The Inside Straight

World Championship of Online Poker Biggest Ever

J.C. Tran Wins Championship Event

By Shawn Patrick Green



Records Broken and Guarantees Shattered



PokerStars.com doesn't know its own strength. At least that's the impression one got while watching its annual World Championship of Online Poker this year. Every event in the series rendered its guaranteed prize pool meaningless, some by as much as 875 percent. The 18 events in the series, spanning 16 days, offered more than $18.5 million in prize money. Even more jaw-dropping was that the $6,275,000 prize pool for the main event secured its place as the biggest online poker tournament in history.



While all of that is impressive, to be sure, the real stories are in the historic wins and star-studded final tables the Championship produced. The likes of Humberto Brenes, Chad Brown, Todd Brunson, Isabelle Mercier, Kyle Bowker, Jason Strasser, and J.C. Tran all had seats at this year's final tables. In fact, four of those pros would be sporting some new jewelry by the end of their respective events, and one would take down the main event and the top prize.



History in the Making


"Spawng" was the first player to make history in this series when he became the first two-time WCOOP winner with his victory in the $215 buy-in no-limit hold'em match-play event. He bested 2,047 entrants by taking down 11 heads-up tables to land his win. He took home $58,248 and a 14-karat gold WCOOP bracelet for his efforts. His previous win was in the $530 pot-limit Omaha event in last year's series.



Not to be outdone, poker pro Kyle "kwob20" Bowker went on to win two bracelets in this series alone. Bowker captured his first bracelet in the $530 Omaha eight-or-better event, in which he defeated 952 other entrants. Bowker then put his diverse poker skills on display by routing the seven-card stud eight-or-better tournament just eight days later. Bowker would pocket more than $170,000 for his two wins this year.



Poker Pros Make Big Cashes



The next poker pro to take down an event was young gun Jason "strassa2" Strasser, who won the $1,050 no-limit hold'em tournament. Strasser ended up raking in the second-largest first-prize payout in the tournament with his win, $442,440, which was behind only the main event. Strasser outlasted almost 2,500 others to nab the top prize.



Humberto "Humberto B." Brenes finished in a very respectable second place in the $530 pot-limit Omaha event. He avoided elimination multiple times during the final table as a short stack to outlast seven other competitors. His luck finally ran out against eventual winner "Trabelsi," and he took home $58,089. Trabelsi enjoyed a $93,853 payday for his win.



Care for a Game of H.O.R.S.E.?



Two H.O.R.S.E. events were introduced during this year's WCOOP, and both blew away organizers' expectations. Both events had a guarantee of $100,000, but ended up with prize pools of $359,000 (for the $215 buy-in) and $875,000 (for the $5,200 buy-in). It was obvious that PokerStars would have to reevaluate its H.O.R.S.E. guarantees for future WCOOPs.


The H.O.R.S.E. tournaments also had the power to attract fewer poker neophytes and more star talent. This became especially apparent with their final tables, which both had their fair share of poker pros. The $215 buy-in tournament's final table was graced by Gary "p10ker" Jones and Shirley "Siren" Rosario, who placed third ($30,566) and seventh ($10,788), respectively. "F.Briatore" was the eventual winner of the event.



The high buy-in for the $5,200 H.O.R.S.E. event wasn't enough to dissuade the 175 entrants for the tournament, but it was good for stacking the final table with pros. The tournament generated the biggest prize pool for an event that didn't already guarantee more than $1 million. Upon first glance, the final table had only one notable player, Isabelle "NoMercy" Mercier.



Another player, "Sam Grizzle," was confirmed not to be the pro of the same name. However, a source later divulged to Card Player that "Sam Grizzle" was, in fact, Todd Brunson. Brunson finished in eighth ($22,312), while Mercier nabbed $41,125 for her sixth-place finish.



The ultimate surprise was yet to come in the final H.O.R.S.E. tournament. Once the chip leader, "stelladora," was just a few hands away from taking the title in the event, he sent a text message to Barry Greenstein, who was announcing on the WCOOP radio show at the time. Stelladora's message gave a knowing Greenstein permission to reveal his identity as poker pro Chad Brown. Brown proceeded to take down the tournament and $223,125.



Main-Event Bracelet Goes to a Pro



Despite all of the excitement preceding it, the WCOOP main event was still a sight to be seen. And seen it was, as PokerStars announced that 3,000 people were observing the event's final table. The final table was also heard by the 2,500-plus people listening to the live streaming radio broadcast hosted by Greg "Fossilman" Raymer. The fervor was undoubtedly due to the historic, record-breaking $6,275,000 prize pool and the $1,157,737 first prize for the tournament; not bad for a $2,600 buy-in online tournament.



The excitement didn't stop there, as poker pros Joe Hachem, Victor Ramdin, Tom McEvoy, and Katja Thater rushed the final two tables to offer comments and congratulations in the chat box. Hachem gave particular kudos to his friend "area23JC," who was doing well at the final two tables and was later revealed to be none other than J.C. Tran.



Raymer vocalized his dismay when the final six decided to do a by-the-chips chop for the prize money, which reduced the top prize to less than $1 million. Tran would receive the lion's share of the chop at $620,194, and the six players would duke it out for the remaining $50,000 and the WCOOP bracelet, per the PokerStars chop rules.



