitatingly bet half the pot. Sometimes I’ll check here; sometimes I’ll bet more. Here, half the pot felt right. The button thought a moment, then called, and the others got out. The turn was the , meaning my nut flush was still the nuts. Again, I bet half the pot, and this time my opponent called more quickly. The river was the . I waited several seconds, then bet the full pot, hoping my overbet would look suspect. My opponent instacalled, and the hand history showed he had — he’d turned a straight, and somehow thought it might be good.

He actually typed “gh” afterwards, adding “thought was a bluff.” Even if he hadn’t called my river push, I’d have been reasonably happy with how I played the hand, given that all my plays were made with confidence and with a clear idea what I was trying to accomplish.

Meanwhile, on the second table, I was in another hand in which I’d found myself looking at a very favorable flop. But here I was a different player, drifting with doubt rather than proceeding with purpose.

In this one I was in the big blind. The UTG player raised the pot, and it folded back to me holding . A hand with some potential, though also one that could get me into trouble, especially from out of position. I called the raise, and the flop came .

Decent flop, eh? Probably should be betting here, yes? But I checked. I think I might’ve thought my opponent would continuation bet this dry-looking flop and so was considering a check-raise, but to tell the truth I don’t know if I even had that plan fully in mind. In fact, to be utterly honest, I hadn’t even noticed the deuce when I checked (not that it mattered a great deal here, although hitting sets with both pairs is less favorable as it takes away outs to improve).

In any case, my opponent checked behind, and the turn brought the .

Fearing the possibility that my opponent just turned a better set, I checked again. He bet two-thirds of the pot, and I called, having little idea where I stood, but reluctant to let go of my hand. The river then brought the , giving me jacks full. I checked again, my opponent quickly bet half the pot, and I called. He showed for the better full house and claimed the pot.

Unfortunate he’d draw out like that, but I absolutely invited it to happen. I could’ve still won a pot there — his river bet would’ve been consistent with trip aces, I think — but the result doesn’t really matter. I was playing poorly, with much less resolve than I had at the other table.

Just recognizing that fact helped me a little, actually, and I did manage to recover somewhat and ultimately play a few decent hands on my table of trouble before ending the session. Funny how this image thing works, though — both on others and on oneself. And how easy it is to slip in and out of various “characters” or player types at the tables, sometimes even inhabiting more than one at the same time.

Go to: Hard-Boiled Poker

Speaking of late nights and poker, you probably heard there were a couple of occasions last week when online poker made it onto late night television, popping up in the “mainstream” — i.e., on major network shows — as a subject of discussion.

One was that “Nightline” segment about online poker that after several delays finally aired on ABC. (I wrote a little something here in anticipation of that report a couple of weeks ago.) While there was a kind of “cautionary tale”-like atmosphere attached to the report that folks under the age of 21 are playing poker online, I thought the piece ended up being about as balanced as one could hope for, and even perhaps shed a positive light (overall) on online poker as not necessarily a hopelessly degenerate activity.

If you missed it, you can view the “Nightline” piece here.

That segment aired on Tuesday night. Coincidentally, Rep. Barney Frank was a guest on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” on NBC that same evening, and they, too, talked some about online gambling.

It was amid a discussion of individual liberty that Frank chose to allude in a general way to the legislative fight currently underway involving his H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. At the end of July, Frank’s bill was passed by his House Financial Services Committee, and now awaits consideration by the entire House and/or Senate.

Referring to his proposed bill, Frank noted how licensing and regulating online gambling in the U.S. would lead to “billions of dollars” in tax revenue, and the studio audience cheered in response. But rather than agree with Frank (and the crowd), Leno then raised an objection to online gambling — a very familiar one, actually.

If you didn’t catch Frank on Leno’s show last week, here it is (the talk of online gambling starts right around the 3:50-mark):

Here is what Leno said by way of objecting to online gambling:

“To me, Vegas works because you have to go to the desert to get there. You have to make an effort. You go to the desert, you lose your money and you come home. You can’t go to the desert again unless you get more money. If you’re sitting at home and you’re up late at night and you got your little credit card, next thing you know… it’s like a mini bar. You’re not going to eat the potato chips unless they are in the mini-bar.”

We’ve heard this line before. So has Frank — many times — and he had a ready response. Frank pointed out to Leno that gambling is available in other places than Vegas. Frank also explained that his H.R. 2267 wouldn’t allow for the use of credit cards to gamble online.

The discussion then moved on to lotteries and other issues, but did circle back to Frank’s position that adults shouldn’t be treated like children as Leno’s whole “you have to go to the desert” argument implies — as though when it comes to gambling we all need artificial restrictions in place to prevent us from constantly doing harm to ourselves. You know, sort of like putting the cookie jar up on the refrigerator where we can’t reach it easily and thus spoil our dinners.

Leno’s line about the mini-bars made me think back briefly to my summer in Las Vegas. I lived for nearly two months in a hotel room while there helping cover the WSOP for PokerNews.

