Your source for poker information, culture, and community
Views: 740
Date Posted: Aug. 26, 1:00pm, 1 Comment

In a question I posed to Olivier Busquet in his excellent in-depth interview (Part 1 is up - http://www.gosugamers.net/poker/features/2788, Part 2 coming Monday), I asked what his thoughts were concerning the visible cheating scandals of late.

"
The biggest issue with cheating is related to legalization. There is an incentive that exists for scammers and cheaters because if they get away with it they make money. And there is almost no recourse available to the individuals who are scammed or to the websites on which the scams are taking place. If we get poker legalized there should be strong consequences and penalties for people, whether it's multi-accounting, trying to superuse or cheat. If people start getting prosecuted, a lot of these people will stop trying this stuff."

I wholeheartedly concur that the way forward to remove the majority of cheating and scamming in the poker world is to establish clear and well communicated rules of what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior and then create proper penalties with a strong but reasonable detection and enforcement mechanism to back up the standards.

The Nevada Gaming Control Board recently released their first draft of regulations for intrastate "interactive gaming." In section 5A, the NGCB lays out their suggested framework for online gaming. In addition to issues related to licensing,
application requirements, expected internal controls, self-exclusion rules, and dispute resolution, there are elements that should assist in cutting down on cheating:

1)
Player registration requirements - Players may only have one account at a given operator and may not use fake names. If there is a mechanism to prevent players from setting up multiple accounts at a poker room, that will help in cutting down multi-accounting. Regulated and enforced IP tracking and other security technology will help detect and cut down on other instances of cheating.

2)
Incentives for poker rooms - Licensees will be required to maintain a revolving fund of $20,000 to pay for compliance investigations. If there are costs and penalties associated with violating the rules, the poker rooms are given more incentives to regularly police and enforce the new rules.

3)
Hand histories must be kept by the operator for five years - Poker rooms will need to provide documentation to prove they are hosting a fair game and provide hand evidence of players who might be cheating.

4)
Operators must take proactive steps to prevent bot use - Poker should be a single human vs. single human game and removing the specter of bots from internet poker would be a big improvement.

5) Legal online gambling age will be 21 - While I would never categorically say that younger players cheat more, I will assert that the moral compass for younger players isn't as fully developed and the temptation to find and push the gray area edges is likely greater in younger players who have yet to see consequences in their life.

6)
Inter-account transfers between players are not permitted - While likely to be quite unpopular with players, this is a step to clean up the very murky money flow online. For too long, poker players have used poker accounts as pseudo-banks. They transfer money to other poker accounts for a variety of reasons including to settle prop bets, debts, or stake other players. There is no real trail for this money. Speaking to one poker room manager recently, he spoke of the dirty secret that high stakes players often create the impression they are laundering money with all the deposits, transfers and withdrawals. If each player can only move and manage their account's funds, in an environment where depositing and withdrawing is much easier and faster, the ability to track your wins and losses and the resulting tax burden should be easier and clearer.

As Gaming Control Board Chairman Mark Lipparelli stated, "Internet poker has become a multibillion-dollar business around the world. The technology supporting it, while not perfect, has improved dramatically since its introduction. Similar to our land-based requirements, Nevada will establish high standards giving players as much confidence as possible in the entities and technologies that might eventually gain approval."

These statements from Nevada, the leading state that will likely influence eventual U.S. legislation, compliance and enforcement, give me increased confidence that when online poker returns to the U.S. cheaters will find a much more challenging environment to operate. Poker is a hard enough game when played on an even playing field against other hyper-competitive players. I would happily embrace some reasonable restrictions that could effectively remove the specter of everyday cheating from the poker world and the stain it gives the game in the public's eye. Only with clearly communicated and enforceable consequences for cheating will greed-driven poker cheating be curbed effectively.

Views: 712
Date Posted: Aug. 23, 3:36pm, 0 Comments

I wanted to share an exchange I had with a forum poster on one of the sites that I contribute poker content. Although I have lots of additional thoughts and details to support my thinking and response, I'll let the exchange speak for itself.

His original post:

Hey guys. Im xxxxxx.


I had been living and working as a poker player for the past 3 or so years (this was about 4-4.5 years ago) . In those 3 years I about $75k, and lived like a king. Now I was always part of a religious family and they would pressure me to stop playing poker, but time and time again, the thought of playing a game online for highstake money, always came first. After these 3 years I realized that I wasn't doing anything of substance, I was like a stock trader or a con-man, In that I did not create, anything tangible or beneficial to the world, but rather, lived off of others. I was was rich and without a purpose, I became a heavy drinker and started abusing marijuana. Currently (for the most part) I have sorted out my life, I have not drank a drop of alcohol in a year, or played poker in 6 months. Even though I didn't loose money (as i still have the large winnings) I still regret my years of playing poker. Not because I was addicted, or because I lost money, but rather because the lifestyle and concept of poker as a career is wrong. I sold out my beliefs and took money from others (in an albeit fair and consensual way).

I write this primarily to help you, young up-and-coming poker players, and tell you guys that from my experience, poker is one of the worse life choices I have made, and I regret it every day of my life.

I know this is not a popular view (especially on these forums) but I will feel satisfied if i convince, just one of you kids to just not play poker.

I would have rather earned 2k as a McDonald's worker, over 3 years, Then have earned 75k at poker, as at least one is a honest living, where you contribute to society.

Thank you.

My initial response:

Thanks for sharing your story, xxxxxx. Everyone has a different story to tell on their journey playing a game, whether it's dota, SC2 or poker.

The thing I would say is that I know of many people who have found poker to be a positive experience because they came into poker with a good attitude to use its benefits of money and freedom to grow as people. Aspects like traveling, encountering new cultures, making friends, investing in businesses and maturing in the poker world were all benefits to these players.

It's not so much what you do to make a living, as to what you do with your living that matters. Some successful friends have gone on to great things as a result of their time in poker. After 3 years at McDonald's I'm not sure you could say the same thing.

If you are able to use your $75k wisely to your benefit or to the benefit of society, you may change your perspective about the value of your time spent in poker. Many players struggle with balance and perspective when they are playing and I'm not at all surprised to hear that you did too.

Best of luck to you in your future.

