Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Once Upon a Time in (Asian) Mexico

The 2009 Aussie Millions are over. I want to thank everyone who provided positive feedback on my coverage of the Million Dollar Cash Game -- it's nice to know people are enjoying what I write. I'm in the Philippines now, a place I recently described as "the Mexico of Asia", to cover the 2009 Asian Poker Tour Philippines Main Event. Early indication are that the culmination of the APT Philippines will be a party Saturday night that will rival the APT Macau party -- the same party that was recently given the nod as "Best Party of 2008" by Bluff Australasia. Let the good times roll.

Being around the APT feels like being at the 2006 World Series of Poker. The 2006 WSOP was the height of the "golden age" of online poker before the UIGEA changed the poker landscape. Several industry giants (PartyPoker and PokerStars in particular) had recently undergone public floats and were awash in cash. You couldn't turn left at the Rio without bumping into a model with a too-small cut-off shirt stretched over her oversized chest. Everyone in the industry had a hospitality suite that was attempting to outdo each of the other hospitality suites in terms of opulence, freebie giveaways, and beautiful women.

The Asian Poker Tour, beneficiaries of a public float through one of its parent companies, freely bills itself as the "Asian Party Tour", with all the hallmarks of those halcyon days of 2006 -- booze, giveaways, parties and lots and lots of beautiful women. When one of the APT staff seemed tickled that her brothers were taking photos of a celebrity charity event, I said, "Well there are lots of good-looking people here." Her response was, "That's what we're known for."

Strange times. It makes me wonder what exactly the product is that they're trying to market. It feels like the APT is using business model that went out of style (and profitability) three years ago.

Not that I'm looking a gift horse in the mouth. You can be sure I'll be standing between two Asian beauties at the open bar Saturday night, getting good and proper pissed. Who knows? Maybe we'll even find an Asian donkey show afterwards.

Read more...

Sunday, January 25, 2009

2009 Aussie Millions: Cash Game Wrap Up

A few personal thoughts and anecdotes that didn't make it into the PokerNews blog of the 2009 Aussie Millions Million Dollar Cash Game:

* Several dozen Krispy Kreme donuts were brought on set at the end of the dinner break. I took one out to the PokerNews video guy, who was hard at work outside the main stage area where Dwan and Antonius had eaten their dinner (some sort of $180 beef). Word or sight of the donut must have filtered around to Antonius, because about five minutes later he sauntered backstage. And I do mean sauntered. Antonius has this herky-jerky way of walking that makes it seem like he's never really sure which way his body is going to take him.

At first Antonius tried to find someone to split a donut with him, but a Crown PR woman insisted that he should have a whole donut on his own ("One of the green and gold ones for Australia Day!"). He wrinkled his brow a bit and bent over the box of donuts to see what the different varieties were. The PR woman explained that some were creme-filled, some had chocolate, and some had sprinkles. Antonius seemed confused. It was like he's never been first in line at the Krispy Kreme store in the Excalibur at 6am after a long night of prop-betting wheel spins in the Excalibur Poker Room.

Finally he settled on a chocolate-iced, creme-filled donut. He cautiously bit into it, arched his eyebrows as if to say "Hmmm, not bad at all" and then sauntered in his marionette-like way back out onto the stage.

* The hold'em hand in which Phil Laak was stacked by Niki Jedlicka left me scratching my head. Laak opened for $3,500 from the cutoff with A-K and Jedlicka re-raised him to $20,500 out of the small blind with A-A. It was the second time in short succession that Jedlicka re-raised Laak out of the blinds. Laak may have thought that Jedlicka was on air or a medium pair; I'm not sure how else you explain Laak's third raise to $103,000 (esp. when he's playing somewhere around $175k to $200k total).

When Jedlicka shoved, Laak was priced in against any hand except the one Jedlicka turned over. But the only reason he was priced in is because he priced himself in by playing ace-king so fast. I can see Laak not wanting to let Jedlicka out-flop him with some piece of trash hand, but given that he has position, what's wrong with calling the raise to $20,500 and taking a flop? Maybe one of the no-limit cash game experts out there can explain this to me.

* Chino Rheem never made it into the game. There was a rumor running around the Crown Poker Room that he had somehow broken three $5,000 chips and that "his elbow fell into his television" in his hotel room. Draw your own conclusions.