There was a mini-bar in my room, of course, full of overpriced snack items and beverages for the taking. Somehow I managed to resist taking a single item from the mini-bar during my entire stay there, knowing I could purchase all of those things at a quarter of the price if I just figured out a way to leave the room.

Actually, it wasn’t that hard for me. As Muddy Waters once sang, I’m a man. Way past twenty-one. Truth be told, I have been able to decide for myself about such things for a long time now.

I guess Leno is in part going for the laugh there. It’s funny to think of adults as being childish, immature, etc. But I think he also genuinely objects to online gambling in the U.S. And the fact is, as Leno’s continued popularity shows, a lot of people in America tend to like Leno’s lines.

Why do they like Leno? I have no idea. Maybe it’s because, well, he’s just there. Like the mini-bar.

Go to: Hard-Boiled Poker

Not to mention how friggin’ huge the thing has become.

Check it out…

2002: 9 events, $799,050 total prize pool
2003: 11, $2,716,200
2004: 12, $6,002,300
2005: 15, $12,783,900
2006: 18, $18,674,300
2007: 23, $24,218,600
2008: 33, $39,958,000
2009: 45, $51,652,800

This year there will be 62 events scheduled to be played out over the next three-plus weeks. Add up all of the guaranteed prize pools and they come out to exactly $50,000,000, meaning the total will probably be a bit more than that. (Last year the guarantees added up to $40 million.)

I will be among the crew helping report on WCOOP over at the PokerStars blog over the next few weeks, so check us out over there for recaps of all the action. You can also visit the official WCOOP site for all the stats, satellite info, and a lot else.

As expected, there is a ton of variety in terms of the kinds of games offered and the buy-in amounts. There is a tourney featuring that new “Triple Stud” game combining stud, stud/8, and razz. And those No-Limit Omaha Hi/Lo events (one with knockout bounties, the other with 10-minute levels), look fairly insane.

Here’s the complete schedule (all times Eastern):

Sunday, September 5
13:00 — Event No. 1: No-Limit Hold’em (6-max.), $215 buy-in, $1,250,000 guaranteed
15:00 — Event No. 2: No-Limit Hold’em (High Roller), $10,300 buy-in, $2,000,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 3: No-Limit Hold’em, $215 buy-in, $2,000,000 guaranteed

Monday, September 6
14:00 — Event No. 4: Pot-Limit Omaha, $320 buy-in, $200,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 5: No-Limit Hold’em Shootout (6-max.), $320 buy-in, $300,000 guaranteed
20:00 — Event No. 6: No-Limit Hold’em (Turbo, w/rebuys), $215 buy-in, $600,000 guaranteed

Tuesday, September 7
14:00 — Event No. 7: Pot-Limit Five-Card Draw, $215 buy-in, $100,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 8: Triple Stud (Stud, Stud/8, Razz), $215 buy-in, $100,000 guaranteed
20:00 — Event No. 9: No-Limit Hold’em (two-day), $1,050 buy-in, $1,000,000 guaranteed

Wednesday, September 8
12:00 — Event No. 10: Pot-Limit Omaha, $265 buy-in, $200,000 guaranteed
14:00 — Event No. 11: No-Limit Hold’em (“Ante Up,” i.e., blinds stay same, antes increase), $320 buy-in, $300,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 12: No-Limit Hold’em, Heads-Up (two-day), $215 buy-in, $200,000 guaranteed

Thursday, September 9
12:00 — Event No. 13: Pot-Limit Omaha Hi/Lo (6-max., 1 rebuy, 1 add-on), $215 buy-in, $200,000 guaranteed
14:00 — Event No. 14: No-Limit Hold’em (6-max., $50 bounties for knockouts), $265 buy-in, $400,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 15: Razz, $215 buy-in, $250,000 guaranteed

Friday, September 10
14:00 — Event No. 16: Pot-Limit Omaha (6-max.), $215 buy-in, $500,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 17: No-Limit Single Draw 2-7, $215 buy-in, $50,000 guaranteed
20:00 — Event No. 18: 8-Game Mix (10-minute levels), $109 buy-in, $100,000 guaranteed

Saturday, September 11
13:00 — Event No. 19: No-Limit Hold’em (10-minute levels), $109 buy-in, $1,250,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 20: Fixed Limit Hold’em, $215 buy-in, $250,000 guaranteed

Sunday, September 12
13:00 — Event No. 21: No-Limit Hold’em, $215 buy-in, $1,500,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 22: No-Limit Hold’em (two-day), $530 buy-in, $3,000,000 guaranteed

Monday, September 13
14:00 — Event No. 23: No-Limit Hold’em (4-max.), $215 buy-in, $700,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 24: Seven-Card Stud, $320 buy-in, $150,000 guaranteed
20:00 — Event No. 25: Pot-Limit Omaha (Turbo, 1 rebuy, 1 add-on), $215 buy-in, $400,000 guaranteed