His response:

Zimba you do indeed raise some valid points. The way you put it, there is nothing wrong with someone who plays poker within the setup you mentioned, and like you said, it can even be beneficial for the person. But the thing I was trying to get at (and perhaps I didn't explain this well enough) Is that I fell into a rut in my poker career, wherein, I allowed poker to impact my life negatively and where I virtually did nothing but sit in front of a computer all day. It is for this reason, that I did not grow as a person. However I think that someone who can find a balance, where they focus on growing as a person and being productive through poker, and not just seeing it as a linear gambling career, will be successful and happy as a poker player.

To reiterate, being a poker pro isnt bad, but if you allow it to effect you in any way, where you do not feel like it is right, or that it is not helping you, then I would suggest people to stop, and live without regrets :)

My second response:

Thanks for your additional post, xxxxxx. Making those clarifications is important in my opinion. Poker is just a game that can be played for money. It is not more inherently good or bad than another activity. It is what players bring to the game that matters. I agree that the game allows and in some instances encourages some negative activity in the pursuit of money, but that isn't necessary if players develop balance and perspective. The same can be said for any activity that takes over your life. Addiction is a human quality that gets attached to all kinds of activities in our lives whether it be eating, drinking, gaming or even sex.

It sounds like if you were to start poker again, with the knowledge and experience you have now you would handle your playing and life differently. I touched upon the idea of being too young to play poker earlier today in my Zimba blog on Cognitive Dissonance.

His final contribution:

Indeed. I've read a lot of your articles, and I have found them to be very nice (bring back a lot of old memories) Also Zimba, I think its great that there is a poker writer who is as passionate and as committed to the game as a concept. I admire you, as you seem to have something, some spark that I never did, back when I played. Thanks for the feed back, and it's a really nice poker section you have put together here :)

Views: 775
Date Posted: Aug. 16, 11:00pm, 2 Comments

My sophomore year in college (1986-7) I had a RD (resident director of my dorm) who had a significant impact on me. He was a 24-year-old Psychology graduate student. He was tall, Italian and liked to run. He drove a Camaro. He oozed confidence and had more than his fair share of girls on campus pay attention to him despite not being the most handsome guy around. As we became friends over the year, I approached him at one point to ask the secret of his success with girls, as I was having little. He informed me of a psychology concept that explained a lot of his success - cognitive dissonance.

 

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. People who experience cognitive dissonance have a strong desire to reduce dissonance. They accomplish this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. The can employ rationalization, confirmation bias or more negatively by blaming, and denying. Leon Festinger coined the term in his 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, which related how followers of a UFO cult actions changed as reality clashed with their fervent beliefs of an end of days. The classic example offered by Wikipedia is of Aesop's The Fox and the Grapes tale where a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour (the origin of the term "sour grapes"). The fox reduced the desire for something that seemed unattainable by criticizing it.

 

In my old college relational setting, my RD friend kept himself unpredictable and a bit shocking to girls around him. As an enigma, he created dissonance and confusion for these girls. Instead of the usual pattern of rejection or acceptance, they chose non-traditional methods to try to resolve the dissonance, trying to "understand" or "solve" him which led to further interest and opportunities for him to date or play with them.

 

Cognitive dissonance can be readily found in the poker world as well. I recall reading a fascinating article from a while back by Kim Lund of Infinite Edge blog who stated that much of the addiction in the gaming world was created by a form of cognitive dissonance. It was the confusion and reaction created from player's expectations of winning and their losing results that kept them coming back again in again, against most reason. A player that loses faces feelings that vary from surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. So they return again and again trying to demonstrate their superiority in the face of rational evidence that indicates their actions are both irrational and destructive.

 

When playing poker, cognitive dissonance rears its head continually. Each time you make a play like calling in a spot where you are likely beat, but call anyway, it can create tremendous dissonance. To deal with your blunder you rationalize that he could have been bluffing or value betting too thinly. You focus on the few times where your hero call was correct to justify all the times when you are beat and claim you were simply unlucky to run into a hand.

 

Two recent examples of cognitive dissonance displayed in the poker community come from the two touchstone issues from the past couple weeks; reaction to the Epic Poker League and the Macedo/Qureshi/Cates cheating scandal. The dissonance from these events has generated tremendous reaction from the general public, no matter where you come down on each issue.

 

The Epic Poker League created dissonance for people by introducing a new (technically not new, but first/best effort in last five years) PGA-type exclusive membership league that featured no rake with added value for players. It generated significant hype amongst some players and industry types for its departure from the expected tournament norm and thus forced players and fans to try to process that dissonance. Passionate pro and con opinions have been formed, many biased by their own prisms. Many focused their attention on the dissonance created by not understanding the financial model. As someone with no dog in the fight, I've found the strong opinions expressed only coming from those with history or allegiances that color their present opinions.

 

The more sensational poker community issue has been the ongoing revelations associated with the Macedo/Qureshi/Cates cheating scandal. On the weekends, and for a few hours today, I've been following the drama as it unfolded. The driving force for many forum posters over this arduous process has been a desire to understand the situation to their satisfaction. Beyond a simple drive for facts or even punishment is a motivation to fully understand how and why the different parties acted. Any dissonance created from the two not comporting to poster's understanding of how people should act fuels their hunger for more information, revelations and explanation. The actions and deceptions of these seemingly bright, motivated and wealthy young poker players created tremendous dissonance for fans, friends, and critics.

 

As Jeff218 expressed in his blog today, the answer to why Macedo/Qureshi/Cates made such deceptive and poor decisions is as much a function of their age and immaturity as it is of anything else. It is a strong argument in support of the notion forwarded in potential U.S. poker legislation that Internet poker won't be allowed for those under 21. While players can be strategically successful in the game well before that, as seen by hundreds of successful players over the last half decade, these young players typically don't exhibit the necessary discipline, developed moral compass and self awareness to avoid making tons of poor and rash decisions.

 

Looking back, I can't claim to have ever mastered the cognitive dissonance theory to help with girls, but it is a fascinating psychological concept that does begin to explain some interesting human reactions and behavior. As you face any confusing dissonance, your mind is compelled to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs to in some way reconcile this conflict.Coming to understand that process and its affect on you can increase your self-awareness and lead to better decision making in all areas of your life.

Views: 516
Date Posted: Aug. 12, 7:02pm, 0 Comments

A relatively new poker player messaged me with a few questions today. Besides the usual questions about what site to play on and where to find the best poker advice, he asked how he could avoid being cheated or scammed. It is a hot topic in the poker world this week with the Jose "Girah" Macedo, Haseeb "Dogishead/InternetPokers" Qureshi and Chino Rheem cheating episodes being revealed. The poker world continues to have high profile cheating incidents come to light bringing a black eye to the whole industry. New players are particularly wary of getting involved in the game for fear of being taken.