--

Live-blogging the game was a fun experience. I'll be quite interested to see the broadcasts (one episode for HU, one episode of the full ring game) in order to learn what players were holding in various hands -- especially the two PLO hands in which Dwan folded to six-figure river raises from Antonius.

For now, I'm going to enjoy a relaxing three days of not working before I tear into my next assignment: APT Manila.

Read more...

Saturday, January 24, 2009

2009 Aussie Millions: Cash Game a Go!

Theoretically the AU$1,000,000 cash game is a go. It starts in about ninety minutes. Blinds were supposed to be $2,000 and $4,000 with a $500 ante but there are some rumblings that they will be dropped to $1,000 and $2,000 with a $300 ante in order to get a full table of players. Nobody can say with any degree of certainty who is going to play. I guess we'll see! I'll be covering the action for PokerNews. After things are finished there I'll add some other thoughts here.

Read more...

Thursday, January 22, 2009

2009 Aussie Millions: Million Dollar Cash Game

In all the other work of the 2009 Aussie Millions, one thing I've forgotten to mention is that there's a high likelihood I'll be given access to the AU$1,000,000 buy-in cash game that is taking place on Sunday evening. There's always a chance the game won't go but there are several players with the bankroll for a game of that size that are still in Oz. Do the names Antonius, Kagawa, Dwan, Hansen and Guoga mean anything to you?

For those too lazy to find an online currency converter, AU$1,000,000 is roughly US$650,000. (It was US$700,000 when I got here two weeks ago. Weeee, currency fluctuations!) Assuming the game gets up, I'll be in a room with more money than I expect to see over the course of my lifetime. Except for two months ago at the WSOP Main Event Final Table. Well, whatever. It should be epic.

As long as I'm not hamstrung by any non-disclosure agreement that Fox Sports may ask me to sign, you can be sure that I'll write about the game here.

Read more...

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

2009 Aussie Millions: A Poker Media Tale

There is a "Shout Box" on the PokerNews live reporting page (click here for an example). It allows the readers of tournament coverage to interact with each other and with the writers. It also is frequently the bane of the writers' existence.

Time and again crotchety readers get in the Shout Box and demand to know why we haven't updated their friend, Random JoeDonkey. Of course, we have no idea what Random JoeDonkey looks like. He or she could be anywhere in the field -- we don't always have a starting table list and even when we do, well, tables break. Never mind staffing issues. But the Shout Box readers want to know why we can't march down to his or her table and get a count and a few hands' worth of action. It is irritating to say the least.

Last night, as we were wrapping up Day 1c of the 2009 Aussie Million Main Event, a slew of people invaded the Shout Box asking for information on a friend of theirs named David Docherty. There were enough people pitching enough of a fit that when I had a few minutes I went off in search of him in order to placate them. I found Docherty with a stack of 12,000. That was fairly short for the last level of the night. When our field reporter asked if he should follow Docherty, I told him not to worry about it. But I did throw Docherty in the counts page and gave his count to the Shout Box. They seemed happy with that.

Docherty started Day 2 with 10,950 chips. Limits were 400 and 800. His fans were back in the Shout Box, asking for updates. I fully expected him to bust early but figured, "What the heck. We'll keep an eye on him." Improbably, the kid started building a stack. 39,000; 46,000; 59,000; 142,000; 148,000; 155,000 chips. His chip count kept going up.

About eight hours into the day Docherty sent the 2008 WSOP Main Event runner-up, Ivan Demidov, to the rail. In the process his stack moved into the top fifteen in the room. I knew that the news would elate his cadre of supporters (by that point his "mum" was following along) and therefore spent a few extra minutes writing the hand and asking the reporter for as much detail as he could remember. It wasn't just "another hand" to be reported at that point. It was a hand that was going to mean an awful lot to a small group of people following along half a world away.

The reaction of the Shout Box was beyond anything I could have predicted. They were over the moon. And I don't know, call me a softie, but it gave me a real sense of pleasure and accomplishment to know that I was the conduit for the elation those people felt. They were pulling for their boy as much as they could and had no way of knowing what he was going in the Crown Poker Room beyond what I was writing.