Tuesday, September 14
14:00 — Event No. 26: Mixed Limit/No-Limit Hold’em (6-max.), $320 buy-in, $400,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 27: Fixed Limit Badugi, $320 buy-in, $100,000 guaranteed
20:00 — Event No. 28: No-Limit Hold’em (two-day), $1,050 buy-in, $1,000,000 guaranteed

Wednesday, September 15
12:00 — Event No. 29: No-Limit Omaha Hi/Lo ($50 bounties for knockouts), $265 buy-in, $150,000 guaranteed
14:00 — Event No. 30: No-Limit Hold’em Triple Shootout (ten-handed, two-day), $530 buy-in, $500,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 31: 8-Game Mix, $320 buy-in, $250,000 guaranteed

Thursday, September 16
12:00 — Event No. 32: No-Limit Hold’em (6-max.), $320 buy-in, $300,000 guaranteed
14:00 — Event No. 33: Pot-Limit Omaha (6-max., 1 rebuy, 1 add-on), $320 buy-in, $500,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 34: Fixed Limit Triple Draw 2-7, $320 buy-in, $100,000 guaranteed

Friday, September 17
14:00 — Event No. 35: No-Limit Hold’em (w/rebuys), $215 buy-in, $1,000,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 36: Fixed Limit Omaha Hi/Lo, $530 buy-in, $400,000 guaranteed
20:00 — Event No. 37: No-Limit Hold’em (10-minute levels), $320 buy-in, $750,000 guaranteed

Saturday, September 18
13:00 — Event No. 38: No-Limit Hold’em, Heads-Up (two-day), $530 buy-in, $600,000 guaranteed
15:00 — Event No. 39: No-Limit Hold’em, Heads-Up (High Roller, two-day), $25,500 buy-in, $750,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 40: H.O.R.S.E., $320 buy-in, $300,000 guaranteed

Sunday, September 19
13:00 — Event No. 41: No-Limit Hold’em, $215 buy-in, $1,500,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 42: No-Limit Hold’em (two-day), $1,050 buy-in, $3,000,000 guaranteed

Monday, September 20
14:00 — Event No. 43: Pot-Limit Omaha (6-max., w/rebuys), $320 buy-in, $600,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 44: No-Limit Hold’em (“Second Chance” — i.e., one rebuy available only if busted w/in first hour), $320 buy-in, $750,000 guaranteed
20:00 — Event No. 45: No-Limit Hold’em (Turbo, $50 bounties for knockouts), $265 buy-in, $300,000 guaranteed

Tuesday, September 21
14:00 — Event No. 46: Mixed Pot-Limit Hold’em/Pot-Limit Omaha, $320 buy-in, $400,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 47: Seven-Card Stud Hi/Lo, $530 buy-in, $200,000 guaranteed
20:00 — Event No. 48: No-Limit Hold’em (two-day), $1,050 buy-in, $1,000,000 guaranteed

Wednesday, September 22
12:00 — Event No. 49: No-Limit Hold’em (1 rebuy, 1 add-on), $215 buy-in, $250,000 guaranteed
14:00 — Event No. 50: No-Limit Hold’em (w/big antes), $215 buy-in, $600,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 51: Pot-Limit Omaha Hi/Lo, $320 buy-in, $400,000 guaranteed

Thursday, September 23
12:00 — Event No. 52: No-Limit Hold’em (Turbo), $320 buy-in, $400,000 guaranteed
14:00 — Event No. 53: No-Limit Hold’em (w/rebuys), $530 buy-in, $1,000,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 54: Pot-Limit Omaha (6-max., two-day), $2,100 buy-in, $800,000 guaranteed

Friday, September 24
14:00 — Event No. 55: No-Limit Hold’em (1 rebuy, 1 add-on), $530 buy-in, $1,000,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 56: Fixed Limit Hold’em (6-max.), $1,050 buy-in, $400,000 guaranteed
20:00 — Event No. 57: No-Limit Omaha Hi/Lo (10-minute levels), $215 buy-in, $200,000 guaranteed

Saturday, September 25
13:00 — Event No. 58: Pot-Limit Omaha, Heads-Up (two-day), $530 buy-in, $200,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 59: H.O.R.S.E. (two-day), $2,100 buy-in, $400,000 guaranteed

Sunday, September 26
13:00 — Event No. 60: No-Limit Hold’em, $215 buy-in, $1,500,000 guaranteed
15:00 — Event No. 61: 8-Game Mix (High Roller, two-day), $10,300 buy-in, $1,000,000 guaranteed
17:00 — Event No. 62: No-Limit Hold’em, Main Event (two-day), $5,200 buy-in, $10,000,000 guaranteed

Go to: Hard-Boiled Poker

It’s been a long, long time — like 18 months now — since the first “Durrrr Challenge” was issued and accepted by Patrik Antonius. So long ago it is hard to remember what the original terms for these here challenges.