Cheating in the live and online poker world comes in many forms; misdealing, bots, multi-accounting, super-user capabilities, and colluding which involves chip dumping, soft playing, and squeezing etc.


Here are seven concepts to help protect yourself from cheating.


1. Perspective


Poker is no different from any sport, business or life situation. There will always be people looking to take advantage of others. Some people will try to swindle you in the stock market, gain unfair advantage in sports by "juicing" or equipment enhancements, or con you in a relationship. Don't globalize or over-sensationalize the high profile poker cheating incidents to think that everyone is trying to cheat you. There are plenty of ethical, moral and fair poker players you can play against.


Take prudent precautions as you would in other areas of your life to avoid being cheated. For newer players, be aware that more incidents of cheating are found at mid and higher stakes, where there is a better return for the cheating risk taken. The lowest stakes are much less targeted. Prudence, not paranoia, is required.


2. Be observant and diligent


While the blame for cheating falls on the cheater, the ultimate responsibility falls on your own shoulders. There are steps to minimize or remove the specter of cheating in your poker world so take the necessary steps or precautions and don't simply blame others.


Pay close attention when you play, whether it be live or online. Notice any anomalies or out of the ordinary occurrences. If you know the math and probabilities associated with the game, you can better notice when things deviate from the expected percentages.


Cheating in live and online situations can often involve more than one person working together. Observe all relationships and interactions at the table. Noticing relationships and patterns of play between certain players can reveal signs of collusion.


Although online poker rooms have been cracking down on them, there is a risk of running into bots, computer programs geared to play a solid and repetitive style of play that grind significant volume to gain rakeback with some profit. These players will play a robotic style with very repetitive patterns that lack much creativity.


Online poker players have additional tools to detect possible cheating in the form of poker tracking software. If everyone is winning within a certain range, but one player is way above the norm, that is a sign something could be amiss. If showdown hands demonstrate that they are making "extraordinary" plays against you, it could be that they have an unfair advantage.


3. Laziness and apathy are the enemy of avoiding


How many players have chosen not to question a player when seeing a faint sign of trouble. They overlook it or minimize it because it would require work to investigate or prove definitively. Your life matters and so does your poker playing and the real money with which you play. Treat it with respect. Just as the best players need to work hard to improve their game, so must you work to be diligent about the possible cheating and manipulative relationships around you.


4. Cheating involves inequity


Any relationship where one party is gaining at the exclusion of the other party could be considered a form of cheating. If you notice a dynamic where a friend or another player is tilting your relationship towards their needs and not yours, it's time for review. If they want to borrow money, sweat you, learn from you, but return the favor freely that is a sign of being taken advantage. A poker relationship shouldn't involve being told what to do, bullied, or pressured into doing anything you wouldn't do naturally on your own. Stand up for yourself and establish boundaries that respect your beliefs and poker playing ethics.


5. If it feels odd, don't dismiss it. Investigate it


Your "gut" is a powerful and sensitive sense, so don't ignore it. If you feel something is off. Step back and review the action from a different vantage point to see if it makes sense or not. Just because you lose a few hands in a row or have a bad session doesn't mean you are being cheated, but it's still worth taking a break to evaluate. In almost all cheating scenarios that were evident early on that were overlooked or ignored. It's not about being paranoid, but rather giving due attention to the signs around you that something might be "off."


6. Trust is earned, not given


Scamming, conning and cheating are often various forms of confidence games. Don't give your trust easily. Have other players earn your trust over time by their tangible actions, not simply words. Observe their track record in the past. Any black mark or questionable decision in the past is rarely isolated, but rather demonstrating a likelihood or pattern of questionable judgment. Don't buy into the public hype or another person's voucher or word, unless you trust them explicitly as well.


Trust is something given more freely in the poker world than in many other areas of life. The poker culture is ripe with exchanges and transfers on poker sites, along with a lot of loaning and staking. Poker players make and lose money regularly and can be found asking for assistance often. Some players feel guilty if they don't join in that loosely monitored exchange of money. You don't have to participate in that exchange. It isn't compulsory. You can politely indicate that you don't.


7. You can't be cheated if you walk away or say No!


One doesn't have to be cheated before learning to say no. You are allowed to say no to requests. When you are losing a lot or feel a game seems "off" get up and walk away. You can't lose when you don't play.


As a poker site owner with thousands of members, I have had to maintain a firm zero-tolerance policy or it quickly gets abused. Your friends may be disappointed that you don't hand out money freely, but they need to respect that you have limits.


Just because you have seen that top players seem to have a disregard for the value of money doesn't mean you should. Most of us will never play at the nosebleeds and a healthy respect for every dollar you play with is the ultimate respect you can give the game and yourself.


One longstanding piece of advice maintains that you should never loan money that you expect back. The amounts should never be money that you can't do without and would put you in hardship if you don't get it back. That way you protect yourself in case you don't get it back.


Conclusion


Some argue that poker is a zero sum money game where predatory-prey dynamics can't be avoided. While I will agree that poker is a game where players seek an edge over others to assist their playing profitably, that doesn't mean any player has to abandon standards of decency and prudence.


Unfortunately greed, the merciless drive for money, leads people to cheat. The only way to combat the many forms of cheating you encounter is to be vigilant and firm in your conduct. Poker rooms lay out clear guidelines for most areas of poker. It is in the murkiness of the gray areas that some players hedge.


Without a doubt, it's best to avoid the appearance of impropriety so you can be safe and not sorry. As Jose "Girah" Macedo, Haseeb "Dogishead/InternetPokers" Qureshi and Chino Rheem have learned this week, your poker reputation once impugned is very hard from which to recover. Both the one who cheats and the one who is cheated ultimately lose. The sense of violation and vulnerability for the cheated and the shame and guilt of the cheater. Whenever there is a question of what action to take, I find it helpful if you ask if you would like that action taken against you first.


The same discipline that is required to study and play profitable poker is also required to ferret out potential cheating in live and online poker settings. The confidence and pride that you bring to the game will be greatly enhanced if you employ these seven concepts to ensure you minimize the potential of ever being cheated.

Views: 518
Date Posted: Aug. 10, 12:09am, 0 Comments

Sunday evening, Mrs. Zimba sat down to watch Masterpiece Theater's Mystery Inspector Lewis. It is very similar in feel to the earlier classic Inspector Morse series we enjoyed for years that captured the peculiar culture of Oxford. One common element found in most of the embroiled Oxford characters is a profound pain usually masked by their particular Oxford social niceties and eccentricities, but a remnant of prior decisions and regrets.

