If you follow the poker world then by now you've heard that Day 1d of the 2009 World Series of Poker Main Event sold out with 2,809 entrants. This despite the fact that each of the first two Day 1 flights didn't even hit half-capacity (1,116 and 873) and only 1,697 turned out for Day 1c. There were lots of shenanigans at the Rio as desperate donkeys tried to figure out a way to slip into the Day 1d field via a back door.
Figuring out a logical and fair way to balance competing Day 1 flights has long been a problem for poker tournament officials but the 2009 Main Event puts the problem in a new light. With potential room for a total of 11,236 players, the tournament should NEVER sell out. Even at the height of the poker boom in 2006 -- before Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act -- the Main Event attracted "only" 8,773 runners, about 78% of capacity.
I don't ever remember a poker tournament I've covered over the last year where the final Day 1 flight wasn't the largest. I think it comes down to logistics. Players like to condense their playing time as much as possible. For this year's Main Event, players who played on Day 1a had three days off before they will return tomorrow for Day 2a; players on Day 1b and Day 1c have two days off before returning for their Day 2a and Day 2b flights. If you're a player who satellited into the Main Event and are on a budget those extra days in a hotel (and potentially away from work and family) can be very, very costly. Compare that with players who survive Day 1d. They have one day off before returning for Day 2b.
I'm not sure how the problem can be fixed in a brick-and-mortar setting. The only halfway plausible solution is to require people to pre-register before Day 1a (no registration possible after late registration closes on Day 1a) and then assign their Day 1 flight randomly. But that will drive down the total number of registrants and doesn't solve the problem of extra time away from jobs and family. It also makes it impossible for out-of-towners to plan their trips to Las Vegas. So despite the "neatness" of that solution, it's not really a solution at all.
All of Day 1 cannot be played on the same day. There isn't adequate space anywhere in Las Vegas that can serve the needs (poker needs, eating and drinking needs, bathroom needs, etc.) of 7,000 players all at once. That's the reason Day 1 was broken into four flights in the first place.
Is the solution to play the Main Event out on the internet? After all, the rumors are that Harrah's is positioning itself to be a force in the online gaming industry within the next year...
--
Back to my big draws (finally!). Remember there were three cases:
Case 1 - AdJd in position. I called a raise to $15 from a LAGgro donk that was also called by one of the blinds. LAGgro donk had shown a willingness to call down light after the flop -- she value-towned herself a couple of times for no good reason other than an unwillingness to lay down any kind of hand. The flop hit me very hard, {Qd} {10h} {2d}. The blind checked and LAGgro donk bet $40. I was playing about $300 and was covered by both opponents.
Case 2 - QsTs in position. A tight, passive player in early position raised to $17 and was called by one person. I also called to a flop of {As} {9s} {8c}. The tight-passive bet $30 and the other player called. Again I was playing about $300 and was covered by both opponents.
Case 3 - $1-$2 PLO, I was playing $300 and was covered. There was a pot raise ($8) that was called in two spots before action came to me in the small blind. After squeezing out {Ad} {As} {4d} {5s}, I re-potted to $42 and was called by two players. The flop came down {6s} {Jc} {3s} and I had first action.
Case 3 seems to be the easiest. Almost everyone agreed I should lead out for pot ($136). Which is what I did. The only problem I see with betting pot is that I have the deck crippled. I'm not sure who's calling my pot bet on that flop (and in the specific instance nobody did). But at least nobody thought it was wrong to bet pot and get as many chips in as possible.
Case 1 there was more of a divergence of opinion. Two people said raise, two people said raise all in, one person said call and one person mis-read the action. Based on that limited sample, I'm glad that I wasn't sure how I should play my hand. Where I was stuck was: LAGgro donk was raising lots of hands preflop. She could have had any any two cards and would probably fire again on the turn without any significant push-back. But she also might stack off with a hand as weak as top pair. I wouldn't mind much if she stacked off (as I told Alceste after the hand, "No way I am folding that hand against her ever.")
The more I think about it, the more I like a less-than-all-in raise, maybe to $100. It leaves myself $185 behind and allows me to assess the strength of both opponents before acting on the turn.
In the end I opted to raise all in. The third player in the hand folded and then the LAGgro donk snap-mucked what she said was a pair of eights. Drat.
That bring us to Case 2. Here most people agreed that a call was the right play, given my opponent's image. That's how I played it too. The turn was a red king and this time my opponent bet $50. Her bet folded the third player in the hand, bringing the action to me. I had to call $50 to win $191. I felt for sure that my opponent would not bet into two players behind, from early position, without a big hand (two pair or a set), leaving me with zero fold equity. I had plenty of pot odds to call again however. I called, the river blanked and I folded to a bet. Later, as I was racking up to leave, I asked the player what she had. She said A-K for top two pair.
I'm not sure I could have gotten her to fold the flop with a hefty re-raise. Given the board texture and her likely range, calling felt like the better option. Yet isn't it strange that in these three specific drawing hands, the best play each time was a different one?
Read more...