Looking back, it was early 2009 when Dwan said he’d play anyone — except Phil Galfond — to play four tables of heads up simultaneously, either pot-limit Omaha or no-limit hold’em, at a minimum of $200/$400 blinds. The challenge would last for 50,000 hands, and if Dwan’s opponent was up at the end — even by just a buck — Dwan would give his opponent a handsome prize of $1.5 million on top of the winnings. Meanwhile, if Dwan ended ahead, his opponent would owe him an additional $500,000.

Antonius was the first to try — with PLO the chosen game — and there was a lot of initial hype as the pair started playing their first hands. We also heard at the time that Phil Ivey would be next in line to take on Dwan, but that match has yet to materialize.

A few months passed, and by the summer it was obvious it was going to take Antonius and Dwan much longer than most had thought it would take to get through the 50,000 hands. According to the Full Tilt Poker site’s tracking of the progress of that first challenge, they’ve now played 39,436 hands and Dwan enjoys a hefty lead of about $2.06 million. As Dwan explained earlier in the week on This Week in Poker, his lead isn’t necessarily insurmountable, but he’s definitely looking as though he is in position to finish off the Finn.

Perhaps because that match seems to be somewhat in hand for Dwan, he’s begun a second challenge with Cates — with the game being no-limit hold’em this time — and the pair didn’t take long to move through the first 6,800 hands or so. Dwan is already down something like $700,000, as shown on this here graph appearing in the Two Plus Two forum sticky devoted to the Dwan-Cates challenge (click to enlarge):

Looks like they’re still getting the official tracking page together for Durrrr Challenge II over on the Full Tilt site, but meanwhile AlCantHang has set up this here page to report on the proceedings. Dr. Pauly has chimed in over there as well with a guest post commenting on it all; check it out: “Freaky Styley: Durrrr and Jungleman12.”

Most of the talk seems to suggest this second match will probably finish much more quickly than did the first with Antonius, and in fact might even conclude before the Antonius one does. Interesting how the second challenge appeared to get the forum guys and most other pokery people excited again about watching online poker, despite the fact that the first one had become kind of a running joke, with “Durrrr Challenge” having become a handy metaphor for anything tedious or slow-moving.

I’ll admit I remain highly intrigued by it all, and like most folks continue to find Dwan a highly compelling figure. On the most recent episode of the TwoPlusTwo Pokercast, Scott Seiver — another interesting figure, not to mention excellent poker player (both online and live) — commented a bit on the challenge. (An excellent interview, by the way, with a highly articulate, smart, and likable guy.)

Seiver was asked for his take on why he thought Dwan was issuing the challenge, in particular why he thought Dwan was willing to give that 3-to-1 advantage to his opponents. Seiver said he didn’t know exactly what Dwan might be thinking, but that he thought it had to do both with the publicity it drew and the fact that when playing that many hands offering 3-to-1 “isn’t that big of a deal.”

“If you’re the better player, you’re going to make enough money to overcome any odds you basically give as a side bet,” explained Seiver. He later added another comment about the challenge that I thought was very insightful, and perhaps helped explain why it remains interesting:

“To be able to play something like the Durrrr Challenge where you are in the spotlight and playing 50,000 hands against the same opponent, you can’t ever let doubt or fear creep in. And that’s what I think is one of Tom Dwan’s best assets, that he just has so much confidence and he doesn’t have the fear to make the right play…. Sometimes you know what a right play is, but it’s tough to actually pull the trigger on it. I think that’s one of Tom’s biggest strengths.”

I’m sure Dwan has his moments in which he experiences doubt, or even fear. If he’s human, that is. But still, it’s fascinating (I think) to see someone operate in a way that suggests he has neither, and even inspiring to see someone act with confidence, whatever it is that person is trying to accomplish.

Go to: Hard-Boiled Poker

The Poker Hall of Fame Governing Council — which I assume is comprised of various Harrah’s/WSOP folks — will now determine which candidates are eligible to be voted upon for the Hall. That’s when the final vote will happen, probably within the next couple of weeks.

The top ten most nominated are as follows (in alphabetical order):

Chris Ferguson
Barry Greenstein
Jennifer Harman-Traniello
Dan Harrington
Phil Ivey
Linda Johnson
Tom McEvoy
Daniel Negreanu
Scotty Nguyen
Erik Seidel

Not too surprising to see the top ten closely resemble last year’s top ten. Seven of the 10 names are the same. There’s no Mike Sexton (of course), Men Nguyen, or Tom Dwan this time among the top 10. The three new names are Chris Ferguson, Linda Johnson, and Jennifer Harman-Traniello.

I noted last week how there were apparently a lot more nominations this year than there were in 2009. When the top 10 most nominated were announced last year, we heard that a total of 41 had been nominated (among them Ferguson and Harman-Traniello, but not Johnson).

In mid-August it was widely reported that 181 individuals had already been nominated for the class of 2010 with a couple of weeks still remaining for nominations to be cast. It turns out that number was a bit higher than the actual figure — apparently in the end there were only 102 “valid unique names” submitted as nominees, with 44 of those receiving multiple nominations.