Tran eventually took down the tournament, the extra prize money, and the bracelet, but second-place finisher "hannibalrex" put up a good fight throughout. Despite the chop, Tran left the tournament with a sizable $670,194 and the main-event title. Tran's win proved that pros could still win big events with nonprohibitive entry fees, regardless of the number of poker amateurs who enter.

Jim Kasper Gearing Up for Online Battle

Needs Help From Industry Heavy Hitters

By Bob Pajich



North Dakota state Rep. Jim Kasper doesn't look at online poker like many of his Republican colleagues in both state and federal governments do. While they see it as simply part of online gambling that needs to be eliminated, Kasper sees it as a game that should be regulated and taxed, and he doesn't see why it shouldn't happen in his home state.



At this time, Kasper's looking closely at Congress' recent actions, but is leaning toward moving ahead with his bills.



In the January 2007 session, Kasper is again going to try to convince his colleagues to allow online poker companies to be based, regulated, and taxed in his state. This will be his second attempt to do so. His first attempt failed two years ago after lawyers from the Department of Justice sent North Dakota's attorney general letters warning that they believe any form of Internet gambling is illegal, which scared off all the needed votes.



Kasper believes that the federal government overstepped its boundaries and that online gambling is a states' rights issue. Kasper knows how many millions of tax dollars could be generated by allowing online companies to set up shop in his state, which is the right thing to do for good public policy.



"You can't ignore the fact that Internet poker is here to stay," Kasper stated. "The question is: What is the best public policy to face the issue of Internet poker and Internet gaming in general?"



Kasper believes the answer is taxation and regulation, to benefit both his constituents and worldwide poker players. Although the online poker industry polices itself, regulation will absolutely ensure players that the sites located in North Dakota are 100 percent safe. Also, Kasper envisions programs to be deployed that will detect problem gambling, and all of those things are good public policy.



The North Dakota Legislature meets only every two years. Kasper will push two bills, one that would amend the North Dakota Constitution to allow Internet poker, and one that would provide the guidelines for regulation. If both bills pass, the residents of the state will have to approve the constitutional amendment in a referendum vote. Kasper believes they will, once they learn that this plan has the potential to wipe out property taxes in North Dakota.



"I've received a tremendous amount of positive reinforcement from the people of North Dakota," Kasper said.



But Kasper still needs help, particularly from the online poker industry. He is the only politician in America trying to base online poker rooms in his state, but he says the industry – including most of the players who have earned great wealth from the online poker boom – has given him no help.



They need to realize that the best thing for its longevity is to embrace regulation by a state like North Dakota, he said.



"You know what? I get no response from the industry. They've read articles about me for two years, they've seen me talk at conferences, and nothing happens," he said. "The industry needs to battle as hard as they can to stop federal regulation."

Kasper wants to see online poker industry members show up at the bill hearings to testify about how regulation and taxation would be good for the people of North Dakota. He wants to see famous poker players join them and explain that poker is indeed a game of skill.



"The professional poker players need to get on board, and they need to come to North Dakota in January," Kasper said.

He would like to see everyday players join the Poker Players Alliance ("One thing about politicians is that they understand numbers," he said), and he wants someone from the PPA to show up and testify.



Getting the industry's big players involved now is vital to his bills' success, and it's time for the industry to step up to the plate, Kasper said. The hearings will take place in January of 2007. Players who want to help him can either call him at (701) 232-6250 or drop him an e-mail at [email protected].

Congress Passes Bill to Curb Online Gambling

It Was Snuck Through on theBack of Act for Port Security

By Bob Pajich



It took a backdoor move by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, but an act designed to curb online gambling in the United States passed recently.



Sen. Frist helped get the legislation attached to a defense bill designed to boost security at the nation's ports. To read what the legislation means to online poker players, please see Allyn Jaffrey Shulman's column.



The bill calls for banks to work with the federal government to stop transactions between customers in the U.S. and offshore gaming companies. The bill makes it illegal for banks and credit-card companies to make transactions with online gambling companies.



The bill considers online poker a form of gambling. Recently, online poker sites have worked harder to expand their customer base outside the United States, where about 80 percent of online poker players live.



Share prices of publicly traded poker sites plummeted the Monday after the bill passed. PartyGaming lost more than half its share value, 888 Holdings lost about a quarter, and Sportingbet, the company that owns ParadisePoker, lost almost 70 percent.

PartyGaming said it would suspend operations in the United States if the president signs the bill into law and 888 Holdings has said it will do the same. Other companies are looking into their options.



The bill would not target players, but does call for prison time for people who run online gaming companies. Banks that don't comply with the bill also may face punishment. A representative from the Independent Community Bankers of America testified to the House that its members will have trouble enforcing the act.



The United States is moving in an opposite direction concerning this issue compared to the rest of the world. The United Kingdom recently moved to tax and regulate online gambling sites, and the European Union has made it clear that it considers online gambling a product that should be allowed to be freely traded.

ESPN Ratings Numbers Up Slightly From 2005

But Compared to 2004, They're Down

By Bob Pajich



An average of more than a million people watched each episode of the World Series of Poker main event on ESPN this fall.