Docherty started the day in the bottom tenth of the counts. Out of 320 runners, only 22 had smaller stacks than he did. He finished the day in the top five, having amassed 362,000 chips. We don't have the official list of survivors yet but I don't think that any of the stacks that were shorter than his are still in the field. That's a helluva day.

There is no doubt at all that his supporters will be back in the Shout Box tomorrow, rooting for him to make the money and position himself for a deep run. I'll be at my keyboard bringing them the action, and I have to admit -- I'll probably be rooting for him too.

Read more...

Monday, January 19, 2009

2009 Aussie Millions: No Early Nights

Wish I could tell you what day it is. Between coming to you "from the future" and working every day out of the last eleven, I really have no idea.

So it turns out that David Steicke -- the darling of media row after a sick tank-call with ace-high on the bubble of APPT Macau -- won the $100K event last night for $1.2 million (Aussie dollars, but still!). He started his celebration at the bar in the Crown Poker Room. The PN team was enjoying a post-work beer in the same bar and got wrapped up into the festivities. What was supposed to be my first "early" night since I got here turned into a four-hour mini-bender. The lesson I learned was that maintaining a certain level of anonymity is not always a bad thing. And that's all I'll say about that.

Speaking of anonymity, Dennis Huntly -- a local here in Melbourne who took 9th place in the 2007 Aussie Millions for AU$155,000 and has become a fixture on the APPT -- pulled out a twenty-year old magazine that had a photo of him (minus about 100 pounds and plus a porn-stache) that was captioned "Dennis Huntly, Prince of Porn". The rumor surfaced in Sydney that Huntly was one of the founding fathers of mainstream pornography in Australia, and here was the proof. You meet some colorful characters in this business. But then again, I'm the guy who dated a 19-year-old stripper while simultaneously sleeping with her 27-year-old ex-stripper-turned-anal-pornographer sister. Those in glass houses.

For what it's worth, Huntly is a perfectly reasonable chap. I enjoyed shooting the proverbial shit with him.

Read more...

Thursday, January 15, 2009

2009 Aussie Millions: Dispatch from Melbourne

Week One at the Aussie Millions was capped last night by the official welcome party and the induction of the first class into the Australian Poker Hall of Fame. The ceremony was tastefully done and not performed before a captive audience (unlike the overblown Poker Hall of Fame induction carried out during after a break in play at this year's World Series of Poker Main Event Final Table). The Crown Director of Poker Operations, Jonno Pittock, called each inductee to a stage in front of the crowd. Once the inductee had mounted the stage to the applause of the assemblage, Pittock presented him with an induction certificate and said a few words about him. The inductees -- Billy Argyros, Gary Benson, Tony G, Joe Hachem, Mel Judah, Jeff Lisandro, Lee Nelson and Maurie Pears -- represent players who have striven long and hard for the advancement of the game of poker in Australia and the assumption of Australia's place on the world poker stage. The Aussie pride that was on display was truly touching. Even for this Yank.

Once all eight inductees had been introduced, Pittock announced the selection of the first "Australian Poker Legend". That honor went to Joe Hachem. Many people privately grumbled that Hachem didn't truly represent a legend. Certainly winning the Main Event was a huge shot in the arm for Australian poker, but did it rise to the status of a legend?

Hachem gave a brief speech about how, earlier in the day, he had thought about what he might say if he were selected. He opted to stress how he was just a guy "in the right place at the right time". There's lots of truth to that statement and it was certainly refreshing to hear Hachem acknowledge it. Unfortunately, that was both how Hachem started and ended his speech. If he was going to truly and humbly deflect attention from himself as being "in the right place at the right time", then it seemed only natural that he could have offered something -- anything! -- about the class of inductees standing behind him. He didn't do it, and as a result his words rang a bit hollow for me.

So I did what any good writer does at a party with an open bar; I hammered the free drinks as fast and as hard as I could before I had to go back and cover the rest of Day 1 of the AU$1,100 H.O.R.S.E. tournament. That's what hanging out with Aussies does to a guy.

Read more...