As I spent several hours Sunday reading the latest poker world cheating scandal surrounding Jose "Girah" Macedo and his backers Haseeb "Dogishead/InternetPokers" Quereshi and Daniel "jungleman12" Cates unfold on twoplustwo, I couldn't help but feel some similarity to the Oxford characters. For all of their talents and social niceties, these poker players are conflicted and troubled individuals. Their decisions reflect the constant struggle to navigate a poker world where trust and ethics battle against gaining an edge and winning big despite the inherent variance.


Observing some of their decisions and action in this latest cheating scandal, and some decisions made over the last couple years (e.g. being cheated themselves, big prop bets, multi-accounting) one might seriously question why these characters are repeatedly putting themselves in questionable situations that could and should be avoided.


For instance, if you randomly ask 10 people on the street why people cheat, they would likely blame it on greed. And while greed is certainly a core motivating force for cheating, deciding to cheat others often brings with it a wide range of motivations.


Focusing on the central character, Jose "Girah" Macedo, I'll speculate on some of the other possible motivations or scenarios for why he cheated others:


1) The motivation for cheating could have come from an insecurity surrounding his abilities in light of the fact that he played up his abilities so much.

2) The motivation for cheating could have come from the pressure he felt by being backed by two of the world's better poker players and falling behind over $50k in makeup.


3) The motivation for cheating could come from the maniacal desire to create more complexity and challenge, by trying to get away with that complexity, rather than winning at poker in a straight forward manner.

4) The motivation for cheating can and often comes from laziness. We prefer a short-cut to arrive at our goals, rather than deal with the sweat and uncertainty of doing it the honest way. It is that same laziness that allows us to be cheated too.


5) The motivation for cheating could be a bizarre manifestation from the shame one feels over prior dishonesty and actions taken.


6) The motivation for cheating could be a cry for help. If one feels helpless and powerless in the face of a daunting world, acting out can be a subconscious attempt to get others to help rescue us.

7) The motivation for cheating could come out of a sense of envy or resentment towards others luckier or more talented with better results.


Macedo's motivation for cheating are likely a combination of the above possibilities. Only he and his family know of his personal history and psychological makeup. For the poker public, Macedo was hyped in January and announced in March with much fanfare. "The Portuguese Prodigy" has been a youthful legend that emerged from the shadows only months ago. Many now suspect it was simply part of the grand scheme of manipulation.

One final option for his cheating is the one used repeatedly by Jose Macedo when confronted with his cheating, "I don't know." Despite his intelligence and charm, Macedo seems unable or unwilling to provide an answer himself. From his chat logs when dealing with his high stakes friends, he appears to lack the self-awareness to identify the inner motivations and demons with which he struggles.


Above all else, Macedo feared his crimes coming to light. The public light is intense and harsh. It can burn us badly. He feared the repercussions from friends, family, and for his reputation. He is not alone in his fear. We all have demons we would prefer to remain in the shadows. For many of us, that is motivation enough to prevent us from taking steps to cheat or harm others that would bring outside scrutiny to the darker parts of our personal worlds.


Macedo needs to learn that restitution is only one step in his recovery. Gaining insight into his motivations is key. He needs to gain awareness into the mystifying desire to want to take advantage of others when you have have previously suffered a similar torment. I am not without sympathy for the youthful indiscretions many of us make when temptation surrounds us. There are many temptations and gray areas that poker players have to navigate in the poker world and having a good moral compass with a keen appreciation for yourself within the greater community is essential.

Views: 570
Date Posted: Aug. 1, 1:02pm, 0 Comments

In a recent poker Op-Ed article by Steve Ruddock, he took offense to Beth Shak being called a "poker pro" in a New York Post feature focused on her giving away some of her massive designer shoe collection (over 1300 pairs) to charity. Ruddock objected to her designation as a poker pro on the grounds that he felt she was a long term losing player and that the majority of her money and income came from her reputed $50 million divorce settlement from high stakes poker player Dan Shak. Ruddock's reaction mirrors a number of others within the poker world who prefer a tighter designation of who is a "poker pro."

I thought it might be good opportunity to revisit the discussion to see if we can gain more insight into who we should call a poker professional.

According to Dictionary.com, "professional" means "engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career". A professional can be:

1. A person following a profession, especially a learned profession.
2. One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation.
3. A skilled practitioner; an expert.

When specifying a poker professional, additional specifications have been informally established:

4. Someone deriving a majority of their income from playing poker.
5. Plays regularly, a majority of their vocational time is devoted to play.
6. Has played as a winning players with some longevity, often stated as three years at minimum.

In some fields, belonging to some sort of organized entity which exerts methods of control on its members helps determine a pro. That organization or controls haven't existed traditionally in poker, as the overriding dynamic is that anyone who has the ability to buy into a game or tournament has equal rights to play. Money is the only determining factor to inclusion.

It could be argued that the launch of the Epic Poker League (EPL), which seems to be modeled on a PGA-type professional organization with eligibility standards, is trying to create a class of poker pro. The EPL is utilizing the new dynamic Global Poker Index to rank players, transparent qualification system, and a multi-tiered eligibility standard for inclusion in their $20,000 buy-in main events.

By many standards, poker would be considered a non-traditional vocation, but most wouldn't argue that if playing poker is all you do, and you can support yourself in a reasonable lifestyle, including contributing toward your significant other and any children, you're a pro. Put another way, a poker pro establishes an income from poker that is capable of sustaining losses and paying for their current expenses.

That poker income is likely generated from multiple sources.

  • Playing live (cash games and tournaments)
  • Playing online (cash games and tournaments)
  • Rakeback/rewards/propping from both live and online environments
  • Sponsorships/endorsements that come from their poker notoriety, marketability and results

So while each of those four sources contributes to the long term viability of being a poker pro, few of those income streams are visible to the casual observer. Live cash game results aren't shared publicly. It is difficult to accurately gauge online cash game results or even tournament profitability. Rakeback and rewards received aren't openly shared. Sponsorship and endorsement income are often opaque at best. This leaves the observer with little conclusive data to determine a pro based off their income and profitability.