Although the numbers did not reach the viewing numbers in 2004, when an average of about 1.5 million people watched the 22 one-hour episodes, the ratings this year are up slightly from the ratings at this point during last year's broadcast. The numbers don't include reruns.



The 2004 broadcast, which featured 10 episodes of WSOP bracelet events and 12 episodes featuring the main event, saw 42 percent more people watched poker on ESPN than in the previous year. That year, ESPN broadcast 22 one-hour episodes.



In 2005 and 2006, 32 episodes were planned. There are still 10 more new episodes to be broadcast on ESPN this fall, and reruns of WSOP events constantly run on ESPN and its sister stations.

Andy Bloch Wins Poker Pro-Am Equalizer

He's Now $500,000 Richer

By Bob Pajich



Andy Bloch outlasted a table of superstars recently to win the Pro-Am Equalizer tournament and its $500,000 top prize. He had to beat Allen Cunningham, Phil Laak, Phil Ivey, Huck Seed, and actor and amateur of the group Nick Gonzalez.



The match lasted for more than six hours, and the blinds – which started at $1,500-$3,000 – hit $15,000-$30,000 before it was all over.



The Pro-Am Equalizer featured 12 famous amateurs and 24 professional poker players. Six heats of six players took place at the South Coast Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas (it will soon be renamed South Point).



The winners of the qualifying event played for the $500,000. The series will be aired on weekends on ABC. The broadcast schedule is listed below.



Each heat had four pros and two amateurs. Don Cheadle, Jason Alexander, Jose Canseco, Jennifer Tilly, Shana Hiatt, and Penn Jillette were several of the stars who took part. FullTiltPoker was the main sponsor of the event, and most of its pros played, including Mike Matusow, Jeff Madsen, Chris Ferguson, and others.



The amateurs started the qualifying tables with $150,000 in chips, $50,000 more than the pros started with, to make the event fairer. Gonzalez was the only amateur to make it to the final table, but several of the amateurs held their own against the pros, particularly Tilly, who owns a World Series of Poker bracelet in the ladies event.



At the final table, Gonzalez started with $300,000 in chips, while the pros started with $200,000.



The long match's final action came down to the cool and quiet Bloch and Laak, who often pulled his hoodie tight around his skull when the action got too intense for him. Against the tough table, he said he felt like he was a puppy running from the assassin in Terminator 2.



With Tilly in the wings, Laak almost pulled off a victory, which would have more than doubled his lifetime tournament winnings of $486,677. As it was, Bloch, with his $2.1 million in tournament winnings, took it down.



A stage was set up in the equestrian arena at the South Coast, and the ESPN/ABC production team numbered close to a hundred.



The show will air on ABC on weekends starting Nov. 11, for a total of 14 hours of poker action. The broadcast schedule is as follows (all times are EST): Saturday, Nov. 11, 2 p.m.-3 p.m.; Sunday, Nov. 12, 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.; Saturday, Nov. 18, 2 p.m.-3 p.m.; Sunday, Nov. 19, 4 p.m.-6 p.m.; Sunday, Nov. 26, 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.; Sunday, Dec. 3, 4 p.m.-6 p.m.; Sunday, Dec. 17, 1 p.m.-3 p.m.; and the final takes place on Saturday, Dec. 23, 2 p.m.-4 p.m.

PartyPoker Founders Among Richest People in the World

Las Vegas Casino Developer is Third-Richest

By Bob Pajich



Forbes magazine recently released its annual Forbes 400 list of the richest people in America, and for the first time, the founders of an online poker site found their way onto the list.



Husband and wife founders of PartyGaming, Ruth Parasol and J. Russell DeLeon, made a ton of cash after taking PartyGaming public last year. Forbes estimates their net worth at more than $1.8 billion each. PartyGaming is the parent company of PartyPoker, PartyCasino, PartyBingo, and PartyGammon. They both sit at No. 197 on the list.



Their net worth pales in comparison to casino owner and Las Vegas businessman Sheldon Adelson, who is third on the list with a net worth of more than $20.5 billion. Last year, he occupied the No. 15 spot. In the last two years, he's made a little less than $1 million per hour.



Also cracking the top 400 – which was the first time that all members of the list were worth at least $1 billion – were Stephen Wynn and William Samuel Boyd.



According to the biography page on The Venetian website, Adelson is chairman of the board and principal owner of Las Vegas Sands Corp., which is the parent company of The Venetian in Las Vegas and the Sands Macao and Venetian Macao Limited, both in Macao, China. The company's currently developing The Palazzo Resort Hotel Casino in Las Vegas.



Adelson has come a long way from his poor Boston roots. He owned his own business by the time he was 12. He then worked as a mortgage broker, investment adviser, and financial consultant. In all, he has created and developed to maturity more than 50 companies, including COMDEX, a trade show for the computer industry. He eventually sold COMDEX for $860 million in 1995 to a company in Japan.



Adelson got into the casino game when he bought the Sands in 1989. The following year, he built the Sands Expo and Convention Center, the only privately owned and operated convention center in the United States.