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

2009 Aussie Millions: Run So Bad, Vol. 2

For a while it looked like this post was going to be about me pushing a horsie prop because my horsie -- Michael Guzzardi, the only horsie left standing in last night's limit O/8 tourney -- bubbled off the final table (resulting in a push). But he squeaked into eighth place.

Nope, the RSB for today was that I had decided to play today's AU$1,100 limit hold'em event as long as I got out of the Crown Poker Room at a reasonable time last night (3am would have been fine). We hit the final table around 1am, but it bogged down from there. Two final wo players played for TWO HOURS heads-up. Even worse, they did a straight chop at 4:30am then played ninety minutes from there for the stupid ring and the title. With 510,000 total chips in play, the limits reached the ridiculous level of 16,000 / 32,000. We didn't finish until 6am.

Run so bad.

Read more...

Sunday, January 11, 2009

2009 Aussie Millions: Run So Bad

Aussie Millions Event #1, final table. With ten players remaining at 7:15pm, TassieDevil sets the over/under on finish time at 11pm. I take the over.

10:56pm -- second place finisher Steve Topakas is eliminated. Good game me.

Read more...

Friday, January 09, 2009

2009 Aussie Millions: $10-$20 Lives! (Redux)

In an effort to get myself on local time I forced myself to stay awake until 1am last night. We finished Day 1a of Event 1 early, so after grabbing some dinner I made my way to the cash games. On the board was a game I've never seen before: $10-$20 limit Omaha high. It was the biggest fixed-limit game in the room and had a total of three tables going.

Fixed-limit poker is my thing. Natually I drifted by one table to size up the game and witnessed the following hand: six players limped in for $10. The flop came down 10d-4c-2d and brought a bet of $10. Two players called before the player I was standing behind picked up his hand and re-checked his card. He had A-K-7-4 rainbow(!) and decided to call(!!). The turn was an offsuit jack. Again there was a bet and a call and our hero(?) made the call. Of course he hit his three-outer gutterball with an offsuit river queen. He bet and was called by one player.

After the hand was over, the hero turned around and said to me, "Didn't think I was going to get there, did ya?"

I wasted no time in putting my name on the list. Two hours in the game convinced me that the play is uniformly as bad as the hand I witnessed would suggest. I foresee spending lots of time in that game before I leave Melbourne.

Read more...

Thursday, January 08, 2009

2009 Aussie Millions: In Between the Action...

Greetings from Down Under. I'm in media row at the Aussie Millions, neglecting the work I'm supposed to be doing. Just for a few minutes.

Given all my time in Oz the last few months, I'm starting to feel like a real Aussie. Yesterday TassieDevil and Ducky took me and another American out to play some cricket and some Aussie Rules Football. We quickly established I have a future career in neither.

Then we went and smashed some beers -- I recommend the Carlton Draught -- and hit Lygon Street -- the Little Italy of Melbourne. Aussies have their own language for everything. It was no surprise that they have different slurs for Italian people. (Wog, in case you were wondering.)

I was out on my feet by about 11pm. Stupid jet lag. Mad props to DP for hooking me up with a business class upgrade for my flight. It made a huge difference.

Read more...

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Surveying the Masses

Time to pack up my bags and make sure all of my Men at Work is loaded into my iPhone. In the meantime, a quick question -- is PokerTracker v3 worth the money? I'm currently running PokerTracker v2.16.03 and am considering an upgrade. I see that PokerTracker v3 offers a 60-day trial which I'll probably give a go once I get back from Oz and the Mexico of Asia, but $90 seems like a steep price for a program I essentially already own.

Opinions in the comments, please.

Read more...

Monday, January 05, 2009

$10-$20 Lives!

I had a few hours this afternoon to slip down to the Mirage and check in on the health of the $10-$20 game. I'm happy to report that it seems more robust than it did in early November, if populated by the same familiar faces I always see there.

Too bad that will be my last trip to the Mirage until February! Tomorrow begins the four-weeks sojourn to Melbourne and Manila. Now here's hoping the camera equipment I ordered gets here before I have to leave for the airport...

Read more...

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Beating Online Games: Not as Easy as Breathing

I keep a token amount of money on Full Tilt. The last few weeks I've been using that money to dabble with online limit hold'em and fiddle with PokerTracker. You don't need PokerTracker to show that the games have tightened since the UIGEA, but the effects are unmistakable when filtered through that nifty piece of software.