There are other difficulties in evaluating the listed terms of being considered a pro. Even if we did know a poker player's accurate winnings and income, what factor does the inherent variance of poker play? Isn't it possible that a competent tournament poker pro could have a losing year and still be a poker pro? Common wisdom dictates that results determine your success, but can't it be argued that a more skilled poker pro could run bad, suffer poor results, but yet still be more adept than another supposed pro who has been luckier? Does the respect of your peers factor into your determination of being a poker pro?

Returning back to the original example, Beth Shak, we can examine the challenge in determining if a player is a poker pro. She claimed to turn pro in 2004, but until 2007, she had only collected around 25k in live tournament earnings which would have been well below profitability. She has played numerous poker tournaments over the years with her lone big result being a second place finish in a 2007 WSOP NLHE event for $328k. Add in less than another $130k in assorted other finishes over the years. So the limited tournament figures would indicate that she is a losing live tournament player if she has kept a regular playing schedule.

Some questions to ask in regards to Beth Shak being considered a poker pro:

  • Is her sample size of play large enough to remove the specter of variance?
  • How has she fared in live cash games?
  • She is a featured Red Pro, or was, on Full Tilt Poker. How did she fare in her online play?
  • She has appeared on Millionaire Matchmaker and some televised poker shows as a result of her notoriety. How have her poker sponsorships and endorsements contributed to her poker related income?
  • Some criticize her because her considerable present fortune (purported to be around $50 million) is the result of her divorce from Hedge Fund manager and high stakes poker player Dan Shak. But is she to be penalized for having benefited from terms of her divorce which created tremendous passive investment income?
  • If she spends the majority of her vocational time learning and playing poker, shouldn't that be considered paramount to determining that she is pursuing poker as her profession?
  • Isn't her intention and desire to pursue poker as her profession and active income stream indicative?
  • Would those that played against her indicate that she wasn't a skilled practitioner of poker?

Ultimately, the purists argue that regardless of love for the game and regularly playing, poker profitability must factor most heavily. For instance, the author Steve Ruddock cited out a number of other examples to accompany Beth Shak, including Shannon Elizabeth, Jennifer Tilly, Gabe Kaplan, Bill Perkins, Laker's owner Jerry Buss and even Beth Shak's ex Dan Shak as players that shouldn't be considered poker pros, but rather passionate hobbyists or simply as high profile people who play poker.

I recall an expansive Daniel Negreanu blog where he revealed long term World Poker Tour results for many players, exposing the reality that most of them were long term losing players from a strictly WPT earnings perspective. I think that approach to determining who is a poker pro in limiting. I've heard similar arguments levied at potential poker coaches who are astute and articulate but can't easily demonstrate a mastery of the game purely from their results.

I would argue that the term poker pro is more expansive. For some, it simply means a respected or top player in the game. For some, it includes the young college drop out who grinds many tables of low stakes online to scratch out a couple thousands dollars monthly. I'm not ready to disqualify those players who bravely tour the country trying to win tournaments only to see their dreams and bankrolls crash and burn after a few years. I won't demean their efforts to succeed as a pro by ripping the title from them because they didn't achieve certain results. Many regard the high visibility poker celebrity pro appearing on multiple televised programs as pros, and yet many of them don't derive the majority of their earnings strictly from playing.

Who knows, some day soon, a true "poker pro" may only be those 300 or so poker players who qualify as an EPL player competing in the exclusive Epic Poker League? To me, that would be a sad day to so rigidly define the term poker pro when many thousands of players around the world aspire and work as their main vocation to pursue their poker dreams on the live and virtual felt. Until that day, I will assert that the notion that Beth Shak calls herself a poker pro isn't offensive to me.

Views: 802
Date Posted: Jul. 22, 12:22am, 1 Comment
As we have reached the end of the summer portion of the World Series of Poker, I thought I would share 15 impressions of the WSOP experience as an independent media member.

1. The World Series of Poker is a powerful brand - Despite dire predictions for the series as a result of massive online poker concerns, the WSOP set records in many events and experienced average improvements in number of entrants and prizepools of 8%. The six week series distracted the poker world from their online concerns while creating a new crop of poker heroes. The true test will likely be next year when over a year’s worth of reduced online poker options and the trickle down effect will have played out more fully. Not without fault or room for further improvement, give the WSOP credit as they continue to tweak their schedule and offerings each year taking in player and industry feedback.

2. The mothership has landed - The ESPN/PokerPROductions team put together a much improved and professional featured TV table. More work needs to be done on where to place it so it doesn’t negatively affect the Amazon room flow and dynamic, but it was a big step forward overall. Similar, if lesser treatment, needs to be done for the secondary and tertiary featured tables.

3. Celebrations and bringing attention to yourself is down - There was a very noticeable trend to players bringing less attention to themselves by their costumes and garb, or more importantly by their demeanor at the table. Wins were celebrated more calmly, and bad beats were handles more maturely.

4. Kudos to the Poker Kitchen - Although they could tweak the pricing and offerings a bit, the Poker Kitchen works remarkably well during the series. You can get a quick meal, from great salads to sandwiches, soup, pizza, Mexican and even good sushi from Sen of Japan. I can admit I miss the days of of the press room having catered food for media, I can live with my daily $10 voucher to pick a meal during the long hours in the Amazon and Pavilion rooms.

5. Cash games, Satellites and Deep Stacks blow up - With no significant U.S. internet poker options, live satellites, daily tournaments, and cash games at the Rio were bustling the entire series like never before. Hundreds and thousands participated in the cavernous Pavilion room but better effort next year could go to defining, differentiating and marketing these parts of the overall WSOP experience to casual fans and players.

6. Less festive Vegas - The party options for those not privately partying or celebrating a big win were very limited this year. In the current murky environment, none of the traditional blow-out parties were in evidence around the Main Event. Even the parties that were held were less lavish and much mellower than in years past.

7. Meetings and Interviews are always a challenge during the series - Each year I try to arrange a number of meetings and interviews that fall through for multiple reasons. Vegas is such a frenetic environment during the WSOP and players and industry players are constantly making and breaking arrangements as conditions or their mood changes. For instance, three of my arranged interviews were canceled because the players were no longer in the mood after busting prematurely.

8. Figure out the smoking area - The area just beyond the exit leading to the Taxi stop and parking area has become a gross transition not only to the heat but all the individuals who congregate to grab a smoke. This could be significantly improved.