He started construction on The Venetian in 1996 by imploding the old Sands Hotel and Casino. The $1.5 billion resort opened in May of 1999.



Behind Adelson is casino owner and real estate developer Wynn, who is No. 107 on the list with a net worth of more than $2.6 billion. He started as the keno manager at the Frontier Hotel in Las Vegas.



Topping the list is William Gates, who has a net worth upward of $53 billion.

Playboy Club Opens at Palms Las Vegas Casino

Hugh Hefner Sky Villa Offers Private Poker Table

By Lisa Wheeler



When the Palms Las Vegas opened its Fantasy Tower with a celebrity-studded, press-packed ceremony last May, it unveiled several themed hotel rooms to the public, including the Erotic Suite, the Kingpin Suite (with a two-lane bowling alley) and the Pink Suite. However, its owners, the Maloof brothers, were saving the best for last as the tower remained under construction, and the first new Playboy Club opened during the first week in October. It's the first club that Playboy has introduced in 25 years.



The Playboy experience — Vegas style — includes the Playboy Club and Casino, the Moon nightclub with a retractable roof, and the Hugh Hefner Sky Villa. Hefner's personally designed 9,000-square-foot, two-story digs features a media room, a fully equipped gym, a sauna, an outdoor terrace, and — of course — a private poker table. The buy-in for this night of luxury is $40,000.

Former World Poker Tour Host Hiatt Sues Old Bosses

Injunction Granted on Hiatt's Behalf

By Michael Friedman



One of poker's most well-known faces belongs not to a poker player, but to former Playboy model and World Poker Tour host Shana Hiatt. Despite finding success as poker's best-known television hostess, Hiatt left the show after several seasons.



Ironically, her departure from the WPT came just when many of the shows featuring her began to air around the globe. Her departure left many fans wondering when and if they would ever see this beautiful television personality again.



On Sept. 22, Hiatt took another step toward making it back to the poker television airwaves. According to an injunction granted by a judge on the California state Superior Court in Los Angeles, the WPT can no longer keep the stunning hostess from pursuing two job opportunities at NBC. According to the complaint filed on Hiatt's behalf by her lawyer Paul Sorrel of Lavely & Singer, Hiatt was in line to find work on NBC's highly popular National Heads-Up Poker Championship and a new show called Poker After Dark.


As described in the court documents, things were looking good for Hiatt's return until August of 2006. It was at this point that Steve Lipscomb informed NBC that Hiatt could not work for the network due to a noncompete clause in her contract with the WPT.



Judge Linda K. Lefkowitz, however, disagreed with Lipscomb's claims, granting the injunction on Hiatt's behalf. According to the judge's decision, the injunction now stops the WPT from "seeking to prevent or prohibit Plaintiff (Hiatt) from seeking employment with NBC in connection with appearances in two poker-themed television shows by claiming or asserting the existence of a noncompetitive or other exclusivity agreement."



If Lipscomb and the WPT wish to pursue their claim about Hiatt's contract and continue trying to block her from working, they will have to appear in a Santa Monica courtroom and show why the injunction should not be enforced.



"It's unfortunate that the World Poker Tour is engaging in conduct that we believe is unlawful and in violation of Shana Hiatt's right to appear on poker television programs. We intend to hold the World Poker Tour accountable for its actions," Sorrell told Card Player.


Representatives of the World Poker Tour could not be reached for comment.

The Mirage Poker Room Review

By Shawn Patrick Green



One of the oldest poker rooms in the business is still one of the best. The Mirage poker room used to be the stomping grounds for the likes of Stu Ungar, Chip Reese, and Doyle Brunson. The room has since lost much of its star clientele, but it still gives players the star treatment.



A quick walk through the Mirage's atrium and waterfall, near the hotel's entrance, and the poker room is straight ahead. With 30 tables set for action, there's rarely a wait to be seated. The room also offers a variety of poker options aside from limit and no-limit hold'em cash games. Stud and Omaha are regularly thrown into the mix, and sit-and-go tournaments are available 24 hours a day.



The smoke-free room is built for comfort and speed, with soft leather rails, cushy chairs, and automatic shufflers at every table.



The room is currently undergoing remodeling, to become even more efficient. The remodel includes a new waiting list orchestrated by in-house software and displayed on plasma screens, and new felt tabletops with clearly defined betting lines.



These new features are expected to be fully in place within the month.



All the amenities a poker player could want are close at hand. A bathroom is located just outside the poker room's boundaries, and eateries in the surrounding area can deliver food directly to a table. The poker room even has a special menu with discounted rates on food (the highest-priced item is just $12). The Mirage also offers discounted hotel room rates for players who grace the poker room.



While Bellagio took most of the high-roller action from the Mirage poker room, the Mirage still has a lot to offer the average poker player. The always courteous staff and the newly improved tables and waiting list stand to cement the Mirage as one of the best poker rooms on the Strip for a long while.

Online Hand-to-Hand Combat: BeL0WaB0Ve Deciphers a River of Confusion

By Craig Tapscott



In this new series, Card Player offers hand analysis with online poker's leading talent. And, as an added bonus, you can check out additional live video commentary provided by the pros at www.CardPlayer.com/h2hc.