I pulled up a database on an old laptop from my early forays into online poker. Over approximately 12,000 hands played on Party Poker (insert wistful sigh here) at levels from $2-$4 to $15-$30, my VPIP was a paltry 14.53%, my preflop raise percentage was a woeful 6.04%, and my post-flop aggression factor was 2.59. It's fair to say that I was tight-weak before the flop. And yet! In spite of my tight-weak ways, I was winning at a rate of 1.5 BB/100.

In early 2005, I stopped playing for a few while after a rough stretch at $15-$30, a game for which I was under-bankrolled at the time. The story picks back up in mid-2006 before the UIGEA was passed. I put in almost 2,000 hands at $0.50-$1.00 across three different sites. The majority of those hands were at Party. My combined VPIP over those 2,000 hands was a radically different 25.14%; my preflop raise percentage a more respectable 12.0%; and my post-flop aggression factor across the three sites sparkled at an average of 3.2. Best of all, I was playing great positional poker, with my VPIP and my PFR rising incrementally seat by seat the closer I got to the button.

Not surprisingly, given the small limit and the changes in my play, my win rate jumped to 7.18 BB/100 in 2006. I'll allow that 2,000 hands is a small sample size to judge a win rate and that $0.50-$1.00 limit hold'em was never exactly the pinnacle of poker play. Yet the 2005 numbers and the 2006 numbers demonstrate that the games were super, super soft. In 2005 I posted a steady win rate with sub-optimal, too-tight play; in 2006 I crushed the games with excellent aggressive, positional play.

Of course we all know what happened to PartyPoker. The UIGEA was passed as part of the SAFE Port Act in October 2006. Party immediately closed up shop in the U.S. The flood of dead money pouring into the online poker sites that chose to remain in the U.S. slowed to a drip. Since then the landscape has changed in other ways. Nat Arem described it best in an article for PokerNews a few days ago:

...this is going to sound bad because it is an industry that I helped to develop, but I wish that all of the things that made the poker world less fishy would've never developed. That would include things like datamining stuff, like what we do at the PokerDB or all those other things. It would also include CardRunners. It would include StoxPoker. It would include things like rakeback... The reason why is because it turns poker into this business that essentially exists entirely for the good players to extract money as quickly as possible from the bad players.
Nat's point is that all of these tools that have been developed since the UIGEA have raised the poker IQ of the average poker player. Combined with the diificulties in getting money into and out of poker sites, the effect on the games has been predictable: they have become much less soft than they used to be.

And that's where I bring this back to my most recent 1,000 hands of limit hold'em. They were played over the last two weeks, exclusively at $1-$2 tables on Full Tilt. $1-$2 never used to play much differently than $0.50-$1 in the PartyPoker days. The 1,000 hands revealed the following stats: my VPIP was 19%; my PFR was 10.9%; and my post-flop aggression factor is 2.1. I went to showdown 31% of the time, showing down the winner 55.2% of the time. From everything I've read, all of these numbers are well within spec for a solid player. And I *am* winning, at a clip of 2.86 BB/100. That winrate, however, is buoyed by two above-average sessions against only one below-average session. Without that one extra above-average session, I'm winning at a rate of 1.2 BB/100. (Yes, yes, I know; small sample size.)

Are the games still beatable? Of course they are. In fact, using PokerTracker I see some places where I can improve on my existing winning play. However it's safe to say that beating the small online limits for anything more than about 2-3 BB/100 over a meaningful sample size is a thing of the past.

Read more...

Saturday, January 03, 2009

The Grump Helped Me Play a Pot Optimally

Yesterday I mentioned that CK and I were in a 4-8 HK omaha hi/lo game the other night at Red Rock. CK got in the game first; I joined about fifteen minutes later. Lemon - the vacant seat was the 1-seat, my least favorite seat. Cherry - one of the other players at the table wanted the seat. Double cherry - it was the player on CK's right.

CK and I chatted throughout the course of the evening about our tablemates. To the left of us were all of the rockish dinosaurs; to the right we had a couple of young donks. We were in a pretty good position.