9. Poker swag is a good thing - Poker players and fans like mementos of their WSOP experience. The reality is most poker players head home with nothing more than a lighter wallet. This year, Dearfoam slippers stepped up in a big way to give away many thousands of quality slippers to players, staff and media. If the glory days of poker vendors and promoters giving away a lot of poker swag in the Poker/Living Expo it would be nice to build on the Dearfoam experience this year for people to return home with some tangible association with their experience.

10. Strides made in the established media realm - The hardcore established poker media can feel very tight knit and exclusive to the independent members. This year I was able to meet and befriend a number of the main players, gaining new perspectives on their particular poker voices in the industry. This was the first year that media who had never met me knew of me as Zimba, the guy who blogs, tweets and creates interesting poker content.

11. No gambol once again - I was a huge disappointment to the mighty gambling machine that is Las Vegas because I abstained from any gambling endeavors despite railing friends playing poker and Pai Gow.

12. Epic Poker League could be epic - I had the opportunity to speak with Annie Duke one night for over a half hour and Michael Craig who leads their poker content team for an hour on what the EPL wants to do and accomplish. Based off the history of previous attempts, I was a skeptic previously. There are some great aspects to this effort that could finally create a PGA type league that has player’s interests at heart; rake-free tournaments, valued added to tournaments, transparent and fair qualification process, players share 5% of gross profits, and a promising GPI dynamic tournament player ranking system. The FS+G see themselves as a social media marketing company more than a poker company and will move along the lines of Zynga to monetize the concept. The are close to announcing a a major TV partner that will bring the EPL serious credibility and visibility. They have partnered with the Heartland Poker Tour and are looking at other opportunities to expand their brand and reach in the poker world. The first of four scheduled tournament series begins in August.

13. Streaming and expanded near-live coverage is the future - We live in a here and now world. Although I haven’t seen any ratings numbers yet, the streaming and ESPN coverage was universally hailed and appreciated in the poker community. I’ve always disliked the decision to create the November 9 and long delayed ESPN episodes as sapping the momentum of the Main Event. I think this years near live coverage experiment from Day 3 on can show the way to replace that flawed model in the coming years and usher in a new more competitive, vital and youthful coverage of the series to fans and casual watchers around the world.

14. Big names need to prosper - As I discussed in my last blog, for the health of the WSOP and poker in general "big" online and live poker players need to go deep and do well in the tournaments. Poker will never reach its potential if no-names win most of the tournaments each year, especially the Main Event.

15. Roll Call - Lastly, and most importantly, I wanted to share a list of poker friends and acquaintances who I enjoyed meeting and talking to on my 2011 WSOP ME trip. Relationships made and kept will always outlive any media coverage of a tournament.

Media (will use their Twitter handles)
@taopoker
@ftrainpoker
@WhoJedi
@casinocityvin
@hardboiledpoker
@AlCantHang
@MarieLizette-Acoba
@merchdawg
@Kevmath
@BJNemeth
@pkrgssp
@WriterJen
@AnnieDuke
@tuckonsports
@michaelcraigh
@oskargarcia
@lizzy_harrison

Poker Players (ladies first, of course)
Danielle Andersen
Mary Ann Hisel
Jen Shahade
Katie Stone
Kara Scott
Laurence Grondin
Carol - the lawyer
Vanessa Peng
Annette Obrestad

Gui Guignac
Brian Hastings
John Wray
Jeff Miller
Frank Rusnack
Benny Spindler
Troy Gamble
Joe Ward
Shane Schleger
Micheal Berra
Taylor Caby
Cole South
Lee Childs
Sol Bergren
Jason Rosenkrantz
Dave Rogowski
Mickey Petersen
Ryan Daut
Raymond Davis
Johnathan Little
Scott Montgomery
Olivier Busquet’s manager Arie
Views: 733
Date Posted: Jul. 19, 7:38pm, 0 Comments

Late last night, I tweeted about how disappointed I was in the potential  “November 9” makeup.

To be exact, I said “If Devo, Collins or Lamb don't make ME Final Table, I'll doubt I'll even watch it. #Starpowerisgone #Pokerneedsmarketableplayersattheend

Most of the recognizable names were eliminated on Day 6 and 7 (Erick Lindgren, Allen Cunningham, Eli Elezra, Jean-Robert Bellande, Sorel Mizzi, Aaron Jones, Sami Kelopuro, Tony Hachem, Joseph Cheong, Christian Harder, Peter Feldman, Steve Brecher, David Bach, John Esposito and the heart warming last couple standing of David Sands and Erika Moutinho) and there weren’t any big draws amongst the final 22 players. That isn’t to say that there aren’t great players remaining or that they don’t each have a compelling story to tell. Certainly Ben Lamb is a great story as the current Player of the Year points leader after a tremendous series, but who in the general public had heard of Ben Lamb before this year. No disrespect to any of the remaining players, but if our collective goal is to grow poker, then having a final table of previous unknowns doesn’t help our cause.  While I’m happy for them, I’m sad for poker as a whole.  

In these distressing times with uncertain legislative support for online poker, we want as many eyeballs witnessing our game. We want as much of the general public to embrace and support our efforts to return online poker, and poker in general to its rightful place in the United States. I appreciate that a couple people responded last night that there were good players and potentially good stories to come out of the remaining players. I even liked the one suggestion of creating 30 minute bio shows of all nine players. Although I doubt that would ever fly, maybe a one hour preview show giving background on all nine might. But bottom line, I don’t think you can take nine unknowns and sell them to the public beforehand. To me it is not enough that hardcore fans are passionate about the game it has to appeal to the casual fan or those who aren’t even fans.

The WSOP Main Event is our Super Bowl and we want it to be seen by as many people as possible. Tweaking the presentation and schedule can help incrementally, but having star power makes a bigger difference.

It’s well established that celebrity sells. If you look at pro sports, the biggest franchises (i.e. Yankees/RedSox, Boston/Lakers,  Cowboys/Steelers) always pull the biggest ratings. The biggest individual stars always increase ratings (i.e. Tom Brady/Manning, Lebron/Wade, Jeter/Rodriguez/Pujols). When big poker stars like Ivey, Dwan, Brunson, Hansen, Antonius, Seidel, and Ferguson don’t go far, it hurts poker. When Negreanu, Hellmuth, Lindgren, Cunningham and Elezra go far, but miss making the November 9, it hurts poker. It’s not that you need a table full of poker celebrities, but the overall viewing experienced is enriched by having the magnetism and personality of an established star. Even one of the large crop of online whiz kids that are taking over in the live tournament world would bring their own following and personality. Each has seen the bright lights before and realizes that poker is more than just playing well. It is a performance. When poker is on TV, it is entertainment.