Preflop: (six players) BeL0WaB0Ve is under the gun with the 5 3 and raises to $240. Villain is in the small blind and reraises to $720. BeL0WaB0Ve calls $480 more.



Craig Tapscott: Why raise with 5-3 suited from under the gun?



Kevin Saul (BeL0WaB0Ve): Preflop and shorthanded, you have to be aggressive.



Flop: K Q 6 ($1,520 pot, two players) Villain checks, and BeL0WaB0Ve checks.



KS: Wow, a check! I'm ecstatic to try to hit my flush on the turn for free, although at the same time, I am extremely alarmed. It appears to me that he flopped a set. So, I checked behind him and proceeded with caution.



Turn: K Q 6 7 ($1,520 pot, two players) Villain bets $420, BeL0WaB0Ve raises to $2,780, Villain reraises the minimum to $5,140 total, and BeL0WaB0Ve calls $2,360.



KS: Bang! I have my flush. He leads weakly, which means I'm obviously raising, for three reasons. One, I'm pretty sure I'm ahead now. Two, I can't smooth-call here and get full value for my hand. And finally, my flush is very small; if a fourth club falls on the river, I will likely lose the hand if he holds any club.



CT: The minimum raise seems to be the rage. What do you think about it?



KS: I hate minimum raisers, although I've started using it from time to time. I'll usually minimum raise when I'm up against a tricky opponent, just to mess with his head. It is one of the hardest bets to defend against. Sometimes an opponent will do it as a cheap way to take down the pot based solely on the fact that you can't call. But sometimes it's extreme strength of a made hand. You will also see players minimum raise when in position if they're on a draw. This way, they can assume control of the betting and see the turn and river for free.



River: K Q 6 7 Q ($11,800 pot, two players) Villain bets $5,755 and is all in.

KS: Now I'm confused. My read in this hand has changed on all three streets! Granted, there is 12K or so in the pot, but his open-push, which was immediate when the river hit, does not make sense.



CT: What was your first instinct on the push?



KS: It looks like a scared bet. I really think he's played two aces without a club very poorly. It's like he hasn't even put me on a hand here, and is just determined to win this pot. I used my whole time bank and almost timed out before finally calling.



Results: Final pot – $23,310. Villain shows the A A, and BeL0WaB0Ve wins the pot.



KS: The lesson here isn't really how to play or not play aces, but more about how to play any hand. By the river, his A-A has become 3-2 offsuit; it has the same value, since I'm not calling any bet if I can't beat two pair. Villain made a crucial error. He did not sell his hand very well, and on the river, I didn't think I was beat. By that point, he was running a bluff on me and did not do a good job of convincing me that it wasn't a bluff.



To see this hand animated and narrated with additional analysis by BeL0WaB0Ve, visit www.CardPlayer.com/h2hc.



Kevin (BeL0WaB0Ve) Saul is a feared and respected online tournament player across every major poker site. He is adept at all games, has won many multitable tournaments, and has reached more than 200 final tables online.

Bryan Micon

King of the Degenerates

By Craig Tapscott



We've all known a "Bryan Micon" during our acne-challenged years: the skinny nerd with flood-fearful pant cuffs and an offbeat sense of humor, and, of course, brilliant as hell. These types breeze through college and conquer corporate America. Validation.



Yet, somewhere along the line, the one and only Bryan Micon veered off that stoic path and created a different destiny altogether.



Micon attended the University of Indiana, feet firmly wired in computer systems. But, stuff happens. Life would soon throw a wicked curve his way – poker. During a weekend out with friends, he stumbled across the game at a local casino. Cash overflowed his pockets, a reward derived from a booming stock market. "I asked the guy what was the highest game they had," said Micon.

"He pointed to a $30-$60 stud game. I was a cocky 19-year-old, so I bought in for $800 – and instantly lost."



Once off the beaten path, there was no turning back. Micon's beautiful mind had a new toy. The computer would still be an accomplice, the Internet a sharp tool, on a journey he'd never imagined, to sovereignty over an irreverent poker forum and a game he truly loves.



Card Player: You dove into the deep end with no hesitation?



Bryan Micon: Yeah. My friends and I started playing in a $5-$10 hold'em game right after Rounders came out in '98. We drove an hour and a half to play three times a week. That's when I got serious about it.



CP: How did this lead to playing tournaments and your crazy table image?



BM: I'm not going to lie to you. There is absolutely nothing more fun than playing in poker tournaments. That's the best poker high you can get. They're more of a challenge, wild and crazy, different every time. My tourney style is an extremely solid game, even though I may pull wild antics at the table.



CP: Are you the Rodney Dangerfield of poker? You get no respect.



BM: Well, I started NeverwinPoker, and people know that's where all the degenerates are. I'm the king there (laughing). Dustin Woolf was a college buddy of mine. He asked me to start a website for him, since people were asking him questions in the high-limit cash games. I told him it was the dumbest idea, but I would do it to amuse him. Sure enough, what started as a place to rail Dustin basically evolved into easily the coolest uncensored poker community online.



CP: Care to list some of your proud accomplishments? Placing 63rd in this year's World Series of Poker main event for $123,000 has to be high on the list.