About an hour into my time at the table, action folded to me in late position. I squeezed out the As, the Ac, the 3c and... the Ad. That fourth card was disappointing but given an unopened pot in late position my hand was plenty strong enough to raise. CK folded the button and the small blind folded. The big blind, a grizzled Italian looking type with lots of wispy white chest hair and a few heavy gold chains around his neck, was the only caller. He definitely fit the model of rock-dinosaur.

The flop was decent: Qc-Td-5c. I had an overpair and the nut flush draw, with a low only possible if it came running cards. Then the rock-dinosaur surprised me by betting into me. And this is where Poker Grump comes into play.

The Grump seems to read more than his fair share of poker literature. When he comes across something he thinks is particularly noteworthy, he reproduces it in a series of posts called "Poker Gems". On December 16, he posted Poker Gems #197, part of which I'll quote here:

Lee Jones, in Bluff magazine, September, 2008, p. 96: I think that it may be profitable, if boring, to play PLO in such a way that all you do is wait to suck out on aces. Some PLO players, bless their hearts, never reraise pre-flop unless they have aces. So you call and then if you're beating aces on the flop, you get all the money in.
Of course Jones was talking about pot-limit omaha but that passage flashed through my mind when Mr. Italian bet into me. There was very little preflop raising at this Omaha table; I realized it was natural for him to put me on aces. His bet suggested he could beat aces. That left me drawing at the nut flush. Rather than raise, I called.

The turn, unbelievably, was the Ah. My opponent checked to me and I happily bet. He called, then check-called a blank on the river. I showed my set of aces; he showed Q-Q-8-8 for a set of queens.

Thanks, Poker Grump! Or maybe I should thank Lee Jones?

Read more...

Friday, January 02, 2009

Poker Errata

With all due homage to Dawn Summers, a not-so-random thought: having a set run down by top-pair-with-no-meaningful-draw is among the most soul-crushing beats in poker.

--

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far on yesterday's post. There are some excellent comments in there. One day I'll tackle the issue of casinos that refuse to allow players to chop and/or require players to sign for published amounts. It seems, at best, like regulation gone amok.

--

CK and I went to Red Rock the other night to play some poker. I sat in a $4-$8 limit hold'em game for a while before being called for $4-$8 HK limit omaha hi/lo. The play in both games was achingly bad and reminded me of the good old days of playing $10-$20 and $20-$40 at the Borgata. It's really disappointing that fixed-limit hold'em (at any meaningful limits) has been almost completely eviscerated in Las Vegas by its bastard cousin, no-limit hold'em.

--

I was looking over my work schedule for the Aussie Millions and realized I don't have to work the day of the AUD 1,100 limit hold'em event. The structure may not be amazing (a two-day tourney with one hour levels would be perfect), but it's solid: 5,000 starting chips with starting limits of 50-100 and 40-minute levels. Using estimated numbers of hands, it should play at about 40% of the speed of a typical LHE donkament on Full Tilt. Which is good. The downside is that this event is a one-day event. Based on last year's total of 123 runners, it looks like a rather grueling 17-hour day from start to finish.

Probably a game-time decision.

--

That's all I've got for tonight. Good luck to anyone insane enough to bet any of the NFL games this weekend. Three small road favorites and a pick'em? No thanks.

Read more...

Thursday, January 01, 2009

Tournament Poker's Open Secret

[Part One of this post involved the mechanics of chopping a tournament. Part Two discussed gave examples of how the major tournament reporting organizations tend not to report on chops.]

Over the past seven months, I've heard people float a number of reasons why it makes sense not to report on tournament chops.

"The details of the deal -- who led the negotiation, how much each player got, etc. -- are a private matter." This is typically the first reason given when someone is pressed on why tournament poker chops are unreported. It's never held any water with me because it often isn't true. In both of the examples I gave in Part Two of this post, everyone that was in each tournament room knew that a deal had been struck and knew the details. Neither deal was struck away from the eyes of the public. If the players don't care to step into private to discuss a deal, and everyone in the room witnesses the negotiations, how can the deal possibly be a private matter?