Last year the Poker Hall of Fame Governing Council removed Tom Dwan’s name from the final ballot, citing the fact that he was still a few weeks away from his 23rd birthday as enough argument that he’d yet to have “stood the test of time” (one of the listed criteria for admission into the Hall of Fame). The final ballot contained nine names, then, from which Mike Sexton was the only one chosen to be inducted.

Not really seeing any obvious reasons for the Poker Hall of Fame Governing Council to remove any of the top 10 from the ballot this time around. In fact, they may end up adding a name or two — we’ll see. In any event, the 33 voters will have some difficult choices to make, I think, when trying to distinguish between the candidacies of these 10.

There are 16 living members of the Poker Hall of Fame who get to vote, plus 17 more members of the poker media who will also cast ballots (including your very humble gumshoe). My understanding is we’ll be able to vote for as many folks as we wish this time, and in the end the top two vote-getters will get in, provided they are named on at least 50% of the ballots.

I have some ideas about these 10, but will wait until the final ballot comes out before I consider this task in earnest. Meanwhile, what do you think of these 10? Any of them especially stand out as likely to be voted in this time around? (Or likely not to?)

Go to: Hard-Boiled Poker

Kind of felt like I’d achieved something, I guess. Though to be honest seeing the little “Congratulations! You have achieved the GoldStar” pop-up was a tad anticlimactic. Still, having that goal in mind during the month did add a little extra interest to the playing. And I do think my game benefited somewhat from playing a little more (and on a regular schedule).

With only a few brief excursions elsewhere, I played almost entirely six-handed pot-limit Omaha during August. I stuck to the tables with $0.10/$0.25 blinds at which the min-max buy-ins were 20-50 BB (that is, $5.00 to $12.50). I’ve played higher before (up to PLO50), but decided if I was going to put in more volume I wanted to do what I could to manage the swings to fit more comfortably within my Stars bankroll.

I still have the old PokerTracker 2 for Omaha (never did update to PT3) into which I keep entering all of my hands played. During the month I was additionally keeping track of FPPs and VPPs earned on a separate spreadsheet, mainly just to give myself an idea how many hands it would end up taking to reach Gold Star.

Ended up discovering early on that it took me about 4.7 hands or so at my favored game to earn a single VPP, which meant in the end I had to get up to a little over 14,000 hands to get the 3,000 VPPs needed for the Gold Star. I haven’t looked back at previous months, but that’s definitely more than I usually will play in a given month. At least it is more than I’ve been playing lately, anyway.

That gave me an idea of how many hands I would need on average to play each day — around 450 — to get to Gold Star by month’s end. By multi-tabling I was able to do that without too much fuss, although I tend to feel more at ease (and do better) when playing shorter sessions (i.e., no more than 200 hands).

Probably would’ve abandoned the idea early on had I started out the month badly, but after a so-so first week I ran well and had a decent win rate — 9.2 big blinds per 100 hands played — going through the first three weeks of August. Endured a few sour days right about then, but recovered over the last week to end at around 6.5 big blinds/100 hands for the month. I also managed to score a couple of those VIP Stellar Rewards bonuses along the way, too (including a $50 one), so profit-wise it ended up one of the better months I’ve had in a while.

Perusing the PokerTracker info, my “Position Stats” unsurprisingly reveal hands played from the blinds to have been my least profitable during the month. Looks like I’m probably completing from the small blind more than I should (could I really have such a high “VP$IP” — i.e., Voluntarily Put Money In Pot — there?). I also managed to lose money from UTG+1, the only non-blind position from which I didn’t profit. Overall, my “VP$IP” was a little above 32%.

I need further tutoring to gain from these stats, to honest, as I don’t really know what to look for. (Just one of many reasons why I’m still a recreational player, most comfortable at these low limits.) Truth be told, when I look at the stats I get distracted by various trivia. You know, like finding out how many times was I dealt A-A-x-x — almost 2.8% of the time, it turns out. And even though aces occasionally can be very frustrating hands to play in PLO, overall they are winners. Indeed, I won 58% of those hands, earning a nifty 2.7 big blinds per hand. (Whee.)

Gold Star gets me a few things. For one, I will earn double FPPs for September (i.e., 2 FPPs for every 1 VPP). I’ll also have access to the “GoldStar VIP Store,” which theoretically means I can now purchase a few things with my FPPs that I couldn’t before, including some of the electronics (a Blu-Ray disc player, a Nintendo Wii, a Netbook, etc.). I say “theoretically” because unfortunately I am starting the month with only about 6,000 FPPs, not enough to buy any of those items yet. I could also now buy my way into a few of the bigger tourneys, had I the FPPs to do so, but again I’m a little short for that.