BM: Definitely, the World Series stuff was easily the best ever – getting to one final table and running deep into the main event.



That was a dream for my first time there. But I think my biggest achievement in the poker world has been the creation of NeverwinPoker.



CP: OK, first there was Doyle's Super/System, then Super System 2, and now from Bryan Micon – the Micon System. Care to explain?



BM: Obviously, it should be mentioned in the same breath as Super/System and Super System 2 (laughing). We polled our site and asked what the players wanted to know about tournaments. They gave me the questions, and I answered them. It's a 75-minute MP3 and is definitely for beginners, but it answers a lot of the questions that players have even after they've started reading all the books.



CP: What part of your game needs improvement?



BM: I'm one of the few players who will never admit that I'm any good or that I'm the best and can never improve. My game always needs work, and will forever. What specifically do I need to work on? I don't know. But I'll find out today when I play.

The Power of Context

By David Apostolico



I'm almost done reading Malcolm Gladwell's book The Tipping Point, which I highly recommend as not only a great book but one that can help your poker game by getting you to look at things in an entirely different light. Of particular interest to me was the chapter The Power of Context.



As any poker player knows, how one acts depends greatly on the context. We may play A-K vastly different depending on the situation. In addition, skilled poker players are adept at mixing up their play and being unpredictable. Yet, to be successful, we must try to read our opponents. Here's where things get interesting.



In The Tipping Point, Gladwell cites a study done on grade-school children to determine the extent to which they would cheat if given the opportunity. In this extensive study, children were given various tests under differing circumstances. In some cases, they were given a test in a traditional classroom. Other times, they were allowed to take the test home. The tests covered a broad range of subjects. The results were surprising.



The great majority of students cheated, although there was hardly a defining pattern to the cheating. Some children cheated on some subjects and not others. Others cheated under certain conditions but not others. In other words, it was virtually impossible to label one student a cheater and another one honest. Things were just not that simple.



In poker, we must make quick judgments. If you're playing a tournament, you can get switched to a new table and find yourself playing with nine strangers at a critical time. You do not have the luxury of observing for a while before getting involved. I think all of us to some degree probably tend to pigeonhole our opponents. We may define one player as a bluffer or another one as not. Or, we may define situations as optimal for bluffing. For example, with the blinds and antes high, let's say that four players limp in to the big blind. This is an ideal situation for him to make a big bet and try to win the now substantial pot. In either case, we are thinking of absolutes and not in terms of context. The power of context has to be considered if we want to maximize our profits.



Of course, we have to make these judgments on the fly, and based on our experiences, these judgments will often have validity.

I would caution you, however, against getting married to your judgments or finding absolutes in any judgment. If it is hard to pinpoint children taking tests, think how hard it is to categorize poker players.



Every player has his own comfort level. Each will have his own situations in which he likes to try moves or practice deceptive play – just as the individual children had their own. However, there are many more factors that go into a poker player's actions. Players must take into account the actions of their opponents. They may be more apt to bluff against certain players than others.



Players are also trying to be unpredictable. They may establish a tight image in order to try a bluff at an optimal time.



Finally, there is one more important point to take from this study. Given the opportunity, the great majority of students were willing to cheat when they clearly knew that behavior was unacceptable. In poker, deception is not only acceptable but expected.



I think it is safe to assume that every player who sits down at the table has it within himself to practice some deceptive moves.



It's your job to ascertain the conditions under which that player will implement deception. Before reaching conclusions, understand the power of context.



David Apostolico is the author of Lessons From the Pro Poker Tour, Tournament Poker and the Art of War, and Machiavellian Poker Strategy. You can e-mail him at [email protected].

Ask Jack

Want to know how a multimillion-dollar poker tournament is run? Have a question about a specific tournament poker rule or past ruling you've encountered?



Card Player is giving you the chance to pick the mind of one of the game's finest – Bellagio Tournament Director Jack McClelland.



You can send your questions to [email protected], and McClelland will share his 25-plus years of industry experience with you.



Rebecca Fuller (poker manager, Coushatta Casino Resort): If you hold a $1,000 no-limit hold'em tournament, should alternates be taken, and if so, for how long if the rounds are 45 minutes long? We are planning to have 400 players.



Also, have you ever heard of tournament dealers being allowed to accept a personal toke during a tournament? Or, should all tournament tips be pooled, as we are doing.



At what point in a tournament should all tables be kept to no more than a one player difference? In your opinion, is eighthanded considered a short table?



Jack McClelland: If you have limited space or are full, and players want to play in your tournament, alternates should be allowed.

In my tournaments, I allow alternates for two hours, until the first break. I start alternates with a full amount of chips. I believe it is better for morale and harmony if the dealers share the pooled tips. I keep my tables within two players (8-10) until I reach the final six tables; then, I keep them within one (8-9).



Rob: I have been playing poker tournaments for a few years now, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of the rules of tournament poker.



While playing in a recent tournament, the following situation occurred: With the blinds at $50-$100, player A threw a single $500 chip in without saying raise. The dealer said that it was just a call. Player B called the $100 big blind and I was player C in the big blind. I checked. The flop came 10 10 9. I checked. Player A threw all of his chips into the pot in an angry manner, and his cards went flying facedown across the table, hitting my cards. My hand was protected.