Those in the know realize the variance of tournament poker. Those in the know realize that no matter how well you play you need considerable luck to get through a field of 6,865 players. But those not in the know are confused when no recognizable top player can make the final table. It undermines the credibility of the game when every player at the end has never made it there before. It takes away from the image of the game if previous winners can’t get back there again. Where are the dynasties? Where are the power franchises? Where are the great stars exhibiting their dominating ways?   

If our collective goal is to grow the popularity of poker, then we naturally want some of the games bigger names to participate. It both legitimizes the Main Event as the biggest stage of poker and draws people in for the charisma and appeal of poker’s bigger names.

Each year, ESPN and the WSOP tweak the TV coverage and schedule of the tournaments with one goal in mind. They want to improve the Nielsen ratings. Having more players and rake is appreciated and a sign of a positive poker economy, but increased ratings and improved demographics translate directly into much more money for themselves and poker in general. Historically, TV poker hasn’t been a big relative draw. The ratings for the WSOP have never been huge.  

ESPN has covered the World Series of Poker for many years. In fact, ESPN has a deal to air the WSOP through 2017. Each year since the Moneymaker boom of 2003, they have made adjustments to try to improve the ratings. Some of the biggest changes arrived in 2008, after a down year in ratings when Jerry Yang won. ESPN and the WSOP decided to delay the final table play out four months until November so that people wouldn’t know in advance of the close-to-live TV coverage who won.  They shifted the final table venue to the more dramatic and larger venue of the Penn & Teller Theater at the Rio. The Nielsen ratings for the Peter Eastgate win improved 46% over 2007 for the final table to 2.4 million viewers (1.9 Nielsen rating). The 2009 WSOP coverage improved 7-9% with Phil Ivey joining the Joe Cada-won final table, but drifted badly in 2010 when Jonathan Duhamel won.   

For the 2011 WSOP, long time production partner Poker 411 was replaced by Poker PROductions, who produce many of the made for TV poker shows like High Stakes Poker and Poker After Dark. A more professional and sophisticated featured table was created with “the mothership” design. New announcers and 30 min. delayed live ESPN2 and ESPN3.com streaming coverage was initiated to give more immediate coverage and help “get younger.” On ESPN, regular coverage will be limited to the $50k Player’s Championship and expanded coverage of the Main Event to focus on the two marquee events with the greatest concentration of big names, celebrity and drama.

Examining the final 14 players in the Main Event, there are five players from USA, and one each from the Ukraine, Ireland, Costa Rica, Germany, S.Africa, United Kingdom, Czech, Canada and Belize. The one positive might be that the international draw and appeal could increase, but none of those players are established stars in their respective countries yet.

Given the choice, every fan would construct their own ideal final table made up of their favorite players. I know mine would include many of my poker pro friends in the poker world. But in a desire to appeal to the widest demographic, I feel strongly that televised poker and thus the overall image in the general public’s eye will continue to struggle when established charismatic stars don’t make the final table of our greatest tournament.

Views: 765
Date Posted: Jul. 14, 7:32am, 3 Comments

Chalk this blog up to something that I thought I would never write; a personal live tournament report. I’m an amateur poker player who stopped playing no limit hold’em regularly a couple years ago. I’ve concentrated my play on low limit PLO cash games online. With that said, I specifically planned my WSOP Main Event trip so that I could participate in the media event as it’s a nice opportunity to interact with all the WSOP staff and assorted media involved. I had only played the media event once previously, back in 2007, when I arrived late, blinded down, and didn’t win one of the 3 or 4 hands I played.

This year, I believe there were 17 starting tables - 10 handed. Each player started with 10,000 chips and rapidly increasing blinds every 15 minute levels. Naturally, any play in the game would have to be early, with winning flips and push/fold the dominate mode for the tournament the further we went. The entire tournament was played in a very fun environment with a lot of table talk and razzing on big hands. All tournament participants received a free pair of Dearfoam slippers and a copy of Annie Duke’s “Decide to Play Great Poker.”

My starting table included the ever-talkative and aggressive David Tuchman. He is well known for commenting on Live at the Bike and now is a WSOP commentator on ESPN and ESPN3. He dominated the early action as he was using regular pre and post flop aggression to win a number of pots early. With his extra chips, he was able to make a loose call of a push by our table bounty (winning some $290 headphones) when his Q,2  hit a two against the bounty’s Q,J. The more chips he had, the more pressure he applied to the table, seemingly playing over two-thirds of the pots. Only Jess Welman from Bluff Magazine seemed to tangle with him and she suffered some hits and was eliminated by Lizzy Hairston. Lizzy was constantly running in and out as she was handling ESPN interviews going on in a nearby room.

I was knocked down to about 6,300 early by Lizzy when I flopped two pair and led out from the big blind. I got two callers. The turn completed a flush, and I led again, getting one fold, but an all in shove by Lizzy Hairston. I folded and went into a patient mode since I no longer had any real play left.

Although I don’t recall the exact order of hands, I did get lucky to win some races or being a slight dog when I was the smaller stack and lost ones when I had the bigger stack. I was able to double through David Tuchman a couple times, once with 9’s vs. his 2’s and once with Q,J vs. his A,8.  I lost Q’s three-way to A,6 and K,7, shorter stacks all in. I also was forced to call a reraise all-in with K,Q and was shown A’s.

After a couple hours of play, there was a dinner break where a limited buffet was served of pizza, pasta and salad was served to all media and top WSOP staff. The camaraderie was quite apparent as most of the assembled media and staff had been working closely together for the last 6 weeks.

Taking over Jess Welman’s seat was an Australian PokerStars team pro who was quite freely expressing his knowledge of the game by his play and talk with David Tuchman. Fortunately he was on the opposite end of the table and I was able to avoid tangling with him. The other seats of bustouts were filled by a couple Italians and a nice Frenchman. I was able to win a number of pots uncontested to build my stack with the ever growing blinds.

After about three hours, our table broke when we were down to three tables. At the next table I had WSOP Tournament Director Jack Effel on my left, Lon McEachearn two to my right. Lon chose the surprising approach to blind down to nothing, going all in with 1.5 big blinds and I happened to have A,K that hand. The eliminations were coming fast and furious now and I never got called on my selective shoves, building my stack significantly. At eleven players, there was a three way all-in where David Tuchman essentially tripled up with 6’s against 8’s and Q’s when he hit his set to eliminate two players and bring us into the final table and into the money/prize arena.