"It's nobody's business how much each player gets." This reason comes from a similar vein as the first reason. In this case the person espousing the view believes that even if the deal is struck in public, it shouldn't be reported because the prize pool belongs solely to the remaining players and can be divided however they choose. It ignores the fact that the live reporting teams recorded the amount -- to the cent! -- that every player who busted out of the tournament before the deal was reached. To suggest that certain players involved in a deal should be entitled to some sort of privacy simply because they deviated from the published prize schedule is unpersuasive to me. Why should their prizes be mis-reported when the amount every other player received was carefully recorded?

"Deals may be illegal in that jurisdiction." I can't speak much to this reason. I know that certain casinos (the Borgata comes to mind) require players to sign for published prize amounts even when the players agree to a deal that varies from the prize schedule. I've never looked into the reasoning behind this requirement -- a post for another day, maybe -- but supposedly it has something to do with New Jersey Casino Control Commission regulations. If the casino has required a player to sign for an amount that the player never received, I can see why there would be an interest in making sure the deal went unreported. But I'll come back to the flip side of this in a few moments.

"It makes for bad television." Obviously this reasoning can only apply to tournaments which are recorded for later broadcast on television. If the tournament is "played out" on camera but in reality a deal has been struck and reported on, it looks horrible for the organizers of the tournament. And make no mistake about it, tournament reporting is first and foremost a marketing exercise. Tour organizers want live reporting teams on site for the marketing power that they bring. They do not want those same teams putting the tour in an embarassing public position.

"Backing arrangements aren't reported. Why should deals be reported?" For the most part, backing arrangements are unknown. Sure, if you see BigNamePro sweating a final table that does not include any of his Known Associates(tm), the good money is that BigNamePro has a piece of one of the players at the final table. But without prying the arrangement out of BigNamePro's mouth, it's not possible to know who he's sweating or how much he has invested. Deals, on the other hand, are often struck at the final table within sight and earshot of dozens of people.

That covers most of the reasons I've ever heard. Only one -- the television aspect -- makes any type of sense to me. Now consider the implications of mis-reporting the final prizes of each player.

1. Many industry organizations -- individual poker tours, media outlets, indepedent database websites -- compile player rankings on the basis of published tournament results. Those rankings often use the prize payout as a major component of their rankings; some ranking systems have rewards for the top players. A difference of $100,000 in prize money can make a big difference in those rankings.

2. A player's personal tax situation can be negatively impacted. Go back to the Borgata example. Tournament players who strike a deal are required to pay taxes on the published prize amounts that they agree to "sign for" at the casino, regardless of whether they've received that amount of money. Those records are then submitted to the local tax authorities. Even where players don't have to sign for an amount, a tax audit could put the player in the uncomfortable position. Imagine having to explain to an overzealous tax agent that even though all sources report that the player received $650,000 for a tournament win, he really only received $544,000. Individuals involved in cash enterprises -- like poker -- are much more likely to be audited than the typical 9-to-5 office worker. It's not a phantom concern.

Of course this cuts both ways. The player who gets more than the published amount for his position gains a tax advantage. There's a shift in the tax burden here that is solely created by the fact that no organization reports who truly got what.

3. With the exception of people whose only exposure to poker is through televised tournaments, everyone knows that deals are routinely made. What's the big secret?

4. Perhaps most importantly, it's just plan incorrect factual reporting to ignore a deal and report that a player won $650,000 when he only won $514,000, or to report that a player won $310,000 when he really won $446,000. If tournament reporters aren't striving for complete factual perfection, why are they even at the tournament at all? May as well just stay home, make up a bunch of random hands, and post those to the blogs.

That can't be done, of course. Tournament reporting outfits are often criticized for getting details of individual hands incorrect. Tournament reporting is not an exact science; mistakes are routinely made despite attempts to minimize them. Ask MeanGene. He got absolutely shredded on internet forums for misreporting a bust-out hand from a well-known internet player. Despite this hunger for absolute perfection from the tournament reporting readers, the "media" regularly deliberately mis-reports the amounts that players win.

--

I realize that this is at best a minor issue. It's also probably one that most people don't care all that much about. But it bothers the hell out of me every time I'm forced to pretend that a deal never happened, despite that it took place right before my eyes. That's why I've taken three long-winded posts to discuss it.

I'm still waiting for the day that someone can persuade me that there are valid justifications not to report deals. I doubt I'll ever reach that day.

Read more...

Back to TOP