The dealer and five other players all agreed that his cards directly hit my cards. I said that his hand is considered dead and that his chips remain in the pot. The dealer called over a floorman, who agreed with my assessment of the situation. Then, he called over another floorman, who overturned the ruling, saying he could have his hand back and that it was still alive. The floorman later told me that he is a member of the TDA (Tournament Director's Association), and there is no such ruling in the handbook.



Can you please clarify the ruling for me?



Jack McClelland: My ruling would be that the hand is alive if his cards were not mixed in with other cards (yours were protected). I would issue a 20-minute bad-behavior penalty after the hand. I do not use the TDA rules.



Aaron: I am a college student who is trying to figure out what I want to do with my life. I have been playing cards for about three years and thought it would be an interesting job to run the big-money tournaments. I would like to know how you got started running the tournaments for Bellagio, and how someone who's interested might go about doing an internship (or something like that) for the type of job you do.



Jack McClelland: Get a job in a cardroom. I started out doing setups (reassembling decks). Learn how to play, deal, and work in management. You need to know rulings very well. Courses in psychology, public speaking, and accounting will be of great help.



Good luck.



Mark: In the World Series of Poker main event or any tournament, how does the tournament director decide how many chips of each denomination to order? Is there any formula, or is it some empirical number based on experience?



Jack McClelland: At Bellagio, I try never to have more than five different chips on the table at once. So, for a $10,000 buy-in event in which the players receive $20,000 in chips, I like to give each player $200 in $25 chips (8), $800 in $100 chips (8), $4,000 in $500 chips (8), $5,000 in $1,000 chips (5), and $10,000 in $5,000 chips (2). The players feel like they have a comfortable amount of chips and the dealers don't have to make change every hand. In high-low split games, I give twice as many smaller chips. That is my formula.

Dennis: I know that in a tournament you don't have a choice of where you sit, but if you are playing in a cash game at a table where one guy is on a huge rush and hitting everything, should you change tables?



Scott: Luck is a huge part of poker. If you see that a player is on a rush, I suppose that it's not a terrible idea to stay away, although this may force you to make bad decisions and prevent you from going on a similar rush. Granted, in a cash game, you can easily change tables, but you will face this in tournaments, so you might as well learn how to deal with it in a cash game. Everyone has his own views on superstitions and luck, but the bottom line is, you must make the best decisions possible at the poker table. If you avoid the player who is on the rush, his rush will likely continue, when playing correctly against him will eventually end that rush. Some days, everything will just go your way, and you'll win every coin flip and crack big hands. But, you won't get there by letting something like another person's apparent luckiness dictate your play.


Bill: I have a recurring problem in no-limit hold'em tournaments. I play what I would consider a typical tight-aggressive style.



When I have good starting cards, I can usually grab a few chips. When I flop a good hand, I can usually make some chips. And because of my tight play, I can usually steal a few pots or see a few flops cheaply with ragged cards. In general, I maintain forward momentum and accumulate chips at a steady rate.



Here's the problem: I almost always find myself in the final 10 percent of a tournament. And I always find myself the short stack. As I'm plugging away, everyone else seems to be bombing away. And while most of the people are busting out, the remaining folks are building giant piles of chips. In the end, I'm forced to do nothing better than flip coins in order to try to survive with the handful of chips, relatively speaking, that I have.



I know it's a broad question, but what can be done? Should I be playing marginal hands more often and more aggressively?



Should I become one of the bombers? Or, should I be satisfied with finishing near the top and be happy with the handful of times I win my coin flips?



Scott: Try to stop looking at your cards and start paying more attention to position and stack sizes. The sooner you come to realize and believe that the cards really don't matter, the sooner you will begin to play real poker – because poker in its truest form has nothing to do with the cards. The middle to late stages of a tournament is when I am playing the tightest. If my stack is large enough (15 big blinds or more), I am waiting for a strong hand or a good spot to steal. If I am in a position where I feel like I am "forced" to steal, there wouldn't be a hand with which I would raise and fold to a reraise. I would either push all in or be committed to call all in after my raise. It's not that you need to play marginal hands more often or more aggressively; it's that you need to pick spots to make your move regardless of the cards you hold.


For comments or questions, please email Scott at [email protected]

CardPlayer.com's hit radio show The Circuit brings you updates, interviews, and strategy from the biggest names in poker.

The Circuit broadcasts from all World Poker Tour events.



The following is a discussion between hosts Scott Huff and Joe Sebok and guest Layne Flack on bluffing, as broadcast on The Circuit from Bellagio during the 2006 World Series of Poker:



Scott Huff: I want to get that Layne Flack tip before you leave the studio.



Layne Flack: A big tip is, when bluffing, bet small; when not, bet big. Make your small bets when you're bluffing and your bigger bets when you're not.



Joe Sebok: It's actually a really good point. I've talked with Barry (Greenstein) about this. Players just starting out – and I used to do this – you think that when bluffing, if they just bet more, it looks more menacing, but it doesn't. (A), it looks weaker, and (B), the first mistake you make will knock you out of the tournament lots of times.



LF: People want to win that money, and they'll take more chances.