The Daily/Weekly VIP tourneys are open to everyone, anyway, so getting Gold Star matters little with those. However, I do get a free entry into a $100,000 tourney at the end of the month (as Silver Star, I would’ve had to win a FPP satellite first to play that one). There’s also a $1,000,000 quarterly VIP tourney which Gold Stars get to play, but unfortunately for me that doesn’t come up again until November, so I’d have to make Gold Star during October to play.

I suppose in practical terms all I’ll really do with my fancy new Gold Star is try to earn some extra FPPs this month, planning (probably) to cash them in at some point down the road.

And when it comes to playing, probably try to focus a little more on quality than quantity.

Go to: Hard-Boiled Poker

We left off with Lukacs’ complaints about all games other than what he calls “classic” poker, namely those variations of poker that in his view tend to increase the chance element, making it more of a gambling game and minimizing the “psychological factors” which otherwise make poker different from (and better than) most games.

For Lukacs “classic” poker begins and ends with draw poker, and thus he speaks with equal disdain for Spit in the Ocean as he does for seven-card stud high-low. Noting how these other variations have appeared to take over in mid-20th century America, Lukacs says the “golden age of poker in the United States seems to have been from 1870 to 1920,” at which point poker’s decline began for the historian.

Women in Poker

Lukacs also isn’t happy about other developments having occurred in poker in the U.S. by the time he arrived in the country, including women starting to be allowed into the games. “This [women playing poker] began around 1920, after the Constitutional amendment ordering female suffrage” was passed. That is also when women smoking in public began to be accepted, too, something else Lukacs ain’t too crazy about.

“I believe that this wide introduction of the female element diluted the character of poker (just as Prohibition led, however indirectly, to the dilution of spirits)” argues Lukacs. Why is he of that opinion? “Women are notoriously bad gamblers,” he explains. “They find it difficult to exclude social considerations from a game that must be organized around a social occasion.” It sounds like he’s saying women are too easily distracted by the special form of socializing associated with poker, a game which he says possesses “strongly masculine characteristics.”

We recall Lukacs writes in the early 1960s, a time when such attitudes about women and even the freestyle gendering of a card game as “masculine” could often pass without being questioned. (How exactly is poker “masculine?” we might jump to ask today.) Even so, it’s easy enough to see how Lukacs’ desire to preserve “classic” poker fits with his backing of other traditions, including conventions associated with “traditional” ideas about men and women (and their not being equal).

The Erosion of the American National Character

Ultimately Lukacs ties the decline of poker to what he calls “the erosion of the American national character.” It’s a complicated, not entirely obvious point he’s making, so let me allow Lukacs to make it himself rather than try to summarize:

“The deterioration of poker, I believe, corresponds very closely to a tendency in modern American life that I find most disturbing and dangerous: the inflation (meaning the increasing worthlessness) of words — more menacing, even, than the inflation of money. Seven-card stud poker represents a gross inflation of values. It corresponds to the development of a society where everybody goes to college until the value of the college degree is less than that of a high-school degree forty years ago; where everybody nominally owns a house but with less of a sense of permanence and privacy than the owner of a family flat in a Naples tenement; where the Great American Novel of The Generation is published at least twice, and of Our Decade at least five times, a year; and where everybody calls everybody else by their first name.”

While we might object to Lukacs’ characterization of seven-card stud (does he really understand the game?), I think we can see the general point he’s trying to make about American “values” having changed in a troubling way. Lukacs sees this overall “inflation of values” occurring everywhere — too much reward, not enough work — and wants to draw an analogy between that trend and the favoring of poker games in which chance is more important than skill.

“Depending on cards rather than one’s own judgment reflects, too, a deterioration of self-confidence,” says Lukacs, further clarifying what he means by that claim about the “erosion” of the American character. “It also represents a form of immaturity, a strange kind of grown-up disorderliness covering up what is fundamentally an adolescent attitude.”

I think Lukacs may well be onto something here when he associates a love of gambling with immaturity, and tries to promote “classic” poker as a “grown-up” game that demonstrates an appreciation of order, custom, and intellectual rigor (even if he’s way too quick to reject seven-card stud high-low as a game with too much gambling.)

The “Scientification” of Poker

One other point made by Lukacs in his essay comes out of the Cold War context in which he’s writing, an observation about the application of game theory to poker. Noting the rapid emergence of government-supported research into game theory, Lukacs is very critical of “this relatively recent American passion… for intellectualizing everything, from business to military strategy.”

And Lukacs hates, hates, hates what all this talk about probability and games has done to his beloved poker. “Thus, while on the one hand the playing of poker becomes perverted” by all of the crazy, gambling-centric variations, “on the other hand poker is given an elaborate theory and becomes an object of study — insufficient seriousness on one end, and overseriousness on the other.”

Making reference to game theory pioneers Oskar Morgenstern and John von Neumann (authors of the 1944 work Theory of Games and Economic Behavior), Lukacs ends his article with a kind of tirade against the intrusion of game theory into poker.

