World Series of Poker 2004

This column is being written on the second day of the World Series of Poker championship event – or perhaps I should call it the "second first day." The players had to start in two waves this year. A monster record crowd was expected by all – but foolish me thought that meant about 1,500 players. I have been told the actual number is 2,576! It is a wonderful tribute to the WSOP staff that so many people were able to be accommodated.

Since I am more of a money game player than a tournament player, and felt that I could spend only a little less than two weeks in Las Vegas, I timed my visit for what has always been the easiest pickings in terms of games. The money games have followed a consistent pattern over the years. During the first week, the action is fast and furious, then there is a slight lull, and finally things pick up again when it is close to the time for the "Big One." So, I was in Vegas from April 22 to May 3 this year. To my surprise, the pattern – at least for the games I played in – followed an unusual route. During the first weekend, the games were rather mediocre, but the second weekend, they blossomed into barnburners. Perhaps the well-attended Bellagio tournament immediately preceding the WSOP caused this unusual pattern.

I lived in Vegas for 11 years, from 1983 to 1994. I still have lots of friends who live there, and a fair portion of my time was spent socializing instead of in combat. I was surprised how beautiful the newer residential areas of Vegas are, especially in the Summerlin area. The roads are wide, with long, sweeping curves, and are attractively landscaped along the edges. The residences are in self-contained segments, minimizing traffic through them. It is easy to see why Clark County has been one of the fastest-growing places in our nation for at least two decades.

This year's WSOP was not kind to me. I entered two no-limit hold'em (NLH) tournaments and one pot-limit Omaha tournament, and experienced an early exit in all three. In the $1,000 NLH event, I set a lifetime record for the quickest departure to the rail. I went out after being dealt only four hands! I remember each one, so I will tell you the story. (Here's hoping this is the last column I will write in which I detail every hand I was dealt.)

We started with a thousand dollars in chips and a structure of $25-$25 blinds. Back in the '80s, I lobbied very hard to get this structure for $1,000 buy-in NLH events, but was unsuccessful. Jack McClelland told me that for a tournament, the big blind had to be larger than the small blind, even though we often played $25-$25 blinds for $1,000 buy-in money games. I was and am of the opinion that getting rid of the red chips from the outset should be the more important factor (it was common to start tournaments with $10-$25 blinds). This is one of many examples of something I fought for coming to pass – but I have no way of knowing if my efforts had any influence in bringing about the change.

I was in the cutoff seat for the first hand, and the button and both blinds had not yet come to the table. Everyone folded to me, and I won the $50 blind money with my A-2, which may well have been the best hand at the table. The second hand, I picked up two black queens on the button. The under-the-gun player folded and the second player opened for $75. Everyone folded to me, and I called. Many would reraise with my hand, but I do not like the idea of folding if reraised all in or playing two queens as the best hand when someone puts me all in after I re-pop them. The flop came 10-7-3, all red, but not the same suit. The raiser bet $225. I of course have too much hand to fold, but should I call, raise a modest amount, or go all in? If I call, the pot is now $650 and he has $700 left. I did not want to let a card fall off and confuse the issue, so I raised all in. My opponent called so fast that I was worried I had run into aces or kings, but when we turned the hands up, he had done his aggressive wagering with only K-10 offsuit. Maybe he was an Internet player who was double-parked. At any rate, he snagged a 10 at the river to knock me down to my last $50 (the money I had won on the first hand).

My third hand was a J-4 offsuit, the pot was raised, and I dutifully folded. My fourth hand was a mighty one, the "monster" I was waiting for to commit all of my money: A-8 offsuit. Everyone folded to me, so I raised all in and got called by both blinds. The flop was reasonable, K-8-3, and when they both checked, it looked like I had the best hand. On the turn, a 9 came. The first player checked, the second player bet $100, and the first player folded. The river was a jack. My opponent produced a J-10 to knock me out of the tournament. The stupidity of his betting with only a straight draw when a player had moved all in preflop is worthy of mention. There is no way jack high could be good without helping, so he has at most 14 outs. Getting the opponent out helps him only if when he improves, the opponent would be hitting an even better hand. Few situations fitting that description exist. A jack or 10 must come, win for him, and have lost for him had he not bet. Is this long-shot parlay worth risking 10 percent of his stack? I think not. Before you make a bet on the come with a player all in, stop and consider if it is really the right thing to do, because it usually isn't – especially if the opposition has already checked twice and thus eliminated the possibility of charging you to draw.

As usual these days, there was some improper behavior by players that showed an ignorance of poker ethics. Here's an example: I was playing in a $5-$10 blinds no-limit hold'em game in which there was a drunk at the table. His manners were OK, but his betting was extremely erratic. I was heads up with him in what was developing into a big pot, and the player next to the drunk initiated a conversation. He was talking in a low tone, and my hearing's not the best, so I do not know what he was saying. He could have been making comments about the hand or talking about the weather, but I do not want someone even distracting my opponent, much less advising him or making comments about the pot – and this of course applies even when my opponent is sober. I asked the player to stop talking to my opponent. At this point, a young player in the game said, "This is a free country; you can talk when you want." It is exactly this kind of attitude from ignoramuses that hurts poker. Even if one were ignorant of the rules, one would think courtesy and common sense would have a bit of influence.

Speaking of common sense, it was a bit absent in a tournament ruling I heard about (the incident was prior to the WSOP). I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the story on all points, as I heard it third-hand, but here goes. In a NLH tournament with the blinds at $200-$400, a player opened for $1,700. The next player made a big raise. A player tossed four $500 chips into the pot and said, "Call." It was apparent to all that the player did not realize a reraise had been made. The tournament director was called, and he ruled that if you say "call," you have to do it, so the "caller" had to call the five-figure reraise. This was an awful ruling, not just for the player who had to call, but also for the player who reraised (suppose he was bluffing?). Is common sense old-fashioned?

Editor's note: Bob Ciaffone's latest book is Middle Limit Holdem Poker (332 pages, $25 plus $9.95 shipping and handling), co-authored with Jim Brier. This work and his other poker books, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Holdem Poker, can be ordered through Card Player. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons. E-mail [email protected] or call (989) 792-0884. His website is www.pokercoach.us, where you can download Robert's Rules of Poker for free. On the Internet, he is an "expert" on RoyalVegasPoker.com and an affiliate of PartyPoker.com.