At the final table, Annie Duke was there with a nice stack. I’m not sure of her media role, but she kindly donated the free books and had been promoting Epic Poker League during the WSOP. There were a couple PokerNews interns and reporter who were being loudly cheered by their many co-workers with Kristy and XXX posing for camera etc in background. The final table moved swiftly and I picked my spots carefully to chip up with uncontested shoves. I chose to lay down a couple A,X hands to smaller shoves when it seemed smarter to not risk losing significant portions of my stack. I even lay down A,10 suited in the blinds with a shove and call before me. David Tuchman busted in 6th when his 4’s that he shoved pre-flop were called by Annie Duke’s A,Q that hit the flop.

When play got to three handed a local guy named Boomer shoved his stack with A,Q and Annie who was busy complaining about being late to a dinner reservation called with K,10. She won that hand and had a 2.5-1 chip lead over me heads up. I had had a very nice and informational conversation with her only the night previously at the Rio hooker bar, so I joked with her about that encounter. Although she had seemed disinterested at the final table, playing on her iPad most of it, she took the heads-up seriously and laid down several hands to my pre-flop shoves. A few hands later, she moved all in and I made the tough call with A,2. She turned over K,7 and won the hand to take the trophy.

The second place prize was a 32” Vizio flat screen TV. Knowing that she had been playing on an iPad most of the final table, I tried to arrange to swap prizes, but she insisted she wanted to donate hers to a charity poker event of hers coming up. The TV was going to be difficult to get home and I had really wanted to get something my kids would appreciate, so I started to negotiate with the third place finisher. He was thrilled to take the flat screen and give me his Xbox Kinect, which was pretty close to the same value but much easier to get home.

Although it was a bit of a lucky blur to make it through the five hour tournament and finish in second, I was proud of how I played and didn’t really question any of my moves. It feels really nice to know I am returning home with a good story to share with my family and something to give my kids that represents the hard work I put in that they sometimes have a hard time appreciating.  

A special thanks to @Kevmath, @Marie-Lizette and @Casinocityvin, media friends who stuck around to support me in the event. We headed over to the Gold Coast for bowling and pitchers of beer with many of the same media and WSOP staff. Nolan Dalla was in rare form giving away hundreds of dollars in freerolls for people trying to pick-up difficult splits. Thanks to @pokerlawyer, @dmoongirl, @writerjen and @pkrgssp for your twitter congratulations as I really enjoyed meeting you all, if briefly, in Vegas this year. This was the first year I got to know a number of the established poker media, even if I was only there 10 days. I met @pauly, @f-train, @shortstackshamus, @whojedi, @alcanthang, and a host of other very established members of the poker media who’s work I’ve enjoyed over the years.

It’s now 5 a.m. and I’ve finished packing and about to head to the airport. I’ll be back home in a few hours and back to my more normal WSOP coverage and blogging soon. Goodnight all.

Views: 374
Date Posted: Jul. 12, 10:05pm, 0 Comments

Day 2A began with 2,490 hopefuls who survived either Day 1B or 1D. The "shuffle up and deal" honor was given to the Caesar's Entertainment dealer of the year winner.

In early going Shannon Elizabeth and Liv Boeree failed to join the 822 survivors from Day 2A who are already on to a combined field Day 3. Cliff Josephy, Todd Terry, Tony Dunst, Joe Sebok, two-time main event final tablist Jeff Shulman and 2011 bracelet winner Eugene Katchalov also saw their Main Event dreams come to an end. At the break we learned that Barry Greenstein and Daniel Alaei also joined the rail.

After the first two levels of the day, blinds will move to 400/800 with a 100 ante as the green 25 chips are raced off. Over 500 players have been eliminated in the first two levels. Kevin Saul is one of the chip leaders with 280,000.

Other notable decent stacks:

Patrik Antonius 220k
Sam Simon 170k
Justin Bonomo 165k
David Chiu 147k
Jeff Madsen 143k
Dan Kelly 135k
Victor Ramdin 130k
Jamie Gold 130k
Phil Laak 126k
Robert Varkonyi 118k
Todd Brunson 115k
David Williams 115k
John Racener 108k
Matt Matros 106k

Ben Lamb continues his torrid run in the 2011 WSOP. He is currently over 300k and applying pressure on a shorter stacked Phil Hellmuth in the Player of the Year leaderboard. For instance, if Lamb finishes better than 138th, and Phil Hellmuth is unable to make the money, Lamb would take the lead in the Player of the Year race.

Overheard at the tables as I walked around "If you ever want to win a prop bet, ask a guy what is the national sport of Canada. It's not what you think. Originally it was lacrosse until in 1994 they added ice hockey over people's objections."

Also overheard at the tables "Why are New Yorkers always so angry? They realize the light at the end of the tunnel is New Jersey."

There seem to be fewer hats and costumes today. I saw that the Santa Claus, one of the cow outfits, one buffalo head, and one squirrel head were still in the field.

Announcers came back after the break to ask if players recognized a player who was lost and didn't know where to find his seat., nothing. Next they asked what tables had an open seat, nothing. Then they asked does anyone have a seat with a black sweater on it. Bingo, the guy is back at his proper seat, looking confused and bemused as the Amazon room broke into applause.

Near the dinner break I walked up to a table in full debate about some poker player. I first heard "that guy likes to start companies that catch flying knives." When I listened a bit more, they were discussing Dan Fleyshman, the entrepreneur, poker player and CEO of the defunct poker room (now affiliate) Victory Poker. Three players were spouting out their opinions, rumours heard, or personal experiences with Dan. Everyone loves to give their two cents regarding well known people. The resulting conversation ranged from "He's a good guy" to "I heard he was a scumbag and crook." I shudder to think what people would say about me if I was well known.

One late level three bust out was Brad "Yukon" Booth. He was featured in a very candid CardPlayer article detailing his struggles the last few years with being cheated, big debts and losses playing poker. He has been trying to pay people back while he remakes his poker career. He had high hopes that he could make a deep run to give a big boost to those efforts. Unfortunately for him, he will need to find poker salvation at another poker tournament.

Players are now on dinner break with the average at over 72k. While the field was larger today, the pace of bustouts was quite a bit quicker too. The blinds will move to 500/1000 with a 100 ante after the dinner break.

Rounded border
Showing: 51 - 60 of 344
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

© Poker Curious LLC 2009 | All Rights Reserved. | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Site Map