He raises two primary objections here. One is that when talking about poker the game theorists (in his opinion) tend to assume “that all players are of the same temperament,” which is of course untrue.

The other objection is that — here Lukacs quotes from John McDonald’s famous 1948 book Strategy in Poker, Business, and War — “‘the theory of games… is based on the assumption that man seeks gain.’” Lukacs points out that when it comes to poker, many people in fact play for reasons other than to profit. “I have yet to see the man, except for the professional cardsharp, who plays poker primarily because he seeks gain. He plays for fun; and he hopes to make some gain.”

Lukacs then concludes with some more discussion of the Cold War and how poker could be said to have informed U.S. strategy while chess informed that of the Soviet Union. And in this context, Lukacs much favors the former. “Poker is a unique game because is approximates life,” says Lukacs. “That is not true of chess, which is circumscribed by a framework of mathematical rules and is therefore irrevocably artificial.”

That’s the view that causes Lukacs to reject attempts at the “scientification” of poker. He notes more than once along the way that one could never play poker against an IBM machine (the way one can play chess). That human element — the “psychological factors” — just cannot be replicated by a computer, says the historian.

All in all a very interesting and provocative piece, I thought, that gives the reader a good idea of poker’s place in American culture in the early 1960s — that is, prior to the advent of the WSOP, the rise of Texas hold’em, and all of the other developments of the late 20th/early 21st centuries which have occurred to affect the game so greatly.

Go to: Hard-Boiled Poker

I read the lengthy piece over the weekend and found it quite intriguing, so I thought I’d share some of Lukacs’ points here. Today I’ll present a few from the first half of the article (about the game, generally speaking), and tomorrow will continue with some ideas from the second half of the article (when he gets into talking about the Cold War and poker’s significance in that context).

The publication in which the article appears is called Horizon, a high-end, scholarly magazine started by the American Heritage folks in 1958. It came out every other month at first, then became a quarterly right around the time Lukacs’ article appeared.

Looks like one of those academic-type journals that sought to include a non-academic audience as well, with the fancy hardbound issues having probably found places on coffee tables in many homes during its heyday. According to a publisher’s note in this issue (Vol. V, No. 8), circulation was 150,000 in 1963. Horizon continued to produce issues containing articles on art, history, and contemporary culture until it ceased publication in 1989.

Born in Hungary, John Lukacs came to the U.S. as a young man just after WWII and soon became a professor of history at Chestnut Hill College in Philadelphia for many years. Lukacs is still kicking, having written over 30 books on a variety of topics, including a number of works specifically focusing on American history and society.

Not too surprising, then, to see Lukacs start his essay about poker with some statements about the game having originated in the U.S. and the unique way it reflects the American character. Indeed, James McManus — who pursues a similar thesis about poker and the U.S. in Cowboys Full: The Story of Poker (2009) — quotes from the beginning of Lukacs’ article in the first chapter of his book, a statement about how “poker is the game closest to the Western conception of life… where free will prevails over philosophies of fate or of chance, where men are considered free moral agents, and where — at least in the short run — the important thing is not what happens but what people think happens.” (McManus liked the line so much he quoted it in Positively Fifth Street, too.)

Lukacs has a few other things to say about poker in America, circa 1963, that are also of interest, I think. Like I say, I’m going to share a few of those points here today from the first part of the article, then come back tomorrow with the rest.

The Uniqueness of Poker

Lukacs starts his article with an short introductory section in which he lists several ways poker is, in his opinion, unlike all other games of chance.

“The uniqueness of poker,” writes Lukacs, “consists in its being a game of chance where the element of chance itself is subordinated to psychological factors and where it is not so much fate as human beings who decide” how the game goes. (That point leads him to make that observation about the “Western conception of life” quoted above.)

The fact that “poker is played not primarily with cards but with money” is what really gives players the upper hand over simple “fate,” according to Lukacs. While other games (especially those that involve any kind of bluffing) do allow “psychological factors” to play a role, the fact that poker involves money — and the ongoing valuing of hands with that money — means that the psychological “factor is not occasional but constant, not secondary but primary.”

It’s apparent that Lukacs has a very clear idea in mind what “poker” is. It’s a game that involves chance but in which chance does not predominate. It is also a game played for money. “Money is the basis of poker,” insists Lukacs. “Whereas bridge can be played for fun without money, poker becomes utterly senseless if played without it.”

There are other things that make poker unique for Lukacs — and are reasons why he likes the game — including the way it “gradually becomes more interesting the more one plays with the same group of people” and the way it can be played a myriad of ways (it’s “a game of a thousand unwritten rules”).

It should be noted that by the latter point Lukacs is not referring to variations on his favorite game — five-card draw — but rather the many idiosyncracies of play that inevitably come up and require players to agree upon terms every time they sit down for a game. “It is a game for gentleman,” says Lukacs, referring to the way poker provides a context in which to demonstrate “social standards and codes of behavior.”