JS: Exactly.



LF: So, once you put that bait on that hook, you're going to get a fish.



JS: Somebody's going to go for it, yeah. When I first started playing, the first time I made a mistake, it would knock me out of the tournament or cripple me, because I would bet so much (on a bluff) that I just couldn't get away.



Scott, Joe, and Gavin: I listen to all the shows and want to say that I loved the shows during the World Series. The lineup of guests was awesome, unlike any other poker show that I listen to. Listening to the stories from Chip Reese, Dan Harrington, Joe Hachem, and the rest of the guests was the greatest. Thank you for bringing the WSOP experience to those of us who weren't lucky enough to be there firsthand.



Good luck to all of you, and thanks again.



Andy, from Nebraska – where the poker chips are outnumbered by the cow chips.

Plug Those Leaks!

By Tim Peters



Why You Lose at Poker by Russell Fox and Scott T. Harker (ConJelCo, $19.95)



Poker players are liars. They say "I had the nuts" when they muck a successful bluff. They say "nice hand" when they mean "way to catch that two-outer, you luckbox." And they say "I am a consistent winner" when they mean "I know how to play poker, but I still lose more than I win and I just can't admit it!"



Of course, some players are consistent winners, and if you're one of them, don't bother buying this book with its in-your-face title by Russell Fox and Scott T. Harker (authors of Mastering No-Limit Hold'em [ConJelCo, 2005]). But the majority of players, by definition, have to be losers (the rake alone ensures that there will be more losers than winners in a poker game). And losers are not always clueless fish or donkeys; there are tons of players who know the basics, or even know more than the basics, but have leaks, small but consistent mistakes that cut into their hourly rate or transform profits into losses. Those are the players for whom this book was written.



Why do you lose in poker? You play too many hands. You cold-call raises with K-10 suited or A-J offsuit. You play passively and fail to protect your hands. You play your cards more than you play your opponents or the situation (A-A is great – but when your hand doesn't improve and two rocks bet and raise on the turn, let it go!). You bet the wrong amounts in no-limit and pot-limit games (for example, if there's $100 in the pot, a $5 bet isn't going to get a draw to fold; a $100 bet should). You bluff too much – or not enough. You play for just half the pot in split-pot games. You draw when you don't have the odds to do so.



None of these ideas are difficult to grasp, and in fact, if you've read any good poker book, you've seen them before. To their credit, the authors make no great claims to original thinking; in their introduction, they explicitly acknowledge that "there is very little new material in this book. You won't find any profound revelations or 'secrets the pros don't want you to know.'" But Fox and Harker have hit on something here: Poker is a game of very small edges, and it doesn't take much of a leak to eliminate any edge you might have.



They make their ideas come alive through examples, using a purposefully diverse cast of characters, from Aaron, "a solid limit hold'em player," to Joan, whose two favorite words are "all in," to Nolan, who "plays like a professional." Of course, they are emblematic of familiar types: tight-aggressive, tight-passive, loose-aggressive, loose-passive, and, in the case of "Mrs. Goldman," complete and utter donkey-dom. (But she's not there solely for comic relief; every table seems to have its equivalent of a Mrs. Goldman, and you've got to learn to welcome donkeys to your game, accept the fact that they're going to put bad beats on you, and be thankful when they give their chips away.) The authors describe hands that play out according to type: Mrs. Goldman, for example, cold-calls raises with any two suited cards, while Peter "the nit" never gives action (and consequently never gets it).



Fox and Harker recognize – as should you – that there are no hard-and-fast rules in poker, that systematic, rigidly formulaic play is doomed to fail (I believe in poker books, but I don't believe in playing "by the book"- at least not all the time). It's almost a cliché of the game, but as the authors point out: "In poker, everything is situational" (emphasis theirs). Still, it's important to recognize that a lot of hands, particularly in low-stakes poker, should be played in a very straightforward manner. Just because you realize that one time, against a Mrs. Goldman, you might be able to call two bets cold with K-10 suited, folding that hand to a raise is going to be the right thing to do far more often than not.



The authors also stress a point that shouldn't need stressing: "never, ever chastise another player. Scaring away paying customers is just bad business." And yet, you'll hear it every day in cardrooms or read it in the chat box online: "How could you play those rags, you donkey?" Adopt a new mantra (uttered strictly to oneself!): "When they call with those hands, I make money. Maybe not on this hand, maybe not today, but in the long run, I make money when they call with those hands."



About half of the book is directly related to the play of hands, with most of the examples taken from hold'em, and a few from stud and Omaha. And a number of chapters deal with issues that transcend any particular hand, such as people who lose because their bankroll isn't big enough or because they are bad at game selection. Finally, Fox and Harker supply a quick, user-friendly guide to poker math.



Every player has leaks (well, Dan Harrington might not), and the first step toward plugging those leaks is, as the authors write, "to admit (at least to yourself) that there are certain things about poker that you just don't understand." The second step is to buy this book. And the third, and most important, step is to actually study it and put its ideas into practice. You have to embrace the idea that people lose in poker (losers are the source of profits) – but if you're reasonably intelligent, very disciplined, and willing to adapt to the situation, you don't have to be one of them.