“Classic” Poker (vs. What They’re Playing)

From there Lukacs gets a little more personal and talks some about his having grown up in Hungary (and eventually in the U.S.) playing poker and what the game meant to him and his family. Once he makes it over to America (in 1946), he mentions how he “had many illusions about the United States” upon his arrival, and that “these illusions included poker.”

Knowing of the U.S. as “the fatherland of poker,” Lukacs assumed everyone played it all the time. Yet, in 1963 he laments that after living in the country for 17 years he has “played less poker here than during an average month in Hungary.” He then clarifies what he means — it’s not that he isn’t playing poker, but that he’s playing games which he doesn’t consider “classic” or genuine poker.

For Lukacs, five-card draw is all. That’s the game where chance is subordinated the most and the “psychological factors” are most evident. “In every other variation of poker — from the mildest (one card wild) to the wildest (seven-card stud, high-low) — the human factor is weakened and the factor of chance is correspondingly increased,” argues Lukacs.

Like the ornery Mr. Brush in James Thurber’s hilarious poker story “Everything Is Wild,” Lukacs has little patience for non-draw variants of his favorite game, games in which for him “the unique character of poker is damaged.” (By the way, you can hear a dramatization of Thurber’s story in Episode 13 of The Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show.)

It is interesting that Lukacs takes aim so directly at stud high-low, a game which he claims is “not very different from flipping seven pennies and betting on them in turn.” I say that because there are many who ardently defend stud high-low as a game that in which the chance element is in fact much less — and the need for skill greater — than one finds in many other poker games.

In any event, Lukacs summarily classifies stud high-low with other wild-card games like Baseball or Spit-in-the-Ocean, dismissing it as “a gambling game… a contest not between human personalities who represent themselves through money and cards, but between cards held fortuitously by certain individuals.”

Lukacs does not mention Texas hold’em in his article, a game which had yet to emerge as a popular poker variant at the time he was writing it. I would guess, though, that he’d similarly dislike hold’em as too much of a gambling game when compared to “classic (or draw) poker.”

More tomorrow.

Go to: Hard-Boiled Poker

I’d been playing for a short while, long enough to have noticed an announcement or two about how the site was soon going offline for a few minutes for a reboot. I had a couple of tables open at the time (pot-limit Omaha, six-max., $12.50 buy-in), and didn’t feel any particular urgency to log off. Figured when the time came for the reboot, we’d all get kicked off and have to log back on — no biggie.

In other words, I hadn’t really considered what would happen if I were involved in a hand at the moment the site went offline. Which, as it turned out, is exactly what happened. Was a semi-interesting spot, too.

A player sitting UTG had put in a minimum-raise and gotten several callers. I was in the big blind and called as well holding J-J-x-x. (Forgive some fuzziness with the details — there’s a reason for my not being exact here.) The flop then came J-3-2 with two clubs. I can’t remember the suits of my cards, but I know I didn’t have two clubs in my hand.

I checked, and the preflop raiser put out a small continuation bet, like 50 cents. Really just a blocking bet. Whatever it was, it caused all to fold around to me. I check-raised to $1.50, and my opponent quickly called.

The turn was another deuce, giving me jacks full. I checked again, and watched my opponent’s avatar/username blink on and off as he contemplated what to do. Fifteen seconds passed. Then thirty.

Then I realized… we were offline.

The pot was only a few bucks, to which I’d only contributed a couple. And really, my prospects going forward in the hand weren’t all that exciting. Probably not going to get a lot of action, unless by some wild chance my opponent had quad deuces, in which case I’m losing a bundle. He hasn’t committed a lot to this pot, and probably is shutting down if the hand were to continue.

But it didn’t. And ten minutes later, when we were back online, the hand had vanished into the virtual ether. I had no hand history on my hard disk. It appeared that the stacks had returned to what they were before the hand began, and indeed I was later able to confirm that was the case.

I was curious, though, and so sent a note to PokerStars support about what had happened. As I explained to them, I wasn’t looking to get any money from the unfinished hand. In truth, I could well have been poised to lose money there, although it seemed like I had been in a good spot.

Rather, I just wanted to let them know what had occurred and how I didn’t realize the shutdown meant I might have an incomplete hand like that. Could have been a real downer had it been a bigger pot and/or a more obviously profitable situation for your humble gumshoe.

As always, Stars support was most accommodating, and after a couple of emails back and forth just to sort out details, they gave me 450 Frequent Player Points (FPPs) for my trouble. A small gesture, but much appreciated.

I could go on about the contrast between PokerStars’ responsiveness to their customers whenever even the smallest of issues arises and what tends to happen at other sites, a couple in particular the ownership of which apparently changed hands yesterday. But that’s become a tired drum to beat.

Did get a chuckle at the way a certain limit Omaha/8 tourney hosted on one of those other sites yesterday failed to allow players to bet fixed amounts. Here’s hoping that site figures out a way to do right by its players the way PokerStars always seems to do by theirs.

Go to: Hard-Boiled Poker